Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCWorkSessionAgenda2024November20Work Session Call to Order Information/Discussion Items Rezoning #09-24 for Middletown, LLC (B. Hester Trustee & W. Hester Trust) - (Mr. Klein) Submitted to rezone approximately +/-101.25-acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the TM (Technology Manufacturing) Zoning District with proffers. The property is on the east side on Valley Pike (Route 11) and approximately 3,000 feet north of the Town of Middletown corporate limits, and is identified by Property Identification Number 84-A-78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) - (Mr. Bishop) The Draft Executive Summary as well as the full report are attached to this agenda for review and discussion. Staff will make a brief presentation and staff from our consultant, McCormick Taylor, will be present, to assist in taking questions. Staff will also share feedback received at the Transportation Committee meeting while also seeking feedback from the Planning Commission in preparation for taking the plan to the Board of Supervisors. The intention is to take the study forward to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance and eventual inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan. Key feedback items as we prepare for that effort will be anything regarding results or input and in what way this work would best be incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan. Adjourn AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024 6:00 PM THE BOARD ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PC11-20-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ09-24_Redacted.pdf PC11-20-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ09-24TrafficImpactAnalysis_Redacted.pdf PC11-20-24EasternFrederickCountyTransportationStudy_Draft.pdf 1 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: November 20, 2024 Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items Title: Rezoning #09-24 for Middletown, LLC (B. Hester Trustee & W. Hester Trust) - (Mr. Klein) Attachments: PC11-20-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ09-24_Redacted.pdf PC11-20-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ09-24TrafficImpactAnalysis_Redacted.pdf 2 REZONING #09-24 MIDDLETOWN, LLC (B. HESTER, TRUSTEE & W. HESTER TRUST) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 13, 2024 Staff Contact: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner Executive Summary: Meeting Schedule Planning Commission: 11/20/2024 Planning Commission: 12/04/2024 Action: Work Session Action: Pending Board of Supervisors: TBD Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 84-A-78 Address NA Magisterial District Back Creek Acreage +/- 101.25-acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant Proposed Zoning TM (Technology-Manufacturing) Park District Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: Rural Areas (RA) Land Use: Residential/Agricultural South: Rural Areas (RA) Land Use: Institutional & Residential East: Interstate 81 Land Use: Interstate West: Rural Areas (RA) Land Use: Residential Proposed Use This is a request to rezone one (1) parcel totaling +/-101.25-acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the TM (Technology Manufacturing) Park Zoning District with proffers. Also +/-70.85-acres will be designated for “industrial use” and +/-10-acres will be designated for “public use.” Positives Concerns The proposed zoning district, Technology- Manufacturing (TM) Park, generally implements the Plan’s “mixed-use industrial office” land use designation for the subject property. Uses enabled under the TM District further implement Plan “business Proffer D (1) provides $200,000 for "future regional transportation improvements involving the ramp intersections of Interstate 81 and Reliance Road" including signalization. This monetary contribution is well-short of the anticipated costs for traffic 3 Page 2 of 6 development” policies for the County’s targeted industries that further enhance the tax base. The proffer statement includes enhanced buffer and screening elements along Valley Pike and Mustang Lane that seek to mitigate the impact of industrial uses on adjoining residences, historic properties and Middletown Elementary School. The proffer statement prohibits access to the industrial use area from Mustang Lane, ensuring safe ingress and egress for Middletown Elementary School is maintained. signals at the TIS identified intersections which require signalization to maintain LOS. In general, the installation of the required improvements is preferable to a cash proffer. The potential massing and scale of an industrial building, up to 60-foot in height, may not be appropriate given the adjoining school use and the proximity to significant historic resources. The applicant may be able to mitigate this through the proffered screening, but it is difficult to determine how effective the tree save area will be as a screen absent further analysis. Review Agency Comments: Review Agency Comment Date Comment Summary Status Frederick County (FC) County Attorney October 1, 2024 See attached letter. Comments addressed. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) October 3, 2024 “The current proffers dated August 7, 2024 provide for a total monetary contribution of $200,000 towards regional transportation improvements which could be used towards the construction of the identified mitigations (i.e. two traffic signals and associated improvements). VDOT currently estimates traffic signals to cost approximately $750,000- $1,000,000 each so another source of funding would be required to make up the difference (i.e. SMARTSCALE or Revenue Sharing).” See attached letter. Unresolved. FC Public Works September 25, 2024 “Upon review of the Rezoning request dated September 4, 2024, we recommend approval 4 Page 3 of 6 of the subject plan. A comprehensive review shall be performed if a site plan is submitted in the future.” FC Fire Marshal August 21, 2024 “Any and all future development shall comply with application section of the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code.” Frederick Park & Recreation August 15, 2024 “No comments.” Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) August 19, 2022 “Following their review of this application, the HRAB recommended approval of the application, and that the applicant consider proffering the installation cost for interpretive signage to be installed at a later time. The signs should capture the history of the area prior to and including the Civil War (Battle of Cedar Creek, Sheridan’s Ride, and any other noteworthy historical context of the area).” Comment addressed. Frederick County Public Schools September 3, 2024 See attached letter. Comments addressed. Town of Middletown September 9, 2024 See MOU for public wastewater services. City of Winchester – Public Services May 10, 2021 See attached letter for public water services. Planning & Zoning Staff Analysis: Comprehensive Plan Conformance: The Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 2021) and the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area provide guidance on the future development of the subject property. The Plan identifies the subject properties with a “mixed-use industrial/office” land use designation and as being within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Chapter 4 – Business Development, further states: “The value of office and industrial business development to Frederick County is immeasurable. As part of the County’s economic development effort, office and industrial growth is a key component for ensuring a broad selection of employment opportunities for its citizens.” 5 Page 4 of 6 The rezoning proposes implementation of the Technology-Manufacturing (TM) Park Zoning District which is consistent with the Plan identified “mixed-use industrial/office” future land use designation. Transportation & Site Access: Vehicular access to the industrial use development area is limited to a maximum of two (2) commercial entrances from Valley Pike (US Route 11), subject to VDOT approval. Industrial vehicle access from Mustang Lane (primary access road to Middletown Elementary School) is prohibited. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA, dated July 27, 2022) notes that: “With the addition of site-generated traffic, acceptable levels-of-service at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained assuming the installation of traffic signals. While the I- 81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity under Stop-control conditions, installing a traffic signal would improve overall levels-of-service. This signal would likely be installed in conjunction with the adjacent I-81 NB Ramp intersection. All proposed traffic signals would satisfy warrants for signalization and have been previously recommended in other area traffic studies. All other study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable level-of service.” The application proposes a monetary contribution for their proportional share of future regional transportation improvements involving the above identified ramp intersection, which may include signalization, turn lane installation, etc. The proffer statement also includes a 10-foot-wide asphalt trail along Route 11 (Valley Pike) along the property frontage. 6 Page 5 of 6 Proffer Statement, Generalized Development Plan (GDP), & Impact Analysis: Proffers (Revised 10/4/24) Staff Comment Proffer A – Generalized Development Plan No comment. Proffer B – Industrial Use Development Area 1. Land Use 2. Access 3. Buffer and Screening Proffer (B)(1)(b) ensures the intensity of uses is limited by projected weekday traffic generation, not to exceed 3,239 daily trips. Proffer (B)(2)(a) ensures industrial development traffic does not conflict with traffic to and from Middletown Elementary School which is accessed from Mustang Lane. Proffer (B)(3) provides enhanced screening along Valley Pike, and Mustang Lane to mitigate potential impact of industrial development on adjoining residences and Middletown Elementary School. Proffer C – Public Use Development Area No comment. Proffer D – Transportation Enhancements The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) notes that: "With the addition of site-generated traffic, acceptable levels-of-service at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (US Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained assuming the installation of traffic signals." Proffer D (1) provides only $200,000 for "future regional transportation improvements involving the ramp intersections of Interstate 81 and Reliance Road" including signalization. This monetary contribution is well-short of the anticipated costs for traffic signals at the TIS identified intersections which require signalization to maintain LOS. The estimate signal cost is also noted in the VDOT Comment Letter (October 2024). In general, the installation of the required improvements is preferable to a cash proffer. The proffer, as proposed, does not appear to address all transportation impacts triggered by the rezoning, development of industrial uses, and increased trips. 7 Page 6 of 6 Proffer E – Monetary Contribution No comment. The generalized development plan (GDP) dated August 1, 2024, is included below and depicts the proffered improvements, including buffers and screening along Valley Pike and Mustang Lane, and site access (two commercial entrances from Route 11) and the multiuse trail. Following a public hearing, staff are seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this rezoning application. 8 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision KENDALLMILLSSubdivision CANNONHILLS FARMSubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision BROOKSIDEESTATESSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 84 A 78 173SKIRMISHER LN 388N BUCKTON RD 652N BUCKTON RD 113QUINCEYMILL CT183QUINCEY MILL CT 414RILEYMILL LN 424RILEY MILL LN 1276RIDINGSMILL RD 472N BUCKTON RD 122QUINCEYMILL CT 449RILEYMILL LN 438RILEYMILL LN 168BIRMINGHAM DR 500N BUCKTON RD 132LARRICK LN 798RIDINGSMILL RD 472RILEYMILL LN 551N BUCKTON RD 174LARRICK LN 500RILEYMILL LN159LARRICK LN541N BUCKTON RD 197LARRICK LN 227LARRICK LN7338VALLEYPIKE 131GARLANDSNAPP DR 190MUSTANG LN 259LARRICK LN 262LARRICK LN 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEY PIKE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE 6889VALLEYPIKE 7040VALLEYPIKE 294RIENZIKNOLL LN 7024VALLEYPIKE 7036VALLEYPIKE 7000VALLEYPIKE 7012VALLEY PIKE 246KLINESMILL LN6972VALLEY PIKE 6986VALLEYPIKE 6931VALLEY PIKE 6936VALLEYPIKE 6938VALLEYPIKE 6892VALLEYPIKE 6885VALLEYPIKE 6870VALLEYPIKE 6847VALLEYPIKE 6773VALLEYPIKE 182KLINESMILL LN 239KLINESMILL RD 6836VALLEYPIKE 6837VALLEY PIKE 6825VALLEYPIKE 251KLINESMILL LN 271KLINESMILL LN 141KLINESMILL RD 164KLINESMILL LN 201DARTERJO DR 6786VALLEY PIKE 6776VALLEYPIKE 401KLINESMILL RD 172KLINESMILL RD 313KLINESMILL RD 282KLINESMILL RD 262KLINES MILL RD 6704VALLEYPIKE 245VAUCLUSE RD 181DARTERJO DR 6698VALLEY PIKE6712VALLEYPIKE BI RMI NGHAM DRQUINCEY M ILL CTGARLANDSNAPP DRSKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN RILEY MILL LN KLINES MILL LN VALLEYPIKER I E N Z I K N O L L L N N BUCKTON RDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service A rea µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 21, 2024 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 RILEY MILL LN C H A P E L R DHITESRD HUTTLERDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD COUGILL RD MAIN STHAZELMILL LNDARTERJO DRGARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN H U T T L ERDVALLEY PIKEKLINESMILL LN MARSHBROOK LN RIENZIKNOLL LNCOYOTERIDGE LNOLDPLANTATION LNRIDINGS MILL RDMiddletown 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet £¤11 R E Z # 0 9 - 2 4 : M i d d l e t o w n L L CPIN: 8 4 - A - 7 8Rezoning f r o m R A t o T MLocation M a p REZ #09-24 9 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision KENDALLMILLSSubdivision CANNONHILLS FARMSubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision BROOKSIDEESTATESSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 84 A 78 173SKIRMISHER LN 388N BUCKTON RD 652N BUCKTON RD 113QUINCEYMILL CT183QUINCEY MILL CT 414RILEYMILL LN 424RILEY MILL LN 1276RIDINGSMILL RD 472N BUCKTON RD 122QUINCEYMILL CT 449RILEYMILL LN 438RILEYMILL LN 168BIRMINGHAM DR 500N BUCKTON RD 132LARRICK LN 798RIDINGSMILL RD 472RILEYMILL LN 551N BUCKTON RD 174LARRICK LN 500RILEYMILL LN159LARRICK LN541N BUCKTON RD 197LARRICK LN 227LARRICK LN7338VALLEYPIKE 131GARLANDSNAPP DR 190MUSTANG LN 259LARRICK LN 262LARRICK LN 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEY PIKE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE 6889VALLEYPIKE 7040VALLEYPIKE 294RIENZIKNOLL LN 7024VALLEYPIKE 7036VALLEYPIKE 7000VALLEYPIKE 7012VALLEY PIKE 246KLINESMILL LN6972VALLEY PIKE 6986VALLEYPIKE 6931VALLEY PIKE 6936VALLEYPIKE 6938VALLEYPIKE 6892VALLEYPIKE 6885VALLEYPIKE 6870VALLEYPIKE 6847VALLEYPIKE 6773VALLEYPIKE 182KLINESMILL LN 239KLINESMILL RD 6836VALLEYPIKE 6837VALLEY PIKE 6825VALLEYPIKE 251KLINESMILL LN 271KLINESMILL LN 141KLINESMILL RD 164KLINESMILL LN 201DARTERJO DR 6786VALLEY PIKE 6776VALLEYPIKE 401KLINESMILL RD 172KLINESMILL RD 313KLINESMILL RD 282KLINESMILL RD 262KLINES MILL RD 6704VALLEYPIKE 245VAUCLUSE RD 181DARTERJO DR 6698VALLEY PIKE6712VALLEYPIKE BI RMI NGHAM DRQUINCEY M ILL CTGARLANDSNAPP DRSKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN RILEY MILL LN KLINES MILL LN VALLEYPIKER I E N Z I K N O L L L N N BUCKTON RDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service A rea µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 21, 2024 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 RILEY MILL LN C H A P E L R DHITESRD HUTTLERDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD COUGILL RD MAIN STHAZELMILL LNDARTERJO DRGARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN H U T T L ERDVALLEY PIKEKLINESMILL LN MARSHBROOK LN RIENZIKNOLL LNCOYOTERIDGE LNOLDPLANTATION LNRIDINGS MILL RDMiddletown 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet £¤11 R E Z # 0 9 - 2 4 : M i d d l e t o w n L L CPIN: 8 4 - A - 7 8Rezoning f r o m R A t o T MZoning M a p REZ #09-24 10 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision KENDALLMILLSSubdivision CANNONHILLS FARMSubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision BROOKSIDEESTATESSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 84 A 78 173SKIRMISHER LN 388N BUCKTON RD 652N BUCKTON RD 113QUINCEYMILL CT183QUINCEY MILL CT 414RILEYMILL LN 424RILEY MILL LN 1276RIDINGSMILL RD 472N BUCKTON RD 122QUINCEYMILL CT 449RILEYMILL LN 438RILEYMILL LN 168BIRMINGHAM DR 500N BUCKTON RD 132LARRICK LN 798RIDINGSMILL RD 472RILEYMILL LN 551N BUCKTON RD 174LARRICK LN 500RILEYMILL LN159LARRICK LN541N BUCKTON RD 197LARRICK LN 227LARRICK LN7338VALLEYPIKE 131GARLANDSNAPP DR 190MUSTANG LN 259LARRICK LN 262LARRICK LN 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEY PIKE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE 6889VALLEYPIKE 7040VALLEYPIKE 294RIENZIKNOLL LN 7024VALLEYPIKE 7036VALLEYPIKE 7000VALLEYPIKE 7012VALLEY PIKE 246KLINESMILL LN6986VALLEYPIKE 6972VALLEY PIKE 6931VALLEY PIKE 6936VALLEYPIKE 6892VALLEYPIKE 6938VALLEYPIKE 6885VALLEYPIKE 6870VALLEYPIKE 6847VALLEYPIKE 6773VALLEYPIKE 182KLINESMILL LN 239KLINESMILL RD 6836VALLEYPIKE 6825VALLEYPIKE6837VALLEY PIKE 251KLINESMILL LN 271KLINESMILL LN 141KLINESMILL RD 164KLINESMILL LN 201DARTERJO DR 6786VALLEY PIKE 6776VALLEYPIKE 401KLINESMILL RD 172KLINESMILL RD 313KLINESMILL RD 282KLINESMILL RD 262KLINES MILL RD 6704VALLEYPIKE 245VAUCLUSE RD 181DARTERJO DR 26704VALLEY PIKE 6698VALLEY PIKE BI RMI NGHAM DRQUINCEY M ILL CTGARLANDSNAPP DRSKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN RILEY MILL LN KLINES MILL LN VALLEYPIKER I E N Z I K N O L L L N N BUCKTON RDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service A reaLong R ange Land Use Mixed Use Industrial/O ffice Institutional µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 21, 2024 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 RILEY MILL LN C H A P E L R DHITESRD HUTTLERDLARRICK LNKLINES MILL RD COUGILL RD MAIN STHAZELMILL LNDARTERJO DRGARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN H U T T L ERDVALLEY PIKEKLINESMILL LN MARSHBROOK LN RIENZIKNOLL LNCOYOTERIDGE LNOLDPLANTATION LNRIDINGS MILL RDMiddletown 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet £¤11 R E Z # 0 9 - 2 4 : M i d d l e t o w n L L CPIN: 8 4 - A - 7 8Rezoning f r o m R A t o T MLong R a n g e L a n d U s e M a p REZ #09-24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MIDDLETOWN, LLC REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Tax Parcel 84-A-78 Back Creek Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia July 29, 2022 Revised August 6, 2024 Current Owner: Wendell Hester Trust Brian J. Hester, Trustee & Jason G. Hester, Trustee Applicant: Middletown, LLC Contact Person: Christopher Mohn, AICP Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 20 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 2 MIDDLETOWN, LLC REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact to Fredrick County of the proffered rezoning of 101.25± acres from RA, Rural Areas District to TM, Technology Manufacturing Park District, as proposed by Middletown, LLC (Applicant). The subject property is identified as Tax Parcel 84-A-78 and located on the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11 South) roughly 3,000 feet north of the Town of Middletown Corporate Limits. The subject property is currently owned by the Wendell Hester Trust, Brian J. Hester Trustee and Jason G. Hester Trustee. The Applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to allow development of a mix of technology-related industrial and public uses as permitted by the TM District. Specifically, as shown on the proffered General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant seeks to establish an Industrial Use land bay totaling approximately 70.85± acres, within which data center or other technology-related industrial uses would be permitted to develop. The maximum development intensity will be limited by weekday trip generation, with industrial uses allowed to generate up to 3,239 weekday trips, consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared for this application. Limiting development intensity by weekday trip generation is appropriate for the TM District as it will provide flexibility to accommodate the building and floor area scenarios possible with the district’s permitted uses. The Applicant further proposes a Public Use land bay comprised of approximately 10± acres that will be reserved for future dedication to Frederick County for development of public or quasi-public uses. Ultimate use of this acreage will be at the discretion of Frederick County. That said, the site’s proximity to Interstate 81 and adjacency to Middletown Elementary School make it well suited for parks and recreation uses, such as, but not limited to, an indoor aquatic center, ice rink, or other passive or active facilities to meet community needs. The Applicant has proffered to mitigate the impacts attributable to the proposed rezoning through a combination of design features and monetary contributions. To minimize impacts to adjoining uses, extensive buffers will be provided along Valley Pike, Mustang Lane, and the site boundary with Middletown Elementary School. Additionally, vehicular access to the Industrial Use land bay will be prohibited on Mustang Lane, with access for such traffic instead limited to two entrances on Valley Pike served by dedicated right and left turn lanes. The combination of these features will ensure the physical integration of the proposed industrial uses into the surrounding community with minimal disruption to established residential and institutional uses. 21 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 3 The traffic analysis prepared by Wells + Associates (Wells) for this application indicates that intersections impacted by the projected industrial trips will function at acceptable level of service conditions, assuming signalization of the Interstate 81 northbound ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike/Reliance Road intersections. The latter signalization is proffered to be completed by the developer of the Village at Middletown project when requested by VDOT. The Wells analysis indicates that signalization of the Interstate 81 northbound ramp/Reliance Road intersection will be needed regardless of this rezoning application, as this improvement will be required to address the impacts of regional traffic growth and construction of previously approved developments. Indeed, trips generated by the rezoning application are projected to constitute up to a maximum of only 15% to 20% of the traffic at this intersection. While not solely responsible for the need for this regional transportation improvement, the Applicant has proffered a proportional monetary contribution of $200,000 for use by Frederick County and VDOT in funding the signalization project. Alternatively, this contribution could be combined with other funding sources by Frederick County and VDOT to complete other needed improvements in and around the interchange area. In either case, the Applicant’s proffered contribution will ensure that any potential impacts attributable to the rezoning application to the surrounding road network are effectively mitigated. Basic Site and Application Information Location: East side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), approximately 3,000 feet north of Town of Middletown Magisterial District: Back Creek District Property ID Numbers: 84-A-78 Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Undeveloped Proposed Zoning: TM, Technology Manufacturing Park District with proffers Proposed Use: Industrial and Public, with potential Data Center Use Total Rezoning Area: 101.25±-acres Rezoning Area Breakdown: 70.85± acres – Industrial Use Development Area 10± acres – Public Use Development Area 18.7± acres – SWM/BMP and Proffered Buffer Areas 1.7± acres – Mustang Lane Ingress-Egress Easement 22 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 4 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Sewer and Water Service Area The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is generally consistent with the UDA, but also extends outside of the UDA to accommodate areas of the County in which commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses are desired, but residential development is not. The subject property is currently located wholly within the SWSA as established by the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Plan and is therefore properly situated for development served by public water and sewer. Comprehensive Plan Conformity The subject property is a component of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Plan, which is a small area plan within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The Area Plan designates the subject property for future Mixed- use Industrial/Office land use. Neither the Area Plan nor Comprehensive Plan describe the intended characteristics of this land use designation, meaning there are no policy guidelines for how industrial and/or office uses are expected to be configured or allocated on properties designated Mixed-use Industrial/Office. However, in practice this land use designation is meant to provide areas for development of Economic Development Authority (EDA) targeted industries, data centers, offices, and low-impact industrial uses, which aligns with the intent of the TM District. The proffered General Development Plan (GDP) designates an approximately 70.85±-acre land bay for development of industrial land uses, identified as the Industrial Use development area. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered to reserve approximately 10± acres of the subject property for future development of public uses, identified as the Public Use development area. While Frederick County will have discretion regarding the ultimate use of the acreage, the site is well situated as a potential location for a regional parks and recreation facility that includes an indoor aquatic center and/or ice rink. Regardless of the type of public facility ultimately developed, by combining the proffered reservation of land for public use with the wide array of uses permitted in the TM District, this rezoning provides a framework for ensuring the subject property develops with a diverse mix of land uses as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject property has approximately 2,275± feet of frontage on the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and is bifurcated by Mustang Lane, a private access easement roadway that provides access to Middletown Elementary School. To avoid impacts to the adjoining school use, the Applicant has proffered to prohibit access to the Industrial Use land bay from Mustang Lane. As such, only public uses will be accessed via Mustang Lane. Access to the Industrial Use land bay will be provided by two commercial entrances on Valley Pike served 23 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 5 by a dedicated right turn lane and the existing center left turn lane. The traffic analysis prepared by Wells + Associated for this application indicates that this access arrangement will adequately serve the planned industrial uses, and further that VDOT entrance spacing requirements can be satisfied . Flood Plains The 101.25±-acre subject property does not contain areas of floodplain as demonstrated on FEMA NFIP Map #51069C0320E Effective Date January 29, 2021. Wetlands A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared for the subject property by Greenway Engineering, Inc., dated April 7, 2021. The delineation identified one Pond (Pond A) and three stream channels (Stream A, Stream B, and Stream C) within the site area. Stream A is approximately 1-2 feet wide located in the northeast corner of the site. Stream A flows from the west and feeds into Pond A and then outfalls from Pond A and flows east offsite to a culvert under I-81. Stream B is located roughly in the eastern center of the project boundary and is approximately 1-3 feet wide. Stream B flows from the north to the southeast south before flowing offsite to the east into a culvert under I-81. Stream C is approximately 1-2 feet wide and flows into stream B. Stream C was mostly dry during field investigation. Sporadic erosional channels were observed on the southwest portion of the property most likely the result of receiving stormwater runoff from the adjacent school and Mustang Lane. These features were not deemed streams based on field observations. Pond A is approximately 0.23 acres in total size in the northeastern portion of the site. One data point was collected during the wetland delineation behind the dam of the pond to demonstrate that no wetlands were in that area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed these findings upon issuance of Jurisdictional Determination NAO-2021-01189, dated July 27, 2021. Any impacts to delineated wetland areas can be mitigated during site development. 24 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 6 Soil Types The subject property contains soil types as demonstrated by the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia and the Frederick County GIS Database. The following soil types are present on site:  1C - Berks Channery silt loam 8 to 15 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.  3B - Blairton silt loam 2 to 7 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a drained area of slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.  3B - Blairton silt loam 2 to 7 percent slopes: these soils are described as having an undrained area of very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.  5B - Carbo silt loam 2 to 7 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.  6C – Carbo-Oaklet, very rocky silt loams 2 to 15 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.  8B - Chilhowie silty clay loam 2 to 7 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. 25 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 7  8C - Chilhowie silty clay loam 7 to 15 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.  32B - Oaklet silt loam 2 to 7 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.  32C - Oaklet silt loam 7 to 15 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.  41D – Weikert-Berks channery silt loam 15 to 25 percent slopes: these soils are described as having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Other Environmental Features The property does not contain areas of steep slope, lakes or natural stormwater retention areas as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is also located in the geographic portion of the County that is underlain by karst geology. This environmental feature will not constrain development of future TM District uses and will be managed during final engineering design in accordance with all applicable ordinances and regulations. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Agricultural/Residential South: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Institutional East: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Agricultural/Residential West: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Agricultural/Residential 26 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 8 TRANSPORTATION Wells + Associates (Wells) prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) for the development of industrial uses on the subject property. Pursuant to initial VDOT review of the TIS, Wells prepared an Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) for the interchange at Interstate 81 and Reliance Road as well as a Signal Justification Reports (SJR) for both the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) interchange ramps and the Reliance Road/Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) intersection. The OSAR and SJR have been approved by VDOT. The existing conditions analysis indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. With the addition of regional traffic growth and the construction of pipeline developments (e.g., background traffic growth), the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections are projected to operate beyond capacity and require signalization to maintain acceptable levels-of-service. The Industrial Use land bay is planned to be developed in phases based on market demand. This land bay is proposed to develop with TM District uses, which vary in terms of possible building/floor area composition, trip generation rates, and trip characteristics. That said, for the purposes of the TIS, OSAR, and SJR, the land bay was assumed to develop with 848,000 square feet of general industrial uses that are estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average weekday (24-hour) trips when fully occupied. The Applicant has proffered to limit the intensity of development in the Industrial Use development area based on this weekday trip generation scenario to accommodate the varied building/floor area possibilities associated with TM District uses while ensuring traffic impacts are effectively mitigated. With the addition of the site’s industrial traffic, acceptable levels-of-service at I-81 NB and SB Ramps at the Reliance Road interchange and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained assuming the installation of traffic signals. Installation of the traffic signal at the I-81 NB Ramp intersection should be prioritized. All proposed traffic signals would satisfy warrants for signalization and have been previously recommended in other area traffic studies, and therefore represent existing improvement needs. All other study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service. Acceptable levels of service would be maintained at the site driveways whether one or two entrances are provided. The proposed access would meet VDOT spacing standards but would warrant exclusive right and left turn lanes, with the existing center-left turn lane being sufficient for such access. The Applicant has proffered to make a monetary contribution in the amount of $200,000 for use by Frederick County and VDOT to address projected signalization requirements at study area intersections and related improvements. The signal at the Valley Pike/Reliance Road intersection is proffered to be installed by the developer of the Village at Middletown project when requested by VDOT. Trips directly attributable to the proposed rezoning and possible 27 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 9 TM District uses are projected to comprise no more than 15% to 20% of total traffic at the interchange intersections. Based on recent design experience, Wells estimates the cost of signalization to be approximately $350,000 per ramp intersection, or roughly $700,000 in total. As such, the Applicant’s contribution reflects and exceeds the project’s maximum proportional share of overall impacts and can be targeted to ensure acceptable level of service conditions at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection or leveraged by Frederick County and VDOT to complete other improvements in and around the interchange area. Coupled with access-related improvements, the monetary contribution toward regional road improvements will ensure that all traffic-related impacts of the proposed rezoning are effectively mitigated. PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER The subject property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is therefore entitled to be served by public water and sewer pursuant to applicable County policy. Existing development within the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA obtains public water from the City of Winchester and public sewer from the Town of Middletown. However, with a 2014 update to the Area Plan, the Board of Supervisors identified Frederick Water as the required service provider for any new development within the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA, even though the nearest Frederick Water infrastructure is located roughly 5 miles north of the SWSA boundary. The Applicant engaged with Frederick Water, the Town of Middletown, and Frederick County to determine the agreements and system requirements necessary to serve the subject property in conformance with this policy, to no avail. Recent guidance received from Frederick County indicated the Board of Supervisors may modify this policy with an affirmative action on the rezoning application, thereby allowing the site to be served by entities other than Frederick Water. Assuming ultimate approval of this rezoning application, the Applicant will proceed with serving the site with public water and sewer through the City of Winchester and the Town of Middletown, respectively. Water Supply The City of Winchester previously provided a “will serve” letter to the Applicant indicating sufficient capacity to serve the proposed industrial development on the site. A 24-inch water main owned by the City of Winchester extends along the length of the site frontage within the Valley Pike right-of-way. A meter extends off this main into the subject property, from which an 8-inch water line extends within the Mustang Lane private access easement to Middletown Elementary School. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment The subject property contains existing sewer infrastructure that includes a privately maintained sanitary sewer pump station and 8-inch gravity sewer main. Such infrastructure currently conveys effluent flows from Middletown Elementary School to the Town of Middletown system via inter-connected 4-inch and 6-inch force mains extending along Valley Pike. In addition to flows originating from the elementary school, the 6-inch segment of the Valley Pike force main also conveys effluent from Lord Fairfax Community College (LFCC). Upon reaching the Town of Middletown’s system, the flows convey via gravity mains to the Town’s wastewater treatment plant. 28 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 10 Development of the Industrial Use land bay is anticipated to require peak flow capacity of 35 gpm. Per the design plans, the existing pump station is operating (per the design plans) at 93 gpm. The existing school utilizes in their peak month a flow of 18 gpm (3,420 GPD over an 8-hour period). Flow calculations show the existing pump station and subsequent force main has appropriate capacity to handle the anticipated flows from the proposed industrial uses. Given these capacities, the Applicant has proposed using these existing systems to connect to the Town of Middletown’s system. SITE DRAINAGE The topographic relief on the subject property generally follows a northeast to southwest pattern which directs drainage from the subject property towards the front of the property towards Valley Pike (Route 11). A complete stormwater management plan will be designed at the time of final engineering design. All associated stormwater quantity and quality measures will be designed in conformance with all applicable state and local regulations; therefore, site drainage and stormwater management impacting adjoining properties and the community will be mitigated. Based on preliminary analysis, the Applicant has identified the location of regional SWM/BMP facilities on the GDP that will be designed and constructed to serve both the Industrial Use and Public Use development areas. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the presence of the Jeff Henson House (DHR ID 034-1030) on the subject property but does not indicate any potential significance. Three other surveyed resources exist in proximity to the site, identified as the Abel Tract (DHR 032-0237), Sunnyside (DHR 034-1028), and Valley View Farm (DHR 034-1029). The Abel Tract is associated with the Cedar Creek Battlefield and is subject to an easement held by the Board of Historic Resources. The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the subject property as being located within the Battle of Cedar Creek study area boundary (DHR ID 034-0303); however, the subject property is located well outside of the defined core battlefield area and is also defined as having lost integrity due to existing development patterns. That said, due to the Civil War history in the Middletown area and proximity of the resources noted above, the Applicant commissioned Dovetail Associates to complete a Cultural Resources Survey to validate these conditions. The findings of Dovetail’s report confirm that the site did not play a significant role in the Battle of Cedar Creek or other Civil War action, and further that no other potentially significant resources are located on the subject property. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of the subject property will not generate negative impacts associated with historic resources. Pursuant to comments received from the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $3,000 for installation of interpretive signage on or adjacent to the Public Use development area. This contribution reflects the 29 Greenway Engineering July 29, 2022 Middletown, LLC Rezoning Revised August 6, 2024 File #0127E Impact Statement/CMM 11 current cost of procuring such signage through Civil War Trails, whose existing network includes sites in Frederick County and the City of Winchester. 30 !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! £¤11 §¨¦81VALLEY PIKEMAIN STSKIRMISHERLNWO O L E N M I L L S D R COVILLESTLARRICKLNC O U G I L L R D RILEY M IL L L NMINERALSTGARLANDSNAPPDRMUSTA N G L N N BUCKTON RDKLIN E S M I L L L N RIENZI KNOLLLN KLINES MILL RD RID INGS M I L L RD 84 A 78 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2021 Data. 2019 Aerial Image.AERIAL OVERVIEW EXHIBITMIDDLETOWN LLC.FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 07-26-2022PROJECT ID: 0127EDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:1 inch = 625 feet625 0 625 Feet Legend Subject Parcel ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Middletown Town Limits Parcel Boundary µMIDDLETOWN LLC.AERIAL OVERVIEW EXHIBITCIVIL ENGINEERING | LAND PLANNING | GIS | LAND SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL | ANALYTICAL LABORATORY | QUALITY CONTROL TESTING & INSPECTIONS WINCHESTER, VA | ASHBURN, VA | MARTINSBURG, WV31 £¤11 §¨¦81VALLEY PIKEMAIN STSKIRMISHERLNC O U G I L L R D LARRICKLNRILEY M I L L L NGARLANDSNAPPDRMUSTA N G L N KLIN E S M I L L L N NBUCKTONRDRIENZI KNOLLLN RID INGS M I L L RD 84 A 78 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2021 Data. 2019 Aerial Image.ZONING AND LOCATION EXHIBITMIDDLETOWN LLC.FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 07-26-2022PROJECT ID: 0127EDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:1 inch = 625 feet625 0 625 Feet Legend Subject Parcel Middletown Town Limits Parcel Boundary µMIDDLETOWN LLC.ZONING AND LOCATION EXHIBITCIVIL ENGINEERING | LAND PLANNING | GIS | LAND SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL | ANALYTICAL LABORATORY | QUALITY CONTROL TESTING & INSPECTIONS WINCHESTER, VA | ASHBURN, VA | MARTINSBURG, WV§¨¦66 §¨¦81£¤11 LOCATION MAP SITE STEPHENS CITY MIDDLETOWN NOTE: THE ENTIRETY OF THE AREA SHOWN IS ZONED RA (RURAL AREAS DISTRICT) 32 !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!730740750720750740720730740750756752750720730740710 720720710 700700730740 73 0 740 740750730740750740 740710730720730 730760 £¤11 §¨¦81VALLEY PIKERIDINGS MILL RDGARLANDSNAPPDRMUSTA N G L N KLIN E S M I L L L N L A R R IC K LNRIENZI KNOLLLN WestRun M a rshBroo k 84 A 78 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2021 Data. 2019 Aerial Image.NATURAL FEATURES EXHIBITMIDDLETOWN LLC.FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 07-26-2022PROJECT ID: 0127EDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:1 inch = 500 feet500 0 500 Feet Legend Subject Parcel Parcel Boundary Stream Wetland (NWI) Delineated Streams Lake or Pond 100 Year Floodplain 10' Contours µMIDDLETOWN LLC.NATURAL FEATURES EXHIBITCIVIL ENGINEERING | LAND PLANNING | GIS | LAND SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL | ANALYTICAL LABORATORY | QUALITY CONTROL TESTING & INSPECTIONS WINCHESTER, VA | ASHBURN, VA | MARTINSBURG, WVNOTE: CONTOURS ARE SHOWN AT A 10' INTERVAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 33 [e [e[e[e[e [e[e[e[e [e [e [e[e [e [e[e[e [e [e[e[e [e[e [e [e [e[e [e [e[e[e[e [e[e [e[e [e [e[e [e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e [e [e [e [e[e [e[e[e [e [e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e [e [e[e[e[e [e[e[e [e[e [e [e[e [e [e [e [e[e [e [e[e[e [e [e [e [e [e [e [e [e [e[e[e[e [e [e[e [e[e[e[e[e [e[e [e[e [e[e[e [e [e [e[e[e [e [e [e[e[e[e[e [e[e [e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e [e [e [e [e[e[e [e [e [e [e[e [e[e[e[e[e[e [e [e[e [e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e [e [e[e [e[e [e[e [e [e [e[e [e [e [e [e[e [e[e[e[e [e [e [e [e [e[e [e[e[e [e[e [e [e[e[e [e [e [e [e [e [e [e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e [e [e [e[e [e [e[e[e[e [e [e [e[e [e[e [e [e [e [e [e[e[e [e [e [e [e [e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e[e [e [e[e[e[e[e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e[e [e[e[e[e[e [e[e [e[e [e[e[e[e [e [e[e[e [e[e[e[e [e [e [e[e[e[e [e[e [e [e[e [e[e[e[e [e[e [e[e [e[e[e [e [e [e !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! £¤11 §¨¦81VALLEY PIKEMAIN STSKIRMISHERLNWO O L E N M I L L S D R COVILLESTLARRICKLNC O U G I L L R D RILEY M IL L L NMINERALSTGARLANDSNAPPDRMUSTA N G L N N BUCKTON RDKLIN E S M I L L L N RIENZI KNOLLLN KLINES MILL RD RID INGS M I L L RD 84 A 78 34-1023Downes,Al House 34-1028Sunny Side 34-1029ValleyView Farm 34-131KendrickHouse Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2021 Data. 2019 Aerial Image.HISTORIC FEATURES EXHIBITMIDDLETOWN LLC.FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 07-26-2022PROJECT ID: 0127EDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:1 inch = 625 feet625 0 625 Feet Legend Subject Parcel !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!Middletown Town Limits Parcel Boundary [e Landmark Civil War Battlefields Cedar Creek µMIDDLETOWN LLC.HISTORIC FEATURES EXHIBITCIVIL ENGINEERING | LAND PLANNING | GIS | LAND SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL | ANALYTICAL LABORATORY | QUALITY CONTROL TESTING & INSPECTIONS WINCHESTER, VA | ASHBURN, VA | MARTINSBURG, WV34 35 36 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 □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  WENDELL HESTER TRUST: Brian J. Hester,165 Babbs Run Lane, Winchester, VA 22603; Jason G. Hester 123 Carnmore Drive, Winchester, VA 22602; Allen T. Hester, 460 Ridgewood Lane, Winchester, VA 22601 MIDDLETOWN, LLC: Scott C. Plein, 8040 Industrial Park Court, Bristow, VA 20136; William M. Smith, 8040 Industrial Park Court, Bristow, VA 20136; Lynda M. Gibbs, 42566 Longacre Drive, South Riding, VA 20152 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Austin K. Cano Acting County Attorney (540) 722-8383 E-mail austin.cano@fcva.us October 1, 2024 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Christopher Mohn, AICP Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia Re: Rezoning Application – Middletown, LLC Tax Parcel Numbers 84-A-78 (the “Property”) Dear Mr. Mohn: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement (the “Proffer Statement”) for the proposed rezoning of the Property, 101.25± acres in the Back Creek Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the TM (Technology Manufacturing Park) Zoning District, with proffers. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments:  REZONING Line – For consistency with usual form, addition of “(101.25± acres)” after each instance of the word ‘District’ such that the line reads “RA, Rural Areas District (101.25± acres) to TM, Technology-Manufacturing Park District (101.25± acres).”  PROPERTY Line – For consistency with usual form, addition of “101.25± acres” before listing the Tax Parcel number.  Proffer A) 1. – Addition of “The GDP shall be attached to this Proffer Statement” for clarity.  Proffer C) 3. – Replacing the word “with” in the last sentence of this paragraph to “within,” to avoid ambiguity.  Proffer D) 1. – Addition of reasoning behind this proffer, including how it relates to the project as a whole, for clarity. This could be accomplished by referencing the TIA and 44 Mr. Christopher Mohn October 1, 2024 Page 2 how it identifies recommended improvements or warranted signalization in the areas referenced. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Austin K. Cano Acting County Attorney cc: John Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning & Development, Frederick County (via e- mail) Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Frederick County (via email) 45 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Staunton/Edinburg Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Mr. Klein, This office has completed our review of the Middletown, LLC rezoning application submitted by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Brian J. Hester and Jason G. Hester. This application is proposing to rezone Tax Map Parcel 84-A-78 from Rural Area (RA) to Technology Management (TM). The parcel consists of 101.25 acres +/-. We offer the following items for the County’s consideration of this rezoning: • VDOT has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted by the applicant and we are in general concurrence with the conclusions put forward by this analysis. The transportation mitigations identified in the TIA include three (3) new traffic signals located along Reliance Road: one at the intersection of Reliance Road and Route 11, one at the intersection of the SB I-81 Ramps and Reliance Road and one at the intersection of the NB I -81 ramps and Reliance Road. • Signal Justification Reports for all three signals have been provided by the applicant and approved by VDOT. The signal justification process requires analysis of any viable alternative intersections (e.g. roundabouts) and in this case traditional traffic signals were identified to be the appropriate solutions. • Please note that the traffic signal at the intersection of Reliance Road and Route 11 is located within the Town of Middletown and was previously proffered to be constructed by another development within the Town. VDOT has notified the Town that this signal is currently warranted and it’s our understanding that the design for this signal is currently underway. • In addition to the TIA and the SJR’s, the applicant has completed the required Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) for the proposed modifications to the I -81 interchange (i.e. the two traffic signals). This report was reviewed and approved by VDOT District staff, VDOT Central Office staff and the FHWA. Please note that the OSAR is valid for a period of three (3) years and an update to the report may be required if the interchange modifications are not completed within that time. • The current proffers dated August 7, 2024 provide for a total monetary contribution of $200,000 towards regional transportation improvements which could be used towards the construction of the identified mitigations (i.e. two traffic signals and associated improvements). VDOT currently estimates traffic signals to cost approximately $750,000-$1,000,000 each so another source of funding would be required to make up the difference (i.e. SMART SCALE or Revenue Sharing). 46 We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this rezoning request. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Thank you, Joseph W. Johnson, PE Area Land Use Engineer / Edinburg Residency Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike / Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540.534.3223 josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov 47 48 49 50 51 52 “To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners.” Rouss City Hall Telephone: (540) 667-1815 15 North Cameron Street FAX: (540) 662-3351 Winchester, VA 22601 TDD: (540) 722-0782 Website: www.winchesterva.gov May 10, 2021 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Water Service for Hester Property – Tax Map Parcel 84-A-78 (Frederick County) Dear Evan: As per your request in your correspondence dated May 5, this letter is to confirm that the City of Winchester is willing to provide public water service for future development of the Hester family property (tax map parcel 84-A-78) located on the north side and adjacent to Lord Fairfax Community College. The projected water service demand you provided is 20,000 gallons per day. Providing water service to this property will be contingent upon the developer adhering to all applicable City regulations, including extending water mains as necessary and the payment of water service availability fees. If you have any further questions, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Perry Eisenach, P.E. Public Services Director 53 54 Planning Office Wayne Lee, Coordinator of Planning and Development leew@fcpsk12.net 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.k12.va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 September 3, 2024 Chris Mohn Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Middletown, LLC – Wendell Hester Trust property rezoning application Dear Chris: Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Middletown, LLC – Hester Property rezoning application. We offer the following comments: 1. As part of our review of this application, we have discovered that, during construction of Middletown Elementary School, we began the process of dedicating Mustang Lane to VDOT, but never completed the process. We are interested in finishing that process, if possible. Mustang Lane currently exists in an easement on the Wendell Hester Trust property to the benefit of both FCPS and the owners of the Wendell Hester Trust property. Since the road is on Wendell Hester Trust property and to the benefit of that property as well as the school, we would like to gain the Trust’s approval to proceed with dedicating Mustang Lane. 2. We note the proffered 75’ to 150’ wide vegetated buffer along Mustang Lane and our common boundary with the proposed industrial site. 3. We note the proffer prohibiting industrial traffic on Mustang Lane. 4. We note the proffered ornamental landscaping on both sides of the entrance of Mustang Lane off of Valley Pike. Please be aware that the GDP does not show the ornamental landscaping on the north side of Mustang Lane. Please feel free to contact me at leew@fcpsk12.net or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions. Sincerely, K. Wayne Lee, Jr., ALEP Coordinator of Planning and Development cc: Dr. George Hummer, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Shane Goodwin, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Mr. Logan Sheppard, Director of Transportation Mr. Calvin Davis, Assistant Director of Transportation Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Frederick County Planning 55 56 57 58 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 September 25, 2024 Mr. Chris Mohn, AICP Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rezoning Comments – Middletown, LLC Middletown, Virginia Dear Mr. Mohn: Upon review of the Rezoning request dated September 4, 2024, we recommend approval of the subject plan. A comprehensive review shall be performed if a site plan is submitted in the future. Sincerely, Joe C. Wilder Director of Public Works JCW/kco cc: Middletown Planning and Development file 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 HESTER TRUST PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY July 27, 2022 69 www.WellsAndAssociates.com @WellsAssoc @WellsandAssociates Wells + Associates HESTER TRUST PROPERTY Transportation Impact Analysis Frederick County, Virginia July 27, 2022 Prepared for: Middletown, LLC Prepared by: Wells + Associates Michael J. Workosky, PTP, TOPS, TSOS John F. Cavan, P.E., PTOE (703) 917-6620 70 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________________ 1 Section 1 PURPOSE AND STUDY OBJECTIVE ________________________________________________ 2 Traffic Impact Study Requirements .......................................................................................... 2 Section 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ___________________________________________________ 6 Site Location and Major Transportation Features .................................................................... 6 Scope of Study .......................................................................................................................... 6 Study Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 6 Study Methodology................................................................................................................... 7 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Roadway Network ....................................................................................................... 8 Future Roadway Network ......................................................................................................... 9 Pedestrian Access ..................................................................................................................... 9 Public Transit Service ................................................................................................................ 9 Section 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2022) __________________________________________________ 14 Vehicular Traffic Counts .......................................................................................................... 14 Operational Analysis ............................................................................................................... 14 Section 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT (2024) _____________________________ 20 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 20 Regional Growth ..................................................................................................................... 20 Pipeline Development ............................................................................................................. 20 Other Development Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................... 20 Future Traffic Forecasts Without Development (2024).......................................................... 21 Operational Analysis ............................................................................................................... 21 Section 5 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ______________________________ 31 Site Trip Generation and Comparison .................................................................................... 31 Site Generated Distributions and Assignments ...................................................................... 31 71 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 PAGE Section 6 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT (2024) ______________________ 34 Future Traffic Forecasts with Development (2024) ................................................................ 34 Operational Analysis ............................................................................................................... 34 Access Management ............................................................................................................... 35 Right and Left Turn Lane Assessment…… ............................................................................... 35 Section 7 CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________________ 44 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 44 72 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1-1 Site Location .................................................................................................................. 4 1-2 Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 5 2-1 Study Intersections ..................................................................................................... 10 2-2 Frederick County Zoning Map ..................................................................................... 11 2-3 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendations ........................ 12 2-4 Existing Lane Use and Traffic Controls ........................................................................ 13 3-1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 16 3-2 Existing Levels-of-Service ............................................................................................ 18 4-1 Regional Growth (2022-2025)..................................................................................... 23 4-2 Pipeline Development Locations ................................................................................ 24 4-3 Pipeline Development Traffic Assignments ................................................................ 26 4-4 2025 Future Traffic Forecasts Without Development ................................................ 27 4-5 2024 Future Conditions without Development Levels-of-Service .............................. 29 5-1 Site Generated Trips ................................................................................................... 33 6-1 2025 Future Traffic Forecasts With Development ..................................................... 37 6-2 2025 Future Conditions with Development Lane Use and Traffic Control................. 38 6-3 2025 Future Traffic Forecasts With Development (Single Site Access Point) ............ 39 6-4 2025 Future Conditions with Development Levels-of-Service ................................... 41 6-5 2025 Future Conditions with Development Levels-of-Service with Potential Improvements ............................................................................................................. 42 73 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 3-1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................ 17 3-2 Existing Intersection Queuing Summary ..................................................................... 19 4-1 Pipeline Development Trip Generation Analysis ........................................................ 24 4-2 Background Future Conditions without Development Levels of Service ................... 31 4-3 Background Future Conditions without Development Queuing Summary ................ 33 5-1 Site Trip Generation Analysis ...................................................................................... 32 6-1 Total Future Conditions With Development Levels of Service ................................... 40 6-2 Total Future Conditions with Development Queuing Summary ................................ 43 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A Full Size Plan Sheets B Scoping Agreement C Levels of Service Descriptions D Existing Traffic Count Data E Existing Intersection Levels of Service and Queues (2022) F Individual Pipeline Peak Hour Forecasts G Future Conditions without Development Levels of Service and Queues (2025) H Future Conditions with Development Levels of Service and Queues (2025) I Turn Lane Warrant Analysis 74 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Hester Trust Property Rezoning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wells + Associates prepared a traffic impact study for the Hester Trust Property. The Applicant proposes to rezone the property to construct 848,000 square feet (S.F.) of light industrial uses along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and west of Interstate 81. Vehicular access to the site is proposed via two full-movement driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). No direct access to Mustang Lane is proposed for the industrial uses. Note that conditions assuming a single access drive has been evaluated as an alternative. The existing conditions analysis indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. With the addition of regional traffic growth and the construction of pipeline developments, the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would operate beyond capacity and require signalization to maintain acceptable levels-of-service. The Hester Trust Property is planned to be built in a single phase by 2025. It is proposed to include 848,000 square feet (S.F.) of light industrial uses that are estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips when fully occupied. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. With the addition of site-generated traffic, acceptable levels-of-service at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained assuming the installation of traffic signals. While the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity under Stop-control conditions, installing a traffic signal would improve overall levels-of-service. This signal would likely be installed in conjunction with the adjacent I-81 NB Ramp intersection. All proposed traffic signals would satisfy warrants for signalization and have been previously recommended in other area traffic studies. All other study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable level-of- service. Acceptable levels-of-service would be maintained at the site driveways whether one or two entrances are provided. The proposed access would meet VDOT spacing standards but would warrant exclusive right and left turn lanes, which would be satisfied by the existing two-way left- turn lane. 1 75 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND STUDY OBJECTIVE This report presents the findings of a traffic impact analysis for the Hester Trust Property. The Applicant, Middletown, LLC, proposes to rezone the property to construct approximately 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses in Frederick County, Virginia. The new development is proposed to be constructed along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane as shown on Figure 1-1. The subject site consists of approximately 101.25 total acres. A total of 77 acres is proposed to be developed with a total of 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses. A portion of the site (approximately 17.25 acres) will be reserved for future public use and regional stormwater management immediately to the west of Middletown Elementary School. Site access is proposed to be provided via two (2) full-movement driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). Note that conditions assuming a single access drive has been evaluated as an alternative. No direct access to Mustang Lane is proposed for industrial uses. The concept plan is shown on Figure 1-2. A full-size copy of the general development plan is included in Appendix A. Traffic Impact Study Requirements Overview. In 2006, the Virginia General Assembly approved legislation (Senate Bill 699, Chapter 527 of the 2006 Acts of Assembly) to enhance the coordination of land use and transportation planning in the Commonwealth. Subsection 15.2-2222 of the Code of Virginia was added to expand VDOT’s role in the land planning and development review process. Chapter 155, 24 VAC 30-155 established the rules, procedures, and deadlines for VDOT review. Implementation of these regulations was phased statewide over 18 months (July 1, 2007 to January 1, 2009). Implementation in the Northern Virginia District of VDOT began on July 1, 2007. All development proposals which met certain specific trip generation thresholds were subject to the regulations as outlined in VDOT’s Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Administrative Guidelines (“Administrative Guidelines”). An amendment to the Administrative Guidelines took effect in January 2012. Based on these updated Guidelines (now referred to as Chapter 870), a development proposal is considered to substantially impact the transportation network if it generates 5,000 or more net new daily vehicle trips. Based on a review of the Applicant’s rezoning application, a Chapter 870 compliant traffic impact study is not required. However, this does not absolve the Applicant from adhering to all local ordinances with regard to the submission of a traffic impact study. While this development is not anticipated to meet the trip generation thresholds to require a formal Chapter 870 traffic study, a traffic analysis was requested to address County and VDOT staff’s concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway 2 76 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 system. This report presents the results of that analysis based on the study parameters as agreed to during the scoping meeting with VDOT and Frederick County staff. A copy of the scoping document is included in Appendix B. Tasks. The following tasks were completed as part of this study:  A scoping meeting held with Frederick County and VDOT staff regarding the parameters of the study and relevant background information. A signed scoping letter confirming the parameters and assumptions used in the analysis herein is included in Appendix B.  Field reconnaissance in the vicinity of the site was performed to collect information related to existing traffic controls, roadway geometry, and traffic flow characteristics.  Collection of existing traffic counts at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak periods to establish baseline 2022 conditions.  Future conditions without the development were projected based on regional growth and traffic generated by approved but unbuilt (pipeline) development.  New vehicle trips generated by the development were calculated based on the methodology outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition.  Future conditions with the development were forecasted based on regional growth, pipeline development, and the proposed development plan.  Intersection capacity analyses were prepared for the existing conditions (2022), future conditions without development (2025), and future conditions with development (2025) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the intersections located within the study area.  Roadway improvements needed to mitigate the site generated trips were identified.  An alternative analysis assuming a single access driveway was prepared. Sources for this study include Frederick County, VDOT, Greenway Engineering, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Middletown, LLC, and the files of Wells + Associates. 3 77 SITEVA L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANEINTERSTATE8111INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE6611INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 1-1Site LocationHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia478 NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 1-2Conceptual Site PlanHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaPLAN PROVIDED BY: GREENWAY ENGINEERING 579 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Location & Major Transportation Features The proposed development is planned to consist of approximately 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses constructed on what is currently a vacant site located on the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) north of Mustang Lane. Site access is proposed to be provided via two (2) full-movement driveways on Valley Pike. No direct access for industrial uses is proposed to Mustang Lane that currently serves the Middletown Elementary School. No interparcel connections are proposed to adjacent properties. Note that an alternative analysis assuming a single site driveway has also been prepared. Scope of Study The study area, as agreed to during scoping, consists of the following intersections: 1.I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road. 2.I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road. 3.Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road. 4.Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Mustang Lane. 5.Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Site Driveways The intersections included in this study were determined based on the scoping meeting held with Frederick County and VDOT staff and are shown on Figure 2-1. A copy of the agreed-upon document is included in Appendix B. Study Assumptions For purposes of this analysis, the development is assumed to be constructed in a single phase by 2025. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal of to “improve upon existing transportation safety and service levels in the county”. While a formal level-of-service goal is not stated, for new developments, trip generation and new movements should “not degrade the transportation system, increase delays, or reduce service levels”. While the Town of Middletown Comprehensive Plan does not establish level-of-service thresholds, the Plan does identify traffic congestion at the Main Street and Reliance Road intersection due to Lord Fairfax Community College’s (LFCC) growth and expansion. The extension of Carolyn Avenue was identified as a potential mitigation measure as a parallel route to Valley Pike. A description of the levels of service for both signalized and unsignalized 6 80 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 intersections is included in Appendix C. This report presents the findings of analyses performed for the following conditions:  Existing Conditions (2022): Considers existing traffic volumes and existing roadway configurations.  Future Conditions Without Development (2025): Considers future traffic conditions for the year 2025 with the background growth by applying a 1.0 percent growth rate to all movements at the on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), Reliance Road, and the I-81 ramps. In addition to growth, three (3) projects were included as pipeline developments in this scenario and their subsequent traffic was added to the roadway network.  Total Future Conditions with Development (2025): Considers background traffic conditions for the year 2025 (buildout year) and adding the trips associated with the proposed development plan. The results of the analysis and the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development plan are presented in the Conclusion section of the report. Study Methodology Synchro software (version 11) was used to evaluate levels of service at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro is a macroscopic model used for optimizing traffic signal timing and performing capacity analyses. The software can model existing traffic signal timings or optimize splits, offsets, and cycle lengths for individual intersections, an arterial, or a complete network. Synchro allows the user to evaluate the effects of changing intersection geometrics, traffic demands, traffic control, and/or traffic signal settings as well as optimize traffic signal timings. The levels of service reported for the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed herein were taken from the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM) reports generated by Synchro. Level of service descriptions are shown in Appendix C. Heavy vehicle factors (%HV) were derived based on traffic count data published by the Virginia Department of Transportation and were applied to each turning movement within the study area. Peak hour factors (PHF’s) were calculated by approach using the existing count data and adjusted to a minimum 0.85≤PHF≤0.92 under existing conditions were applied to each of the study intersections. A five (5.0) percent heavy vehicle factor was applied to Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and a three (3.0) heavy vehicle factor was applied to Reliance Road for this study. 7 81 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Site Description Overview. The development area is approximately 101.25 acres and is identified as Tax Map #84-A-78 in Frederick County, Virginia. As shown on Figure 1-1, the site for the proposed uses are generally located east of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane. The property is north of the Town of Middletown, and west of I-81. Existing Zoning. The subject site is currently vacant and zoned RA (Rural Areas District) and would allow for low density uses including residential units. Since the site area would yield fewer than 20 units, it was assumed to be vacant under future conditions without development. The Applicant seeks approval to rezone the property to M-1 (Light Industrial District) to allow development of a total of 848,000 S.F. of space. The existing zoning map is shown on Figure 2-2. Nearby Zoning Uses. The properties surrounding and adjacent to the subject site (see Figure 2- 2) are zoned RA (Rural Areas District). Middletown Elementary School is located immediately south of the site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations. The site is located within the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) that recommended public water and sewer be provided north of the Town of Middletown and designated the site for “Mixed Use Industrial/Office” as shown on Figure 2-3. Terrain. The terrain proximate to and surrounding the site is generally classified as “level”. Existing Roadway Network A description of the major roadways within the immediate vicinity of the site is presented below. The existing lane configuration and traffic controls in the study area are shown on Figure 2-4. Interstate 81 is a four-lane divided Interstate highway with a posted speed limit of 70 mph in the vicinity of the Reliance Road interchange. A full-movement interchange is provided at Reliance Road via a diamond configuration with both ramp terminals operating under stop sign control. Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) is a two-lane roadway that runs parallel to Interstate 81 along its west side and provides access to the Town of Middletown and the site area to the north. It is classified as a Major Collector and has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph) in the vicinity of the site. “School” pavement markings with an advisory sign are located on Valley Pike approximately 675 feet south and 1,000 feet north of the Mustang Drive intersection. Separate turn lanes are provided at the Reliance Road intersection that currently operates under stop 8 82 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 control. Reliance Road (Route 627) is classified as a Major Collector that provides east-west access to the area with connections to Interstate 81 via a grade-separated interchange. It generally provides a single travel lane in each direction with stop controlled intersections at the interchange ramps and Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). Mustang Lane is a private local street that serves Middletown Elementary School. It is a two- lane undivided road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Future Roadway Network The Town of Middletown Comprehensive Plan indicated that the extension of Carolyn Avenue was identified as a potential mitigation measure as a parallel route to Valley Pike in the vicinity of the site. Since this project is not funded, this extension has not been assumed for purposes of this traffic study. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian accommodations are not provided within the vicinity of the site. Public Transit Service Public transit service is not currently provided in the area. 9 83 SITEVA L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANEINTERSTATE8111INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE6612345611INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-1Study IntersectionsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaXStudy Intersection1084 SITENORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-2Frederick County Zoning MapHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia1185 SITE NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-3 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendations Hester Trust Property Frederick County, Virginia 12 86 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-4Existing Lane Use an Traffic ControlHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTIONSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP 1387 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2022) Vehicular Traffic Counts Turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, and used to establish existing 2022 baseline conditions. The counts were collected at the following intersections: 1. I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road. 2. I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road. 3. Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road. 4. Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Mustang Lane. (Note: Intersection numbers provided to correspond with figures and tables.) The existing peak hour traffic volumes for the intersections contained within the study area are summarized on Figure 3-1 and shown in Appendix D. Peak hour link volumes on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) north of Mustang Lane were compared to year 2017 VDOT data and summarized below: Peak Hour Link Traffic Volumes - Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) North of Mustang Lane AM Peak Hour (8:15 to 9:15) PM Peak Hour (4:00 to 5:00) 2022 Count Data 402 526 2017 VDOT Data 380 473 Percent Difference 5.8% 11.2% As shown above, the recently conducted counts appear to be slightly higher than published VDOT count data. Therefore, no further adjustments were made to baseline traffic volumes to account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Operational Analysis Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the existing conditions at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology. Existing peak hour factors (by approach) acquired from the traffic counts (in the range of 0.85 to 0.92) were used in the analysis. Per the agreed scoping agreement, a five (5.0) percent heavy vehicle factor was applied to Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and a three (3.0) heavy vehicle factor was applied to Reliance Road for this study. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS) and delay 14 88 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 (seconds per vehicle) per lane group and are presented in Table 3-1 and illustrated in Figure 3- 2. The queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 3-2. The detailed analysis worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix E. The results indicate that all of the turning movements at the study intersections that are stop controlled currently operate at acceptable Level-of-Service (LOS) “C” and with delays of 25 seconds per vehicle or less. Queuing at Stop-controlled approaches is approximately three (3) vehicle lengths or less. 15 89 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 3-1Existing Peak Hour Traffic VolumesHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11173/1952/023/50200/21218/19122/105242/24474/5988/12716/251/5132/10469/151196/143140/27569/2041/4150/3665/18133/190FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/075/215112/138190/1320/193/144108/132134/1130/00/10/00/11690 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 3‐1 Hester Trust Property Existing Conditions Levels of Service Summary1 LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) 1.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR C 23.8 C 16.5 EBL A 8.1 A 7.9 2.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL A 8.2 A 8.1 SBLTR B 11.6 B 12.9 3.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ Unsignalized NBL A 0.0 A 0.0 EBLTR A 0.0 B 14.5 WBL C 16.2 C 24.8 WBR B 10.8 B 10.0 SBL A 8.1 A 8.1 4.U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ Unsignalized WBLR B 11.7 B 11.7 SBL A 7.9 A 7.7 1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th methodology, using Notes: AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourApproach/  Lane Group Existing Conditions 17 91 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 3-2Existing Levels-of-ServiceHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTIONSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP A/BA/BOverall Levels of ServiceLevels of ServiceA/AC/CA/AB/BA/BB/BA/AA/AC/CB/BA/A1892 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 3‐2 Hester Trust Property Existing Conditions Queuing Summary 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 1.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR ‐‐63 ‐33 EBL ‐‐15 ‐10 2.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL ‐‐3 ‐3 SBLTR ‐‐30 ‐40 3.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 EBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 WBL ‐‐23 ‐58 WBR 240 ‐25 ‐15 SBL 285 ‐8 ‐10 4.U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ Unsignalized WBLR ‐‐18 ‐13 SBL 300 ‐5 ‐3 Notes:   1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, using Sy 2."~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 3."#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 4."m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Approach/  Lane Group Storage  Length (ft) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 19 93 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT (2025) Methodology Future traffic forecasts for 2025 without the development of the Hester Trust Property were developed based on a composite of existing baseline traffic volumes, regional growth, and increases in traffic associated with other identified approved but not yet constructed (pipeline) developments. This methodology was discussed with VDOT and County staff as reflected in the signed scoping agreement included in Appendix B. Regional Growth Traffic volumes were projected for the year 2025 without the proposed development. The base traffic volumes used in this scenario were the existing (2022) condition volumes. A 1.0 percent annual growth rate was applied to movements along Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), Reliance Road, and the I-81 Ramps. The resultant volumes are shown on Figure 4-1. Pipeline Development In addition to regional growth, the following three (3) other pipeline developments were assumed for future background 2025 conditions: Village at Middletown. An additional 86 single family dwelling units, 22 multifamily dwelling units and 58,600 S.F. of retail uses are approved north of Reliance Road and east of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) Seasons of Middletown. A total of 92 single family dwelling units are proposed on the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) south of Reliance Road By-Right Gas Station. A by-right gas station with convenience store is proposed on the northeast quadrant of the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection. For purposes of this analysis, eight fueling positions were assumed, consistent with nearby gas stations. The location of these pipeline developments is shown on Figure 4-2. Other Development Traffic Forecasts The new vehicle trips expected to be generated by the pipeline developments were based on rates/equations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 11th Edition. 20 94 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 As shown on Table 4-1, these unbuilt developments would generate 330 new AM peak hour trips, 574 new PM peak hour trips, and 6,782 daily (24-hour) trips assuming full occupancy. Figure 4- 3 for the total pipeline trips to be added to the roadway network. Individual pipeline assignments are shown in Appendix F. Future Traffic Forecasts Without Development (2025) Traffic forecasts without the proposed Hester Trust Property development were developed for the horizon year of 2025. These forecasts were based on the existing baseline traffic counts shown on Figure 3-1, regional growth estimates shown on Figure 4-1, and pipeline trip assignments shown on Figure 4-3. The resulting traffic forecasts are provided on Figure 4-4 for 2025 future conditions with development. Operational Analysis Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology. A future peak hour of 0.92 was used in the analyses for all lane movements. The same heavy vehicle percentages from existing conditions were used for future without development conditions. The background capacity and queuing analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS) and delay (seconds per vehicle) per lane group and are presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The capacity analysis worksheets for future without development conditions are provided in Appendix G. Levels of service for future conditions without development are shown on Figure 4- 5. The results of the capacity analysis for future conditions without the development are similar to those of the existing conditions described earlier, but with increases in overall delay as described below: 1. The northbound approach of the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate near or beyond capacity (LOS “E” and “F”) during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The installation of a traffic signal at this location would be required to improve the overall level-of-service to LOS “B”. It is noted that signalization of this intersection was previously recommended in “A Traffic Impacted Analysis of the Village at Middletown”. 2. The westbound approach of the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the PM peak hours respectively. The installation of a traffic signal at this location would be required to improve overall level- of-service to LOS “C” or better. It is noted that signalization of this intersection was previously recommended in “A Traffic Impacted Analysis of the Village at Middletown”. 21 95 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 3. All other study intersections would operate at acceptable level-of-service “C” or better. 4. Projected queues would be generally accommodated by the available storage lanes. 22 96 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-1Regional Growth (2022-2025)Hester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 115/60/01/26/61/14/37/72/23/40/10/04/32/56/44/80/00/00/00/04/6FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/02/73/46/40/03/43/44/30/00/00/00/02397 SITEVA L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANEINTERSTATE8111INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE6611INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-2Location of Pipeline DevelopmentsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaVillage atMiddletownSeasons ofMiddletownBy-RightGas Station2498 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table4‐1Hester Trust PropertyPipeline Development TripGeneration Analysis1,2ITEAverageLand Use Code Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsVillage at MiddletownSingle‐Family Residential 210 86                 DU 17              48              65              54              32              86        878                Multi‐Family Residential 220 22                 DU2                7                9                8                4                12        148                Stand‐Alone Commercial 820 58,600         SF63              38              101            149            155            304      3,957             Total 82              93              175            211            191            402      4,983             Single Family HousingSingle Family Housing 210 92                 DU18              51              69              58              34              92        935                Gas Station/Convenience StoreGas Station/Convenience Store 945 8 Stations 108            108            216            91              91              182      2,057             Pass‐By Trips (60% AM, 56% PM)65             65             130           51             51             102     1,193 New Gas Station Trips43              43              86              40              40              80        864                Total Pipeline Trips143            187            330            309            265            574      6,782             Notes:1. Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.2. Assumes 8 fueling positions and ~5,000 S.F. convenience storeAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour2599 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-3Pipleline Trip AssignmentsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 1145/1210/05/1055/11013/1351/7972/11733/2243/3426/180/020/8650/3843/8917/450/00/00/00/027/38FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/04/114/912/180/033/6649/479/70/00/00/00/026100 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-42025 Future Traffic Forecasts Without DelopmentHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11223/3222/029/62261/32832/30177/187231/368109/83134/16542/441/5156/193121/194245/236161/32868/2061/4150/3665/18164/234FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/081/233119/151208/1540/1129/214160/183147/1230/00/10/00/127101 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 4‐2 Hester Trust Property Background Future without Development Conditions Levels of Service Summary1 LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) 1.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR C 23.8 C 16.5 E 43.8 F 69.2 EBL A 8.1 A 7.9 A 8.5 A 8.4 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT A1.6A1.6 WBTR A4.9A5.3 NBLTR D 35.7 D 42.4 Overall B 11.0 B 13.3 2.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL A 8.2 A 8.1 A 8.6 A 8.8 SBLTR B 11.6 B 12.9 B 14.3 C 24.2 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR A 8.7 B 13.2 WBLT A0.6A0.9 SBLTR D 36.4 D 44.6 Overall B 13.2 B 19.1 3.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ Unsignalized NBL A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 EBLTR A 0.0 B 14.5 A 0.0 C 16.3 WBL C 16.2 C 24.8 C 19.7 F 51.8 WBR B 10.8 B 10.0 B 11.4 B 10.5 SBL A 8.1 A 8.1 A 4.9 A 8.4 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLTR A 0.0 B 13.4 WBLT B 15.2 B 16.7 WBR B 13.0 B 11.3 NBLTR B 15.5 B 176.0 SBL A 9.1 B 10.8 SBTR A5.2A7.0 Overall B 12.9 B 13.2 4.U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ Unsignalized WBLR B 11.7 B 11.7 B 11.8 B 12.7 SBL A 7.9 A 7.7 A 7.9 A 7.9 1. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th methodology, using Synchro 11 unless otherwise noted. Notes: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2025 Future Conditions without  DevelopmentApproach/  Lane Group Existing Conditions 28 102 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-52025 Future Conditions without Development Levels-of-ServiceHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTIONSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP A/BA/BOverall Levels of ServiceLevels of ServiceA/AE/FA/AB/CA/CB/BA/AA/AC/FB/BA/A29103 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 4‐3 Hester Trust Property Background Future without Development Conditions Queuing Summary 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 1.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR ‐‐63 ‐33 ‐133 ‐200 EBL ‐‐15 ‐10 ‐20 ‐18 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT ‐35 58 43 67 WBTR ‐28 69 32 63 NBLTR ‐86 141 102 174 2.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL ‐‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 SBLTR ‐‐30 ‐40 ‐53 ‐138 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐61 162 79 225 WBLT ‐ ‐‐‐‐13 148 95 224 SBLTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐15 76 28 99 3.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 EBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 WBL ‐‐23 ‐58 ‐40 ‐153 WBR 240 ‐25 ‐15 ‐30 ‐18 SBL 285 ‐8 ‐10 ‐10 ‐10 Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLTR ‐‐‐‐‐0000 WBLT ‐‐‐‐‐36 97 64 155 WBR 240 ‐‐‐‐031024 NBLTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐68 163 66 174 SBL 285 ‐‐‐‐16 44 25 68 SBTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐11 32 40 11 4.U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ Unsignalized WBLR ‐‐18 ‐13 ‐18 ‐13 SBL 300 ‐5 ‐3 ‐5 ‐3 Notes:   1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, using Synchro 11. 2. "~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 3. "#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 4. "m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Approach/  Lane Group Storage  Length (ft) Existing Conditions 2025 Future Conditions without  Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 30 104 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 5 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Site Trip Generation and Comparison The number of AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the proposed and by- right development programs were estimated based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition trip rates and equations. ITE Land Use Codes 110 (General Light Industrial) was used to prepare the analysis. As shown in Table 5-1, the proposed development program (848,000 S.F.) is estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. Site Generated Traffic Distributions and Assignments Trip distributions for the proposed development are based on recent traffic counts, the surrounding road network, local knowledge and engineering judgement. The following trip distributions were assumed for the proposed development’s site trips. Passenger Vehicles Trucks To/From the North on I-81: 25% 40% To/From the South on I-81: 40% 60% To/From the North on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the South on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the East on Reliance Road: 5% 0% Total: 100% 100% The peak hour vehicle trips shown in Table 5-1 were assigned to the public roadway network according to the directional distribution described above. The site generated trips are shown on Figure 5-1. 31 105 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 5‐1Hester TrustPropertySite Trip Generation Analysis1ITE WeekdayAverage Land UseCode Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsProposed DevelopmentGeneral Light Industrial 110 848,000       S.F. 510                70 580                26 162                188                3,239              Truck Trip Generation538448212Passenger Vehicle Trip Generation 505               67572               22 158               180               3,027             Notes:1.Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour32106 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 5-1Site Generated TripsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11128/80/00/0230/120/029/6521/490/025/10/00/0205/113/818/4160/1380/00/00/00/0434/230/010/2450/115359/190/00/00/076/30/00/00/00/024/5725/13/836/81256/13179/1025/151/27/1624/57179/103/815 % / 0 % 25 % / 4 0 % 4 0 % / 6 0 %5%/0%1 5 % / 0 %Passenger VehicleHeavy TruckDirectional Trip DistributionX% / X%33107 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 6 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT (2025) Future Traffic Forecasts with Development (2025) Traffic forecasts with the proposed Hester Trust Property were developed for the horizon year of 2025 as shown on Figure 6-1. These forecasts were based on the background 2025 traffic forecasts as shown on Figure 4-4 and the site generated trips generated by the proposed development and are shown on Figure 5-1. The future conditions without development lane use and traffic control is shown on Figure 6-2. As an alternative, future traffic forecasts assuming only one site entrance are shown on Figure 6-3. Operational Analysis Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology, consistent with the analyses for future without development conditions. The capacity and queuing analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS) and delay (seconds per vehicle) per lane group and are presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. The capacity analysis worksheets for future with development conditions are provided in Appendix H. The results of the capacity analysis for future conditions with the development are summarized below: 1. The northbound approach of the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the AM and PM peak hours. Consistent with background conditions, the installation of a traffic signal at this location would be required to improve overall level-of-service to LOS “C” or better. 2. The southbound approach of the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity (LOS “E”) during the AM. The installation of a traffic signal at this location would be required to improve overall level-of-service to LOS “B”. The installation of the signal at this intersection would likely occur at the same time as the adjacent I-81 NB Ramp intersection and was previously recommended in “A Traffic Impacted Analysis of the Village at Middletown”. 3. The westbound approach of the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the PM peak hours respectively. Consistent with background conditions, the installation of a traffic signal at this location would be required to improve overall level-of-service to LOS “C”. 34 108 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 4. All of the turning movements at the stop controlled Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Mustang Road intersection would continue to operate at acceptable level-of-service “C” or better without further improvements. 5. The site driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under stop sign control with all movements at LOS “C” or better. As identified in the following section, right and left turn lanes are required at both locations. Single lanes for inbound and outbound traffic would adequately serve site generated vehicle trips. 6. Under the alternative access that provides a single driveway serving the site, all of the turning movements would operate at acceptable level of service “C” or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under stop sign control. 7. Projected queues would be generally accommodated by the available storage lanes. Levels of service for future conditions with development are shown on Figures 6-4 and 6-5. Access Management As described previously, vehicular access to the site is proposed via two full-movement driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) classifies Valley Pike as a Major Collector. It has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the site. According to requirements set for in Table 2-2 of VDOT’s Road Design Manual, full access entrances on Major Collectors with a posted speed limit of 35 to 45 mph would require 335 feet from other intersections or full-movement entrances. A review of the plans indicates that the proposed entrance spacing of 445 feet would meet VDOT spacing standards. Right and Left Turn Lane Assessment The need for right turn lanes at the site entrances on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) was assessed based on Appendix F, Figure 3-27 “Guidelines for Right Turn Treatment (4-Lane Highway)” from the VDOT Road Design Manual. Figure 3-27 determines whether “no turn lanes or taper required”, a “taper required”, or a “full-width turn lane and taper required” based on a graph of “PHV Right Turns, Vehicles Per Hour” versus “PHV Approach Total, Vehicles Per Hour”. According to Appendix F, Figure 3-27 and future traffic forecasts, the results indicate a full-width turn lane and taper would be required at both site driveways. For roadways with a design speed of 50 mph (posted speed limit + 5 mph), turn lanes would need to provide a minimum of 200 feet of full- width storage plus a 200-foot taper. 35 109 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 For the two site entrances, the need for an exclusive left turn lane was assessed based on Figure 3-3 “Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways” from Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. According to Appendix F, Figure 3-3 and future traffic forecasts, the results indicate that a full-width left turn lane would be required at the two site driveways. These turns lanes can be accommodated within the existing Two-Way-Left-Turn lane on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). The turn lane warrant worksheets are included in Appendix I. 36 110 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-12025 Future Traffic Forecasts With DelopmentHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11351/3302/029/62491/34032/30206/252342/417109/83159/16642/441/5361/204124/202263/277221/46668/2061/4150/3665/18298/2570/091/257169/266567/1730/1129/214160/183223/1260/00/10/00/1255/40625/13/836/81256/13406/286256/35051/27/1624/57179/10230/28437111 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-22025 Future Conditions with Development Lane Use and Traffic ControlHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP 38112 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-32025 Future Traffic Forecasts With Delopment(Single Site Access Point)Hester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11351/3302/029/62491/34032/30206/252342/417109/83159/16642/441/5361/204124/202263/277221/46668/2061/4150/3665/18598/257NOTAPPLICABLE0/091/257169/266567/1730/1129/214160/183223/1260/00/10/00/1231/34976/310/2460/138434/23227/27639113 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 6‐1Hester Trust PropertyTotal Future with Development Conditions Levels of Service Summary1LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)1. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR C 23.8 C 16.5 E 43.8 F 69.2 F 420.5 F 134.2 F 420.5 F 134.2EBLA 8.1 A 7.9 A 8.5 A 8.4 A 8.7 A 8.5 A 8.7 A 8.5Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTA 1.6 A 1.6 A 5.2 A 2.0 A 5.2 A 2.0WBTRA 4.9 A 5.3 A 9.3 A 5.5 A 9.3 A 5.5NBLTRD 35.7 D 42.4 D 45.4 D 43.4 D 45.4 D 43.4OverallB 11.0 B 13.3 C 21.6 B 13.5 C 21.6 B 13.52. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLA 8.2 A 8.1 A 8.6 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 9.2 A 8.8 A 9.2SBLTR B 11.6 B 12.9 B 14.3 C 24.2 E 40.3 D 28.3 E 40.3 D 28.3Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBTRA 8.7 B 13.2 B 14.0 B 15.0 B 13.9 D 15.0WBLTA 0.6 A 0.9 A 2.0 A 1.5 A 2.0 A 1.5SBLTRD 36.4 D 44.6 D 46.1 D 45.5 D 46.1 D 45.5OverallB 13.2 B 19.1 B 18.1 B 19.9 B 18.1 B 19.93. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedNBLA 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0EBLTR A 0.0 B 14.5 A 0.0 C 16.3 A 0.0 C 23.0 A 0.0 C 23.0WBLC 16.2 C 24.8 C 19.7 F 51.8 D 32.5 F 218.8 D 32.5 F 218.8WBRB 10.8 B 10.0 B 11.4 B 10.5 D 33.5 B 10.7 D 33.5 B 10.7SBLA 8.1 A 8.1 A 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 8.8Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTRA 0.0 B 13.4 A 0.0 B 15.4 A 0.0 B 15.4WBLTB 15.2 B 16.7 B 16.3 B 19.5 B 16.3 B 19.5WBRB 13.0 B 11.3 C 25.8 B 10.8 C 25.8 B 10.8NBLTRB 15.5 B 17.6 C 27.6 C 21.2 C 27.6 C 21.2SBLA 9.1 B 10.8 B 17.9 B 12.6 B 17.9 B 12.6SBTRA 5.2 A 7.0 B 10.7 A 7.4 B 10.7 A 7.4OverallB 12.9 B 13.2 C 23.4 B 14.6 C 23.4 B 14.64. U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR B 11.7 B 11.7 B 11.8 B 12.7 C 22.2 B 14.2 C 22.2 B 14.4SBLA 7.9 A 7.7 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 9.4 A 7.9 A 9.4 A 7.95. South Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLRB 13.2 B 14.1 C 15.4 C 15.3SBLA9.2A7.9A9.5A7.96. North Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLRB 11.9 B 12.7SBLA8.4A7.91. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th methodology, using Synchro 11 unless otherwise noted.2025 (One Driveway) Future Conditions with Development2025 (Two Driveways) Future Conditions with DevelopmentAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak HourExisting Conditions2025 Future Conditions without DevelopmentPM Peak HourNotes:AM Peak HourApproach/ Lane GroupPM Peak Hour40114 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-42025 Future Conditions with Development Levels-of-ServiceHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP A/BA/BOverall Levels of ServiceLevels of ServiceA/AF/FA/AE/DA/CD/BA/AA/AD/FC/BA/ASTOP B/BA/ASTOP B/BA/A41115 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-52025 Future Conditions with Development Levels-of-ServiceWith Potential ImprovementsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, Virginia1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11STOP A/BA/BOverall Levels of ServiceLevels of ServiceA/AD/DA/AD/DA/BC/BB/BC/CB/BC/BA/ASTOP B/BA/ASTOP B/BA/AB/AA/AA/AC/BB/BC/B42116 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 6‐2Hester Trust PropertyTotal Future with Development Conditions Queuing Summary50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile1. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR‐‐63‐33‐133‐200‐755‐290‐755‐290EBL‐‐15‐10‐20‐18‐22‐22‐22‐22Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLT‐35 58 43 67 131 63 47 72 131 63 47 72WBTR‐28 69 32 63 49 91 33 64 49 91 33 64NBLTR‐86 141 102 174 187 #344 107 #189 187 #344 107 #1892. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBL‐‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3SBLTR‐‐30‐40‐53‐138‐213‐160‐213‐160Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBTR‐ ‐‐‐‐61 162 79 225 97 254 107 307 97 254 107 307WBLT‐ ‐‐‐‐13 148 95 224 220 m335 108 233 220 m335 108 233SBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐15 76 28 99 51 123 28 99 51 123 28 993. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR‐‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0EBLTR‐‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0WBL‐‐23‐58‐40‐153‐70‐318‐70‐318WBR240‐25‐15‐30‐18‐260‐20‐260‐20SBL285‐8‐10‐10‐10‐15‐23‐15‐23Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐000000000000WBLT‐ ‐‐‐‐36 97 64 155 43 116 71 173 43 116 71 173WBR240‐‐‐‐0 31 0 24 29 139 0 26 29 139 0 26NBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐68 163 66 174 111 246 75 194 111 246 75 194SBL285‐‐‐‐16 44 25 68 25 63 48 118 25 63 48 118SBTR‐ ‐‐‐‐11 32 40 11 13 37 46 11 13 37 46 114. U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐‐18‐13‐18‐13‐43‐18‐43‐18SBL300‐5‐3‐5‐3‐8‐3‐8‐35. South Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐8‐19‐18‐38SBL‐3‐0‐8‐06. North Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐5‐263SBL‐5‐0Notes:  1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, using Synchro 11.2. "~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.3. "#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.4. "m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Approach/ Lane GroupStorage Length (ft)Existing Conditions2025 Future Conditions without Development2025 (One Driveway) Future Conditions with Development2025 (Two Driveways) Future Conditions with DevelopmentAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour43117 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions The principal findings of this traffic impact analysis are as follows: 1.The existing conditions analysis indicates that all study intersections, that currently operate under stop sign control, operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. This includes the I-81 ramps on Reliance Road, the Reliance Road/Valley Pike intersection, and the Valley Pike/Mustang Road intersection. 2.Under future conditions without development, regional traffic growth and pipeline developments would cause select movements and/or approaches at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections to operate beyond capacity. Signalization of the intersections would be needed to restore acceptable levels-of-service at these locations, assuming warrants for signalization are met. 3.The Hester Trust Property industrial development is planned to be built in a single phase by 2025. It is proposed to include 848,000 square feet (S.F.) of light industrial uses that are estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips when fully occupied. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. 4.The results of the future conditions analysis with the development indicate that the new site generated traffic would have only a minor effect on overall intersection delays. Acceptable levels-of-service at I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained with the installation of traffic signals, consistent with background conditions. While I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity under Stop-control conditions, installing a traffic signal would improve overall levels-of-service. All proposed traffic signals would satisfy warrants for signalization and have been previously recommended in other area traffic studies. 5.The proposed site entrances would operate at acceptable levels-of-service, whether one or two entrances are provided. The proposed access would meet VDOT spacing standards but would warrant exclusive right and left turn lanes, which would be satisfied by the existing two-way left turn lane. O:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\DOCUMENTS\REPORT\HESTER PROPERTY TIA (7.27.2022).DOCX 44 118 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX A Full Size Plan Sheets 119 TREE SAVE TREE SAVE TREE SAVEVALLEY PIKE ( US ROUTE 11)MUSTANG LANE 60' VARIABLE WIDTH INGRESS /EGRESS EASEMENT+/-11.2 Acres PUBLIC USE FOREBAY SWM/BMP POND FOREBAY SWM/BMP POND +/-77.0 Acres INDUSTRIAL USE LANDSCAPING AND BERM150' LANDSCAPE SCREEN SCHOOL PROPERTY BUFFER150'MUSTANG LANE BUFFERORNAMENTALLANDSCAPINGORNAMENTALLANDSCAPING 75' A A B B VALLEY PIKE BUFFER VALLEY PIKE BUFFER 25'TREE SAVE1" = 120' 1MIDDLETOWN, LLC. REZONINGGENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFREDERICK COUNTY, VA07/19/2022 CMM/ TNA 1 0127E151 Windy Hill LaneWinchester, Virginia 22602Telephone: (540) 662-4185Fax: (540) 722-9528www.greenwayeng.comFND1971ENGINEERINGSHEET OF DESIGNED BY: FILE NO. SCALE: DATE:PROUDLY SERVING VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIAOFFICES IN: WINCHESTER, VA & MARTINSBURG, WVPROJECT INFORMATION / SUMMARY Tax Map #: 84-A-78 Address: 7165 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA Size: 101.25 acres Proposed Zoning: M1 Land Use:Development Areas Industrial +/- 77 Acres Public +/- 11.2 Acres 50' TREE SAVE 120 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX B Scoping Agreement 121 B-1122 B-2123 B-3124 B-4125 John A. Bishop, AICP06/07/22B-5126 B-6127 B-7128 B-8129 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX C Levels of Service Descriptions 130 Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-service (LOS) criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Exhibit 16-2. Delay may be measured in the field or estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group in question. LOS A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely 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. LOS B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Exhibit 16-2. Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LEVEL OF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <10.0 B > 10.0 and <20.0 C > 20.0 and < 35.0 D > 35.0 and < 55.0 E > 55.0 and < 80.0 F >80.0 LOS C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council C-1 131 Level of Service Criteria for Stop Sign Controlled Intersections The level of service criteria are given in Table 17-2. As used here, control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from the time a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from free-flow speed to the speed of vehicles in queue. The average total delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. . . . Table 17-2. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (sec/veh) A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 Average total delay less than 10 sec/veh is defined as Level of Service (LOS) A. Follow-up times of less than 5 sec have been measured when there is no conflicting traffic for a minor street movement, so control delays of less than 10 sec/veh are appropriate for low flow conditions. To remain consistent with the AWSC intersection analysis procedure described later in this chapter, a total delay of 50 sec/veh is assumed as the break point between LOS E and F. The proposed level of service criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 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, several driver behavior considerations combine to make delays at signalized intersections less onerous than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, where drivers on the minor approaches to unsignalized 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 than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the total delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. . . . LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to cross safely through a major street traffic stream. This level of s ervice is generally evident from extremely long total delays experienced by side street traffic and by queueing on the minor approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size - that is, the critical gap remains constant, no matter how long the side street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form of side street vehicles’ selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior. The latter is more difficult to observe on the field than queueing, which is more obvious. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council C-2 132 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX D Existing Traffic Count Data 133 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 NB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 701000002418000119070 6:15 AM 1412000003619000910091 6:30 AM 14020000040250001390103 6:45 AM 21040000034240001560104 7:00 AM 251300000481500017170126 7:15 AM 320400000531200024190144 7:30 AM 430500000592100020260174 7:45 AM 320400000362100027120132 8:00 AM 161900000262200018140106 8:15 AM 250200000331800014180110 8:30 AM 201200000382000022110114 8:45 AM 25040000027210001012099 9:00 AM 14130000019160001612081 9:15 AM 804000001916000149070 9:30 AM 291000000173400028100119 9:45 AM 1803000001824000216090 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :3436520000052732600027920001733 APPROACH %'s :85.54% 1.50% 12.97% 0.00%61.78% 38.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.25% 41.75% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :132116000001966900088740576 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.767 0.250 0.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.821 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.815 0.712 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 121500000201900089074 10:15 AM 1408000002425000124087 10:30 AM 11130000019200001814086 10:45 AM 1606000003223000166099 11:00 AM 902000002228000219091 11:15 AM 12070000022270002940101 11:30 AM 1613000002619000169090 11:45 AM 1414000001932000186094 12:00 PM 15030000034250002140102 12:15 PM 22040000031210002170106 12:30 PM 15070000028290002570111 12:45 PM 1905000001821000227092 1:00 PM 200500000223100029120119 1:15 PM 414000002824000277095 1:30 PM 16030000031250002090104 1:45 PM 180600000282000023100105 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :2335750000040438900032612401556 APPROACH %'s :74.44% 1.60% 23.96% 0.00%50.95% 49.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 72.44% 27.56% 0.00% PEAK HR :12:15 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :76021000009910200097330428 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.864 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.798 0.823 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.836 0.688 0.000 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 1703000002224000208094 2:15 PM 2307000001817000175087 2:30 PM 172300000233100025120113 2:45 PM 151800000343100021110121 3:00 PM 250100000343300022190134 3:15 PM 270400000352700029110133 3:30 PM 211500000544100022120156 3:45 PM 221500000504800024110161 4:00 PM 2511200000433200023190155 4:15 PM 230600000444300034130163 4:30 PM 292900000304100033140158 4:45 PM 201600000363500035140147 5:00 PM 241600000393400033140151 5:15 PM 311400000384100026170158 5:30 PM 2201000000373900019110138 5:45 PM 160300000321800025100104 6:00 PM 18050000024190002770100 6:15 PM 13030000030230001812099 6:30 PM 23160000018210002660101 6:45 PM 13010000020300001716097 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :424121070000066162800049624202570 APPROACH %'s :78.08% 2.21% 19.71% 0.00%51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.21% 32.79% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :10452500000143151000127590614 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.839 0.625 0.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.921 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.907 0.868 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9720.838 0.930 0.949 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 12:15 PM - 01:15 PM 0.8990.933 0.882 0.793 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.8280.776 0.828 0.880 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-001 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 NB Ramps I-81 NB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd D-1 134 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 SB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(SB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 0000701800351301170091 6:15 AM 00008029004829032000137 6:30 AM 0 0 0 0100340 054200 2240 0144 6:45 AM 0 0 0 0121440 046260 3340 0166 7:00 AM 00006127005733043800166 7:15 AM 00006055006132054900208 7:30 AM 00002137007728046100210 7:45 AM 00009054004729055200196 8:00 AM 00007047004124013500155 8:15 AM 00002141004926033600158 8:30 AM 00006128005218023900146 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 038240 1350 0141 9:00 AM 00004028003119012800111 9:15 AM 0000702000291501220094 9:30 AM 00008127004214035400149 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0110440 032180 2350 0142 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 115 6 566 0 0 739 368 0 41 579 0 0 2414 APPROACH %'s :16.74% 0.87% 82.39% 0.00% 0.00% 66.76% 33.24% 0.00% 6.61% 93.39% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00002321730024212201820000780 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.639 0.500 0.786 0.000 0.000 0.786 0.924 0.000 0.900 0.820 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 00003126003519032100108 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0130190 036150 6200 0109 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0110180 030150 2260 0102 10:45 AM 00003020005116003100121 11:00 AM 00004024004622052700128 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0100280 039300 5360 0148 11:30 AM 00007036003917013100131 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 040120 4280 0127 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0100220 049210 5310 0138 12:15 PM 00003027004818014100138 12:30 PM 00006030005214023800142 12:45 PM 00004231003412043800125 1:00 PM 00009020004416074100137 1:15 PM 00005028004811042800124 1:30 PM 00003121005212033200124 1:45 PM 00006032004224043800146 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 107 4 415 0 0 685 274 0 56 507 0 0 2048 APPROACH %'s :20.34% 0.76% 78.90% 0.00% 0.00% 71.43% 28.57% 0.00% 9.95% 90.05% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :11:45 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0000290112001896501213800545 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.848 0.000 0.000 0.909 0.774 0.000 0.600 0.841 0.000 0.000 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 00008020003925053200129 2:15 PM 00004024003011043400107 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0141340 041220 3410 0156 2:45 PM 00007035005723003600158 3:00 PM 00009138005918014600172 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0120360 049150 3510 0166 3:30 PM 00008040008825034200206 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0110380 086250 1440 0205 4:00 PM 00007032006819004800174 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0170450 071190 4540 0210 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0120490 058240 5550 0203 4:45 PM 00009051006324065100204 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0140450 060280 4520 0203 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0150500 063290 4540 0215 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0151450 060200 2370 0180 5:45 PM 00001003400406033900132 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0100400 033140 2440 0143 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0110350 043140 1300 0134 6:30 PM 00009230003012024700132 6:45 PM 0000802100429032700110 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 210 5 742 0 0 1080 382 0 56 864 0 0 3339 APPROACH %'s :21.94% 0.52% 77.53% 0.00% 0.00% 73.87% 26.13% 0.00% 6.09% 93.91% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00005001950024410501921200825 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.956 0.000 0.000 0.968 0.905 0.000 0.792 0.964 0.000 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9590.942 0.948 0.963 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 11:45 AM - 12:45 PM 0.9600.820 0.907 0.893 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.9290.786 0.867 0.838 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-002 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 SB Ramps I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd D-2 135 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St & Reliance RdCity:MiddletownProject ID:Control:2-Way Stop(EB/WB)Date:NS/EW Streets:Explanation for extra leg movements1100011000010010100NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALMovements entering the extra leg6:00 AM1161700131000011101111000000082 SR2 Movements coming from SB on Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St entering into the Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:15 AM112250011101000010132500000081 WT2 Movements coming from WB on Reliance Rd entering into the Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:30 AM1202200151400012102316000000106 NL2 Movements coming from NB on Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St entering into the Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:45 AM127230118111001210261190000001327:00 AM1162600216000221020135001000132Movements exiting the extra leg7:15 AM02428003118200132024051000000184 E2L2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St heading NB7:30 AM04628003712100132021145000000197 E2T2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Reliance Rd heading EB7:45 AM22822002716000111021062000000181 E2R2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St heading SB8:00 AM23319001726000040024232000000159 E2U2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Reliance Rd heading EB8:15 AM031260016251000100190350000001548:30 AM033180030310001220184360000001758:45 AM232190025250001400132430100001679:00 AM022130019211000230222280001001349:15 AM12513001524200010091200000001119:30 AM025150019211000220133360000001379:45 AM12119001820300010019245000000149NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :134113330133229013001031170296235080111002281APPROACH %'s :1.72% 54.22% 43.93% 0.00% 0.13% 52.28% 45.67% 2.05% 0.00% 0.00% 17.24% 53.45% 29.31% 0.00% 35.75% 2.78% 61.35% 0.00% 0.12% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :07:15 AM38TOTALPEAK HR VOL :413197001127230031150903190000000721PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.712 0.866 0.000 0.000 0.757 0.692 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.688 0.625 0.000 0.938 0.375 0.766 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U211000110000100101000000NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTAL10:00 AM1281900251500005101432000000013110:15 AM1341500222320000201221100000012410:30 AM032900202420022101321700000012410:45 AM2311100493110002101182900000017611:00 AM2312500302660024102011700000016511:15 AM1251200224140014202242700000016511:30 AM2261100273110024302022200000015111:45 AM3252200222340000202542402001015712:00 PM0241700363210031201933010000016912:15 PM0233000283620001102152800000017512:30 PM0321900233810016201812901000017112:45 PM217100118271115330226351110001551:00 PM031250020293001330202170000001541:15 PM131210018250001210204160000001401:30 PM231250024382000420153170000001631:45 PM32821002939200114025623000000182NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :204492920141347832111942310297563622410102502APPROACH %'s :2.62% 58.92% 38.32% 0.00% 0.13% 44.65% 51.68% 3.46% 0.11% 0.11% 20.65% 45.65% 33.70% 0.00% 41.19% 7.77% 50.21% 0.28% 0.55% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :11:45 AM12:00 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :3104880010912980048708313111130010672PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 0.813 0.733 0.000 0.000 0.757 0.849 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.875 0.000 0.830 0.650 0.925 0.250 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.00011000110000100101000000NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTAL2:00 PM430220024362002330201180000201672:15 PM22570018291001320250221000101372:30 PM330220028304001150245250000001782:45 PM32730002441200322023320000100181 6633:00 PM12926002944300452021335110110206 7023:15 PM02423012940601326031425000020197 7623:30 PM03655004753400012026322000000249 8333:45 PM42636014549301124025330000001231 8834:00 PM23125004941300144031131010100225 9024:15 PM63737003042200122027733010010228 9334:30 PM12332003454200054033637000000231 9154:45 PM21927004053200021027429000000206 8905:00 PM23125003459100221037333001000231 8965:15 PM12222003552100452041330010000219 8875:30 PM32122012830200041031220000110167 8235:45 PM11614001740000122035215011110149 7666:00 PM11915111339401332031620001010161 6966:15 PM01525011725200211029214030200139 6166:30 PM11218011632100113033418000220145 5946:45 PM41114021916100153016615011120118 563NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :41 484 497 1 8 576 805 46 0 3 31 55 52 0 566 68 492 2 9 4 10 14 1 3765APPROACH %'s :3.98% 46.94% 48.21% 0.10% 0.78% 40.28% 56.29% 3.22% 0.00% 0.21% 22.46% 39.86% 37.68% 0.00% 49.78% 5.98% 43.27% 0.18% 0.79% 13.79% 34.48% 48.28% 3.45%PEAK HR :04:15 PM12:00 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :11110121001382087003118012420132011010896PEAK HR FACTOR :0.458 0.743 0.818 0.000 0.000 0.863 0.881 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.550 0.500 0.000 0.838 0.714 0.892 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.00004:15 PM - 05:15 PM0.9700.756 0.929 0.611 0.911PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND11:45 AM - 12:45 PM0.9600.920 0.891 0.528 0.959NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EASTBOUND207:15 AM - 08:15 AM0.9150.784 0.917 0.792 0.852AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND22-260042-0035/3/2022Data - TotalValley Pike/US Rte 11/Main StValley Pike/US Rte 11/Main StReliance RdReliance RdD-3 136 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St & Mustang Ln City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(WB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0110110000000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 01640212000000201037 6:15 AM 01800316000000001038 6:30 AM 01820218000000401045 6:45 AM 02640120000000302056 7:00 AM 03450021000000301064 7:15 AM 04430136000000001085 7:30 AM 056607350000002010107 7:45 AM 0511009460000002000118 8:00 AM 03770741000000001093 8:15 AM 0361001734000000200099 8:30 AM 0292702243000000190150155 8:45 AM 0282402632000000170380165 9:00 AM 040403310000001208098 9:15 AM 03450133000000403080 9:30 AM 03610336000000003079 9:45 AM 04110041000000003086 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :054411301044950000007007901405 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 82.80% 17.20% 0.00% 17.36% 82.64% 0.00% 0.00%46.98% 0.00% 53.02% 0.00% PEAK HR :08:15 AM 42 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :013365068140000000500610517 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.831 0.602 0.000 0.654 0.814 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.658 0.000 0.401 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0110110000000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 03700126000000002066 10:15 AM 04300236000000101083 10:30 AM 03800145000000100085 10:45 AM 04920047000000001099 11:00 AM 04630237010000302094 11:15 AM 045001580000000020106 11:30 AM 03810044000000000083 11:45 AM 03820038000000100079 12:00 PM 04500146000000101094 12:15 PM 03600150000010202092 12:30 PM 04110150100000001095 12:45 PM 02820042000000001073 1:00 PM 04420040000000000086 1:15 PM 03910031000000001072 1:30 PM 03550252000000101096 1:45 PM 043004560000002030108 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0645190166981100101201801411 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 97.14% 2.86% 0.00% 2.23% 97.49% 0.14% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :10:30 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :01785041870100004050384 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.908 0.417 0.000 0.500 0.806 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.625 0.000 0110110000000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 048202450000001040102 2:15 PM 03350042000000102083 2:30 PM 04440539000000002094 2:45 PM 041509580000000010114 3:00 PM 049603600000002020122 3:15 PM 0399017540000005020126 3:30 PM 03970871000000250310181 3:45 PM 04730465000000200120151 4:00 PM 0513036110000013080140 4:15 PM 05210013660000003090153 4:30 PM 04740369000000180200161 4:45 PM 040101780000002040126 5:00 PM 044102750000002050129 5:15 PM 041202580000004020109 5:30 PM 03000343010000201080 5:45 PM 02400043001000105074 6:00 PM 02700046000000000073 6:15 PM 02700039100000000067 6:30 PM 01700038000000200057 6:45 PM 02510033000000000059 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 765 63 0 75 1083 211000101011002201 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 92.39% 7.61% 0.00% 6.46% 93.28% 0.17% 0.09% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47.87% 0.00% 52.13% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :019018020274100000360410580 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.913 0.450 0.000 0.385 0.878 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.513 0.000 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0.9010.839 0.934 0.507 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM 0.9060.897 0.814 0.450 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 08:15 AM - 09:15 AM 0.7830.884 0.800 0.505 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-004 5/3/2022 Data - Total Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St Mustang Ln Mustang Ln D-4 137 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX E Existing Intersection Levels of Service and Queues (2022) 138 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 231 81 0 0 104 87 155 1 19 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 191 0 - - - 0 691 734 81 Stage 1 ------543543- Stage 2 ------148191- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - 0 0 - - 409 346 976 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 580 518 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 877 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 -----3370976 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3370- Stage 1 ------4780- Stage 2 ------8770- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 6 0 23.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)363 1377 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 0.167 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.8 8.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 0.6 - - - E-1 139 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Future Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 260 131 19 215 0000252186 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 391 0 0 579 644 215 Stage 1 ------ 253253- Stage 2 ------ 326391- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1162 - 0 475 390 822 Stage 1 0 ----0 787696- Stage 2 0 ----0 729605- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1162 - -466 0 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4660- Stage 1 ------ 7870- Stage 2 ------ 7150- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1162 - 754 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.282 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.2 0 11.6 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.2 E-2 140 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 190 0 134 108 112 75 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 190 0 134 108 112 75 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 102 0 209 0 147 119 123 82 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 639 594 82 535 535 207 82 0 0 266 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 207 207 ------- Stage 2 311 266 - 328 328 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 387 417 975 455 450 831 1497 - - 1281 - - Stage 1 683 645 - 793 729 ------- Stage 2 697 687 - 683 645 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 269 377 975 422 407 831 1497 - - 1281 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 269 377 - 422 407 ------- Stage 1 683 583 - 793 729 ------- Stage 2 522 687 - 617 583 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 12.6 0 4.9 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1497 - - - 422 831 1281 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----0.242 0.251 0.096 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 16.2 10.8 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.9 1 0.3 - - E-3 141 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 61 133 65 68 140 Future Vol, veh/h 50 61 133 65 68 140 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 59 72 156 76 80 165 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 481 156 0 0 232 0 Stage 1 156 ----- Stage 2 325 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 544 890 - - 1336 - Stage 1 872 ----- Stage 2 732 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 511 890 - - 1336 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 511 ----- Stage 1 872 ----- Stage 2 688 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 2.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 667 1336 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.196 0.06 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.7 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.2 - E-4 142 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 147 156 0 0 131 61 107 5 26 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 - - - 0 612 642 156 Stage 1 ------450450- Stage 2 ------162192- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - 0 0 - - 455 391 887 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 640 570 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 865 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 -----4020887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4020- Stage 1 ------5650- Stage 2 ------8650- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 3.9 0 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)450 1375 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.107 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 7.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.4 - - - E-5 143 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Future Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 254 109 20 221 0000520203 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 363 0 0 570 624 221 Stage 1 ------ 261261- Stage 2 ------ 309363- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1190 - 0 481 400 816 Stage 1 0 ----0 780690- Stage 2 0 ----0 742623- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1190 - -472 0 816 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4720- Stage 1 ------ 7800- Stage 2 ------ 7280- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 12.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1190 - 710 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.359 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.1 0 12.9 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.6 E-6 144 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 144 1 132 0 113 132 138 215 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 144 1 132 0 113 132 138 215 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 1 0 1 148 1 136 0 116 136 142 222 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 759 758 222 691 690 184 222 0 0 252 0 0 Stage 1 506 506 - 184 184 ------- Stage 2 253 252 - 507 506 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 322 335 815 358 367 856 1329 - - 1296 - - Stage 1 547 538 - 815 746 ------- Stage 2 749 697 - 546 538 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 248 298 815 328 327 856 1329 - - 1296 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 248 298 - 328 327 ------- Stage 1 547 479 - 815 746 ------- Stage 2 629 697 - 486 479 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 17.7 0 3.2 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1329 - - 380 328 856 1296 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.005 0.456 0.159 0.11 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 14.5 24.8 10 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 2.3 0.6 0.4 - - E-7 145 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 41 190 18 20 275 Future Vol, veh/h 36 41 190 18 20 275 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 40 46 211 20 22 306 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 561 211 0 0 231 0 Stage 1 211 ----- Stage 2 350 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 489 829 - - 1337 - Stage 1 824 ----- Stage 2 713 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 481 829 - - 1337 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 481 ----- Stage 1 824 ----- Stage 2 702 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 619 1337 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.138 0.017 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.7 7.7 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 - E-8 146 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX F Individual Pipeline Peak Hour Forecasts 147 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure F-1Village at Middletown Trip AssignmentsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 1137/950/00/00/029/7433/6742/860/00/00/00/029/740/042/8612/320/00/00/00/014/29FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/01/22/57/140/04/83/81/20/00/00/00/0 F-1148 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure F-2Seasons of Middletown Trip AssignmentsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 118/260/00/00/06/2018/1223/150/00/00/00/06/200/023/153/90/00/00/00/08/5FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/03/90/00/00/014/4641/278/50/00/00/00/0 F-2149 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure F-3ABy-Right Gas Station Trip Assignments (Primary)Hester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 110/00/05/100/020/160/07/1611/1028/2611/100/00/00/028/262/40/00/00/00/05/4FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/00/02/45/40/015/125/120/00/00/00/00/0 F-3150 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure F-3BBy-Right Gas Station Trip Assignments (Primary)Hester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 110/00/00/00/00/00/00/022/1215/815/80/0-15/-822/12-22/-120/00/00/00/00/00/0FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/0F-4151 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX G Future Conditions without Development Levels of Service and Queues (2025) 152 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 13.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 245 121 0 0 134 109 156 1 42 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 245 121 0 0 134 109 156 1 42 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 266 132 0 0 146 118 170 1 46 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 264 0 - - - 0 869 928 132 Stage 1 ------664664- Stage 2 ------205264- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1300 - 0 0 - - 322 268 917 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 512 458 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 829 690 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1300 -----2510917 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2510- Stage 1 ------3990- Stage 2 ------8290- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 5.7 0 43.8 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)297 1300 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.728 0.205 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 43.8 8.5 0 - - HCM Lane LOS E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.3 0.8 - - - G-1 153 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 321 177 32 261 0000292223 Future Vol, veh/h 0 321 177 32 261 0000292223 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 349 192 35 284 0000322242 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 541 0 0 799 895 284 Stage 1 ------ 354354- Stage 2 ------ 445541- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1028 - 0 355 280 755 Stage 1 0 ----0 710630- Stage 2 0 ----0 646521- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1028 - -341 0 755 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3410- Stage 1 ------ 7100- Stage 2 ------ 6200- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 14.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1028 - 662 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.034 - 0.417 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 0 14.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 2.1 G-2 154 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 129 0 208 0 147 160 119 81 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 129 0 208 0 147 160 119 81 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 140 0 226 0 160 174 129 88 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 706 680 88 593 593 247 88 0 0 334 0 0 Stage 1 346 346 - 247 247 ------- Stage 2 360 334 - 346 346 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 351 373 970 417 418 792 1508 - - 1225 - - Stage 1 670 635 - 757 702 ------- Stage 2 658 643 - 670 635 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 231 334 970 383 374 792 1508 - - 1225 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 231 334 - 383 374 ------- Stage 1 670 568 - 757 702 ------- Stage 2 470 643 - 599 568 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 14.6 0 4.9 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1508 - - - 383 792 1225 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----0.366 0.285 0.106 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 19.7 11.4 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.6 1.2 0.4 - - G-3 155 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 61 164 65 68 161 Future Vol, veh/h 50 61 164 65 68 161 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 54 66 178 71 74 175 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 501 178 0 0 249 0 Stage 1 178 ----- Stage 2 323 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 530 865 - - 1317 - Stage 1 853 ----- Stage 2 734 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 500 865 - - 1317 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 500 ----- Stage 1 853 ----- Stage 2 693 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 2.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 651 1317 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.185 0.056 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.8 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.2 - G-4 156 Queues 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 398 264 217 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.22 0.65 Control Delay 6.8 4.6 34.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.8 4.6 34.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 28 86 Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 69 141 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 805 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 790 1176 523 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.22 0.41 Intersection Summary G-5 157 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 245 121 0 0 134 109 156 1 42 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 245 121 0 0 134 109 156 1 42 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 266 132 0 0 146 118 170 1 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 619 292 0 0 654 528 214 1 58 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 789 428 0 0 957 774 1360 8 368 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 398 000026421700 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1216 00001731 1736 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.78 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 911 00001182 273 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 911 00001182 509 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 30.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 35.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 398 264 217 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 4.9 35.7 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 57.2 57.2 17.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.0 41.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 6.3 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 1.5 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.0 HCM 6th LOS B G-6 158 Queues 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 541 319 276 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.26 0.68 Control Delay 5.4 5.4 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.4 5.4 15.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 13 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 162 148 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1298 1237 668 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.26 0.41 Intersection Summary G-7 159 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 321 177 32 261 0000292223 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 321 177 32 261 0000292223 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 349 192 35 284 0 32 2 242 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 720 396 132 1017 0 38 2 289 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1134 624 124 1602 0 186 12 1409 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 541 319 0 0 276 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1758 1726 0 0 1607 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.35 0.11 0.00 0.12 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1116 1149 0 0 330 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.48 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1116 1149 0 0 493 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 541 319 276 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.7 0.6 36.4 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.6 21.4 53.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 23.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 14.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 1.1 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2 HCM 6th LOS B G-8 160 Queues 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 226 334 129 88 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.28 0.60 0.23 0.07 Control Delay 24.1 2.6 18.5 7.2 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.1 2.6 18.5 7.2 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 0 68 16 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 97 31 163 44 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 1328 4435 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 824 1200 1293 892 1828 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.19 0.26 0.14 0.05 Intersection Summary G-9 161 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM (IMPR) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 129 0 208 0 147 160 119 81 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 129 0 208 0 147 160 119 81 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 140 0 226 0 160 174 129 88 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 366 0 451 0 458 0 226 246 445 962 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 819 891 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 140 0 226 0 0 334 129 88 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 0 1710 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 7.3 1.9 1.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 7.3 1.9 1.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.52 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 366 0 451 0 458 0 0 472 445 962 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.29 0.09 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1175 0 1065 0 1144 0 0 1488 1140 2803 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 13.5 8.8 5.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 9.1 5.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABABAABAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 366 334 217 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 13.9 15.5 7.5 Approach LOS B B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 17.4 14.1 27.3 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 26.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 9.3 0.0 3.0 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.5 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9 HCM 6th LOS B G-10 162 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 20.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 236 194 0 0 165 83 193 5 44 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 236 194 0 0 165 83 193 5 44 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 243 200 0 0 170 86 199 5 45 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 256 0 - - - 0 899 942 200 Stage 1 ------686686- Stage 2 ------213256- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1303 - 0 0 - - 308 262 838 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 498 446 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 820 694 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1303 -----2430838 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2430- Stage 1 ------3930- Stage 2 ------8200- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 0 69.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)280 1303 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.891 0.187 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 69.2 8.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8 0.7 - - - G-11 163 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 368 187 30 328 0000620322 Future Vol, veh/h 0 368 187 30 328 0000620322 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 383 195 31 342 0000650335 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 578 0 0 885 982 342 Stage 1 ------ 404404- Stage 2 ------ 481578- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 991 - 0 314 248 698 Stage 1 0 ----0 672597- Stage 2 0 ----0 620500- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 991 - -302 0 698 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3020- Stage 1 ------ 6720- Stage 2 ------ 5960- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 24.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 991 - 576 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.032 - 0.694 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.8 0 24.2 HCM Lane LOS - - A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 5.5 G-12 164 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 13.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 214 1 154 0 123 183 151 233 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 214 1 154 0 123 183 151 233 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 1 0 1 221 1 159 0 127 189 156 240 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 854 868 240 775 774 222 240 0 0 316 0 0 Stage 1 552 552 - 222 222 ------- Stage 2 302 316 - 553 552 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 278 289 796 314 328 815 1309 - - 1227 - - Stage 1 516 513 - 778 718 ------- Stage 2 705 653 - 516 513 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 202 252 796 283 286 815 1309 - - 1227 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 202 252 - 283 286 ------- Stage 1 516 448 - 778 718 ------- Stage 2 567 653 - 450 448 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 34.6 0 3.3 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1309 - - 322 283 815 1227 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.006 0.783 0.195 0.127 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 16.3 51.8 10.5 8.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 6.1 0.7 0.4 - - G-13 165 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 41 234 18 20 328 Future Vol, veh/h 36 41 234 18 20 328 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 40 46 260 20 22 364 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 668 260 0 0 280 0 Stage 1 260 ----- Stage 2 408 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 423 779 - - 1283 - Stage 1 783 ----- Stage 2 671 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 416 779 - - 1283 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 416 ----- Stage 1 783 ----- Stage 2 660 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 0 0.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 553 1283 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.155 0.017 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.7 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 - G-14 166 Queues 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 443 256 249 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.22 0.74 Control Delay 6.2 4.9 40.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.2 4.9 40.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 32 102 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 63 174 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 805 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 834 1169 391 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.22 0.64 Intersection Summary G-15 167 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 236 194 0 0 165 83 193 5 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 236 194 0 0 165 83 193 5 44 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 243 200 0 0 170 86 199 5 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %330033333 Cap, veh/h 530 416 0 0 777 393 237 6 54 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 682 623 0 0 1162 588 1383 35 313 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 443 000025624900 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1305 00001750 1730 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 10.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 10.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.80 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 947 00001169 297 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.84 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 947 00001169 381 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 30.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 42.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 443 256 249 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 5.3 42.4 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 56.1 56.1 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 46.5 16.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 6.3 12.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 1.5 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3 HCM 6th LOS B G-16 168 Queues 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 578 373 400 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.31 0.77 Control Delay 7.3 7.7 16.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.3 7.7 16.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 79 95 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 225 224 99 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1239 1199 729 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.31 0.55 Intersection Summary G-17 169 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 368 187 30 328 0000620322 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 368 187 30 328 0000620322 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 383 195 31 342 0 65 0 335 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %033330 333 Cap, veh/h 0 652 332 96 945 0 72 0 372 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1159 590 78 1680 0 260 0 1341 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 578 373 0 0 400 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1749 1758 0 0 1601 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.84 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 984 1042 0 0 444 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.59 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 984 1042 0 0 491 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.96 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 44.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AABAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 578 373 400 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 0.9 44.6 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.2 26.8 48.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 23.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.2 20.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.7 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.1 HCM 6th LOS B G-18 170 Queues 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 222 159 316 156 240 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.63 0.18 0.66 0.33 0.26 Control Delay 0.0 28.5 2.2 22.2 10.2 9.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 28.5 2.2 22.2 10.2 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 64 0 66 25 40 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 155 24 174 68 101 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 1910 1328 4435 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 767 637 1201 1122 716 1722 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.28 0.22 0.14 Intersection Summary G-19 171 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM (IMPR) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 154 0 123 183 151 233 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 154 0 123 183 151 233 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 221 1 159 0 127 189 156 240 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 169 37 87 465 1 537 0 175 260 416 896 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 205 148 353 1248 6 1572 0 663 986 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 222 0 159 0 0 316 156 240 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 706 0 0 1254 0 1572 0 0 1648 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 2.7 3.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 2.7 3.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 292 0 0 467 0 537 0 0 435 416 896 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.38 0.27 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 736 0 0 921 0 1045 0 0 1300 1013 2481 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 10.2 6.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 17.6 10.8 7.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BAABABAABBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 381 316 396 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.4 14.4 17.6 8.5 Approach LOS BBBA Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 18.1 17.3 28.4 17.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 26.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 10.0 9.9 5.5 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.1 0.0 1.6 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2 HCM 6th LOS B G-20 172 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX H Future Conditions with Development Levels of Service and Queues (2025) 173 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 162.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 286 135 0 0 173 118 392 1 46 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 291 0 - - - 0 939 998 135 Stage 1 ------707707- Stage 2 ------232291- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1271 - 0 0 - - ~ 293 244 914 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 489 438 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 807 672 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1271 -----~ 2220914 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 2220- Stage 1 ------~ 3700- Stage 2 ------8070- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 5.9 0 $ 420.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)241 1271 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.822 0.225 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) $ 420.5 8.7 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 30.2 0.9 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon H-1 174 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 342 206 32 491 0000292351 Future Vol, veh/h 0 342 206 32 491 0000292351 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 372 224 35 534 0000322382 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 596 0 0 1088 1200 534 Stage 1 ------ 604604- Stage 2 ------ 484596- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 980 - 0 239 185 546 Stage 1 0 ----0 546488- Stage 2 0 ----0 620492- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 980 - -227 0 546 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2270- Stage 1 ------ 5460- Stage 2 ------ 5880- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 40.3 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 980 - 493 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - 0.842 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.8 0 40.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 8.5 H-2 175 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 18.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 129 0 567 0 223 160 169 91 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 129 0 567 0 223 160 169 91 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 140 0 616 0 242 174 184 99 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1104 883 99 796 796 329 99 0 0 416 0 0 Stage 1 467 467 - 329 329 ------- Stage 2 637 416 - 467 467 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 188 285 957 305 320 712 1494 - - 1143 - - Stage 1 576 562 - 684 646 ------- Stage 2 465 592 - 576 562 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 22 239 957 267 268 712 1494 - - 1143 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 22 239 - 267 268 ------- Stage 1 576 472 - 684 646 ------- Stage 2 62 592 - 483 472 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 33.3 0 5.7 HCM LOS A D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1494 - - - 267 712 1143 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----0.525 0.866 0.161 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 32.5 33.5 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A D D A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 2.8 10.4 0.6 - - H-3 176 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 61 590 65 68 218 Future Vol, veh/h 50 61 590 65 68 218 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 54 66 641 71 74 237 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1026 641 0 0 712 0 Stage 1 641 ----- Stage 2 385 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 260 475 - - 888 - Stage 1 525 ----- Stage 2 688 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 238 475 - - 888 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 238 ----- Stage 1 525 ----- Stage 2 631 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 22.2 0 2.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 328 888 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.368 0.083 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.2 9.4 - HCM Lane LOS - - C A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.6 0.3 - H-4 177 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 5: Valley Pike & Site Driveway 1 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 3 406 256 25 255 Future Vol, veh/h 36 3 406 256 25 255 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 39 3 441 278 27 277 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 772 441 0 0 719 0 Stage 1 441 ----- Stage 2 331 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 368 616 - - 882 - Stage 1 648 ----- Stage 2 728 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 357 616 - - 882 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 471 ----- Stage 1 648 ----- Stage 2 705 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 0.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 480 882 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.088 0.031 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.2 9.2 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 - H-5 178 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM 6: Valley Pike & SIte Driveway 2 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 7 230 179 51 256 Future Vol, veh/h 24 7 230 179 51 256 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25252 Mvmt Flow 26 8 250 195 55 278 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 638 250 0 0 445 0 Stage 1 250 ----- Stage 2 388 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.15 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.245 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 441 789 - - 1099 - Stage 1 792 ----- Stage 2 686 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 419 789 - - 1099 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 513 ----- Stage 1 792 ----- Stage 2 652 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0 1.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 557 1099 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.06 0.05 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.9 8.4 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.2 - H-6 179 Queues 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 421 291 439 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.29 0.89 Control Delay 11.1 7.5 46.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.1 7.5 46.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 131 49 187 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 91 #344 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 805 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 653 1019 521 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.29 0.84 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. H-7 180 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 135 0 0 173 118 392 1 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 489 216 0 0 585 399 432 1 51 Arrive On Green 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 722 382 0 0 1036 707 1570 4 184 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 421 000029143900 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1104 00001743 1759 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 18.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 18.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.89 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 705 000098548400 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 705 000098551600 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 26.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 19.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 45.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 421 291 439 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.2 9.3 45.4 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.4 48.4 26.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.0 41.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.9 8.5 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 1.7 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.6 HCM 6th LOS C H-8 181 Queues 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 596 569 416 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.48 0.79 Control Delay 8.7 11.6 19.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.7 11.6 19.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 220 51 Queue Length 95th (ft) 254 m335 125 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1199 1175 704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.48 0.59 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. H-9 182 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 342 206 32 491 0000292351 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 342 206 32 491 0000292351 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 372 224 35 534 0 32 2 382 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 606 365 84 962 0 35 2 420 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1093 658 59 1736 0 123 8 1469 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 596 569 0 0 416 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1752 1795 0 0 1600 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.38 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.92 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 971 1046 0 0 457 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.61 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 971 1046 0 0 491 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.95 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 14.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 46.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AABAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 596 569 416 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.0 2.0 46.1 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.6 27.4 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 23.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.2 20.8 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.7 0.6 3.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 6th LOS B H-10 183 Queues 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 616 416 184 99 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.66 0.66 0.33 0.08 Control Delay 28.9 7.4 21.9 7.6 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.9 7.4 21.9 7.6 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 29 111 25 13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 139 246 63 37 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 1328 4435 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 728 1182 1187 834 1746 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.52 0.35 0.22 0.06 Intersection Summary H-11 184 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future AM (Impr) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 129 0 567 0 223 160 169 91 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 129 0 567 0 223 160 169 91 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 140 0 616 0 242 174 184 99 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 679 0 615 0 731 0 291 209 337 878 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.47 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 1012 728 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 140 0 616 0 0 416 184 99 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 0 1739 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.8 2.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.8 2.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.42 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 679 0 615 0 731 0 0 500 337 878 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.55 0.11 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 679 0 615 0 731 0 0 874 659 1619 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 16.5 10.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.9 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 25.8 0.0 0.0 27.6 17.9 10.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 756 416 283 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 24.1 27.6 15.4 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 26.6 32.0 39.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 26.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 18.0 0.0 4.1 26.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 6th LOS C H-12 185 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 37 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 277 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 277 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 286 208 0 0 171 86 210 5 45 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 257 0 - - - 0 994 1037 208 Stage 1 ------780780- Stage 2 ------214257- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1302 - 0 0 - - 271 230 830 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 450 404 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 819 693 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1302 -----~ 2040830 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 2040- Stage 1 ------3380- Stage 2 ------8190- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 134.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)236 1302 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.105 0.219 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 134.2 8.5 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 11.6 0.8 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon H-13 186 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Future Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 434 263 31 354 0000650344 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 697 0 0 982 1113 354 Stage 1 ------ 416416- Stage 2 ------ 566697- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 895 - 0 275 208 688 Stage 1 0 ----0 664590- Stage 2 0 ----0 566441- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 895 - -263 0 688 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2630- Stage 1 ------ 6640- Stage 2 ------ 5420- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 28.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 895 - 548 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - 0.745 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 0 28.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 6.4 H-14 187 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 42 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 1 0 1 221 1 178 0 130 189 274 265 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1127 1132 265 1039 1038 225 265 0 0 319 0 0 Stage 1 813 813 - 225 225 ------- Stage 2 314 319 - 814 813 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 181 202 771 ~ 208 230 812 1282 - - 1224 - - Stage 1 371 390 - 775 716 ------- Stage 2 695 651 - 370 390 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 116 157 771 ~ 172 178 812 1282 - - 1224 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 116 157 - ~ 172 178 ------- Stage 1 371 303 - 775 716 ------- Stage 2 542 651 - 287 303 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 23 126 0 4.5 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1282 - - 202 172 812 1224 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.01 1.289 0.22 0.224 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 23 218.8 10.7 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 12.7 0.8 0.9 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon H-15 188 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 4: Valley Pike & Mustang Ln 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 41 252 18 20 457 Future Vol, veh/h 36 41 252 18 20 457 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 282 303 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 40 46 280 20 22 508 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 832 280 0 0 300 0 Stage 1 280 ----- Stage 2 552 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 339 759 - - 1261 - Stage 1 767 ----- Stage 2 577 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 333 759 - - 1261 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 333 ----- Stage 1 767 ----- Stage 2 567 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 0 0.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 475 1261 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.18 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.2 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 - H-16 189 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 5: Valley Pike & Site Driveway 1 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 8 286 13 1 406 Future Vol, veh/h 81 8 286 13 1 406 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 90 9 318 14 1 451 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 771 318 0 0 332 0 Stage 1 318 ----- Stage 2 453 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 368 723 - - 1227 - Stage 1 738 ----- Stage 2 640 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 368 723 - - 1227 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 479 ----- Stage 1 738 ----- Stage 2 639 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.1 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 494 1227 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.2 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.1 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0 - H-17 190 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM 6: Valley Pike & SIte Driveway 2 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 16 284 10 2 350 Future Vol, veh/h 57 16 284 10 2 350 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 62 17 309 11 2 380 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 693 309 0 0 320 0 Stage 1 309 ----- Stage 2 384 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 409 731 - - 1240 - Stage 1 745 ----- Stage 2 688 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 408 731 - - 1240 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 512 ----- Stage 1 745 ----- Stage 2 687 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 548 1240 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.145 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.7 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0 - H-18 191 Queues 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 494 257 260 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.22 0.75 Control Delay 7.1 4.9 41.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.1 4.9 41.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 33 107 Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 64 #189 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 805 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 814 1161 391 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.22 0.66 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. H-19 192 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 277 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 277 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 208 0 0 171 86 210 5 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %330033333 Cap, veh/h 544 377 0 0 771 388 248 6 53 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 707 569 0 0 1164 586 1399 33 300 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 494 000025726000 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1276 00001750 1732 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.81 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 921 00001159 308 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.85 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 921 00001159 381 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 13.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 43.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 494 257 260 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.0 5.5 43.3 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.7 55.7 19.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 46.5 16.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 6.4 12.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 1.5 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5 HCM 6th LOS B H-20 193 Queues 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 697 385 409 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.33 0.77 Control Delay 8.8 8.0 16.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.8 8.0 16.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 108 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 307 233 99 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1910 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1234 1183 735 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.33 0.56 Intersection Summary H-21 194 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 434 262 31 354 0 65 0 344 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %033330 333 Cap, veh/h 0 605 365 87 868 0 72 0 380 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1084 654 63 1555 0 254 0 1346 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 696 385 0 0 409 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1738 1617 0 0 1601 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 22.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 22.1 24.5 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.38 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.84 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 970 954 0 0 451 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.72 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 970 954 0 0 491 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.84 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 16.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 45.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AABAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 696 385 409 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.1 1.5 45.5 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.9 27.1 47.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 23.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.1 20.5 26.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 0.7 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4 HCM 6th LOS C H-22 195 Queues 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 222 178 319 274 265 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.65 0.19 0.68 0.52 0.27 Control Delay 0.0 31.9 2.0 24.7 12.3 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 31.9 2.0 24.7 12.3 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 71 0 75 48 46 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 173 26 194 118 112 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 1910 1328 4435 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 725 593 1149 1052 696 1666 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.37 0.15 0.30 0.39 0.16 Intersection Summary H-23 196 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future PM (Impr) 3: Reliance Rd & Main St 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 221 1 178 0 130 189 274 265 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 144 32 75 431 1 641 0 172 249 477 947 0 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 168 123 292 1154 5 1572 0 672 978 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 222 0 178 0 0 319 274 265 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 583 0 0 1159 0 1572 0 0 1650 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 5.5 4.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 5.5 4.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 251 0 0 432 0 641 0 0 421 477 947 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.57 0.28 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 565 0 0 757 0 1004 0 0 1114 867 2123 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 18.3 11.5 7.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.9 1.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.4 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 21.2 12.6 7.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS BAABABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 400 319 539 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.4 15.6 21.2 10.0 Approach LOS B B C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 19.6 19.7 33.7 19.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 26.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 11.5 12.3 6.4 12.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.1 0.0 1.7 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6 HCM 6th LOS B H-24 197 HCM 6th TWSC Total Future (1-Driveway) AM 5: Valley Pike & Site Driveway 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 10 227 434 76 231 Future Vol, veh/h 60 10 227 434 76 231 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 65 11 247 472 83 251 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 664 247 0 0 719 0 Stage 1 247 ----- Stage 2 417 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 426 792 - - 882 - Stage 1 794 ----- Stage 2 665 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 386 792 - - 882 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 481 ----- Stage 1 794 ----- Stage 2 602 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 2.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 510 882 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.149 0.094 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3 9.5 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.3 - H-25 198 HCM 6th TWSC Total Future (1 Driveway) PM 5: Valley Pike & Site Driveway 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 138 24 276 23 3 349 Future Vol, veh/h 138 24 276 23 3 349 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - 200 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25225 Mvmt Flow 153 27 307 26 3 388 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 701 307 0 0 333 0 Stage 1 307 ----- Stage 2 394 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 405 733 - - 1226 - Stage 1 746 ----- Stage 2 681 ----- Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 404 733 - - 1226 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 508 ----- Stage 1 746 ----- Stage 2 680 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 532 1226 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.338 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.2 7.9 - HCM Lane LOS - - C A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.5 0 - H-26 199 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX I Turn Lane Warrant Analysis 200 Table I-1a Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia AM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant South Site Driveway/Village Drive AM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >25 vph Throughs >255 vph Percent left turns=8.93% Rights >0 vph Total > 280 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >662 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 262 vph A left turn lane is warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-1 201 Table I-1b Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia PM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant South Site Driveway/Village Drive PM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >1 vph Throughs >406 vph Percent left turns=0% Rights >0 vph Total > 407 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >299 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 491 vph A left turn lane is not warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-2 202 Table I-2a Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia AM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant North Site Driveway/Village Drive AM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >51 vph Throughs >256 vph Percent left turns=16.61% Rights >0 vph Total > 307 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >409 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 265 vph A left turn lane is warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-3 203 Table I-2b Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia PM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant North Site Driveway/Village Drive PM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >2 vph Throughs >350 vph Percent left turns=1% Rights >0 vph Total > 352 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >294 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 494 vph A left turn lane is not warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-4 204 Table I-3c Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia AM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant Main Site Driveway/Village Drive AM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >76 vph Throughs >231 vph Percent left turns=24.76% Rights >0 vph Total > 307 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >661 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 173 vph A left turn lane is warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-5 205 Table I-3c Hester Property Frederick County, Virginia PM Peak Hour Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left Turn Lane Warrant Main Site Driveway/Village Drive PM Peak Hour (Southbound Left)Site Buildout 1. Enter operating speed of 40, 50, or 60 mph >50 mph 2. Enter advancing volumes Lefts >3 vph Throughs >349 vph Percent left turns=1% Rights >0 vph Total > 352 vph 3. Enter opposing volume >299 vph The maximum allowable advancing volume => 491 vph A left turn lane is not warranted. Table 9-23 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 2018. (AASHTO) Advancing Volume/Hour Opposing 5% 10% 20% 30% Volume Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns Left Turns 40-mph Operating Speed (60 km/h) 800 330 240 180 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-mph Operating Speed (80 km/h) 800 280 210 165 135 600 350 260 195 170 400 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-mph Operating Speed (100 km/h) 800 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 Wells + Associates, Inc. Tysons, Virginia I-6 206 2025 TF AM (662, 256) 2025 TF PM (299, 13) Northbound Route 11 at South Site Driveway Source: VDOT Road Design Manual Page F‐72 ‐Figure 3‐26. I-7 207 2025 TF AM (409, 179) 2025 TF PM (294, 10) Northbound Route 11 at North Site Driveway Source: VDOT Road Design Manual Page F‐72 ‐Figure 3‐26. I-8 208 2025 TF AM (661, 434) 2025 TF PM (299, 23) Northbound Route 11 at Main Site Driveway Source: VDOT Road Design Manual Page F‐72 ‐Figure 3‐26. I-9 209 I-81 AT RELIANCE ROAD OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA February 9, 2023 Revised November 14, 2023 210 www.WellsAndAssociates.com @WellsAssoc @WellsandAssociates Wells + Associates I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report Frederick County, Virginia February 9, 2023 Revised Through November 14, 2023 Prepared for: Hester Trust Property Middletown, LLC Prepared by: Wells + Associates Michael J. Workosky, PTP, TOPS, TSOS John F. Cavan, P.E., PTOE (703) 917-6620 211 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report Novemebr 14, 2023 I-81 at Reliance Road - Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) We the undersigned concur with the suggested level of information contained in this OSAR document: District Location and Design Engineer Date District Traffic Engineer Date District Environmental Manager Date Asst. State Location and Date Design Engineer State Location and Design Engineer Date FHWA Area Engineer Date 212 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________________ 1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................... 1 Report Summary ..................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________ 3 Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3 METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________ 6 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 6 Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 7 Section 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS _________________________________________________________ 9 Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................................... 9 Interchanges ......................................................................................................................... 10 Alternative Travel Modes ...................................................................................................... 10 Existing Traffic Data and Operational Performance .............................................................. 10 Existing Safety Data ............................................................................................................... 12 Section 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ___________________________________________________ 17 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 17 No Build Alternative (2022 and 2047) ................................................................................... 17 Build Alternative (2022 and 2047) ......................................................................................... 17 Section 6 DESCRIPTION AND CONFIGURATION ____________________________________________ 22 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 22 Section 7 ROADWAY GEOMETRY ________________________________________________________ 25 Existing (No Build) ................................................................................................................. 25 Proposed (Build) .................................................................................................................... 25 213 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 PAGE Section 8 FORECASTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS ________________________________ 26 Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2047) Traffic Forecasting ......................................... 26 Opening Year (2025) Traffic Operations ................................................................................ 27 Design Year (2047) Traffic Operations ................................................................................... 29 Funding Source and Developer Contribution ....................................................................... 31 Section 9 SAFETY ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________ 44 Safety Impact Comparison .................................................................................................... 44 Section 10 CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________________ 46 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 46 214 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 2-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 5 3-1 Limits of Study Area .................................................................................................... 8 4-1 Existing Lane Use and Traffic Control ........................................................................ 13 4-2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 14 5-1 Future No Build Conditions Lane Use and Traffic Control ......................................... 19 5-2 Future Build Conditions Lane Use and Traffic Control (Alternative A) ....................... 20 5-3 Future Build Conditions Lane Use and Traffic Control (Alternative B) ....................... 21 6-1 Existing Interchange Layout....................................................................................... 23 6-2 Potential Interchange Geometric Improvements ...................................................... 24 8-1 Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts ..................................................... 32 8-2 Design Year (2047) Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts ........................................................ 33 8-3 Opening Year (2025) No Build Conditions Traffic Operations .................................... 34 8-4 Design Year (2047) No Build Conditions Traffic Operations (Alternative A) .............. 35 8-5 Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions Traffic Operations (Alternative A) ................. 36 8-6 Design Year (2047) Build Conditions Traffic Operations (Alternative A) .................... 37 8-7 Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions Traffic Operations (Alternative B) ................. 38 8-8 Design Year (2047) Build Conditions Traffic Operations (Alternative B) .................... 39 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 4-1 Existing (2022) Conditions Levels of Service Summary .............................................. 15 4-2 Summary Queuing Summary ..................................................................................... 16 8-1 Opening Year (2025) Conditions Levels of Service Summary ..................................... 38 8-2 Opening Year (2025) Conditions Queuing Summary ................................................. 39 8-3 Design Year (2047) Conditions Levels of Service Summary ....................................... 40 8-4 Design Year (2047) Conditions Queuing Summary .................................................... 41 9-1 Predicted Crash Analysis Summary ........................................................................... 45 215 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A Framework Document B Existing Traffic Count Data C Existing Intersection Levels of Service and Queues (2022) D VDOT Crash Data E Traffic Forecasts F Opening Year Conditions Levels of Service and Queues (2025) G Design Year Conditions Levels of Service and Queues (2047) H HSM Safety Analysis Worksheets 216 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Study Wells + Associates prepared an Operational and Safety Analysis Report for proposed improvements at the I-81 interchange at Reliance Road. These improvements are being assessed as part of the Hester Trust Property rezoning application. The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. The off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under Stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with no turn lanes provided at the interchange. This report has been updated based on comments provided by VDOT dated October 12, 2023 regarding the previously submitted study dated September 15, 2023. All comments have been incorporated into this updated report. The Applicant, Middletown, LLC, has submitted an application to rezone a property along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane (Tax Map #84-A-78) to provide a total of 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses. As part of the rezoning process for the Hester Trust Property the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022 was prepared. The results of the study indicated that signalization of the Interstate 81 northbound and southbound ramp junctions with Reliance Road was recommended to accommodate future traffic conditions, with or without the development of the Hester Trust Property. The results further showed that signalization of these intersections would reduce vehicular delays and queuing, and had previously been recommended by other area traffic studies. As an alternative, the potential to provide an exclusive right turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp approach that would allow the western interchange intersection to remain unsignalized while still maintaining acceptable levels of service was evaluated. Any potential contributions made by the developer to fund the mitigation measures identified in this study will be determined during the rezoning process and in coordination with VDOT and Frederick County staff. The proportion of the application’s impact on the potential improvements is discussed in greater detail later in this report. Therefore, in order to assess the impact to interchange operations under both current stop controlled and signalized conditions an Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was requested by VDOT staff. In addition, the intersection of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road is proposed to be signalized by others in conjunction with the Hester Trust Property rezoning and has been included in the study. It is noted that Signal Justification Reports (SJR’s) have be submitted for the I-81/Reliance Road 1 217 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 interchange Ramps intersections and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection under separate cover. These reports indicate that the installation of a traffic signal is both warranted and justified at I-81/NB Ramps intersection, but is not warranted at the I-81/SB Ramps intersection assuming a separate southbound right turn lane is provided. . Warrants for signalization are met at the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11/Reliance Road intersection that is planned to be constructed by others. Report Summary Traffic operations were evaluated for Baseline (2022), No-Build conditions (2025 and 2047), and the Build alternative (2025 and 2047) consistent with the procedures prescribed in the VDOT Instructional and Informational Memorandum (IIM-LD-200.11) “Development of Justification for Additional or Revised Access Points; Creation of Interchange Access Reports (IAR) and Operational and Safety Analysis Reports (OSAR)”. The operational analysis provided herein focuses on the I-81 NB and SB ramps to/from Reliance Road as well as operations along the Reliance Road corridor in the vicinity of the interchange. The comparison of the No-Build to the Build Option includes an evaluation of measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) specific to each roadway facility type as summarized below:  Vehicular delay  Volume-to-Capacity Ratios  Queue Length (Average and 95th Percentile) As agreed with VDOT, Synchro software (version 11) was used to estimate the above MOE’s, which are included later in this report. Based on the operational analysis provided herein, the installation of traffic signals and turn lanes at the locations noted previously would provide acceptable levels-of-service and reduce vehicular delays and queuing. 2 218 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION Background This Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was prepared in conjunction with the Hester Trust Property rezoning case. The Applicant, Middletown, LLC, proposes to rezone the property to construct approximately 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses in Frederick County, Virginia. The new development is proposed to be constructed along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane (Tax Map #84-A-78). The subject site consists of approximately 101.25 total acres. A total of 77 acres is proposed to be developed with a total of 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses. A portion of the site (approximately 17.25 acres) will be reserved for future public use and regional stormwater management immediately to the west of Middletown Elementary School. Site access is proposed to be provided via two (2) full- movement driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). No direct access to Mustang Lane is proposed for industrial uses. The site location is shown on Figure 2-1. Based on the previously prepared traffic impact study, signalization of the I-81 Off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road was recommended with or without the site development. The interchange is located at Mile Marker 302 on I-81. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. This OSAR assesses the impacts of signalization on operations at the I-81 ramps and the Reliance Road corridor. In addition, an alternative was assessed that evaluated the potential construction of an exclusive right turn on the I-81 SB Ramp approach while maintaining the existing Stop-control at the intersection. Purpose and Need The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. The off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with a recently approved speed limit resolution of 35 mph. Separate turn lanes are not provided at the interchange ramp intersections. As part of the rezoning process for the Hester Trust Property the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022 was prepared. Based on the results of the study, signalization of the following intersections was recommended to accommodate future traffic conditions with or without the site development: 1. I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road 2. I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road Signalization of these above intersections would reduce vehicular delays and queuing. These improvements had previously been recommended by other area traffic studies. In order to 3 219 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 assess the impact to interchange operations, an Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was requested by VDOT staff. In addition, the intersection of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road is proposed to be signalized by others in conjunction with the rezoning and has been included in the study. Based on discussions with VDOT staff, an alternative condition was assessed that assumed the construction of an exclusive right turn on the I-81 SB Ramp approach while maintaining the existing Stop-control at the intersection. Signalization of the I-81 NB Ramp intersection on Reliance Road as assumed under this alternative scenario. Project Location As shown in Figure 2-1, the interchange of I-81 at Reliance Road is located at Mile Marker 302 and is approximately 2,200 feet east of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). The nearest interchange to the north on I-81 is at Fairfax Street (Route 277) approximately 4.7 miles from the subject interchange. The I-81 and I-66 interchange is located approximately 1.9 miles to the south. 4 220 SITEVA L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANEINTERSTATE8111INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE6611INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADSUBJECTINTERCHANGENORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-1Project LocationI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia5221 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY Overview The methodology used in the preparation of this OSAR analysis was coordinated with VDOT and is summarized in the approved Framework Document provided herein as Appendix A. The sections below summarize the methodology employed as agreed to with VDOT. Analysis Periods. Based on discussions with VDOT and as noted in the scoping document, this OSAR analysis included the following scenarios  2022 Existing Conditions  2025 Opening Year No-Build Conditions  2025 Opening Year Build Conditions  2047 Design Year No-Build Conditions  2047 Design Year Build Conditions This study evaluates the subject intersections under weekday AM (6:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM – 7:00 PM) peak hour traffic conditions. Traffic Forecasting Methodology. Traffic forecasts were prepared based on methodologies provided in the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022. A 1.0 percent annual growth rate was applied to movements along Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), Reliance Road, and the I-81 Ramps, consistent with the original traffic study to account for the growth between the existing year (2022) and the opening year (2025). For the regional growth between the opening year (2025) and the design year (2047), a 0.5 percent annual growth rate was applied. In addition, traffic from the following pipeline projects was included in the future traffic forecasts:  Village at Middletown  Seasons of Middletown  By-Right Gas Station For analysis purposes, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 11th Edition, Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) was used to estimate the traffic expected to be generated by the Hester Trust Property development. Trip distributions are consistent with the previously prepared traffic impact study. Traffic Operational Analysis. Capacity analysis was performed for the study intersections using Synchro version 11 software and the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodologies. Results include vehicular delays, volume-to-capacity ratios, and queueing. The goals of the capacity analysis are to maintain at level-of-service “D”, volume-to-capacity ratios below 1.0, and 6 222 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 queues lengths within the available off-ramp storage area. Study parameters were based on guidance included in VDOT’s Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (“TOSAM”), version 2.0. Safety Analysis. VDOT crash data from 2018-2022 was reviewed for the subject intersections. The crash analysis includes crash type, severity, direction, and potential contributing factors at each intersection. In addition, crash modification factors were reviewed for the proposed treatments to forecast the anticipated future crash rates. Study Area In coordination with VDOT, this OSAR includes an operational analysis within the study limits. Figure 3-1 shows the study area boundary and key intersections in the project area under consideration for the traffic and operational analysis. The study area includes the following intersections on Reliance Road: 1. Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road 2. Birmingham Drive/Reliance Road 3. Carolyn Avenue/Reliance Road 4. I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road 5. I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road 6. N. Buckton Road/Reliance Road 7. By-Right Gas Station Driveway/Reliance Road The improvements would be limited to the signalization of the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. Therefore, freeway operations on I-81 are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed improvements. 7 223 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 3-1Limits of Study AreaI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaXStudy Intersection8224 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Roadway Network A description of the major roadways within the immediate vicinity of the project is presented below. The existing lane configuration and traffic controls in the study area are shown on Figure 4-1. Interstate 81 is a four-lane divided Interstate highway with a posted speed limit of 70 mph in the vicinity of the Reliance Road interchange. A full-movement interchange is provided at Reliance Road via a diamond configuration with both ramp terminals operating under stop sign control. In the project vicinity, the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on the I-81 are 55,000 vehicles per day (vpd) as reported by VDOT in 2021. The I-81 NB on-ramp at Reliance Road carries 2,700 vpd while the I-81 NB off-ramp carries 1,600 vpd. The I-81 SB on-ramp at Reliance Road carries 1,600 vpd while the I-81 SB off-ramp carries 2,900 vpd. Reliance Road (Route 627) is classified as a Major Collector that provides east-west access to the area with connections to Interstate 81 via a grade-separated interchange. It generally provides a single travel lane in each direction with stop-controlled intersections at the interchange ramps and Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). According to 2021 VDOT data, the roadway carried an AADT of 2,100 vpd Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) is a two-lane roadway that runs parallel to Interstate 81 along its west side and provides access to the Town of Middletown and the site area to the north. It is classified as a Major Collector and has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph) in the vicinity of the site. “School” pavement markings with an advisory sign are located on Valley Pike approximately 675 feet south and 1,000 feet north of the Mustang Drive intersection. Separate turn lanes are provided at the Reliance Road intersection that currently operates under stop control. According to 2021 VDOT data, the roadway carried an AADT of 5,600 vpd. Carolyn Avenue (Route 1611) is a two-lane undivided local street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Its intersection with Reliance Road operates under Stop-control. According to 2021 VDOT data, the roadway carried an AADT of 1,600 vpd. North Buckton Road (Route 842) is a two-lane undivided local street. Its intersection with Reliance Road operates under Stop-control. According to 2021 VDOT data, the roadway carried an AADT of 420 vpd. Birmingham Drive (NIS) is a two-lane undivided local street currently under construction that will serve the Village at Middletown development. 9 225 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 Interchanges The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. The off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway. Separate turn lanes are not provided at the interchange ramp intersections. A diamond interchange is provided 4.7 miles to the north along I-81 at Fairfax Street (Route 277). The I-81 and I-66 directional interchange is located approximately 1.9 miles to the south. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. The improvements would be limited to the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps. Therefore, freeway operations on I-81 are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed improvements. Alternative Travel Modes Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not present at the interchange and therefore are not included in the analysis. Public transit service is not currently provided in the area. Existing Traffic Data and Operational Performance Traffic Volumes. Turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022 and Thursday, January 12, and used to establish existing 2022 baseline conditions. The counts were collected at the following intersections:  Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road  Carolyn Avenue/Reliance Road  I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road  I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road  N. Buckton Road/Reliance Road. The existing peak hour traffic volumes for the intersections contained within the study area are summarized on Figure 4-2 and shown in Appendix B. Peak hour link volumes on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) north of Mustang Lane were compared to year 2017 VDOT data and summarized below: Peak Hour Link Traffic Volumes - Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) North of Mustang Lane AM Peak Hour (8:15 to 9:15) PM Peak Hour (4:00 to 5:00) 2022 Count Data 402 526 2017 VDOT Data 380 473 Percent Difference 5.8% 11.2% 10 226 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 As shown above, the recently conducted counts appear to be slightly higher than published VDOT count data. Therefore, no further adjustments were made to baseline traffic volumes to account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Operational Analysis. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the existing conditions at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology. Existing peak hour factors (by approach) acquired from the traffic counts (in the range of 0.85 to 0.92) were used in the analysis. Consistent with the previously prepared traffic impact study, a five (5.0) percent heavy vehicle factor was applied to Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and a three (3.0) percent heavy vehicle factor was applied to Reliance Road for this study. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS) and delay (seconds per vehicle) per lane group and are presented in Table 4-1. The queuing analysis results are summarized in Table 4-2. The detailed analysis worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix C. The results indicate that all of the turning movements at the study intersections that are stop controlled currently operate at acceptable Level-of-Service (LOS) “C” and with delays of 25 seconds per vehicle or less. Volume-to-capacity ratios at lane group are below 0.50. Queuing at Stop-controlled approaches is approximately three (3) vehicle lengths or less. 11 227 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 Existing Safety Data VDOT crash data for the previous five years (January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022) was reviewed for the study area along Reliance Road. The data indicated that 21 crashes occurred during this period, resulting in seven (7) injuries and no fatalities. A copy of the crash data is included in Appendix D. The crash data was reviewed in detail at the subject intersections at the I-81 and Reliance Road interchange and summarized below: I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road Intersection. Five (5) crashes occurred at this intersection within the five-year period resulting in two (2) injuries and no fatalities. Two (2) of the crashes were classified as “Rear End”, two (2) as “Angle”, and one (1) as “Head On”. Further upstream on the I-81 NB Ramp, six (6) crashes occurred within the five-year period resulting in two (2) injuries and no fatalities. Four (4) crashes were classified as “Fixed Object – Off Road”, one (1) as “Rear End”, and one (1) as “Other”. I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road Intersection. Four (4) crashes occurred at this intersection within the five-year period resulting in one (1) injury and no fatalities. All four (4) of the crashes were classified as “Angle”. Further upstream on the I-81 SB Ramp, one (1) crash occurred within the five-year period resulting in no injuries or fatalities. This crash was classified as “Fixed Object – Off Road”. 12 228 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-1Existing Lane Use an Traffic ControlI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADFUTUREINTERSECTIONSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPFUTUREINTERSECTION13229 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-2Existing Peak Hour Traffic VolumesI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADFUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTIONAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/075/215112/138190/1320/193/144108/132134/1130/00/10/00/1173/1952/023/50200/21218/19122/105242/24474/5988/12716/251/5132/10469/151196/1436/50/00/10/3112/1263/70/50/023/217/2476/1413/8272/24522/6465/597/108/18199/24714230 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 4‐1 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Existing (2022) Conditions Levels of Service Summary1 LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c 1.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 NBL A 0.0 0.000 A 0.0 0.000 EBLTR A 0.0 0.000 B 14.5 0.005 WBL C 16.2 0.242 C 24.8 0.456 WBR B 10.8 0.251 B 10.0 0.159 SBL A 8.1 0.096 A 8.1 0.110 2.Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL EBT SBL SBR 3.Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 10.3 0.104 B 11.4 0.123 WBL A 7.7 0.180 A 8.1 0.059 WBT A 0.0 0.000 A 0.0 0.000 4.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road WBL A 8.2 0.017 A 8.1 0.017 SBLTR B 11.6 0.282 B 12.9 0.359 5.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road NBLTR C 23.8 0.483 C 16.5 0.307 EBL A 8.1 0.167 A 7.9 0.107 6.Buckton Road/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 10.2 0.036 B 11.1 0.050 EBL A 7.5 0.002 A 7.6 0.007 EBT A 0.0 0.000 A 0.0 0.000 WBL A 7.4 0.002 A 7.6 0.006 WBT A 0.0 0.000 A 0.0 0.000 SBLTR A 8.9 0.007 A 9.4 0.009 7.Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EB WB SB 1. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th methodology, using Synchro 11 unless otherwise noted. Approach/  Lane Group Existing (2022) Conditions Future Intersection Future Intersection Notes: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 15 231 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 4‐2 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Existing (2022) Conditions Queuing Summary 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 1.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 EBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 WBL ‐‐23 ‐58 WBR 240 ‐25 ‐15 SBL 285 ‐8 ‐10 2.Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL 520 EBT 520 SBLR ‐ SBR ‐ 3.Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLR ‐‐8 ‐10 WBL 200 ‐3 ‐5 WBT 200 ‐‐‐‐ 4.I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL 550 ‐3 ‐3 SBLTR 850 ‐30 ‐40 5.I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR 750 ‐63 ‐33 EBL 550 ‐15 ‐10 6.Buckton Road/Reliance Road NBLTR ‐‐3 ‐5 EBL ‐‐0 ‐0 EBT ‐‐‐‐‐ WBL ‐00 WBT ‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR ‐‐0 ‐0 7.Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EBLT ‐ WBTR ‐ NBLTR ‐ Notes:   1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, using Synchro 11. 2."~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 3."#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 4."m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Future Intersection Future Intersection Approach/  Lane Group Storage  Length (ft) Existing (2022) Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 16 232 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Overview This section of the report provides a detailed description of the future lane use and traffic controls associated with the No Build (existing stop-controlled conditions) and Build (signalized conditions) alternatives used to analyze the 2025 and 2047 future conditions. Figures 5-1 and 5- 2 depict the intersection lane use and traffic controls associated with the No Build and Build scenarios, respectively. As previously discussed, the need for signalization of the I-81/Reliance Road on and off ramps was identified in the Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Analysis and other area traffic studies. The potential signalization proposed at these locations was recommended with or without the site development. Any potential contributions made by the developer to fund the mitigation measures identified in this study will be determined during the rezoning process and in coordination with VDOT and Frederick County staff. The proportion of the application’s impact on the potential improvements is discussed in greater detail later in this report. No Build Alternative (2022 and 2047) Under the No Build alternative, no improvements to the subject interchange ramp terminuses would be implemented and the existing stop-control would remain in its current operation. It is noted that the Birmingham Drive/Reliance Road and the By-Right Gas Station Driveway/Reliance Road intersections would be constructed as part of the pipeline developments assumed in this analysis. In addition, consistent with the Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study and other area traffic studies, a traffic signal to be installed by others was assumed at the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection. Figure 5-1 depicts the lane use and traffic controls associated with the No Build alternative. Build Alternative (2022 and 2047) Under Build Alternative A, new traffic signals, as recommended in the Hester Trust traffic study under conditions with or without the site development, were assumed to be installed at the I-81 NB and SB Ramps intersections with Reliance Road. However, no additional changes to the existing lane use were assumed. Figure 5-2 depicts the lane use and traffic controls associated with the Build Alternative A. In addition, Build Alternative B was assessed that assumed the construction of a new exclusive 17 233 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 right turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp approach at Reliance Road while maintaining the existing Stop-control. The intersection of Reliance Road and the I-81 NB Ramp would be signalized under this alternative. Figure 5-3 depicts the lane use and traffic controls associated with the Build Alternative B. It is noted that Signal Justification Reports (SJR’s) have been submitted for both ramp intersections under a separate cover for the potential traffic signals outlined above. 18 234 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 5-1Future No Build Conditions Lane Use an Traffic ControlI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP19235 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 5-2Future Build Conditions Lane Use an Traffic Control(Alternative A)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP20236 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 5-3Future Build Conditions Lane Use an Traffic Control(Alternative B)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP21237 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 6 DESCRIPTION AND CONFIGURATION Overview The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. The off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with a recently approved speed limit resolution of 35 mph. Separate turn lanes are not provided at the interchange ramp intersections. A diamond interchange is provided 4.7 miles to the north along I-81 at Fairfax Street (Route 277). The I-81 and I-66 directional interchange is located approximately 1.9 miles to the south. The potential interchange improvements would be limited to the installation of traffic signals at the I-81 Ramp intersections with Reliance Road and/or the addition of a right turn lane on the I- 81 SB Ramp. There are no additional lanes proposed on Reliance Road or the I-81 NB Ramp as part of these improvements. In addition, no change in access on I-81 is proposed. Since the improvements would be limited to the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps, freeway operations on I-81 are not anticipated to be affected by the potential improvements. The existing interchange configuration is shown on Figure 6-1. An exhibit showing the potential right turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp is shown on Figure 6-2 that provides a 200-foot full-width turn lane with a 100-foot taper. Further the Limited-Access-Line has been identified on the exhibit. As shown in Figure 6-2, the proposed improvements at the I-81 and Reliance Road interchange are not anticipated to impact the existing Limited-Access-Line. 22 238 STOPSTOP 8 0 0 ' t o D i v e r g e P o i n t 8 5 0 ' t o D i v e r g e P o i n t545' Centerline-to-CenterlineNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-1Existing Interchange LayoutI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia23239 NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-2Potential Interchange Geometric ImprovementsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia24240 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 7 ROADWAY GEOMETRY Existing (No Build) The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. Under No Build condition, the off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway and separate turn lanes are not provided at the interchange ramp intersections. Interstate-81 currently provides two lanes in each direction. Proposed (Build) The existing lane use and roadway geometry at the interchange would be maintained under Alternative A. No new turn lanes were recommended as part of the Hester Trust Property traffic study. However, the study identified the need for new traffic signals to be installed at the I-81 Ramp intersections with Reliance Road under future conditions with or without the site development and were assumed for Build Conditions. Under Alternative B, a traffic signal would be provided at the intersection of Reliance Road and the I-81 NB Ramps. An exclusive right turn lane would be added to the I-81 SB Ramp while maintaining the existing Stop-control. No other geometric improvements are proposed. 25 241 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 8 FORECASTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2047) Traffic Forecasting As outlined in the Framework document, traffic forecasts were prepared based on methodologies assumed in the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022. Specifically, the 2025 and 2047 future traffic forecasts are based on a composite of existing traffic volumes, regional growth, pipeline development traffic, and site generated traffic. A summary of the forecasting methodologies is outlined below, and individual forecasting layers are included in Appendix E. Existing Traffic Counts. Turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022 and Thursday, January 12, and used to establish existing 2022 baseline conditions. As noted earlier, a comparison with previously collected VDOT link data indicated that no further adjustments were required to account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regional Growth. A 1.0 percent growth rate was applied to movements along Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), Reliance Road, and the I-81 Ramps, consistent with the original traffic study to account for the growth between the existing year (2022) and the opening year (2025). For the regional growth between the opening year (2025) and the design year (2047), a 0.5 percent annual growth rate was applied. Pipeline Developments. Traffic volumes associated with the following three (3) nearby pipeline developments were assumed in the future traffic forecasts:  Village at Middletown. An additional 86 single family dwelling units, 22 multifamily dwelling units and 58,600 S.F. of retail uses are approved north of Reliance Road and east of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)  Seasons of Middletown. A total of 92 single family dwelling units are proposed on the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) south of Reliance Road  By-Right Gas Station. A by-right gas station with convenience store is proposed on the northeast quadrant of the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection. For purposes of this analysis, eight fueling positions were assumed, consistent with nearby gas stations. These developments were identified and assumed in the TIS forecasts, and the trip distributions are consistent with traffic study. Site Generated Traffic. The number of AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the Hester Property proposed development program were estimated based on the ITE Trip 26 242 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 Generation Manual, 11th Edition trip rates and equations. ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) was used to prepare the analysis. The proposed development program (848,000 S.F.) is estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. Consistent with the traffic study the estimated new peak trips were distributed onto the surrounding road network based on the following distributions: Passenger Vehicles Trucks To/From the North on I-81: 25% 40% To/From the South on I-81: 40% 60% To/From the North on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the South on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the East on Reliance Road: 5% 0% Total: 100% 100% Combining the existing traffic volumes, regional growth, pipeline developments, and the anticipated new site trips generated by the Hester Trust Property, Opening Year (2025) and Design Year forecasts were prepared and are shown on Figures 8-1 and 8-2, respectively. Opening Year (2025) Traffic Operations Traffic operations for Opening Year (2025) conditions were analyzed based on the 2025 forecasts shown on Figure 8-1 and the lane use and traffic controls shown on Figures 5-1 and 5-2 for No-Build and Build conditions, respectively. Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology, consistent with the analyses for existing conditions. The capacity analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS), delay (seconds per vehicle), and volume- to-capacity (v/c) per lane group and are presented in Tables 8-1. The projected queuing is shown in Table 8-2. Traffic analysis worksheets are included in Appendix F and the results are summarized below: 2025 No-Build Conditions The analysis of Opening Year (2025) No Build Conditions indicates: 1. The northbound approach of the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the AM and PM peak hours with volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios above 1.0. 2. The southbound approach of the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would 27 243 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 approach capacity (LOS “E”) during the AM peak hour with a v/c ratio of 0.87. During the PM peak hour the approach would operate at LOS “D” with a v/c ratio of 0.75. 3. The Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate at overall LOS “C” or better assuming the installation of a traffic signal. All lane groups would operate at LOS “D” or better with v/c ratios 0.84 or less. 4. All other turning movements at stop-controlled locations would operate at LOS “D” or better with the exception of the southbound left-turn movement from Birmingham Drive onto Reliance Road during the PM peak hour. The v/c ratios for these movements is projected to be 0.61 or less. 5. The northbound queue on the I-81 Ramp at Reliance Road would extend back to the diverge point on the freeway during the AM peak hour. 6. The westbound queue on Reliance Road at Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) would extend beyond the existing right turn lane during the AM and PM peak hours. 2025 Build Conditions The analysis of Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions indicates: 1. Under Alternative A, assuming the recommended installation of new traffic signals at the I-81 ramp intersections to Reliance Road, both intersections would operate at overall level-of-service “C” or better with all lane groups operating at LOS “D” or better. Volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratios would be 0.85 or less for all lane groups. 2. Under Alternative B, assuming the construction of a southbound right turn lane on the I- 81 SB Ramp at Reliance Road, the Stop controlled approaches would operate at LOS “D” or better with a v/c ratio of 0.70 or less. 3. The Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate at overall LOS “C” or better assuming the installation of a traffic signal as proffered by others. All lane groups would operate at LOS “D” or better with v/c ratios 0.84 or less. 4. All other turning movements at Stop-controlled locations would operate consistent to No- Build conditions. 5. Projected queues on the I-81 ramps would be 358 feet or less and can be accommodated on the ramps without impacting freeway operations. 28 244 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 6. Projected queuing on Reliance Road between the two interchange intersections could be accommodated on the existing bridge between the intersections. 7. Available storage at other study intersections could accommodate projected queuing. Design Year (2047) Traffic Operations Traffic operations for Design Year (2047) conditions were analyzed based on the 2047 forecasts shown on Figure 8-2 and the lane use and traffic controls shown on Figures 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 for No-Build, Build (Alternative A), and Build (Alternative B) conditions, respectively. Synchro, version 11 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) methodology, consistent with the analyses for opening year (2025) conditions. The capacity analyses are expressed in level of service (LOS), delay (seconds per vehicle), and volume-to-capacity (v/c) per lane group and are presented in Tables 8-3. The projected queuing is shown in Table 8-4. Traffic analysis worksheets are included in Appendix G and the results are summarized below: 2047 No-Build Conditions The analysis of Design Year (2047) No Build Conditions indicates: 1. The northbound approach of the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the AM and PM peak hours with volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios above 1.0. 2. The southbound approach of the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity (LOS “F”) during the AM peak hour with a v/c ratio of 0.97. During the PM peak hour the approach would operate at LOS “E” with a v/c ratio of 0.85. 3. The Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate at overall LOS “C” or better assuming the installation of a traffic signal. All lane groups would operate at LOS “C” or better with v/c ratios 0.9 or less with the exception of the eastbound approach which serves minimal volume. 29 245 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 4. All other turning movements at stop-controlled locations would operate at LOS “D” or better with the exception of the southbound left-turn movement from Birmingham Drive onto Reliance Road during the PM peak hour. The v/c ratios for these movements is projected to be 0.67 or less. 5. The northbound queue on the I-81 Ramp at Reliance Road would extend beyond the diverge point on the freeway during the AM peak hour. 6. The westbound queue on Reliance Road at Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) would extend beyond the existing right turn lane during the AM and PM peak hours. 2047 Build Conditions The analysis of Design Year (2047) Build Conditions indicates: 1. Under Alternative A, assuming the recommended installation of new traffic signals at the I-81 ramp intersections to Reliance Road, both intersections would operate at overall level-of-service “C” or better with all lane groups operating at LOS “D” or better. Volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratios would be 0.87 or less for all lane groups. 2. Under Alternative B, assuming the construction of a southbound right turn lane on the I- 81 SB Ramp at Reliance Road, the Stop controlled approaches would operate at LOS “D” or better with a v/c ratio of 0.76 or less. 3. The Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection would operate at overall LOS “C” or better assuming the installation of a traffic signal. All lane groups would operate at LOS “C” or better with v/c ratios 0.9 or less with the exception of the eastbound approach which serves minimal volume. 4. All other turning movements at Stop-controlled locations would operate consistent to No- Build conditions. 5. Projected queues on the I-81 ramps would be 380 feet or less and can be accommodated on the ramps without impacting freeway operations. 6. Projected queuing on Reliance Road between the two interchange signals could be accommodated on the existing bridge between the intersections. 7. Available storage at other study intersections could accommodate projected queuing. 30 246 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 Traffic operations for No Build Conditions are shown graphically on Figures 8-3 and 8-4 for Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2047) conditions, respectively. Traffic operations for Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2047) Build Conditions is shown graphically on Figures 8-5 and 8-6, respectively for Alternative A. Traffic operations under Alternative B for Opening Year (2025) and Design Year (2047) Build Conditions is shown graphically on Figures 8-7 and 8-8. Funding Source and Developer Contribution As discussed previously, the Hester Trust Property traffic impact study identified the need for new traffic signals at the I-81 ramp intersections with Reliance Road. These signalization improvements were found to be necessary with or without the Hester Trust Property site development. In order to determine impact of the Hester Trust Property development on the need for improvements, the percentage of total traffic associated with the development was calculated and summarized below. Site Development Traffic Opening Year (2025) Traffic Percent Site Traffic AM PM Total AM PM Total AM PM Total I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Road 251 62 313 1,059 982 2,041 23.7% 6.3% 15.3% I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Road 408 134 542 1,464 1,431 2,895 27.9% 9.4% 18.7% Total of Both Intersections 656 196 855 2,523 2,413 4,936 26.0% 8.1% 17.3% As shown above, the development of the Hester Trust Property site would account for approximately 17 percent of total interchange traffic. The signalization and geometric improvements identified for the northbound and southbound ramp junctions are not currently funded. Any potential contributions made by the developer to fund the mitigation measures identified in this study will be determined during the rezoning process and in coordination with VDOT and Frederick County staff. In addition, while future large scale I-81 improvement projects may provide additional capacity improvements at the Reliance Road interchange, the installation of new traffic signals and/or turn lanes would provide mitigation for interim conditions. 31 247 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-1Opening Year (2025) Peak Hour Traffic ForecastsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/091/257171/266566/1730/1127/214168/183223/1260/00/10/00/1351/3302/035/62488/34030/30206/252352/417109/83159/16642/441/5361/204124/202263/27845/350/00/10/3177/1573/70/50/023/217/24121/17939/38736/50222/6465/597/108/18387/56511/2274/15366/169677/344321/4415/1455/4214/1922/20125/12275/14550/4132248 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-2Design Year (2047) Peak Hour Traffic ForecastsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/0100/283184/282589/1890/1138/231181/199239/1390/00/10/00/1372/3532/038/68512/36532/32221/265381/446118/90170/18144/471/6377/216132/220286/29546/360/00/10/3190/1723/80/60/026/238/27130/19639/39768/53125/7173/668/119/20411/59411/2274/15366/169710/375346/4745/1455/4214/1922/20139/13884/16250/4133249 STOPSTOP LOS E/DLOS F/F23' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)7 5 5 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 2 3 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 5 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )3' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-3Opening Year (2025) No Build Conditions Traffic OperationsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia34250 STOPSTOP LOS F/ELOS F/F25' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)9 0 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 3 0 3 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 5 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )3' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-4Design Year (2047) No Build Conditions Traffic OperationsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia35251 LOS B/BLOS C/B314' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)3 5 8 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 1 8 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 5 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )399' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-5Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions Traffic Operations(Alternative A)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia36252 LOS B/CLOS C/B384' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)3 8 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 2 1 3 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 5 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )445' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-6Design Year (2047) Build Conditions Traffic Operations(Alternative A)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia37253 STOP LOS D/CLOS C/B309' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)3 5 8 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 1 3 5 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 2 0 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )3' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-7Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions Traffic Operations(Alternative B)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia38254 STOP LOS D/DLOS C/B378' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)3 8 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 8 0 0 'A v a i l a b l e ) 1 7 0 ' 9 5 t h P e r c e n t i l e Q u e u e ( 2 0 0 ' A v a i l a b l e )3' 95th Percentile Queue(500' Available)NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.1108 OSAR GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 8-8Design Year (2047) Build Conditions Traffic Operations(Alternative B)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia39255 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 8‐1 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Opening Year (2025) Conditions Levels of Service Summary1 LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c 1. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 EB A 0.0 0.000 D 54.7 0.314 A 0.0 0.000 D 54.7 0.314 A 0.0 0.000 D 54.7 0.314 WBT B 16.4 0.216 C 25.2 0.701 B 16.4 0.216 C 25.2 0.701 B 16.4 0.216 C 25.2 0.701 WBR C 26.3 0.844 B 14.9 0.339 C 26.3 0.844 B 14.9 0.339 C 26.3 0.844 B 14.9 0.339 NB C 27.8 0.837 C 23.4 0.774 C 27.8 0.837 C 23.4 0.774 C 27.8 0.837 C 23.4 0.774 SBL B 18.6 0.547 B 14.7 0.589 B 18.6 0.547 B 14.7 0.589 B 18.6 0.547 B 14.7 0.589 SBT B 10.6 0.111 B 8.4 0.286 B 10.6 0.111 B 8.4 0.286 B 10.6 0.111 B 8.4 0.286 Overall C 23.8 ‐B 17.5 ‐C 23.8 ‐B 17.5 ‐C 23.8 ‐B 17.5 ‐ 2. Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL A 9.5 0.007 A 8.6 0.015 A 9.5 0.007 A 8.6 0.015 A 9.5 0.007 A 8.6 0.015 EBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ SBL D 30.2 0.362 E 37.0 0.611 D 30.2 0.362 E 37.0 0.611 D 30.2 0.362 E 37.0 0.611 SBR B 14.3 0.030 B 11.3 0.040 B 14.3 0.030 B 11.3 0.040 B 14.3 0.030 B 11.3 0.040 3. Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 13.5 0.156 C 17.1 0.202 B 13.5 0.156 C 17.1 0.202 B 13.5 0.156 C 17.1 0.202 WBL A 8.3 0.021 A 9.1 0.074 A 8.3 0.021 A 9.1 0.074 A 8.3 0.021 A 9.1 0.074 WBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ 4. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL A 8.8 0.034 A 9.2 0.035 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR E 44.1 0.868 D 28.3 0.745 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 5.1 0.440 B 8.3 0.550 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ WBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐A 5.8 0.420 A 7.9 0.320 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐D 43.4 0.460 D 48.0 0.710 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Overall ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 15.5 ‐B 19.1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Southbound Right Turn Lane ‐ Unsignalized WBL ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐A 8.8 0.034 A 9.2 0.035 SBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐C 24.2 0.117 C 23.1 0.246 SBR ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐D 25.2 0.695 C 15.3 0.500 5. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR F 420.5 1.822 F 137.7 1.115 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ EBL A 8.7 0.225 A 8.5 0.220 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 11.4 0.630 A 4.2 0.580 A 15.2 0.630 A 9.3 0.580 WBTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 10.6 0.270 A 6.3 0.210 A 10.6 0.270 A 6.3 0.210 NBLTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐D 46.6 0.850 D 45.3 0.730 D 46.6 0.850 D 45.3 0.730 Overall ‐‐‐‐‐‐C 24.6 ‐B 15.3 ‐C 26.0 ‐B 17.8 ‐ 6. Buckton Road/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 12.9 0.052 B 12.8 0.058 B 12.9 0.052 B 12.8 0.058 B 12.9 0.052 B 12.8 0.058 EBL A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.030 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.030 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.030 EBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ WBL A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.006 A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.006 A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.006 WBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ SBLTR A 9.5 0.058 A 9.5 0.046 A 9.5 0.058 A 9.5 0.046 A 9.5 0.058 A 9.5 0.046 7. Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EB A 8.2 0.164 A 8.6 0.241 A 8.2 0.164 A 8.6 0.241 A 8.2 0.164 A 8.6 0.241 WB A 8.1 0.185 A 8.1 0.180 A 8.1 0.185 A 8.1 0.180 A 8.1 0.185 A 8.1 0.180 SB A 7.6 0.087 A 7.8 0.080 A 7.6 0.087 A 7.8 0.080 A 7.6 0.087 A 7.8 0.080 1. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and 2000 methodology, using Synchro 11. Approach/  Lane Group Opening Year (2025) No Build Conditions PM Peak Hour Notes: AM Peak Hour Opening Year (2025)  Build Conditions (Alternative B) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Opening Year (2025)  Build Conditions (Alternative A) PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour 40 256 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 8‐2 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Opening Year (2025) Conditions Queuing Summary 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 1.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 WBT ‐43 112 70 212 43 112 70 212 43 112 70 212 WBR 240670035670035670035 NBT ‐115 238 79 248 115 238 79 248 115 238 79 248 SBL ‐25 56 45 154 25 56 45 154 25 56 45 154 SBT 285 12 32 43 147 12 32 43 147 12 32 43 147 2.Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL 520 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 EBT 520 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBL ‐‐40 ‐93 ‐40 ‐93 ‐40 ‐93 SBR ‐‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 3.Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLR ‐‐13 ‐18 ‐13 ‐18 ‐13 ‐18 WBL 200 ‐3 ‐5 ‐3 ‐5 ‐3 ‐5 WBT 200 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL 550 ‐3 ‐3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR 850 ‐230 ‐160 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐86 246 165 378 ‐‐‐‐ WBLT 550 ‐‐‐‐98 399 157 290 ‐‐‐‐ SBLTR 850 ‐‐‐‐26 116 90 180 ‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Southbound Right Turn Lane ‐ Unsignalized WBL 550 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3 ‐3 SBLT 850 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐15 ‐23 SBR 200 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐135 ‐70 5. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR 800 ‐755 ‐293 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ EBL 550 ‐23 ‐20 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT ‐‐‐‐‐169 314 56 83 167 309 147 303 WBTR ‐‐‐‐‐75 136 48 100 75 136 48 100 NBLTR 800 ‐‐‐‐257 358 150 217 257 358 150 217 6. Buckton Road/Reliance Road NBLTR ‐‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 EBL ‐‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 EBT ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ WBL 000000 WBT ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR ‐‐5 ‐3 ‐5 ‐3 ‐5 ‐3 7. Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EBLT ‐‐15 ‐23 ‐15 ‐23 ‐15 ‐23 WBTR ‐‐18 ‐15 ‐18 ‐15 ‐18 ‐15 NBLTR ‐‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 Notes:   1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and 2000 methodology, using Synchro 11. 2. "~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 3. "#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 4. "m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions (Alternative B) AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourApproach/ Lane Group Storage  Length (ft) Opening Year (2025) No Build Conditions Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions (Alternative A) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 41 257 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 8‐3 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Design Year (2047) Conditions Levels of Service Summary1 LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c LOS Delay (s) v/c 1. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 EB A 0.0 0.000 E 56.7 0.314 A 0.0 0.000 E 56.7 0.314 A 0.0 0.000 E 56.7 0.314 WBT B 17.7 0.240 C 26.7 0.724 B 17.7 0.240 C 26.7 0.724 B 17.7 0.240 C 26.7 0.724 WBR C 32.9 0.900 B 15.6 0.360 C 32.9 0.900 B 15.6 0.360 C 32.9 0.900 B 15.6 0.360 NB C 29.5 0.850 C 24.6 0.796 C 29.5 0.850 C 24.6 0.796 C 29.5 0.850 C 24.6 0.796 SBL B 19.0 0.590 B 15.5 0.633 B 19.0 0.590 B 15.5 0.633 B 19.0 0.590 B 15.5 0.633 SBT B 10.3 0.120 A 8.7 0.308 B 10.3 0.120 A 8.7 0.308 B 10.3 0.120 A 8.7 0.308 Overall C 27.1 ‐B 18.4 ‐C 27.1 ‐B 18.4 ‐C 27.1 ‐B 18.4 ‐ 2. Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL A 9.6 0.007 A 8.7 0.016 A 9.6 0.007 A 8.7 0.016 A 9.6 0.007 A 8.7 0.016 EBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ SBL D 33.9 0.396 E 45.2 0.673 D 33.9 0.396 E 45.2 0.673 D 33.9 0.396 E 45.2 0.673 SBR B 14.8 0.032 B 11.6 0.042 B 14.8 0.032 B 11.6 0.042 B 14.8 0.032 B 11.6 0.042 3. Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 14.3 0.186 C 18.7 0.242 B 14.3 0.186 C 18.7 0.242 B 14.3 0.186 C 18.7 0.242 WBL A 8.4 0.025 A 9.3 0.084 A 8.4 0.025 A 9.3 0.084 A 8.4 0.025 A 9.3 0.084 WBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ 4. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL A 9.0 0.037 A 9.3 0.039 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR F 64.6 0.969 E 39.9 0.850 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐A 6.3 0.490 A 10.0 0.600 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ WBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐A 7.2 0.450 A 9.1 0.350 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐D 46.8 0.630 D 50.4 0.770 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Overall ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 17.3 ‐C 20.9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Southbound Right Turn Lane  ‐ Unsignalized WBL ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐A 9.0 0.037 A 9.3 0.039 SBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐D 27.4 0.213 D 26.3 0.296 SBR ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐D 30.4 0.763 C 16.9 0.553 5. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR F 589.8 2.195 F 226.6 1.340 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ EBL A 8.8 0.249 A 8.7 0.238 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 13.9 0.710 A 4.9 0.640 B 18.7 0.710 B 11.0 0.640 WBTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐B 11.2 0.290 A 6.8 0.230 B 11.2 0.290 A 6.8 0.230 NBLTR ‐‐‐‐‐‐D 47.6 0.870 D 45.3 0.750 D 47.6 0.870 D 45.3 0.750 Overall ‐‐‐‐‐‐C 25.8 ‐B 15.7 ‐C 27.6 ‐B 18.6 ‐ 6. Buckton Road/Reliance Rd NBLTR B 13.3 0.061 B 13.3 0.068 B 13.3 0.061 B 13.3 0.068 B 13.3 0.061 B 13.3 0.068 EBL A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.031 A 7.7 0.031 EBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ WBL A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.007 A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.007 A 7.5 0.002 A 7.7 0.007 WBT A 0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐A0.0 ‐ SBLTR A 9.6 0.060 A 9.6 0.048 A 9.6 0.060 A 9.6 0.048 A 9.6 0.060 A 9.6 0.048 7. Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EB A 8.3 0.177 A 8.8 0.265 A 8.3 0.177 A 8.8 0.265 A 8.3 0.177 A 8.8 0.265 WB A 8.2 0.203 A 8.3 0.203 A 8.2 0.203 A 8.3 0.203 A 8.2 0.203 A 8.3 0.203 SB A 7.6 0.088 A 7.9 0.082 A 7.6 0.088 A 7.9 0.082 A 7.6 0.088 A 7.9 0.082 1. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and 2000 methodology, using Synchro 11. Notes: Approach/  Lane Group Design Year (2047) No Build Conditions Design Year (2047)  Build Conditions (Alternative A) Design Year (2047)  Build Conditions (Alternative B) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 42 258 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 8‐4 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐ Operational and Safety Analysis Report  Design Year (2047) Conditions Queuing Summary 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 50th %tile 95th %tile 1.Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 WBT ‐51 128 81 138 51 128 81 238 51 128 81 238 WBR 240 17 108 0 39 17 108 0 39 17 108 0 39 NBT ‐133 273 96 278 133 273 96 278 133 273 96 278 SBL ‐28 62 52 166 28 62 52 166 28 62 52 166 SBT 285 14 36 51 164 14 36 51 164 14 36 51 164 2.Reliance Road/Birmingham Drive EBL 520 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 EBT 520 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBL ‐‐45 ‐108 ‐45 ‐108 ‐45 ‐108 SBR ‐‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 3.Carolyn Ave/Reliance Rd NBLR ‐‐18 ‐23 ‐18 ‐23 ‐18 ‐23 WBL 200 ‐3 ‐8 ‐3 ‐8 ‐3 ‐8 WBT 200 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized WBL 550 ‐3 ‐3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR 850 ‐303 ‐223 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBTR ‐ ‐‐‐‐121 287 206 426 ‐‐‐‐ WBLT 550 ‐‐‐‐285 445 167 313 ‐‐‐‐ SBLTR 850 ‐‐‐‐52 154 115 213 ‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Southbound Right Turn Lane ‐ Unsignalized WBL 550 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3 ‐3 SBLT 850 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐20 ‐30 SBR 200 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐170 ‐85 5. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ Unsignalized NBLTR 800 ‐900 ‐388 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ EBL 550 ‐25 ‐23 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Potential Improvement: Signalization EBLT ‐‐‐‐‐204 #384 63 90 201 #378 174 359 WBTR ‐‐‐‐‐86 148 56 114 86 148 56 114 NBLTR 800 ‐‐‐‐267 #380 160 228 267 #380 160 228 6. Buckton Road/Reliance Road NBLTR ‐‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 EBL ‐‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 EBT ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ WBL 000000 WBT ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SBLTR ‐‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 ‐5 7. Reliance Road/Gas Station Driveway EBLT ‐‐15 ‐25 ‐15 ‐25 ‐15 ‐25 WBTR ‐‐18 ‐20 ‐18 ‐20 ‐18 ‐20 NBLTR ‐‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 ‐8 Notes:   1. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and 2000 methodology, using Synchro 11. 2. "~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 3. "#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 4. "m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Design Year (2047) Build Conditions (Alternative B) AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourApproach/ Lane Group Storage  Length (ft) Design Year (2047) No Build Conditions Design Year (2047) Build Conditions (Alternative A) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 43 259 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 9 SAFETY ANALYSIS Safety Impact Comparison The impacts to safety along to the road network were assessed based on a review of the proposed roadway geometries and the projected traffic operations of the interchange. As mentioned previously, the recommended improvements to the interchange would be limited to the installation of traffic signals. The proposed Build condition lane use would be consistent with No-Build conditions and no new turning movements would be introduced. Therefore, a total of 28 vehicular conflict points would continue to be present under either the No-Build or Build conditions. Because the improvements would be limited to the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps, no changes in access on I-81 would occur. Therefore, there would be any additional merge, diverge, or weaving maneuvers required along I-81. In order to provide a safety comparison of No Build and Build conditions, a predictive crash analysis was performed for Opening Year (2025) conditions using the methodologies presented in Chapter 10 of AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for both I-81 ramp intersections on Reliance Road. The analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H and the results are summarized in Table 9-1. The results indicate that signalization of both intersections would reduce the predicted number of angle crashes. While the number of rear end crashes may increase, these types of crashes tend to be less severe. Therefore, while there is a slight increase in the total number of predicted crashes under Build conditions when compared to No Build conditions, the number of fatal and injury crashes would decrease, indicating that the proposed signalization would reduce the severity of crashes at the subject interchange. Under Build (Alternative B) conditions, the installation of a right turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp would reduce the number of crashes compared to No Build conditions while the number of fatal and injury crashes would be generally consistent with Build (Alternative A) conditions). In addition, the proposed traffic installation would have positive safety impacts to the I-81 ramps. As shown in the operational analysis, queuing in the ramps would be reduced, helping to reduce the potential for rear end crashes. The potential for queuing spillback from the ramps onto the freeway lanes would be reduced, helping to reduce to potential for crashes at the diverge points. 44 260 I‐81 at Reliance Road  Operational and Safety Analysis Report   November 14, 2023  Table 9‐1 I‐81 at Reliance Road ‐Operational and Safety Analysis Report Predicted Crash Analysis Summary (1) Collision Type No Build Build (Alternative A) Build (Alternative B)No Build Build (Alternative A) Build (Alternative B) Collision with animal 0.054 0.012 0.012 0.077 0.016 0.066 Collision with bicycle 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.007 Collision with pedestrian 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.007 Overturned 0.027 0.018 0.018 0.039 0.024 0.033 Ran off road 0.658 0.385 0.385 0.942 0.514 0.810 Other single‐vehicle collision 0.043 0.030 0.030 0.062 0.040 0.053 Total single‐vehicle crashes 0.792 0.457 0.457 1.135 0.610 0.976 Angle collision 2.323 1.649 1.649 3.327 2.201 2.861 Head‐on collision 0.216 0.325 0.325 0.309 0.434 0.266 Rear‐end collision 1.304 2.564 2.564 1.868 3.422 1.606 Sideswipe collision 0.544 0.710 0.710 0.780 0.948 0.670 Other multiple‐vehicle collision 0.210 0.313 0.313 0.301 0.418 0.259 Total multiple‐vehicle crashes 4.598 5.560 5.560 6.584 7.422 5.662 Collision Severity Total 5.390 6.018 6.018 7.719 8.032 6.638 Fatal and Injury (FI)2.323 2.046 2.046 3.327 2.731 2.861 Property Damage Only (PDO)3.067 3.972 3.972 4.392 5.301 3.777 Notes: 1. Based on  the methodologies presented in Chapter 10 of AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual. Predicted Crashes Per Year I‐81 NB Ramps & Reliance Road I‐81 SB Ramps & Reliance Road 45 261 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 SECTION 10 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions The principal findings of this Operational and Safety Analysis Report are as follows: 1. The existing conditions analysis indicates that all study intersections that currently operate under stop sign control, operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios below 0.50. 2. Under Opening Year (2025) No Build conditions the I-81 NB ramp at Reliance Road would operate at LOS “F” with v/c ratios exceeding 1.0 during the AM peak hour. Projected northbound queuing would extend to the I-81 diverge point. The southbound approach of the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity (LOS “E”) during the AM peak hour with a v/c ratio of 0.87. 3. Under Opening Year (2025) Alternative A Build conditions, that assume the recommended installation of new traffic signals at both I-81 ramp intersections to Reliance Road, both interchange intersections would operate at overall level-of-service “C” or better with all lane groups operating at LOS “D” or better. Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios would be 0.85 or less for all lane groups and projected queuing would be accommodated within the available storage. These recommended traffic signals were identified in the Hester Trust Property traffic study as required under future conditions with or without the site development. 4. Under Opening Year (2025) Alternative B conditions for 2025 that assume the installation of a new traffic signal at the I-81 NB ramp intersection and the construction of a right turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp intersection to Reliance Road, the signalized I-81 NB Ramp intersection would operate at overall level-of-service “C” or better with all lane groups operating at LOS “D” or better. The unsignalized I-81 SB Ramp approach would operate at LOS “D” or better. Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios would be 0.85 or less for all lane groups and projected queuing would be accommodated within the available storage. 5. The results of the Design Year (2047) conditions are generally consistent to Opening Year (2025) conditions with increases in vehicular delays, v/c ratios, and queuing. Assuming signalization at the I-81 ramp intersections at Reliance Road (Build Conditions), the intersections would operate at acceptable levels-of-service (Overall LOS “C” or better) with v/c rations under 1.0. Projected queuing could be accommodated within the available storage and would not impact freeway operations. 6. Based on the safety analysis, the proposed signalization improvements would not add any new vehicular conflict points or freeway access points. The installation of traffic signals is anticipated to help reduce the number of angle crashes and reduce the overall severity of projected crashes within the project area. 46 262 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 7. Given that the construction of a southbound right-turn lane on the I-81 SB Ramp would serve the dominant right turning traffic with acceptable levels-of-service and queuing, Alternative B is recommended. In addition, under this alternative, traffic on Reliance Road would not be required to stop at the intersection with the I-81 SB Ramps. 8. The proposed improvements at the I-81 and Reliance Road interchange are not anticipated to impact the existing Limited-Access-Line. 9. The recommended ramp signalization and geometric improvements are not currently funded. Any potential contributions made by the developer to fund the mitigation measures identified in this study will be determined during the rezoning process and in coordination with VDOT and Frederick County staff. O:\Projects\8501-9000\8555 Hester Property\Documents\OSAR\Hester Property OSAR (W+A 11.14.2023).docx 47 263 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX A Framework Document 264 LD-459 Page 1 of 6 (10-26-2020) VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCATION AND DESIGN OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT Date: 4/4/2023 Submission From Middletown, LLC Prepared By Wells + Associates, Inc. Project Information UPC n/a State Project Number n/a District Staunton City/County Frederick County, VA Federal Project Number n/a Project Name Hester Trust Property Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) Need for Access Revision Provide information that addresses the current and projected needs for the facility. Explain why the existing access points and the existing or improved local system is unable to meet the future needs. Brief mention of the history of the area pertinent to the project that has led to the need for the project (example: population growth, recent/future development, land use, etc.), understanding that this will be discussed in more detail in the Access Report. The interchange at I-81 and Reliance Road (Mile Marker 302) is currently designed as a diamond interchange with single-lane approaches. The off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road operate under Stop-control. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with no turn lanes provided at the interchange. The Applicant, Middletown, LLC, has submitted an application to rezone a property along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane (Tax Map #84-A-78) to provide a total of 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses. As part of the rezoning process for the Hester Trust Property the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022 was prepared. Based on the results of the study, signalization of the following intersections was recommended to accommodate background traffic growth and site generated traffic: 1.I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road 2.I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road The existing single lane approaches at the above intersection are proposed to be maintained. Signalization of these above intersections would reduce vehicular delays and queuing. These improvements had previously been recommended by other area traffic studies. In order to assess the impact to interchange operations, an Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was requested by VDOT staff. In addition, the intersection of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road is proposed to be signalized in conjunction with the rezoning. A-1 265 LD-459 Page 2 of 6 (10-26-2020) Project Description and Location Provide information that includes a clear and detailed written description (including all components) of the project scope of work. Include the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project. Include maps and/or aerial photography of the general project area and area of influence. Maps, aerial photos, or conceptual schematic drawings should be to an appropriate scale and show approximate distances between interchanges, major intersections, and other key features. The subject interchange location should be identified by milepost and by relation to adjacent interchanges and major roads in the system. This OSAR is being prepared in association with the Hester Trust Property rezoning case. The Applicant, Middletown, LLC, proposes to rezone the property to construct approximately 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses in Frederick County, Virginia. The new development is proposed to be constructed along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north of Mustang Lane (Tax Map #84-A-78). The subject site consists of approximately 101.25 total acres. A total of 77 acres is proposed to be developed with a total of 848,000 S.F. of general light industrial uses. A portion of the site (approximately 17.25 acres) will be reserved for future public use and regional stormwater management immediately to the west of Middletown Elementary School. Site access is proposed to be provided via two (2) full-movement driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). No direct access to Mustang Lane is proposed for industrial uses. As mentioned above, signalization of the I-81 Off-ramp intersections at Reliance Road was recommended as part of the recently prepared traffic impact study. The interchange is located at Mile Marker 302 on I-81. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. See Figure 1 for the location of the study interchange and the Hester Trust Property site. Operational and Safety Analysis Provide information that supports the operational and safety performance of the existing freeway system and local transportation system, as well as future no build and proposed alternatives that will be analyzed within the study area. It is recommended that the goals and objectives be defined in a manner which relate to the desired and acceptable operational performance of the system. With this approach, a future no-build condition can be established as a base of comparison, and future build alternatives may be assessed with a focus on the goals and objectives of the stakeholders. Please refer to TOSAM for policies and procedures. The purpose of the operational analysis is to determine if the proposed improvements would adequately reduce vehicular delays and limit queuing from spilling back onto mainline I-81. As part of the analysis, the following scenarios will be included: 1. 2022 Existing Conditions 2. 2025 Opening Year No-Build Conditions 3. 2025 Opening Year Build Conditions 4. 2047 Design Year No-Build Conditions 5. 2047 Design Year Build Conditions Capacity analysis will be performed for the study intersections using Synchro version 11 software and the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodologies. Results will include vehicular delays, volume-to-capacity ratios, and queueing. The goals of the capacity analysis would be to maintain level-of-service “D”, volume to capacity ratios below 1.0, and queues lengths within the available off-ramp storage area. VDOT crash data from 2018-2022 will be reviewed for the subject intersections. The crash analysis will include crash type, severity, direction, and potential contributing factors at each intersection. In addition, crash modification factors will be applied for the proposed treatments to forecast the anticipated future crash rates. A-2 266 LD-459 Page 3 of 6 (10-26-2020) Traffic and Safety Analysis Tools Selected and Justification Provide information on which tools are selected for use in the analysis. Please see Traffic Engineering Division’s Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual TOSAM Chapter 3 and Section 9.1.2 – Analysis Tool Consideration for guidance. Note that HCS is the only software that does not have to be calibrated; any modeling software will need to be calibrated (including those based on HCM). The improvements would be limited to the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps. The I-81 off- ramps currently operate under Stop-control at the intersections with Reliance Road. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. Therefore, freeway operations on I-81 are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed improvements. Traffic operations at the I-81 Northbound and Southbound Off-Ramp approaches to Reliance Road will be analyzed with Synchro version 11 using the Highway Capacity Manual reports. Study Area Provide information on the limits of the Study area, which needs to cover the entire Influence Area of the interchange; this must include at least the first adjacent interchange on either side of the proposed change in access. The area of influence along the local roadway network should extend at least to the first adjacent signal in either direction or to the first major intersection. Note, for multilane crossroads this is assumed to be ½ mile, while for 2-lane crossroads it is assumed to be ¼ mile, UNLESS there is justification approved by District Traffic Engineer to define the operational area to be less. For additional guidance please see TOSAM Chapter 2. No change in access on I-81 is proposed. The improvements would be limited to the intersections of Reliance Road and the I-81 On/Off-Ramps. Therefore, the study area (see Attachments IA/IB) would include the following intersections on Reliance Road (see Figure 2): 1. Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road 2. Birmingham Drive/Reliance Road 3. Carolyn Avenue/Reliance Road 4. I-81 Southbound Ramps/Reliance Road 5. I-81 Northbound Ramps/Reliance Road 6. Buckton Road/Reliance Road 7. By-Right Gas Station Driveway/Reliance Road Existing Configuration and Roadway Geometrics Provide information describing the existing configuration, geometry and other design features of existing roadways, interchanges and intersections in the area of influence, including identifying any elements that do not meet current design standards. Please refer to TOSAM Chapter 6 for guidance. The I-81 Northbound and Southbound off-ramps are currently single lane approaches that operate under Stop- control at their intersections with Reliance Road. Reliance Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with no turn lanes provided at the interchange. The existing single lane approaches are proposed to be maintained. Other study intersections along Reliance Road operate under Stop control. It is noted that signalization is recommended at the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersection by the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022. In addition, signalization of the intersection was proffered by the Village at Middletown development. Peak Periods for Analysis Provide information that specifies the time frame during AM, PM and/or any other peak period to be analyzed. The project team should consider varying time periods that will influence system performance for the expected alternatives This study will evaluate the subject intersections under weekday AM (6:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM – 7:00 PM) peak hour traffic conditions. A-3 267 LD-459 Page 4 of 6 (10-26-2020) Proposed Data Collection (including pedestrians, bicycles, and transit) Provide information containing the types of data being collected in accordance with TOSAM Chapter 6 Standard Data Requirements for Analyses. For the purposes of this document and the accompanying Interchange Access Report or Operational and Safety Analysis Report, five (5) years of traffic data and crash history shall be provided. If five years cannot be provided, an explanation is required and approved by District Traffic Engineer. Turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022. The AM and PM peak hour volumes will be analyzed for this analysis. Based on data provided by VDOT and as outlined in the traffic study, no additional traffic adjustments are required to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supplemental traffic counts will be conducted at intersections not previously studied in the original TIA. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not present at the interchange and therefore will not be included in the analysis. The safety analysis will include VDOT crash data for the five-year period from 2018-2022. Opening Year and Design Year Provide information which indicates the facilities opening year and design year in accordance with Road Design Manual Chapter 2A. Consistent with the previously prepared traffic study, year 2025 conditions will be analyzed. In addition, 2047 conditions (buildout + 22 years) will be analyzed. Travel Demand Model and Growth Rates Selected Provide information to explain which travel demand forecasting model and method will be used. This should follow the methodologies set forth in VDOT’s Virginia Travel Demand Modeling Policies and Procedures Manual. If MPO model is not going to be used—explain why. Traffic forecasts will be prepared based on methodologies assumed in the “Hester Trust Property – Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 27, 2022. A 1.0% growth rate will be applied to movements along Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11), Reliance Road, and the I-81 Ramps, consistent with the traffic study to account for the growth between the existing year (2022) and the opening year (2025). For the regional growth between the opening year (2025) and the design year (2047), a 0.5% annual growth rate will be applied. Pipeline projects to be included: • Village at Middletown • Seasons of Middletown • By-Right Gas Station For analysis purposes, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 11th Edition, Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) will be used. Trip distributions will be consistent with the traffic impact study (see Figure 1). Specific Performance Goal of the Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) to Determine Acceptability of Alternatives Based upon the Purpose/Need (as found in the NEPA Document) for the access change list each Measures of Effectiveness (MOE), why selected, and describe what will be the specific performance goal of each of the MOE’s in determining operational acceptability of alternatives. Please see TOSAM Chapter 4 and 9 for MOE’s. (Note that only HCM analysis has a Level-of-Service (LOS) performance standard, so LOS should not be used as a MOE in traffic analysis using modeling programs.) Vehicular delay, volume-to-capacity ratios, and queuing will be reported using Synchro version 11 software and Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodologies. Vehicular delay was selected as a measure-of -effectiveness to assess whether acceptable delays would be maintained for vehicles in the study area. An HCM level-of-service “D” standard was assumed, equating to 35 seconds or less at Stop-controlled approaches and 55 seconds or less at signalized approaches. Volume-to-capacity ratios were selected as a measure-of-effectiveness to assess whether the subject intersections would remain below saturated conditions. A maximum 1.0 v/c threshold was assumed as the goal. A-4 268 LD-459 Page 5 of 6 (10-26-2020) Projected queues (average and 95th percentile) were selected as a measure-of-effectiveness to assess if queue spillback would upstream and downstream locations. The goal for the projected queues was to maintain: x Queuing within existing storage lanes x Queuing at the interchange intersections not to block the adjacent intersections x Queuing at the I-81 off-ramps to be accommodated on the ramp and not extend to the freeway Anticipated Deviations Please list any anticipated Design Exceptions / Design Waivers. Please refer to LD-IIM 227 for guidance. For any deviations from the policies or procedures shown in the TOSAM, please refer to Chapter 9 of the TOSAM for explanation and requirements. Model calibration parameters not conforming to VDOT TOSAM MUST obtain prior approval of VDOT Central Office & FHWA. The need for Design Waivers or Exceptions will be identified in the OSAR Funding Plan Provide the source of funding for the project. Include any pertinent information. Please refer to the following link for additional guidance http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/syip/virginia's_transportation_funding.asp The funding source has not been determined. As part of the rezoning process, the Applicant may proffer to contribute to the interchange ramp improvements. Project Schedule Provide information that defines what the project schedule is proposed to follow. For more information and guidance see the Location and Design Project Management Office website at: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/locdes/project_management_office.asp An Opening Year of 2025 is assumed for the proposed improvements. Any Other Considerations Environmental Considerations: If FHWA approval is required for access change, a NEPA document must be prepared for compliance, regardless of funding type. Based upon the proposed scope of work, preliminary environmental review indicates that the project would likely qualify for a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) provided the following conditions are met. The project would not: • Adversely affect historic properties • Require an Individual water quality permit from the USACE • Adversely affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat, with the exception of a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for a species with a Section 7 programmatic biological opinion • Require a noise analysis (Type I Project) • Cause disproportionately high or adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations including relocations and/or disruptions to community or emergency services • Use property protected by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 or Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 Please note that the project must be properly programmed (i.e. fiscally constrained) in order for the NEPA decision to be issued AND that FHWA/VDOT approval of the access request is conditional until the NEPA decision has been obtained. A-5 269 VALLEY PIK5413CAROLYN AVENUEBIRMINGHAM DRIVE267BUCKTON ROADMAIN STREET (ROUTE 11)RELIANCEROAD INTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 FRAMWORK GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2Limits of Study AreaI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaXStudy IntersectionA-6 270 SITEVALLEY PIKE MAIN STREETMUSTANGLANEINTERSTATE8111INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE6611INTERSTATE81RELIAN C E R O A DSUBJECTINTERCHANGE NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 FRAMWORK GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 1Project LocationI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, VirginiaA-7 271 LD-459 Page 6 of 6 (10-26-2020) The Interchange Access Report Framework Document is a living document: If during the design process information presented in the Framework Document is found to be no longer necessary or if alternate analysis parameters are determined to be more suitable, an updated Framework Document needs to be re-submitted for approval. ANY DEVIATIONS BETWEEN THE RESPONSES IN THE CURRENT PROJECT FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT AND THE FINAL IJR/IMR DOCUMENT MUST BE NOTED AND EXPLAINED IN THE ACCESS CHANGE DOCUMENT We the undersigned concur with the suggested level of information contained in this Framework document. District Location and Design Engineer Date District Traffic Engineer Date District Environmental Manager Date Asst. State Location and Date Design Engineer State Location and Design Engineer Date FHWA Area Engineer Date Ennis John-Allen owt69713 Digitally signed by Ennis John-Allen owt69713 DN: CN=Ennis John-Allen owt69713, OU=VDOT, OU=End-Users, OU=COV-Users, DC=cov, DC=virginia, DC=gov Date: 2023.04.04 13:44:52-04'00' Jordan Elizabeth fha89265 Digitally signed by Jordan Elizabeth fha89265 Date: 2023.04.07 15:01:46 -04'00' Darin Simpson Digitally signed by Darin Simpson Date: 2023.04.11 13:25:14 -04'00' Vernon W Heishman 2023.04.12 12:27:38-04'00' A-8 272 Heishman, Vernon <vernon.heishman@vdot.virginia.gov> RE: OSAR Framework Document for I-81 Exit 302 Development 1 message Clausen, Steven (FHWA) <steven.clausen@dot.gov>Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:20 AM To: "Heishman, Vernon" <vernon.heishman@vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Emmett Heltzel <emmett.heltzel@vdot.virginia.gov>, "Daly, Matthew (FHWA)" <matthew.daly@dot.gov> Morning Butch- I have reviewed the referenced framework document and have no comments at this time nor see this as a significant change to the interchange. However, please let me know if further improvements are proposed during the development of the document to evaluate if they are a significant change. Also, I would like to ensure the proposed traffic signal does not impact the off ramps (i.e. causing backup onto mainline I-81). Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Steven Clausen, PE Area Engineer, FHWA – VA Division Office Phone: (804) 775-3345 Email: Steven.Clausen@dot.gov From: Heishman, Vernon <vernon.heishman@vdot.virginia.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:14 PM To: Clausen, Steven (FHWA) <steven.clausen@dot.gov> Cc: Emmett Heltzel <emmett.heltzel@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: OSAR Framework Document for I-81 Exit 302 Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon Steven! Attached is an OSAR framework document for your review and concurrence. This OSAR is to analyze the safety and operational needs at I-81 Exit 302 associated with rezoning of a property for development in Middletown (Staunton District). The property is located along Rte 11 near the interchange and is proposed for light industrial development. We are currently expecting the proposed improvements to include signalization at the Exit 302 ramp intersections and the Rte 11/Reliance Rd intersection but those improvements are subject to change with the analysis results. Assuming the proposed improvements remain as expected, the project is not likely to include any Limited Access change. As noted in the document, the current OSAR and expected improvements scope would not require a NEPA document unless a FHWA approval/action is needed. If the analysis results in a more significant set of improvements, a NEPA document may be required. If you see any other federal approvals or actions for this project that would require NEPA or feel this is considered a significant change that requires FHWA approval, please let me know. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!A-9 273 Butch Heishman, P.E. Assistant State Location & Design Engineer VDOT Central Office - Location & Design (804) 502-2362 Cell (preferred) (804) 225-4310 Office Vernon.Heishman@vdot.virginia.gov A-10 274 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX A Framework Document 275 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St & Reliance RdCity:MiddletownProject ID:Control:2-Way Stop(EB/WB)Date:NS/EW Streets:Explanation for extra leg movements1100011000010010100NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALMovements entering the extra leg6:00 AM1161700131000011101111000000082 SR2 Movements coming from SB on Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St entering into the Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:15 AM112250011101000010132500000081 WT2 Movements coming from WB on Reliance Rd entering into the Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:30 AM1202200151400012102316000000106 NL2 Movements coming from NB on Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St entering into the Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy)6:45 AM127230118111001210261190000001327:00 AM1162600216000221020135001000132Movements exiting the extra leg7:15 AM02428003118200132024051000000184 E2L2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St heading NB7:30 AM04628003712100132021145000000197 E2T2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg(Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Reliance Rd heading EB7:45 AM22822002716000111021062000000181 E2R2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Valley Pike/US Rte 11/Main St heading SB8:00 AM23319001726000040024232000000159 E2U2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (Showalter Auto Repair Dwy) entering into Reliance Rd heading EB8:15 AM031260016251000100190350000001548:30 AM033180030310001220184360000001758:45 AM232190025250001400132430100001679:00 AM022130019211000230222280001001349:15 AM12513001524200010091200000001119:30 AM025150019211000220133360000001379:45 AM12119001820300010019245000000149NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :134113330133229013001031170296235080111002281APPROACH %'s :1.72% 54.22% 43.93% 0.00% 0.13% 52.28% 45.67% 2.05% 0.00% 0.00% 17.24% 53.45% 29.31% 0.00% 35.75% 2.78% 61.35% 0.00% 0.12% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :07:15 AM38TOTALPEAK HR VOL :413197001127230031150903190000000721PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.712 0.866 0.000 0.000 0.757 0.692 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.688 0.625 0.000 0.938 0.375 0.766 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U211000110000100101000000NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTAL10:00 AM1281900251500005101432000000013110:15 AM1341500222320000201221100000012410:30 AM032900202420022101321700000012410:45 AM2311100493110002101182900000017611:00 AM2312500302660024102011700000016511:15 AM1251200224140014202242700000016511:30 AM2261100273110024302022200000015111:45 AM3252200222340000202542402001015712:00 PM0241700363210031201933010000016912:15 PM0233000283620001102152800000017512:30 PM0321900233810016201812901000017112:45 PM217100118271115330226351110001551:00 PM031250020293001330202170000001541:15 PM131210018250001210204160000001401:30 PM231250024382000420153170000001631:45 PM32821002939200114025623000000182NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :204492920141347832111942310297563622410102502APPROACH %'s :2.62% 58.92% 38.32% 0.00% 0.13% 44.65% 51.68% 3.46% 0.11% 0.11% 20.65% 45.65% 33.70% 0.00% 41.19% 7.77% 50.21% 0.28% 0.55% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :11:45 AM12:00 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :3104880010912980048708313111130010672PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 0.813 0.733 0.000 0.000 0.757 0.849 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.875 0.000 0.830 0.650 0.925 0.250 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.00011000110000100101000000NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTAL2:00 PM430220024362002330201180000201672:15 PM22570018291001320250221000101372:30 PM330220028304001150245250000001782:45 PM32730002441200322023320000100181 6633:00 PM12926002944300452021335110110206 7023:15 PM02423012940601326031425000020197 7623:30 PM03655004753400012026322000000249 8333:45 PM42636014549301124025330000001231 8834:00 PM23125004941300144031131010100225 9024:15 PM63737003042200122027733010010228 9334:30 PM12332003454200054033637000000231 9154:45 PM21927004053200021027429000000206 8905:00 PM23125003459100221037333001000231 8965:15 PM12222003552100452041330010000219 8875:30 PM32122012830200041031220000110167 8235:45 PM11614001740000122035215011110149 7666:00 PM11915111339401332031620001010161 6966:15 PM01525011725200211029214030200139 6166:30 PM11218011632100113033418000220145 5946:45 PM41114021916100153016615011120118 563NL NT NRNU NL2 SL ST SRSU SR2 EL ET EREU WL WT WRWU WT2 E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :41 484 497 1 8 576 805 46 0 3 31 55 52 0 566 68 492 2 9 4 10 14 1 3765APPROACH %'s :3.98% 46.94% 48.21% 0.10% 0.78% 40.28% 56.29% 3.22% 0.00% 0.21% 22.46% 39.86% 37.68% 0.00% 49.78% 5.98% 43.27% 0.18% 0.79% 13.79% 34.48% 48.28% 3.45%PEAK HR :04:15 PM12:00 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :11110121001382087003118012420132011010896PEAK HR FACTOR :0.458 0.743 0.818 0.000 0.000 0.863 0.881 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.550 0.500 0.000 0.838 0.714 0.892 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.00004:15 PM - 05:15 PM0.9700.756 0.929 0.611 0.911PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND11:45 AM - 12:45 PM0.9600.920 0.891 0.528 0.959NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EASTBOUND207:15 AM - 08:15 AM0.9150.784 0.917 0.792 0.852AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND22-260042-0035/3/2022Data - TotalValley Pike/US Rte 11/Main StValley Pike/US Rte 11/Main StReliance RdReliance RdB-1 276 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:Reliance Rd & Carolyn Ave City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(EB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 1100010001000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 116000270020150000061 6:15 AM 026000353010120000077 6:30 AM 625000345000150000085 6:45 AM 3550003030201400000107 7:00 AM 2360004820201600000106 7:15 AM 3590005130301300000132 7:30 AM 1650005330102100000144 7:45 AM 4710004410201800000140 8:00 AM 14 77 0 0 0 51 1 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 157 8:15 AM 637000402010120000098 8:30 AM 4560004950501300000132 8:45 AM 4460003440701100000106 9:00 AM 332000483020110000099 9:15 AM 43700032104040000082 9:30 AM 32500025202070000064 9:45 AM 32500034000080000070 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :61 688 0 0 0 635 38 0 35 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 1660 APPROACH %'s :8.14% 91.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.35% 5.65% 0.00% 14.71% 0.00% 85.29% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:15 AM 38 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :2227200019980706500000573 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.393 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.939 0.667 0.000 0.583 0.000 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1100010001000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 64700034101080000097 10:15 AM 23300031201060000075 10:30 AM 43700035205070000090 10:45 AM 635000493020800000103 11:00 AM 237000421020100000094 11:15 AM 113200028101040000077 11:30 AM 8460004410201300000114 11:45 AM 6410003640301300000103 12:00 PM 53600032303090000088 12:15 PM 53200048202040000093 12:30 PM 632000413040100000096 12:45 PM 103600039601060000098 1:00 PM 7340005210101000000105 1:15 PM 104200028202050000089 1:30 PM 1145000295040900000103 1:45 PM 93200036101080000087 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :108 597 0 0 0 604 38 0 35 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 1512 APPROACH %'s :15.32% 84.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.08% 5.92% 0.00% 21.21% 0.00% 78.79% 0.00% PEAK HR :11:30 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :241550001601001003900000398 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.750 0.842 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.625 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1100010001000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 54300035102060000092 2:15 PM 1345000333000600000100 2:30 PM 8104000474000300000166 2:45 PM 12134000341020500000188 3:00 PM 1773000594040600000163 3:15 PM 8690005220001000000141 3:30 PM 1152000963010400000167 3:45 PM 1965000686010800000167 4:00 PM 16 45 0 0 0 75 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 151 4:15 PM 1346000622020600000131 4:30 PM 19 66 0 0 0 76 5 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 185 4:45 PM 11 57 0 0 0 59 7 0 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 153 5:00 PM 17 51 0 0 0 70 5 0 3 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 158 5:15 PM 17 71 0 0 0 42 1 0 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 147 5:30 PM 18 48 0 0 0 46 6 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 135 5:45 PM 1549000333050700000112 6:00 PM 1644000385000900000112 6:15 PM 10 31 0 0 0 25 1 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 80 6:30 PM 113700036302020000091 6:45 PM 926000213010120000072 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :265 1156 0 0 0 1007 70 0 33 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 2711 APPROACH %'s :18.65% 81.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 93.50% 6.50% 0.00% 15.49% 0.00% 84.51% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :642450002471801005900000643 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.842 0.863 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.813 0.643 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.819 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 23-260004-001 1/12/2023 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.8690.878 0.818 0.908 0.8730.829 0.850 0.766 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM 0.912 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.808 0.924 0.818 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Data - Total Reliance Rd Reliance Rd Carolyn Ave Carolyn Ave B-2 277 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 SB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(SB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 0000701800351301170091 6:15 AM 00008029004829032000137 6:30 AM 0 0 0 0100340 054200 2240 0144 6:45 AM 0 0 0 0121440 046260 3340 0166 7:00 AM 00006127005733043800166 7:15 AM 00006055006132054900208 7:30 AM 00002137007728046100210 7:45 AM 00009054004729055200196 8:00 AM 00007047004124013500155 8:15 AM 00002141004926033600158 8:30 AM 00006128005218023900146 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 038240 1350 0141 9:00 AM 00004028003119012800111 9:15 AM 0000702000291501220094 9:30 AM 00008127004214035400149 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0110440 032180 2350 0142 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 115 6 566 0 0 739 368 0 41 579 0 0 2414 APPROACH %'s :16.74% 0.87% 82.39% 0.00% 0.00% 66.76% 33.24% 0.00% 6.61% 93.39% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00002321730024212201820000780 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.639 0.500 0.786 0.000 0.000 0.786 0.924 0.000 0.900 0.820 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 00003126003519032100108 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0130190 036150 6200 0109 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0110180 030150 2260 0102 10:45 AM 00003020005116003100121 11:00 AM 00004024004622052700128 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0100280 039300 5360 0148 11:30 AM 00007036003917013100131 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 040120 4280 0127 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0100220 049210 5310 0138 12:15 PM 00003027004818014100138 12:30 PM 00006030005214023800142 12:45 PM 00004231003412043800125 1:00 PM 00009020004416074100137 1:15 PM 00005028004811042800124 1:30 PM 00003121005212033200124 1:45 PM 00006032004224043800146 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 107 4 415 0 0 685 274 0 56 507 0 0 2048 APPROACH %'s :20.34% 0.76% 78.90% 0.00% 0.00% 71.43% 28.57% 0.00% 9.95% 90.05% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :11:45 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0000290112001896501213800545 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.848 0.000 0.000 0.909 0.774 0.000 0.600 0.841 0.000 0.000 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 00008020003925053200129 2:15 PM 00004024003011043400107 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0141340 041220 3410 0156 2:45 PM 00007035005723003600158 3:00 PM 00009138005918014600172 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0120360 049150 3510 0166 3:30 PM 00008040008825034200206 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0110380 086250 1440 0205 4:00 PM 00007032006819004800174 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0170450 071190 4540 0210 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0120490 058240 5550 0203 4:45 PM 00009051006324065100204 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0140450 060280 4520 0203 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0150500 063290 4540 0215 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0151450 060200 2370 0180 5:45 PM 00001003400406033900132 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0100400 033140 2440 0143 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0110350 043140 1300 0134 6:30 PM 00009230003012024700132 6:45 PM 0000802100429032700110 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 210 5 742 0 0 1080 382 0 56 864 0 0 3339 APPROACH %'s :21.94% 0.52% 77.53% 0.00% 0.00% 73.87% 26.13% 0.00% 6.09% 93.91% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00005001950024410501921200825 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.956 0.000 0.000 0.968 0.905 0.000 0.792 0.964 0.000 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9590.942 0.948 0.963 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 11:45 AM - 12:45 PM 0.9600.820 0.907 0.893 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.9290.786 0.867 0.838 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-002 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 SB Ramps I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd B-3 278 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 NB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 701000002418000119070 6:15 AM 1412000003619000910091 6:30 AM 14020000040250001390103 6:45 AM 21040000034240001560104 7:00 AM 251300000481500017170126 7:15 AM 320400000531200024190144 7:30 AM 430500000592100020260174 7:45 AM 320400000362100027120132 8:00 AM 161900000262200018140106 8:15 AM 250200000331800014180110 8:30 AM 201200000382000022110114 8:45 AM 25040000027210001012099 9:00 AM 14130000019160001612081 9:15 AM 804000001916000149070 9:30 AM 291000000173400028100119 9:45 AM 1803000001824000216090 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :3436520000052732600027920001733 APPROACH %'s :85.54% 1.50% 12.97% 0.00%61.78% 38.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.25% 41.75% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :132116000001966900088740576 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.767 0.250 0.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.821 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.815 0.712 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 121500000201900089074 10:15 AM 1408000002425000124087 10:30 AM 11130000019200001814086 10:45 AM 1606000003223000166099 11:00 AM 902000002228000219091 11:15 AM 12070000022270002940101 11:30 AM 1613000002619000169090 11:45 AM 1414000001932000186094 12:00 PM 15030000034250002140102 12:15 PM 22040000031210002170106 12:30 PM 15070000028290002570111 12:45 PM 1905000001821000227092 1:00 PM 200500000223100029120119 1:15 PM 414000002824000277095 1:30 PM 16030000031250002090104 1:45 PM 180600000282000023100105 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :2335750000040438900032612401556 APPROACH %'s :74.44% 1.60% 23.96% 0.00%50.95% 49.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 72.44% 27.56% 0.00% PEAK HR :12:15 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :76021000009910200097330428 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.864 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.798 0.823 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.836 0.688 0.000 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 1703000002224000208094 2:15 PM 2307000001817000175087 2:30 PM 172300000233100025120113 2:45 PM 151800000343100021110121 3:00 PM 250100000343300022190134 3:15 PM 270400000352700029110133 3:30 PM 211500000544100022120156 3:45 PM 221500000504800024110161 4:00 PM 2511200000433200023190155 4:15 PM 230600000444300034130163 4:30 PM 292900000304100033140158 4:45 PM 201600000363500035140147 5:00 PM 241600000393400033140151 5:15 PM 311400000384100026170158 5:30 PM 2201000000373900019110138 5:45 PM 160300000321800025100104 6:00 PM 18050000024190002770100 6:15 PM 13030000030230001812099 6:30 PM 23160000018210002660101 6:45 PM 13010000020300001716097 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :424121070000066162800049624202570 APPROACH %'s :78.08% 2.21% 19.71% 0.00%51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.21% 32.79% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :10452500000143151000127590614 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.839 0.625 0.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.921 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.907 0.868 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9720.838 0.930 0.949 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 12:15 PM - 01:15 PM 0.8990.933 0.882 0.793 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.8280.776 0.828 0.880 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-001 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 NB Ramps I-81 NB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd B-4 279 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:Reliance Rd & N Buckton Rd/Rte 842 City:Middletown Project ID: Control:2-Way Stop(EB/WB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 0100019003000001024 6:15 AM 11500018202010000039 6:30 AM 01500016400010001037 6:45 AM 01200017305010003041 7:00 AM 02000217005000001045 7:15 AM 02100016205000011046 7:30 AM 03800016306000001064 7:45 AM 03000018304000000055 8:00 AM 12200125008000003060 8:15 AM 22200217105000002051 8:30 AM 02100023102000101049 8:45 AM 01800117408000000048 9:00 AM 01900124404000101054 9:15 AM 02310120305000004057 9:30 AM 01700017504000000043 9:45 AM 11400211401000000033 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :531710112813906703021190746 APPROACH %'s :1.55% 98.14% 0.31% 0.00% 3.32% 84.89% 11.78% 0.00% 95.71% 0.00% 4.29% 0.00% 9.09% 4.55% 86.36% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:30 AM 39 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :31120037670230000060230 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.375 0.737 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.760 0.583 0.000 0.719 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 02300027103010000055 10:15 AM 02100117104000102047 10:30 AM 02500315002000103049 10:45 AM 01300021305020001045 11:00 AM 12620227112010103067 11:15 AM 01700215206000002044 11:30 AM 02200123205000003056 11:45 AM 22800422302000004065 12:00 PM 11600113204000102040 12:15 PM 01800224503010000053 12:30 PM 02400228402010010062 12:45 PM 01800222102010000046 1:00 PM 12410024303010001058 1:15 PM 02300020104000001049 1:30 PM 02300117304010003052 1:45 PM 01600114002000001034 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :533730223293215309041260822 APPROACH %'s :1.45% 97.68% 0.87% 0.00% 5.73% 85.68% 8.33% 0.26% 85.48% 0.00% 14.52% 0.00% 12.90% 3.23% 83.87% 0.00% PEAK HR :11:00 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :39320987811501010120232 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.375 0.830 0.250 0.000 0.563 0.806 0.667 0.250 0.625 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.750 0.000 0100010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 12110122302000001052 2:15 PM 01800016004000000038 2:30 PM 02000441575000201085 2:45 PM 12300248605000101087 3:00 PM 02400225804000011065 3:15 PM 02600227501000002063 3:30 PM 01400338304010003066 3:45 PM 247103457020000020109 4:00 PM 23100140805020003092 4:15 PM 13110228404010001073 4:30 PM 442201349090200000103 4:45 PM 02200439303000101073 5:00 PM 14300334306000100091 5:15 PM 02900228504010000069 5:30 PM 04010026302000006078 5:45 PM 02200325302000001056 6:00 PM 02700217402000000052 6:15 PM 11210022502010000044 6:30 PM 11600016103000002039 6:45 PM 01300211803000001038 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :14521703758293772080512601373 APPROACH %'s :2.58% 96.13% 1.29% 0.00% 5.15% 80.95% 12.93% 0.97% 90.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 15.63% 3.13% 81.25% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :7126308141240210501050341 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.438 0.750 0.375 0.000 0.500 0.881 0.667 0.000 0.583 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.417 0.000 23-260004-002 1/12/2023 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0.8280.708 0.883 0.591 0.500 0.8660.817 0.847 0.667 0.813 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 0.898 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.757 0.827 0.719 0.500 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Data - Total Reliance Rd Reliance Rd N Buckton Rd/Rte 842 N Buckton Rd/Rte 842 B-5 280 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX C Existing Intersection Levels of Service and Queues (2022) 281 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 190 0 134 108 112 75 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 190 0 134 108 112 75 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 102 0 209 0 147 119 123 82 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 639 594 82 535 535 207 82 0 0 266 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 207 207 ------- Stage 2 311 266 - 328 328 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 387 417 975 455 450 831 1497 - - 1281 - - Stage 1 683 645 - 793 729 ------- Stage 2 697 687 - 683 645 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 269 377 975 422 407 831 1497 - - 1281 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 269 377 - 422 407 ------- Stage 1 683 583 - 793 729 ------- Stage 2 522 687 - 617 583 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 12.6 0 4.9 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1497 - - - 422 831 1281 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio ----0.242 0.251 0.096 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 16.2 10.8 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - A C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.9 1 0.3 - - C-1 282 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 199 8 22 272 7 65 Future Vol, veh/h 199 8 22 272 7 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 219 9 24 299 8 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 228 0 571 224 Stage 1 - - - - 224 - Stage 2 - - - - 347 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1334 - 481 813 Stage 1 - - - - 811 - Stage 2 - - - - 713 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1334 - 470 813 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 470 - Stage 1 - - - - 811 - Stage 2 - - - - 697 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)759 - - 1334 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.104 - - 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.1 - C-2 283 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Future Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 260 131 19 215 0000252186 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 391 0 0 579 644 215 Stage 1 ------ 253253- Stage 2 ------ 326391- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1162 - 0 475 390 822 Stage 1 0 ----0 787696- Stage 2 0 ----0 729605- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1162 - -466 0 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4660- Stage 1 ------ 7870- Stage 2 ------ 7150- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1162 - 754 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.282 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.2 0 11.6 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.2 C-3 284 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 231 81 0 0 104 87 155 1 19 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 191 0 - - - 0 691 734 81 Stage 1 ------543543- Stage 2 ------148191- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - 0 0 - - 409 346 976 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 580 518 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 877 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 -----3370976 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3370- Stage 1 ------4780- Stage 2 ------8770- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 6 0 23.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)363 1377 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 0.167 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.8 8.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 0.6 - - - C-4 285 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 76 7 3 112 0 23 00006 Future Vol, veh/h 3 76 7 3 112 0 23 00006 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 3 84 8 3 124 0 26 00007 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 124 0 0 92 0 0 228 224 88 224 228 124 Stage 1 ------9494-130130- Stage 2 ------134130-9498- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1457 - - 1496 - - 725 673 968 729 670 924 Stage 1 ------910815-871787- Stage 2 ------867787-910812- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1457 - - 1496 - - 718 670 968 727 667 924 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------718670-727667- Stage 1 ------908813-869785- Stage 2 ------859785-908810- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.2 10.2 8.9 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)718 1457 - - 1496 - - 924 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 0.002 - - 0.002 - - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 7.5 0 - 7.4 0 - 8.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0 C-5 286 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 144 1 132 0 113 132 138 215 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 1 144 1 132 0 113 132 138 215 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----242---285-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333555555 Mvmt Flow 1 0 1 148 1 136 0 116 136 142 222 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 759 758 222 691 690 184 222 0 0 252 0 0 Stage 1 506 506 - 184 184 ------- Stage 2 253 252 - 507 506 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.15 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.245 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 322 335 815 358 367 856 1329 - - 1296 - - Stage 1 547 538 - 815 746 ------- Stage 2 749 697 - 546 538 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 248 298 815 328 327 856 1329 - - 1296 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 248 298 - 328 327 ------- Stage 1 547 479 - 815 746 ------- Stage 2 629 697 - 486 479 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 17.7 0 3.2 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1329 - - 380 328 856 1296 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.005 0.456 0.159 0.11 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 14.5 24.8 10 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 2.3 0.6 0.4 - - C-6 287 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 247 18 64 245 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 247 18 64 245 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 284 21 74 282 11 68 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 305 0 725 295 Stage 1 - - - - 295 - Stage 2 - - - - 430 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1250 - 391 742 Stage 1 - - - - 753 - Stage 2 - - - - 654 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1250 - 364 742 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 364 - Stage 1 - - - - 753 - Stage 2 - - - - 608 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 11.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)645 - - 1250 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 - - 0.059 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.2 - C-7 288 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Future Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 254 109 20 221 0000520203 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 363 0 0 570 624 221 Stage 1 ------ 261261- Stage 2 ------ 309363- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1190 - 0 481 400 816 Stage 1 0 ----0 780690- Stage 2 0 ----0 742623- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1190 - -472 0 816 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4720- Stage 1 ------ 7800- Stage 2 ------ 7280- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 12.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1190 - 710 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.359 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.1 0 12.9 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.6 C-8 289 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 147 156 0 0 131 61 107 5 26 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 - - - 0 612 642 156 Stage 1 ------450450- Stage 2 ------162192- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - 0 0 - - 455 391 887 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 640 570 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 865 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 -----4020887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4020- Stage 1 ------5650- Stage 2 ------8650- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 3.9 0 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)450 1375 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.107 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 7.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.4 - - - C-9 290 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 02/09/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 141 24 7 126 3 21 05105 Future Vol, veh/h 8 141 24 7 126 3 21 05105 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 9 166 28 8 148 4 25 06106 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 194 0 0 367 366 180 367 378 150 Stage 1 ------198198-166166- Stage 2 ------169168-201212- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1423 - - 1373 - - 587 561 860 587 552 894 Stage 1 ------802735-834759- Stage 2 ------831758-799725- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1423 - - 1373 - - 578 554 860 577 545 894 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------578554-577545- Stage 1 ------796730-828754- Stage 2 ------821753-788720- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.4 11.1 9.4 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)617 1423 - - 1373 - - 819 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 0.007 - - 0.006 - - 0.009 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 7.5 0 - 7.6 0 - 9.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 C-10 291 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX D VDOT Crash Data 292 Reliance Road Crash Data (Jan 2018 to Dec 2022)Document NbrLocal Case Crash YearCrash Date Crash SeverityK_People A_People B_People C_People Persons Injured PedestrianPedestrians InjureVehicle CouCollision Type180755229 18000021 2018 3/15/2018 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 021. Rear End190395051 19000012 2019 2/7/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle190505306 DIV219011 2019 2/14/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 025. Sideswipe ‐ Opposite Direction190735213 19000022 2019 3/13/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road191145223 DIV219029 2019 4/22/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 021. Rear End191275105 DIV219032 2019 5/3/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle192435102 DIV219069 2019 8/29/2019 B. Visible Injury0010 10 022. Angle193435503 19‐006402 2019 12/9/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 021. Rear End202555148 20000040 2020 9/11/2020 PDO. Property Damage Only000000022. Angle212435332 21‐000054 2021 8/14/2021 B. Visible Injury0011 20 023. Head On212535039 DIV221073 2021 9/8/2021 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle212675225 21000061 2021 9/22/2021 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road213225421 21000074 2021 11/18/2021 B. Visible Injury0010 10 022. Angle213535158 DIV221102 2021 12/18/2021 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle220745195 22001260 2022 3/15/2022 B. Visible Injury0010 10 1112. Ped221465302 22‐002605 2022 5/26/2022 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle221525000 DIV222042 2022 5/31/2022 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle222045112 DIV2220502022 7/23/2022 B. Visible Injury0010 10 022. Angle222275342 22000054 2022 8/15/2022 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle222645071 22000063 2022 9/20/2022 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 022. Angle223095170 DIV2220902022 11/3/2022 PDO. Property Damage Only0000 00 021. Rear EndD-1 293 I‐81 NB Ramp Crash Data (Jan 2018 to Dec 2022)Document Local Case Crash Year Crash DateCrash SeverityK_People A_People B_People C_People Persons InjPedestrianPedestrianVehicle CouCollision Type1.91E+08 DIV21901420192/25/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only000000019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road1.91E+08 DIV21902820194/16/2019 A. Severe Injury0100100116. Other1.93E+08 DIV219082 2019 10/11/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only000000019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road2.03E+08 DIV220067202011/11/2020 C. Nonvisible Injury000110019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road2.13E+08 DIV221086202110/23/2021 PDO. Property Damage Only000000019. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road2.11E+08 DIV22103920215/27/2021 PDO. Property Damage Only000000021. Rear EndD-2 294 I‐81 SB Ramp Crash Data (Jan 2018 to Dec 2022)Document Local Case Crash Year Crash DateCrash SeverityK_People A_People B_People C_People Persons InjPedestrianPedestrianVehicle CouCollision Type1.93E+08 DIV2190992019 12/10/2019 PDO. Property Damage Only000000019. Fixed Object ‐ Off RoadD-3 295 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX E Traffic Forecasts 296 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure E-1ARegional Growth (2022-2025)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/02/73/46/40/03/43/44/30/00/00/00/05/60/01/26/61/14/37/72/23/40/10/04/32/56/40/00/00/00/03/40/00/00/00/00/02/40/08/70/00/00/00/06/70/00/00/08/86/80/00/00/00/03/42/40/0E-1297 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure E-1BRegional Growth (2025-2047)I-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/09/2613/1623/160/011/1713/1616/130/00/00/00/021/230/03/624/252/215/1329/299/711/152/30/116/128/1823/171/10/00/00/013/150/10/10/03/21/39/170/032/293/78/71/11/224/290/00/00/033/3125/330/00/00/00/014/169/170/0E-2298 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure E-2Pipeline Development Trip AssignmentsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/04/116/911/180/031/6657/479/70/00/00/00/045/1210/011/1052/11011/1051/7982/11733/2243/3426/180/020/8650/3843/8939/300/00/00/037/260/00/00/00/00/040/2636/3097/2310/00/00/00/0132/19611/2274/15366/16931/6258/435/1455/4214/1922/20-18/-16-6/-950/41E-3299 V A L L E Y P I K E 5413C A R O L Y N A V E N U E B I R M I N G H A M D R I V E267B U C K T O N R O A D M A I N S T R E E T ( R O U T E 1 1 )RELIANCEROADINTERSTATE81NORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0201 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure E-3Hester Trust Property Site Trip AssignmentsI-81 at Reliance Road OSARFrederick County, Virginia7432AVENUE1CAROLYNBIRMINGHAMDRIVE16N BUCKTONROADN BUCKTONROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROAD5I-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBON-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADPRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 11ROADRELIANCERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADI-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMPRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADBY-RIGHTGAS STATIONDRIVEWAYRELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0000/010/2450/115359/190/00/00/076/30/00/00/00/0128/80/00/00/0230/1229/6521/490/025/10/00/0205/113/818/420/00/00/00/025/10/00/00/00/00/03/80/0359/190/00/00/00/050/1150/00/00/0359/1950/1150/00/00/00/025/13/80/0E-4300 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX F Opening Year Conditions Levels of Service and Queues (2025) 301 Queues 2025 No Build AM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 615 425 186 99 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.60 0.68 0.36 0.09 Control Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 6 115 25 12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 70 238 56 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 800 1219 1110 793 1752 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.38 0.23 0.06 Intersection Summary F-1 302 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 No Build AM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 242 183 186 99 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 289 219 340 891 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 988 747 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 0 425 186 99 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 0 508 340 891 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.11 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 361 0 638 0 728 0 0 861 651 1598 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 17.3 10.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.1 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.8 18.6 10.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 753 425 285 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 24.5 27.8 15.8 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 27.2 0.0 40.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 18.6 0.0 4.1 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C F-2 303 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build AM 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 349 736 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 808 0 - 0 1131 772 Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 359 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 224 398 Stage 1 - - - - 454 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 222 398 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 222 - Stage 1 - - - - 450 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 28.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)813 - - - 222 398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.362 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 - - 30.2 14.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.6 0.1 F-3 304 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build AM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Future Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 421 9 24 800 8 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 430 0 1274 426 Stage 1 - - - - 426 - Stage 2 - - - - 848 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 184 626 Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 418 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 177 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 177 - Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 402 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 13.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)502 - - 1124 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.156 - - 0.021 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 - - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 - F-4 305 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build AM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 11.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Future Vol, veh/h 0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 383 224 33 530 0000382382 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 607 0 0 1091 1203 530 Stage 1 ------ 596596- Stage 2 ------ 495607- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 971 - 0 238 184 549 Stage 1 0 ----0 550492- Stage 2 0 ----0 613486- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 971 - -227 0 549 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2270- Stage 1 ------ 5500- Stage 2 ------ 5840- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 44.1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 971 - 486 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.034 - 0.868 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.8 0 44.1 HCM Lane LOS - - A A E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 9.2 F-5 306 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build AM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 162.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 286 135 0 0 173 118 392 1 46 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 291 0 - - - 0 939 998 135 Stage 1 ------707707- Stage 2 ------232291- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1271 - 0 0 - - ~ 293 244 914 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 489 438 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 807 672 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1271 -----~ 2220914 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 2220- Stage 1 ------~ 3700- Stage 2 ------8070- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 5.9 0 $ 420.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)241 1271 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.822 0.225 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) $ 420.5 8.7 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 30.2 0.9 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon F-6 307 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build AM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Future Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 132 8 3 192 0 25 000049 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 0 140 0 0 443 418 136 418 422 192 Stage 1 ------220220-198198- Stage 2 ------223198-220224- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 523 524 910 544 522 847 Stage 1 ------780719-802735- Stage 2 ------777735-780716- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 480 506 910 529 504 847 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------480506-529504- Stage 1 ------754695-776734- Stage 2 ------731734-754692- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.1 12.9 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)480 1375 - - 1437 - - 847 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 F-7 308 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 No Build AM 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 82 136 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %40% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %60% 85% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 15% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 147 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 75 125 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 136 160 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.162 0.182 0.087 Departure Headway (Hd)4.286 4.097 4.163 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 827 864 866 Service Time 2.361 2.174 2.163 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.164 0.185 0.087 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 F-8 309 Queues 2025 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 222 178 319 274 265 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.56 0.20 0.66 0.53 0.27 Control Delay 0.0 31.2 2.8 26.2 13.5 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 31.2 2.8 26.2 13.5 9.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 70 0 79 45 43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 206 34 243 149 141 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 493 757 1093 1018 721 1628 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.31 0.38 0.16 Intersection Summary F-9 310 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 221 1 178 0 130 189 274 265 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 2 0 2 316 1 525 0 168 244 466 927 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 832 0 832 1760 8 1572 0 672 978 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 222 0 178 0 0 319 274 265 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 0 0 1768 0 1572 0 0 1650 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.4 6.5 4.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.4 6.5 4.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 0 0 317 0 525 0 0 412 466 927 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.59 0.29 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 401 0 0 792 0 947 0 0 1023 796 1950 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 20.3 13.5 8.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 55.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.3 1.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 23.4 14.7 8.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A A C ABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 400 319 539 Approach Delay, s/veh 84.0 20.6 23.4 11.6 Approach LOS F C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 20.5 6.2 35.5 16.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 12.4 2.1 6.9 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.1 0.0 1.7 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. F-10 311 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build PM 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Future Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 15 479 374 184 166 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 558 0 - 0 975 466 Stage 1 - - - - 466 - Stage 2 - - - - 509 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 278 595 Stage 1 - - - - 630 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 272 595 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 272 - Stage 1 - - - - 617 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 33.8 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1008 - - - 272 595 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.611 0.04 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 - - 37 11.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 3.7 0.1 F-11 312 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build PM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 614 20 70 546 11 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 634 0 1310 624 Stage 1 - - - - 624 - Stage 2 - - - - 686 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 175 484 Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 498 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 156 484 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 156 - Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 445 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 17.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)371 - - 944 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.202 - - 0.074 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 - - 9.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.2 - F-12 313 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build PM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Future Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 434 263 31 354 0000650344 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 697 0 0 982 1113 354 Stage 1 ------ 416416- Stage 2 ------ 566697- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 895 - 0 275 208 688 Stage 1 0 ----0 664590- Stage 2 0 ----0 566441- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 895 - -263 0 688 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2630- Stage 1 ------ 6640- Stage 2 ------ 5420- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 28.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 895 - 548 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - 0.745 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 0 28.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 6.4 F-13 314 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build PM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 37.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 287 208 0 0 171 86 210 5 45 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 257 0 - - - 0 996 1039 208 Stage 1 ------782782- Stage 2 ------214257- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1302 - 0 0 - - 270 230 830 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 449 403 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 819 693 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1302 -----~ 2030830 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 2030- Stage 1 ------3370- Stage 2 ------8190- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 0 137.7 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)234 1302 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.115 0.22 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 137.7 8.5 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 11.7 0.8 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon F-14 315 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 No Build PM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Future Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 41 195 26 8 171 3 23 051038 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 174 0 0 221 0 0 498 480 208 482 492 173 Stage 1 ------290290-189189- Stage 2 ------208190-293303- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 481 484 830 493 476 868 Stage 1 ------716670-810742- Stage 2 ------792741-713662- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 445 464 830 475 456 868 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------445464-475456- Stage 1 ------692647-782737- Stage 2 ------752736-684639- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.3 12.8 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)489 1397 - - 1342 - - 848 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.03 - - 0.006 - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.7 0 - 7.7 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1 F-15 316 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 No Build PM 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Future Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 45 158 133 22 21 46 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %22% 0% 31% Vol Thru, %78% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 69% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 186 142 61 LT Vol 41 0 19 Through Vol 145 122 0 RT Vol 0 20 42 Lane Flow Rate 202 154 66 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.237 0.177 0.081 Departure Headway (Hd)4.229 4.137 4.378 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 839 854 824 Service Time 2.309 2.232 2.378 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.241 0.18 0.08 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.6 0.3 F-16 317 Queues 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 615 425 186 99 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.60 0.68 0.36 0.09 Control Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 6 115 25 12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 70 238 56 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 800 1219 1110 793 1752 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.38 0.23 0.06 Intersection Summary F-17 318 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 242 183 186 99 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 289 219 340 891 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 988 747 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 0 425 186 99 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 0 508 340 891 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.11 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 361 0 638 0 728 0 0 861 651 1598 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 17.3 10.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.1 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.8 18.6 10.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 753 425 285 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 24.5 27.8 15.8 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 27.2 0.0 40.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 18.6 0.0 4.1 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C F-18 319 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 349 736 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 808 0 - 0 1131 772 Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 359 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 224 398 Stage 1 - - - - 454 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 222 398 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 222 - Stage 1 - - - - 450 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 28.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)813 - - - 222 398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.362 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 - - 30.2 14.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.6 0.1 F-19 320 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Future Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 421 9 24 800 8 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 430 0 1274 426 Stage 1 - - - - 426 - Stage 2 - - - - 848 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 184 626 Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 418 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 177 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 177 - Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 402 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 13.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)502 - - 1124 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.156 - - 0.021 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 - - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 - F-20 321 Queues 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 607 563 422 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.42 0.81 Control Delay 6.0 8.1 19.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.0 Total Delay 6.0 8.6 19.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 98 26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 246 399 116 Internal Link Dist (ft) 495 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1366 1353 667 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 401 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.59 0.63 Intersection Summary F-21 322 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Future Volume (vph)0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1857 1628 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1764 1628 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 383 224 33 530 0000382382 RTOR Reduction (vph)09000000003370 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 598 0 0 563 00000850 Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)76.7 76.7 11.3 Effective Green, g (s)76.7 76.7 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.11 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1357 1352 183 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.42 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 4.1 4.0 41.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.42 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.2 1.9 Delay (s)5.1 5.8 43.4 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)5.1 5.8 0.0 43.4 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group F-22 323 Queues 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 9 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 421 291 439 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.28 0.85 Control Delay 15.5 10.5 49.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.5 10.5 49.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 75 257 Queue Length 95th (ft) 314 136 358 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 670 1052 601 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.28 0.73 Intersection Summary F-23 324 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1802 1761 1758 Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1136 1761 1758 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 286 135 0 0 173 118 392 1 46 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000140040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 421 0 0 277 0 0 435 0000 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)59.0 59.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.0 59.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.29 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)670 1038 509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.37 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.27 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 10.0 33.5 Progression Factor 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.6 13.1 Delay (s)11.4 10.6 46.6 Level of Service B B D Approach Delay (s)11.4 10.6 46.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group F-24 325 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Future Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 132 8 3 192 0 25 000049 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 0 140 0 0 443 418 136 418 422 192 Stage 1 ------220220-198198- Stage 2 ------223198-220224- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 523 524 910 544 522 847 Stage 1 ------780719-802735- Stage 2 ------777735-780716- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 480 506 910 529 504 847 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------480506-529504- Stage 1 ------754695-776734- Stage 2 ------731734-754692- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.1 12.9 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)480 1375 - - 1437 - - 847 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 F-25 326 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative A) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 82 136 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %40% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %60% 85% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 15% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 147 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 75 125 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 136 160 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.162 0.182 0.087 Departure Headway (Hd)4.286 4.097 4.163 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 827 864 866 Service Time 2.361 2.174 2.163 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.164 0.185 0.087 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 F-26 327 Queues 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 222 178 319 274 265 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.56 0.20 0.66 0.53 0.27 Control Delay 0.0 31.5 2.8 26.4 13.8 9.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 31.5 2.8 26.4 13.8 9.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 70 0 79 45 43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 212 35 248 154 147 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 492 755 1091 1016 719 1624 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.31 0.38 0.16 Intersection Summary F-27 328 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 221 1 178 0 130 189 274 265 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 3 0 3 315 1 525 0 168 244 465 927 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 832 0 832 1760 8 1572 0 672 978 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 222 0 178 0 0 319 274 265 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 0 0 1768 0 1572 0 0 1650 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.5 4.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.5 4.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 0 0 317 0 525 0 0 412 465 927 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.59 0.29 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 0 0 790 0 946 0 0 1021 794 1946 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 20.3 13.5 8.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.3 1.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.7 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 23.4 14.7 8.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A C ABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 400 319 539 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 20.6 23.4 11.6 Approach LOS D C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 20.5 6.2 35.5 16.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 12.5 2.1 6.9 8.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.1 0.0 1.7 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 6th LOS B F-28 329 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Future Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 15 479 374 184 166 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 558 0 - 0 975 466 Stage 1 - - - - 466 - Stage 2 - - - - 509 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 278 595 Stage 1 - - - - 630 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 272 595 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 272 - Stage 1 - - - - 617 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 33.8 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1008 - - - 272 595 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.611 0.04 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 - - 37 11.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 3.7 0.1 F-29 330 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 614 20 70 546 11 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 634 0 1310 624 Stage 1 - - - - 624 - Stage 2 - - - - 686 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 175 484 Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 498 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 156 484 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 156 - Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 445 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 17.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)371 - - 944 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.202 - - 0.074 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 - - 9.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.2 - F-30 331 Queues 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 697 385 409 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.32 0.84 Control Delay 9.9 10.7 29.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.9 10.7 29.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 165 157 90 Queue Length 95th (ft) 378 290 180 Internal Link Dist (ft) 495 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1265 1217 644 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.32 0.64 Intersection Summary F-31 332 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Future Volume (vph)0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)1751 1837 1622 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.92 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)1751 1699 1622 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 434 262 31 354 0000650344 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 000000002220 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 687 0 0 385 000001870 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)71.7 71.7 16.3 Effective Green, g (s)71.7 71.7 16.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.16 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1255 1218 264 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.32 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 6.6 5.2 39.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.50 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.1 8.4 Delay (s)8.3 7.9 48.0 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)8.3 7.9 0.0 48.0 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group F-32 333 Queues 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 9 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 495 257 260 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.74 Control Delay 6.5 6.6 48.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.5 6.6 48.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 48 150 Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 100 217 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 858 1208 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.44 Intersection Summary F-33 334 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1761 1732 Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1260 1761 1732 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 287 208 0 0 171 86 210 5 45 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)000080090000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 495 0 0 249 0 0 251 0000 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)68.1 68.1 19.9 Effective Green, g (s)68.1 68.1 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.20 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)858 1199 344 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 8.4 5.9 37.5 Progression Factor 0.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 7.7 Delay (s)4.2 6.3 45.3 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)4.2 6.3 45.3 0.0 Approach LOS A A D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group F-34 335 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Future Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 41 195 26 8 171 3 23 051038 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 174 0 0 221 0 0 498 480 208 482 492 173 Stage 1 ------290290-189189- Stage 2 ------208190-293303- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 481 484 830 493 476 868 Stage 1 ------716670-810742- Stage 2 ------792741-713662- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 445 464 830 475 456 868 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------445464-475456- Stage 1 ------692647-782737- Stage 2 ------752736-684639- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.3 12.8 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)489 1397 - - 1342 - - 848 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.03 - - 0.006 - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.7 0 - 7.7 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1 F-35 336 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 Build PM (Alternative A) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Future Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 45 158 133 22 21 46 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %22% 0% 31% Vol Thru, %78% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 69% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 186 142 61 LT Vol 41 0 19 Through Vol 145 122 0 RT Vol 0 20 42 Lane Flow Rate 202 154 66 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.237 0.177 0.081 Departure Headway (Hd)4.229 4.137 4.378 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 839 854 824 Service Time 2.309 2.232 2.378 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.241 0.18 0.08 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.6 0.3 F-36 337 Queues 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 615 425 186 99 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.60 0.68 0.36 0.09 Control Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.6 4.5 22.0 7.8 5.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 6 115 25 12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 70 238 56 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 800 1219 1110 793 1752 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.38 0.23 0.06 Intersection Summary F-37 338 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 127 0 566 0 223 168 171 91 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 242 183 186 99 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 289 219 340 891 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 988 747 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 138 0 615 0 0 425 186 99 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 5.1 2.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3 0 638 0 728 0 0 508 340 891 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.11 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 361 0 638 0 728 0 0 861 651 1598 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 17.3 10.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.1 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.8 18.6 10.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 753 425 285 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 24.5 27.8 15.8 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 27.2 0.0 40.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 18.6 0.0 4.1 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C F-38 339 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 321 677 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 349 736 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 808 0 - 0 1131 772 Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 359 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 224 398 Stage 1 - - - - 454 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 222 398 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 222 - Stage 1 - - - - 450 - Stage 2 - - - - 704 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 28.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)813 - - - 222 398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.362 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 - - 30.2 14.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.6 0.1 F-39 340 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Future Vol, veh/h 387 8 22 736 7 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 421 9 24 800 8 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 430 0 1274 426 Stage 1 - - - - 426 - Stage 2 - - - - 848 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 184 626 Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 418 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1124 - 177 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 177 - Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 402 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 13.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)502 - - 1124 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.156 - - 0.021 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 - - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 - F-40 341 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Future Vol, veh/h 0 352 206 30 488 0000352351 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----------200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 383 224 33 530 0000382382 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 607 0 0 1091 1203 530 Stage 1 ------ 596596- Stage 2 ------ 495607- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 971 - 0 238 184 549 Stage 1 0 ----0 550492- Stage 2 0 ----0 613486- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 971 - -227 0 549 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2270- Stage 1 ------ 5500- Stage 2 ------ 5840- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 25.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)- - 971 - 227 549 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.034 - 0.177 0.695 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.8 0 24.2 25.2 HCM Lane LOS - - A A C D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 0.6 5.4 F-41 342 Queues 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 421 291 439 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.28 0.85 Control Delay 20.1 10.5 49.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.1 10.5 49.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 75 257 Queue Length 95th (ft) 309 136 358 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 670 1052 601 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.28 0.73 Intersection Summary F-42 343 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 263 124 0 0 159 109 361 1 42 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1802 1761 1758 Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1136 1761 1758 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 286 135 0 0 173 118 392 1 46 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000140040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 421 0 0 277 0 0 435 0000 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)59.0 59.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.0 59.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.29 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)670 1038 509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.37 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.27 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 10.0 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.6 13.1 Delay (s)15.2 10.6 46.6 Level of Service B B D Approach Delay (s)15.2 10.6 46.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group F-43 344 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Future Vol, veh/h 39 121 7 3 177 0 23 000045 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 132 8 3 192 0 25 000049 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 0 140 0 0 443 418 136 418 422 192 Stage 1 ------220220-198198- Stage 2 ------223198-220224- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 523 524 910 544 522 847 Stage 1 ------780719-802735- Stage 2 ------777735-780716- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - 1437 - - 480 506 910 529 504 847 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------480506-529504- Stage 1 ------754695-776734- Stage 2 ------731734-754692- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.1 12.9 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)480 1375 - - 1437 - - 847 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 F-44 345 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 Build AM (Alternative B) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 75 125 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 82 136 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %40% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %60% 85% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 15% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 147 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 75 125 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 136 160 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.162 0.182 0.087 Departure Headway (Hd)4.286 4.097 4.163 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 827 864 866 Service Time 2.361 2.174 2.163 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.164 0.185 0.087 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 F-45 346 Queues 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 222 178 319 274 265 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.56 0.20 0.66 0.53 0.27 Control Delay 0.0 31.5 2.8 26.4 13.8 9.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 31.5 2.8 26.4 13.8 9.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 70 0 79 45 43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 212 35 248 154 147 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 492 755 1091 1016 719 1624 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.31 0.38 0.16 Intersection Summary F-46 347 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 214 1 173 0 126 183 266 257 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 221 1 178 0 130 189 274 265 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 3 0 3 315 1 525 0 168 244 465 927 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 832 0 832 1760 8 1572 0 672 978 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 222 0 178 0 0 319 274 265 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 0 0 1768 0 1572 0 0 1650 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.5 4.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.5 4.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 0 0 317 0 525 0 0 412 465 927 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.59 0.29 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 0 0 790 0 946 0 0 1021 794 1946 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 20.3 13.5 8.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.3 1.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.7 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 23.4 14.7 8.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A C ABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 400 319 539 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 20.6 23.4 11.6 Approach LOS D C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 20.5 6.2 35.5 16.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 12.5 2.1 6.9 8.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.1 0.0 1.7 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 6th LOS B F-47 348 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Future Vol, veh/h 14 441 344 169 153 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 15 479 374 184 166 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 558 0 - 0 975 466 Stage 1 - - - - 466 - Stage 2 - - - - 509 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 278 595 Stage 1 - - - - 630 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 272 595 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 272 - Stage 1 - - - - 617 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 33.8 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1008 - - - 272 595 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.611 0.04 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 - - 37 11.3 HCM Lane LOS A A - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 3.7 0.1 F-48 349 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 565 18 64 502 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 614 20 70 546 11 64 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 634 0 1310 624 Stage 1 - - - - 624 - Stage 2 - - - - 686 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 175 484 Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 498 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 944 - 156 484 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 156 - Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 445 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 17.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)371 - - 944 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.202 - - 0.074 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 - - 9.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.2 - F-49 350 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Future Vol, veh/h 0 417 252 30 340 0000620330 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----------200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 434 263 31 354 0000650344 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 697 0 0 982 1113 354 Stage 1 ------ 416416- Stage 2 ------ 566697- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 895 - 0 275 208 688 Stage 1 0 ----0 664590- Stage 2 0 ----0 566441- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 895 - -263 0 688 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2630- Stage 1 ------ 6640- Stage 2 ------ 5420- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)- - 895 - 263 688 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - 0.246 0.5 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 0 23.1 15.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A C C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 0.9 2.8 F-50 351 Queues 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 495 257 260 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.74 Control Delay 13.0 6.6 48.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.0 6.6 48.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 48 150 Queue Length 95th (ft) 303 100 217 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 858 1208 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.44 Intersection Summary F-51 352 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 278 202 0 0 166 83 204 5 44 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1761 1732 Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1260 1761 1732 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 287 208 0 0 171 86 210 5 45 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)000080090000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 495 0 0 249 0 0 251 0000 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)68.1 68.1 19.9 Effective Green, g (s)68.1 68.1 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.20 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)858 1199 344 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 8.4 5.9 37.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 7.7 Delay (s)9.3 6.3 45.3 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)9.3 6.3 45.3 0.0 Approach LOS A A D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group F-52 353 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Future Vol, veh/h 38 179 24 7 157 3 21 051035 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 41 195 26 8 171 3 23 051038 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 174 0 0 221 0 0 498 480 208 482 492 173 Stage 1 ------290290-189189- Stage 2 ------208190-293303- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 481 484 830 493 476 868 Stage 1 ------716670-810742- Stage 2 ------792741-713662- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1342 - - 445 464 830 475 456 868 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------445464-475456- Stage 1 ------692647-782737- Stage 2 ------752736-684639- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.3 12.8 9.5 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)489 1397 - - 1342 - - 848 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.03 - - 0.006 - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.7 0 - 7.7 0 - 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1 F-53 354 HCM 6th AWSC 2025 Build PM (Option 2) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/06/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Future Vol, veh/h 41 145 122 20 19 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 45 158 133 22 21 46 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %22% 0% 31% Vol Thru, %78% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 69% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 186 142 61 LT Vol 41 0 19 Through Vol 145 122 0 RT Vol 0 20 42 Lane Flow Rate 202 154 66 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.237 0.177 0.081 Departure Headway (Hd)4.229 4.137 4.378 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 839 854 824 Service Time 2.309 2.232 2.378 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.241 0.18 0.08 HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.6 0.3 F-54 355 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX G Design Year Conditions Levels of Service and Queues (2047) 356 Queues 2047 No Build AM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 640 457 200 109 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.69 0.39 0.09 Control Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 17 133 28 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 108 273 62 36 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 749 1182 1041 761 1707 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.54 0.44 0.26 0.06 Intersection Summary G-1 357 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2047 No Build AM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 260 197 200 109 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 305 231 341 924 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 987 748 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 0 457 200 109 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 0 537 341 924 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.59 0.12 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 349 0 617 0 715 0 0 832 629 1544 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 17.4 10.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.2 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 29.5 19.0 10.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 790 457 309 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 30.0 29.5 15.9 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 29.2 0.0 43.1 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 20.5 0.0 4.4 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. G-2 358 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build AM 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 376 772 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 844 0 - 0 1194 808 Stage 1 - - - - 808 - Stage 2 - - - - 386 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 205 379 Stage 1 - - - - 437 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 203 379 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 203 - Stage 1 - - - - 434 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 31.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)788 - - - 203 379 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.396 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 0 - - 33.9 14.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.8 0.1 G-3 359 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build AM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Future Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 447 10 27 835 9 79 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 457 0 1341 452 Stage 1 - - - - 452 - Stage 2 - - - - 889 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 167 605 Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 400 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 159 605 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 159 - Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 382 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 14.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)474 - - 1099 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 - - 0.025 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 - - 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 - G-4 360 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build AM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 17.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Future Vol, veh/h 0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 414 240 35 557 0000412404 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 654 0 0 1161 1281 557 Stage 1 ------ 627627- Stage 2 ------ 534654- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 933 - 0 216 166 530 Stage 1 0 ----0 532476- Stage 2 0 ----0 588463- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 933 - -204 0 530 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2040- Stage 1 ------ 5320- Stage 2 ------ 5560- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 64.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 933 - 462 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.037 - 0.969 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 0 64.6 HCM Lane LOS - - A A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 12.1 G-5 361 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build AM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 222.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 311 143 0 0 185 128 410 1 48 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 313 0 - - - 0 1014 1078 143 Stage 1 ------765765- Stage 2 ------249313- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1247 - 0 0 - - ~ 264 219 905 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 459 412 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 792 657 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1247 -----~ 1920905 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 1920- Stage 1 ------~ 3350- Stage 2 ------7920- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 6.1 0 $ 589.8 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)209 1247 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.195 0.249 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) $ 589.8 8.8 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 36 1 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon G-6 362 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build AM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Future Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 141 9 3 207 0 28 000050 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 207 0 0 150 0 0 468 443 146 443 447 207 Stage 1 ------230230-213213- Stage 2 ------238213-230234- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 504 508 898 523 505 831 Stage 1 ------771712-787724- Stage 2 ------763724-771709- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 461 490 898 509 487 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------461490-509487- Stage 1 ------745688-760723- Stage 2 ------716723-745685- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0.1 13.3 9.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)461 1358 - - 1425 - - 831 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 G-7 363 HCM 6th AWSC 2047 No Build AM 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 91 151 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %37% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %63% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 134 161 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 84 139 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 146 175 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.174 0.2 0.088 Departure Headway (Hd)4.292 4.112 4.218 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 826 861 854 Service Time 2.374 2.194 2.218 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.203 0.088 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 G-8 364 Queues 2047 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 239 195 348 291 292 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.69 0.58 0.29 Control Delay 0.0 33.3 2.9 27.5 14.7 10.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 33.3 2.9 27.5 14.7 10.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 81 0 96 52 51 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 232 38 274 161 159 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 474 716 1072 966 692 1586 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.33 0.18 0.36 0.42 0.18 Intersection Summary G-9 365 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q, veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Lanes Open During Work Zone Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 238 1 195 0 143 205 291 292 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap, veh/h 2 0 2 329 1 542 0 180 258 460 949 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.52 0.00 Unsig. Movement Delay Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 86.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 24.5 15.5 8.7 0.0 Ln Grp LOS F A A C ABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 434 348 583 Approach Delay, s/veh 86.0 21.7 24.5 12.1 Approach LOS F C C B Timer:12345678 Assigned Phs 1284 6 Case No 1.2 8.0 11.0 12.0 4.0 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 22.4 17.6 6.2 38.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 26.0 14.0 62.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.8 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.3 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 9.2 14.2 9.9 2.1 7.7 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.7 2.2 1.7 0.0 1.9 Prob of Phs Call (p_c)0.99 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Left-Turn Movement Data Assigned Mvmt 1537 Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 0 1760 832 Through Movement Data Assigned Mvmt 2 8 4 6 Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 678 7 0 1826 Right-Turn Movement Data Assigned Mvmt 12 18 14 16 Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 972 1572 832 0 Left Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 15370000 Lane Assignment L (Pr/Pm)L+T L+T+R G-10 366 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Lanes in Grp 10110000 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 291 0 239 20000 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1739 0 1768 1664 0000 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 7.2 0.0 7.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 7.2 0.0 7.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 1008 0000000 Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 00000000 Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 460 0 330 50000 V/C Ratio (X)0.63 0.00 0.72 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 747 0 742 376 0000 Upstream Filter (I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 14.1 0.0 23.7 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 3.0 55.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 26.7 86.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 2.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.6 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.24 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 02840600 Lane Assignment T Lanes in Grp 00000100 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0000029200 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 000001826 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0000094900 V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 000001829 0 0 Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G-11 367 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 No Build PM 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 14 0 16 0 0 Lane Assignment T+R R Lanes in Grp 01100000 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 348 195 00000 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1651 1572 00000 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 12.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 12.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 1572.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 437 542 00000 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 0.80 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 960 909 00000 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 21.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 24.5 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 4.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 4.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.4 HCM 6th LOS B G-12 368 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build PM 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 474 375 169 153 22 Future Vol, veh/h 14 474 375 169 153 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 15 515 408 184 166 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 592 0 - 0 1045 500 Stage 1 - - - - 500 - Stage 2 - - - - 545 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 979 - - - 252 569 Stage 1 - - - - 607 - Stage 2 - - - - 579 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 979 - - - 247 569 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 247 - Stage 1 - - - - 594 - Stage 2 - - - - 579 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 41 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)979 - - - 247 569 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.673 0.042 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 - - 45.2 11.6 HCM Lane LOS A A - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 4.3 0.1 G-13 369 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build PM 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 594 20 71 531 11 66 Future Vol, veh/h 594 20 71 531 11 66 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 646 22 77 577 12 72 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 668 0 1388 657 Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 731 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 917 - 157 463 Stage 1 - - - - 514 - Stage 2 - - - - 475 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 917 - 138 463 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 138 - Stage 1 - - - - 514 - Stage 2 - - - - 416 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 18.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)346 - - 917 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.242 - - 0.084 - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.7 - - 9.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.3 - G-14 370 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build PM 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 11.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 446 265 32 365 0000680353 Future Vol, veh/h 0 446 265 32 365 0000680353 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 465 276 33 380 0000710368 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 741 0 0 1049 1187 380 Stage 1 ------ 446446- Stage 2 ------ 603741- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 861 - 0 251 188 665 Stage 1 0 ----0 643572- Stage 2 0 ----0 544421- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 861 - -239 0 665 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2390- Stage 1 ------ 6430- Stage 2 ------ 5170- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 39.9 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 861 - 516 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.039 - 0.85 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.3 0 39.9 HCM Lane LOS - - A A E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 8.9 G-15 371 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build PM 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 60.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 295 220 0 0 181 90 216 6 47 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 295 220 0 0 181 90 216 6 47 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 304 227 0 0 187 93 223 6 48 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 280 0 - - - 0 1069 1115 227 Stage 1 ------835835- Stage 2 ------234280- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 - 0 0 - - 244 207 810 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 424 381 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 802 677 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 -----~ 1780810 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 1780- Stage 1 ------3090- Stage 2 ------8020- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 5 0 226.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)207 1277 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.34 0.238 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 226.6 8.7 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 15.5 0.9 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon G-16 372 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 No Build PM 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 196 27 8 172 3 23 061036 Future Vol, veh/h 39 196 27 8 172 3 23 061036 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 213 29 9 187 3 25 071039 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 190 0 0 242 0 0 538 520 228 522 533 189 Stage 1 ------312312-207207- Stage 2 ------226208-315326- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - 1319 - - 452 459 809 464 451 850 Stage 1 ------696656-793729- Stage 2 ------774728-694647- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - 1319 - - 417 439 809 445 432 850 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------417439-445432- Stage 1 ------672633-765723- Stage 2 ------732722-664624- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.3 13.3 9.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)463 1378 - - 1319 - - 830 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.031 - - 0.007 - - 0.048 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.7 0 - 7.7 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 G-17 373 HCM 6th AWSC 2047 No Build PM 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 162 138 20 19 42 Future Vol, veh/h 41 162 138 20 19 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 45 176 150 22 21 46 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.3 7.9 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %20% 0% 31% Vol Thru, %80% 87% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 13% 69% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 203 158 61 LT Vol 41 0 19 Through Vol 162 138 0 RT Vol 0 20 42 Lane Flow Rate 221 172 66 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.26 0.203 0.082 Departure Headway (Hd)4.239 4.262 4.457 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 834 847 807 Service Time 2.329 2.262 2.466 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.265 0.203 0.082 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.3 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.8 0.3 G-18 374 Queues 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 640 457 200 109 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.69 0.39 0.09 Control Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 17 133 28 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 108 273 62 36 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 749 1182 1041 761 1707 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.54 0.44 0.26 0.06 Intersection Summary G-19 375 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 260 197 200 109 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 305 231 341 924 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 987 748 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 0 457 200 109 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 0 537 341 924 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.59 0.12 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 349 0 617 0 715 0 0 832 629 1544 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 17.4 10.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.2 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 29.5 19.0 10.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 790 457 309 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 30.0 29.5 15.9 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 29.2 0.0 43.1 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 20.5 0.0 4.4 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 6th LOS C G-20 376 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 376 772 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 844 0 - 0 1194 808 Stage 1 - - - - 808 - Stage 2 - - - - 386 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 205 379 Stage 1 - - - - 437 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 203 379 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 203 - Stage 1 - - - - 434 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 31.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)788 - - - 203 379 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.396 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 0 - - 33.9 14.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.8 0.1 G-21 377 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Future Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 447 10 27 835 9 79 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 457 0 1341 452 Stage 1 - - - - 452 - Stage 2 - - - - 889 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 167 605 Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 400 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 159 605 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 159 - Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 382 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 14.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)474 - - 1099 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 - - 0.025 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 - - 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 - G-22 378 Queues 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 654 592 447 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.45 0.85 Control Delay 7.3 9.9 24.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.0 Total Delay 7.3 10.5 24.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 285 52 Queue Length 95th (ft) 287 445 154 Internal Link Dist (ft) 495 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1333 1311 651 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 346 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.61 0.69 Intersection Summary G-23 379 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Future Volume (vph)0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1857 1628 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.94 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1754 1628 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 414 240 35 557 0000412404 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 000000003120 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 644 0 0 592 000001350 Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)74.8 74.8 13.2 Effective Green, g (s)74.8 74.8 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.13 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1323 1311 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.45 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 4.8 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.47 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.2 5.7 Delay (s)6.3 7.2 46.8 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)6.3 7.2 0.0 46.8 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group G-24 380 Queues 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 9 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 313 459 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.30 0.87 Control Delay 18.6 11.1 50.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.6 11.1 50.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 204 86 267 Queue Length 95th (ft) #384 148 #380 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 636 1038 601 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.30 0.76 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. G-25 381 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1801 1760 1758 Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1094 1760 1758 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 311 143 0 0 185 128 410 1 48 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000150040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 454 0 0 298 0 0 455 0000 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)58.2 58.2 29.8 Effective Green, g (s)58.2 58.2 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.30 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)636 1024 523 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.29 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 10.5 33.3 Progression Factor 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.7 14.3 Delay (s)13.9 11.2 47.6 Level of Service B B D Approach Delay (s)13.9 11.2 47.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group G-26 382 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Future Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 141 9 3 207 0 28 000050 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 207 0 0 150 0 0 468 443 146 443 447 207 Stage 1 ------230230-213213- Stage 2 ------238213-230234- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 504 508 898 523 505 831 Stage 1 ------771712-787724- Stage 2 ------763724-771709- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 461 490 898 509 487 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------461490-509487- Stage 1 ------745688-760723- Stage 2 ------716723-745685- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0.1 13.3 9.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)461 1358 - - 1425 - - 831 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 G-27 383 HCM 6th AWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative A) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 91 151 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %37% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %63% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 134 161 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 84 139 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 146 175 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.174 0.2 0.088 Departure Headway (Hd)4.292 4.112 4.218 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 826 861 854 Service Time 2.374 2.194 2.218 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.203 0.088 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 G-28 384 Queues 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 239 195 348 291 292 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.69 0.58 0.29 Control Delay 0.0 33.8 3.0 27.6 14.9 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 33.8 3.0 27.6 14.9 10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 81 0 96 52 51 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 238 39 278 166 164 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 473 714 1069 964 690 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.33 0.18 0.36 0.42 0.18 Intersection Summary G-29 385 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 0 1 238 1 195 0 143 205 291 292 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333555555 Cap, veh/h 3 0 3 329 1 542 0 180 258 459 948 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 832 0 832 1760 7 1572 0 678 972 1739 1826 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 0 239 0 195 0 0 348 291 292 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 0 0 1768 0 1572 0 0 1651 1739 1826 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 12.2 7.2 5.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 12.2 7.2 5.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 0 0 330 0 542 0 0 437 459 948 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.63 0.31 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 376 0 0 741 0 907 0 0 958 746 1825 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 21.2 14.1 8.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.9 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.5 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.7 2.6 1.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.7 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 24.6 15.5 8.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A C ABAACBAA Approach Vol, veh/h 2 434 348 583 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.7 21.7 24.6 12.1 Approach LOS E C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 22.4 6.2 38.2 17.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 14.2 2.1 7.7 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 2.2 0.0 1.9 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.4 HCM 6th LOS B G-30 386 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 474 375 169 153 22 Future Vol, veh/h 14 474 375 169 153 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 15 515 408 184 166 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 592 0 - 0 1045 500 Stage 1 - - - - 500 - Stage 2 - - - - 545 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 979 - - - 252 569 Stage 1 - - - - 607 - Stage 2 - - - - 579 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 979 - - - 247 569 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 247 - Stage 1 - - - - 594 - Stage 2 - - - - 579 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 41 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)979 - - - 247 569 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.673 0.042 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 - - 45.2 11.6 HCM Lane LOS A A - - E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 4.3 0.1 G-31 387 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 594 20 71 531 11 66 Future Vol, veh/h 594 20 71 531 11 66 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 646 22 77 577 12 72 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 668 0 1388 657 Stage 1 - - - - 657 - Stage 2 - - - - 731 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 917 - 157 463 Stage 1 - - - - 514 - Stage 2 - - - - 475 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 917 - 138 463 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 138 - Stage 1 - - - - 514 - Stage 2 - - - - 416 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 18.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)346 - - 917 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.242 - - 0.084 - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.7 - - 9.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.3 - G-32 388 Queues 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 741 413 439 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.35 0.87 Control Delay 11.6 12.0 32.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.6 12.0 32.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 167 115 Queue Length 95th (ft) 426 313 213 Internal Link Dist (ft) 495 514 640 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1233 1178 640 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.35 0.69 Intersection Summary G-33 389 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)0 446 265 32 365 0000680353 Future Volume (vph)0 446 265 32 365 0000680353 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1837 1623 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.91 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)1752 1688 1623 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 465 276 33 380 0000710368 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 000000002120 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 730 0 0 413 000002270 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)69.8 69.8 18.2 Effective Green, g (s)69.8 69.8 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.18 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1222 1178 295 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.35 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 7.8 6.0 38.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.48 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.2 11.5 Delay (s)10.0 9.1 50.4 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)10.0 9.1 0.0 50.4 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group G-34 390 Queues 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 9 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 531 280 277 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.24 0.75 Control Delay 7.4 7.2 47.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.4 7.2 47.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 63 56 160 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 114 228 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 834 1191 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 7 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.24 0.46 Intersection Summary G-35 391 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 295 220 0 0 181 90 216 6 47 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 295 220 0 0 181 90 216 6 47 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1762 1732 Flt Permitted 0.67 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1243 1762 1732 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 304 227 0 0 187 93 223 6 48 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)000080090000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 531 0 0 272 0 0 268 0000 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)67.2 67.2 20.8 Effective Green, g (s)67.2 67.2 20.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.21 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)835 1184 360 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.23 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 9.4 6.4 37.1 Progression Factor 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.5 8.1 Delay (s)4.9 6.8 45.3 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s)4.9 6.8 45.3 0.0 Approach LOS A A D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group G-36 392 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 12 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 196 27 8 172 3 23 061036 Future Vol, veh/h 39 196 27 8 172 3 23 061036 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 213 29 9 187 3 25 071039 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 190 0 0 242 0 0 538 520 228 522 533 189 Stage 1 ------312312-207207- Stage 2 ------226208-315326- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - 1319 - - 452 459 809 464 451 850 Stage 1 ------696656-793729- Stage 2 ------774728-694647- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - 1319 - - 417 439 809 445 432 850 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------417439-445432- Stage 1 ------672633-765723- Stage 2 ------732722-664624- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.3 13.3 9.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)463 1378 - - 1319 - - 830 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.031 - - 0.007 - - 0.048 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.7 0 - 7.7 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 G-37 393 HCM 6th AWSC 2047 Build PM (Alternative A) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 162 138 20 19 42 Future Vol, veh/h 41 162 138 20 19 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 45 176 150 22 21 46 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.3 7.9 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %20% 0% 31% Vol Thru, %80% 87% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 13% 69% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 203 158 61 LT Vol 41 0 19 Through Vol 162 138 0 RT Vol 0 20 42 Lane Flow Rate 221 172 66 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.26 0.203 0.082 Departure Headway (Hd)4.239 4.262 4.457 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 834 847 807 Service Time 2.329 2.262 2.466 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.265 0.203 0.082 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.3 7.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.8 0.3 G-38 394 Queues 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 640 457 200 109 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.69 0.39 0.09 Control Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.0 5.8 22.6 8.1 5.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 17 133 28 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 108 273 62 36 Internal Link Dist (ft) 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft) 242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 749 1182 1041 761 1707 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.54 0.44 0.26 0.06 Intersection Summary G-39 395 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 138 0 589 0 239 181 184 100 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 260 197 200 109 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 305 231 341 924 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 987 748 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 150 0 640 0 0 457 200 109 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 0 0 1736 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2 0 617 0 715 0 0 537 341 924 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.59 0.12 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 349 0 617 0 715 0 0 832 629 1544 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 17.4 10.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.2 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 29.5 19.0 10.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAABACAACBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 0 790 457 309 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 30.0 29.5 15.9 Approach LOS C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 29.2 0.0 43.1 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 36.0 14.0 62.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 20.5 0.0 4.4 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 6th LOS C G-40 396 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 2: Reliance Rd & Birmingham Drive 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Future Vol, veh/h 5 346 710 66 74 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 5 376 772 72 80 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 844 0 - 0 1194 808 Stage 1 - - - - 808 - Stage 2 - - - - 386 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 205 379 Stage 1 - - - - 437 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 788 - - - 203 379 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 203 - Stage 1 - - - - 434 - Stage 2 - - - - 685 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 31.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)788 - - - 203 379 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.396 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 0 - - 33.9 14.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.8 0.1 G-41 397 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 3: Carolyn Ave & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Future Vol, veh/h 411 9 25 768 8 73 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333 Mvmt Flow 447 10 27 835 9 79 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 457 0 1341 452 Stage 1 - - - - 452 - Stage 2 - - - - 889 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 167 605 Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 400 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1099 - 159 605 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 159 - Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 382 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 14.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)474 - - 1099 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 - - 0.025 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 - - 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 - G-42 398 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 4: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Future Vol, veh/h 0 381 221 32 512 0000382372 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -----------200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 414 240 35 557 0000412404 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 654 0 0 1161 1281 557 Stage 1 ------ 627627- Stage 2 ------ 534654- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 933 - 0 216 166 530 Stage 1 0 ----0 532476- Stage 2 0 ----0 588463- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 933 - -204 0 530 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2040- Stage 1 ------ 5320- Stage 2 ------ 5560- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 30.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)- - 933 - 204 530 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.037 - 0.213 0.763 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 0 27.4 30.4 HCM Lane LOS - - A A D D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 0.8 6.8 G-43 399 Queues 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 7 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 313 459 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.30 0.87 Control Delay 24.4 11.1 50.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.4 11.1 50.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 201 86 267 Queue Length 95th (ft) #378 148 #380 Internal Link Dist (ft) 514 56 446 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 636 1038 601 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.30 0.76 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. G-44 400 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 5: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 286 132 0 0 170 118 377 1 44 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot)1801 1760 1758 Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm)1094 1760 1758 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 311 143 0 0 185 128 410 1 48 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000150040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 454 0 0 298 0 0 455 0000 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s)58.2 58.2 29.8 Effective Green, g (s)58.2 58.2 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.30 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)636 1024 523 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.29 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 10.5 33.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.7 14.3 Delay (s)18.7 11.2 47.6 Level of Service B B D Approach Delay (s)18.7 11.2 47.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group G-45 401 HCM 6th TWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 6: Buckton Road & Reliance Rd 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Future Vol, veh/h 39 130 8 3 190 0 26 000046 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 42 141 9 3 207 0 28 000050 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 207 0 0 150 0 0 468 443 146 443 447 207 Stage 1 ------230230-213213- Stage 2 ------238213-230234- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 504 508 898 523 505 831 Stage 1 ------771712-787724- Stage 2 ------763724-771709- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1358 - - 1425 - - 461 490 898 509 487 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------461490-509487- Stage 1 ------745688-760723- Stage 2 ------716723-745685- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0.1 13.3 9.6 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)461 1358 - - 1425 - - 831 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.031 - - 0.002 - - 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.7 0 - 7.5 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 G-46 402 HCM 6th AWSC 2047 Build AM (Alternative B) 7: Reliance Rd & Gas Station Driveway 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Future Vol, veh/h 50 84 139 22 14 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %333333 Mvmt Flow 54 91 151 24 15 60 Number of Lanes 011010 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, %37% 0% 20% Vol Thru, %63% 86% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 14% 80% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 134 161 69 LT Vol 50 0 14 Through Vol 84 139 0 RT Vol 0 22 55 Lane Flow Rate 146 175 75 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X)0.174 0.2 0.088 Departure Headway (Hd)4.292 4.112 4.218 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 826 861 854 Service Time 2.374 2.194 2.218 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.203 0.088 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 0.3 G-47 403 Queues 2047 Build PM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 239 195 348 291 292 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.69 0.58 0.29 Control Delay 0.0 33.8 3.0 27.6 14.9 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 33.8 3.0 27.6 14.9 10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 81 0 96 52 51 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 238 39 278 166 164 Internal Link Dist (ft)67 663 1328 5276 Turn Bay Length (ft)242 285 Base Capacity (vph) 473 714 1069 964 690 1583 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.33 0.18 0.36 0.42 0.18 Intersection Summary G-48 404 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2047 Build PM (Alternative B) 1: Reliance Rd & Main St 09/07/2023 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Future Volume (vph)1 0 1 231 1 189 0 139 199 282 283 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 1757 1568 1666 1719 1810 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 1757 1568 1666 654 1810 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 0 1 238 1 195 0 143 205 291 292 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)020001180440000 Lane Group Flow (vph)000023977030402912920 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)0.9 16.1 29.1 20.1 33.1 39.1 Effective Green, g (s)0.9 16.1 29.1 20.1 33.1 39.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.22 0.39 0.27 0.45 0.53 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)20 381 742 451 478 955 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.14 0.02 c0.18 c0.11 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.63 0.10 0.67 0.61 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 26.3 14.2 24.1 14.1 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 3.2 0.1 3.9 2.2 0.2 Delay (s)36.2 29.5 14.3 28.0 16.3 10.0 Level of Service D C B C B B Approach Delay (s)36.2 22.7 28.0 13.2 Approach LOS D C C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.1 Sum of lost time (s)24.0 G-49 405 I-81 at Reliance Road Operational and Safety Analysis Report November 14, 2023 APPENDIX H HSM Safety Analysis Worksheets 406 AADTMAX =14,700 (veh/day)AADTMAX =3,500 (veh/day)Intersection skew angle (degrees) [If 4ST, does skew differ for minor legs? Else, No.]NoSkew for Leg 1 (All):0Skew for Leg 2 (4ST only):0KABC Fatal and Injury OnlyPDO Property Damage OnlyNOTES: * AADT: It is important to remember that the AADT(major) = AADT(major approach1) + AADT(minor approach2) (refer to p.10‐6 in Part C of the HSM)(3)(4)(6)0.241.0001.00‐‐0.4311.00‐‐0.5691.00General InformationLocation InformationAnalystJohn CavanRoadwayI‐81 SB Ramp (No Build)Agency or CompanyWells + Associates, IncIntersectionat Reliance Road (Route 627)Date Performed02/04/23JurisdictionFrederick County, VAWorksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway IntersectionsInput DataSite ConditionsBase ConditionsIntersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG)4ST‐‐IntersectionIntersection 1Analysis Year2025Signalized/UnsignalizedUnsignalized0Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)00Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)00AADTmajor (veh/day)10,575‐‐AADTminor (veh/day)3,900‐‐Average Annual Crash History (3 or 5‐yr average)           Intersection crashesWorksheet 2B ‐‐ Crash Modification Factors for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway IntersectionsIntersection lighting (present/not present)Not PresentNot PresentCalibration Factor, Ci1.001.00(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)CMF for Intersection Skew AngleCMF for Left‐Turn LanesCMF for Right‐Turn LanesCMF for LightingCombined CMFCMF 1iCMF 2iCMF 3iCMF 4iCMF COMBfrom Equations 10‐22 or 10‐23from Table 10‐13from Table 10‐14from Equation 10‐24(1)*(2)*(3)*(4)Worksheet 2C ‐‐ Intersection Crashes for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway Intersections(1)(2)(5)(7)(8)1.001.001.001.001.00Calibration Factor, CiPredicted average crash frequency,   N predicted intfrom Equations 10‐8, 10‐9, or 10‐10from Section 10.6.2  from Table  10‐5(2)TOTAL * (4)from (5) of Worksheet 2B(5)*(6)*(7)Crash Severity LevelN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SGOverdispersion Parameter, kCrash Severity DistributionN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SG by Severity DistributionCombined CMFsTotal 7.719 7.719 1.00 7.719Fatal and Injury (FI)‐‐3.3271.003.327Property Damage Only (PDO)‐‐4.3921.004.392H-1 407 (2)1.0000.0100.0010.0010.0050.1220.0080.1470.4310.0400.2420.1010.0390.853Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequencyNpredicted (KABCO)Nexpected (KABCO)Npredicted (KABC)Nexpected (KABC)Npredicted (O)Nexpected (O)7.7Not applicable Not applicable 3.3 Not applicable Not applicable4.4Not applicable Not applicable(1)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Worksheet 2D ‐‐ Crashes by Severity Level and Collision Type for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road IntersectionsTotal7.7191.0003.3271.0004.392N predicted int (PDO) (crashes/year)    from Table  10‐6 (8)TOTAL from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)FI from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)PDO from Worksheet 2CCollision TypeProportion of Collision Type(TOTAL)N predicted int (TOTAL) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(FI)N predicted int (FI) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(PDO)SINGLE‐VEHICLECollision with animal0.0770.0060.0200.0140.061(2)x(3)TOTAL(4)x(5)FI(6)x(7)PDOCollision with pedestrian0.0080.0010.0030.0010.004Collision with bicycle0.0080.0010.0030.0010.004Ran off road0.9420.0940.3130.1440.632Overturned0.0390.0060.0200.0040.018Total single‐vehicle crashes1.1350.1120.3730.1740.764Other single‐vehicle collision0.0620.0040.0130.0100.044Head‐on collision0.3090.0600.2000.0250.110MULTIPLE‐VEHICLEAngle collision3.3270.5321.7700.3541.555Sideswipe collision0.7800.0440.1460.1440.632Rear‐end collision1.8680.2100.6990.2661.168Total multiple‐vehicle crashes6.5840.8882.9540.8263.628Other multiple‐vehicle collision0.3010.0420.1400.0370.163Total1.0007.7Fatal and Injury (FI)0.4313.3Worksheet 2E ‐‐ Summary Results for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road Intersections(1)(2)(3)Crash severity levelCrash Severity Distribution (proportion)Predicted average crash frequency (crashes / year)(4) from Worksheet 2C(8) from Worksheet 2C(PDO)Potential for Improvement Potential for Improvement Potential for ImprovementSpecial Note: When the project element is not included in the analysis the results will all be zeros. In addition if only the analysis only includes determining the predicted average crash frequency (i.e. EB analysis is not carried out), the results will show zero values where EB results are usually displayed.1 The values in this table are rounded values.  For unrounded values, refer to Workdheet 1L.Property Damage Only (PDO)0.5694.4PROJECT ELEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY1Summary for the project elementTotal Crashes/yrFatal and Injury Crashes/yrProperty Damage Only Crashes/yr(KABCO)(KABC)H-2 408 AADTMAX =25,200 (veh/day)AADTMAX =12,500 (veh/day)Intersection skew angle (degrees) [If 4ST, does skew differ for minor legs? Else, No.]NoSkew for Leg 1 (All):0Skew for Leg 2 (4ST only):0KABC Fatal and Injury OnlyPDO Property Damage OnlyNOTES: * AADT: It is important to remember that the AADT(major) = AADT(major approach1) + AADT(minor approach2) (refer to p.10‐6 in Part C of the HSM)(3)(4)(6)0.111.0001.00‐‐0.3401.00‐‐0.6601.00General InformationLocation InformationAnalystJohn CavanRoadwayI‐81 SB Ramp (Alternative A)Agency or CompanyWells + Associates, IncIntersectionat Reliance Road (Route 627)Date Performed02/04/23JurisdictionFrederick County, VAWorksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway IntersectionsInput DataSite ConditionsBase ConditionsIntersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG)4SG‐‐IntersectionIntersection 2Analysis Year2025Signalized/UnsignalizedSignalized0Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)00Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)00AADTmajor (veh/day)10,575‐‐AADTminor (veh/day)3,900‐‐Average Annual Crash History (3 or 5‐yr average)           Intersection crashesWorksheet 2B ‐‐ Crash Modification Factors for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway IntersectionsIntersection lighting (present/not present)Not PresentNot PresentCalibration Factor, Ci1.001.00(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)CMF for Intersection Skew AngleCMF for Left‐Turn LanesCMF for Right‐Turn LanesCMF for LightingCombined CMFCMF 1iCMF 2iCMF 3iCMF 4iCMF COMBfrom Equations 10‐22 or 10‐23from Table 10‐13from Table 10‐14from Equation 10‐24(1)*(2)*(3)*(4)Worksheet 2C ‐‐ Intersection Crashes for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway Intersections(1)(2)(5)(7)(8)1.001.001.001.001.00Calibration Factor, CiPredicted average crash frequency,   N predicted intfrom Equations 10‐8, 10‐9, or 10‐10from Section 10.6.2  from Table  10‐5(2)TOTAL * (4)from (5) of Worksheet 2B(5)*(6)*(7)Crash Severity LevelN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SGOverdispersion Parameter, kCrash Severity DistributionN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SG by Severity DistributionCombined CMFsTotal 8.032 8.032 1.00 8.032Fatal and Injury (FI)‐‐2.7311.002.731Property Damage Only (PDO)‐‐5.3011.005.301H-3 409 (2)1.0000.0020.0010.0010.0030.0640.0050.0760.2740.0540.4260.1180.0520.924Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequencyNpredicted (KABCO)Nexpected (KABCO)Npredicted (KABC)Nexpected (KABC)Npredicted (O)Nexpected (O)8.0Not applicable Not applicable 2.7 Not applicable Not applicable5.3Not applicable Not applicable(1)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Worksheet 2D ‐‐ Crashes by Severity Level and Collision Type for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road IntersectionsTotal8.0321.0002.7311.0005.301N predicted int (PDO) (crashes/year)    from Table  10‐6 (8)TOTAL from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)FI from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)PDO from Worksheet 2CCollision TypeProportion of Collision Type(TOTAL)N predicted int (TOTAL) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(FI)N predicted int (FI) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(PDO)SINGLE‐VEHICLECollision with animal0.0160.0000.0000.0030.016(2)x(3)TOTAL(4)x(5)FI(6)x(7)PDOCollision with pedestrian0.0080.0010.0030.0010.005Collision with bicycle0.0080.0010.0030.0010.005Ran off road0.5140.0320.0870.0810.429Overturned0.0240.0030.0080.0030.016Total single‐vehicle crashes0.6100.0400.1090.1070.567Other single‐vehicle collision0.0400.0030.0080.0180.095Head‐on collision0.4340.0800.2180.0400.212MULTIPLE‐VEHICLEAngle collision2.2010.3360.9180.2421.283Sideswipe collision0.9480.0510.1390.1530.811Rear‐end collision3.4220.4031.1010.4382.322Total multiple‐vehicle crashes7.4220.9602.6220.8934.734Other multiple‐vehicle collision0.4180.0900.2460.0200.106Total1.0008.0Fatal and Injury (FI)0.3402.7Worksheet 2E ‐‐ Summary Results for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road Intersections(1)(2)(3)Crash severity levelCrash Severity Distribution (proportion)Predicted average crash frequency (crashes / year)(4) from Worksheet 2C(8) from Worksheet 2C(PDO)Potential for Improvement Potential for Improvement Potential for ImprovementSpecial Note: When the project element is not included in the analysis the results will all be zeros. In addition if only the analysis only includes determining the predicted average crash frequency (i.e. EB analysis is not carried out), the results will show zero values where EB results are usually displayed.1 The values in this table are rounded values.  For unrounded values, refer to Workdheet 1L.Property Damage Only (PDO)0.6605.3PROJECT ELEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY1Summary for the project elementTotal Crashes/yrFatal and Injury Crashes/yrProperty Damage Only Crashes/yr(KABCO)(KABC)H-4 410 AADTMAX =14,700 (veh/day)AADTMAX =3,500 (veh/day)Intersection skew angle (degrees) [If 4ST, does skew differ for minor legs? Else, No.]NoSkew for Leg 1 (All):0Skew for Leg 2 (4ST only):0KABC Fatal and Injury OnlyPDO Property Damage OnlyNOTES: * AADT: It is important to remember that the AADT(major) = AADT(major approach1) + AADT(minor approach2) (refer to p.10‐6 in Part C of the HSM)(3)(4)(6)0.241.0000.86‐‐0.4310.86‐‐0.5690.86General InformationLocation InformationAnalystJohn CavanRoadwayI‐81 SB Ramp (Alternative B)Agency or CompanyWells + Associates, IncIntersectionat Reliance Road (Route 627)Date Performed02/04/23JurisdictionFrederick County, VAWorksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway IntersectionsInput DataSite ConditionsBase ConditionsIntersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG)4ST‐‐IntersectionIntersection 1Analysis Year2025Signalized/UnsignalizedUnsignalized0Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)00Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right‐turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4)10AADTmajor (veh/day)10,575‐‐AADTminor (veh/day)3,900‐‐Average Annual Crash History (3 or 5‐yr average)           Intersection crashesWorksheet 2B ‐‐ Crash Modification Factors for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway IntersectionsIntersection lighting (present/not present)Not PresentNot PresentCalibration Factor, Ci1.001.00(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)CMF for Intersection Skew AngleCMF for Left‐Turn LanesCMF for Right‐Turn LanesCMF for LightingCombined CMFCMF 1iCMF 2iCMF 3iCMF 4iCMF COMBfrom Equations 10‐22 or 10‐23from Table 10‐13from Table 10‐14from Equation 10‐24(1)*(2)*(3)*(4)Worksheet 2C ‐‐ Intersection Crashes for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Roadway Intersections(1)(2)(5)(7)(8)1.001.000.861.000.86Calibration Factor, CiPredicted average crash frequency,   N predicted intfrom Equations 10‐8, 10‐9, or 10‐10from Section 10.6.2  from Table  10‐5(2)TOTAL * (4)from (5) of Worksheet 2B(5)*(6)*(7)Crash Severity LevelN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SGOverdispersion Parameter, kCrash Severity DistributionN spf 3ST, 4ST or 4SG by Severity DistributionCombined CMFsTotal 7.719 7.719 1.00 6.638Fatal and Injury (FI)‐‐3.3271.002.861Property Damage Only (PDO)‐‐4.3921.003.777H-5 411 (2)1.0000.0100.0010.0010.0050.1220.0080.1470.4310.0400.2420.1010.0390.853Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequency Predicted average crash frequencyExpected average crash frequencyNpredicted (KABCO)Nexpected (KABCO)Npredicted (KABC)Nexpected (KABC)Npredicted (O)Nexpected (O)6.6Not applicable Not applicable 2.9 Not applicable Not applicable3.8Not applicable Not applicable(1)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Worksheet 2D ‐‐ Crashes by Severity Level and Collision Type for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road IntersectionsTotal6.6381.0002.8611.0003.777N predicted int (PDO) (crashes/year)    from Table  10‐6 (8)TOTAL from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)FI from Worksheet 2Cfrom Table 10‐6(8)PDO from Worksheet 2CCollision TypeProportion of Collision Type(TOTAL)N predicted int (TOTAL) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(FI)N predicted int (FI) (crashes/year) Proportion of Collision Type(PDO)SINGLE‐VEHICLECollision with animal0.0660.0060.0170.0140.053(2)x(3)TOTAL(4)x(5)FI(6)x(7)PDOCollision with pedestrian0.0070.0010.0030.0010.004Collision with bicycle0.0070.0010.0030.0010.004Ran off road0.8100.0940.2690.1440.544Overturned0.0330.0060.0170.0040.015Total single‐vehicle crashes0.9760.1120.3200.1740.657Other single‐vehicle collision0.0530.0040.0110.0100.038Head‐on collision0.2660.0600.1720.0250.094MULTIPLE‐VEHICLEAngle collision2.8610.5321.5220.3541.337Sideswipe collision0.6700.0440.1260.1440.544Rear‐end collision1.6060.2100.6010.2661.005Total multiple‐vehicle crashes5.6620.8882.5410.8263.120Other multiple‐vehicle collision0.2590.0420.1200.0370.140Total1.0006.6Fatal and Injury (FI)0.4312.9Worksheet 2E ‐‐ Summary Results for Rural Two‐Lane Two‐Way Road Intersections(1)(2)(3)Crash severity levelCrash Severity Distribution (proportion)Predicted average crash frequency (crashes / year)(4) from Worksheet 2C(8) from Worksheet 2C(PDO)Potential for Improvement Potential for Improvement Potential for ImprovementSpecial Note: When the project element is not included in the analysis the results will all be zeros. In addition if only the analysis only includes determining the predicted average crash frequency (i.e. EB analysis is not carried out), the results will show zero values where EB results are usually displayed.1 The values in this table are rounded values.  For unrounded values, refer to Workdheet 1L.Property Damage Only (PDO)0.5693.8PROJECT ELEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY1Summary for the project elementTotal Crashes/yrFatal and Injury Crashes/yrProperty Damage Only Crashes/yr(KABCO)(KABC)H-6 412 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Page 1 of 5 VDOT Signal Justification Report (SJR) Staunton District Date: July 12, 2024 I. Study Intersection Major Street Route # and Name: Reliance Road (Route 627) Direction: East/West Minor Street Route # and Name: I-81 Ramps Direction: North/South County or Locality: Frederick County, VA Is the Intersection on the Arterial Preservation Network (APN)?: No Sketch/Diagram/Aerial of the Intersection Geometry: . Describe the origin and nature of the request. If this SJR is based on a recommendation from another study (e.g. Traffic Impact Analysis or Safety Study), then note the name/date of the study and attach the study to this SJR. . This SJR is based on a recommendation from the Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study dated July 27, 2022. Key excerpts are included in Appendix C. It is noted that this SJR incorporates both the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road and the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road intersections. Wells + Associates, Inc Tysons, Virginia TRAFFIC ENGINEER 413 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Page 2 of 5 If the origin of this SJR comes from another study, what were the key conclusions from that study that are related to this intersection? The study showed that a traffic signal would be necessary to provide adequate traffic operations at the Reliance Road/I- 81 NB Ramps/I-81 SB Ramps interchange under 2025 total future conditions with the proposed development of the Hester Trust Property site. With the installation of a traffic signal, acceptable levels-of-service would be maintained. An Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was submitted under separate cover and approved. II. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary. Intersection Approach Information:. Approach Direction Road Name/Route Number Approach Speed Approach Speed Type Approach Speed Notes1 Number of Through Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Northbound I-81 NB Ramps 30 MPH Other (Describe in Notes) Advisory Speed Limit of Ramp 1 1,600 Southbound I-81 SB Ramps 30 MPH Other (Describe in Notes) Advisory Speed Limit of Ramp 1 2,900 Eastbound Reliance Road (Route 627) 35 MPH Posted Speed Limit Based on a Speed Limit Resolution dated July 25, 2022. 1 2,100 Westbound Reliance Road (Route 627) 35 MPH Posted Speed Limit Based on a Speed Limit Resolution dated July 25, 2022. 1 2,100 1 If approach speed type is not the posted/statutory speed limit, explain the reason why the posted/statutory speed limit was not used. Summary of Traffic Count Source:. AADT estimates were taken from the 2021 VDOT published traffic data. Signal warrant and capacity analysis based on 13- hour traffic counts collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022. Summary of MUTCD Signal Warrant Analysis: MUTCD Signal Warrants Warrant Satisfied? Notes / Summary Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A Warrants 1A, 1B, 1 C Warrant 1: VDOT ADT Option1 ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A Warrant 3: Peak Hour2 ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A Warrants 3A and 3B Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Warrant 5: School Crossing ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Warrant 7: Crash Experience3 ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A Warrant 8: Roadway Network ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A 1 The VDOT ADT Estimate Warrant in the VA Supplement to the MUTCD may be used instead of MUTCD Warrants 1 and 2 if the DTE concurs that it is infeasible to project estimated opening-day volumes over 8 or more hours of the day. Refer to Chapter 4C of the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD for additional information on the use of this option. 2 As per MUTCD Section 4C.04, Warrant 3 shall only be applied in unusual cases, such as facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short period of time. 3 The Alternative Signal Warrant 7 – Crash Experience documented in FHWA Interim Approval #19 (IA-19) shall be used as per the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD and the latest edition of IIM-TE-387. The most recent available three years of available crash data shall be used. Are the signal warrant analyses based on current volumes or anticipated future volumes? ☐ Current volumes ☒ Anticipated future volumes/conditions 414 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Page 3 of 5 If the signal warrant is only met under future conditions, provide a summary of trip generation assumptions and anticipated development thresholds that will trigger the signal being justified: . Trip generation and traffic forecast assumptions are consistent with the previously referenced Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study dated July 29, 2022. Key excerpts are included in Appendix C Was the 70% volume reduction factor applied to various signal warrant thresholds? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, please describe the additional justification based on engineering judgment for use of the 70% volume reduction factor: Was a right-turn volume adjustment used? ☐ Yes ☒ No Please describe the rationale for this determination (whether yes or no above) and how the right turn vehicle volumes were considered in the analysis: The minor street approaches consist of a single shared left-thru-right lane. Because exclusive right turn lanes are not provided, no right-turn volume adjustment was applied. III. VJuST Innovative Intersection Consideration. Summary of Potentially Feasible Innovative Intersections according to VJuST results: . Innovative Intersection Type Feasibility Decision and Reason Roundabout Is this Innovative Intersection type feasible? ☐ Yes ☒ No Explanation: Providing roundabouts at the I-81 Ramp intersections would require wider approach cross-sections to accommodate features such as the splitter islands that would provide a greater deflection angle. This roadway widening would likely require a replacement of the Reliance Road bridge over I-81. In addition, due to the proximity of Buckton Road and other commercial entrances to the existing intersections, vehicle access changes to would be required on Reliance Road in the vicinity of the interchange. Diverging Diamond Is this Innovative Intersection type feasible? ☐ Yes ☒ No Explanation: While a diverging diamond design would maintain the existing overall diamond interchange configuration, a significant redesign of the approaches would be required. Due to the need for a wider cross-section on Reliance Road, the bridge over I-81 would likely need to be replaced. In addition, the location of the I-81 ramps may need to be modified. . IV. Intersection Configuration and Control Recommendations and Signal Justification . Intersection configuration and control recommendations: Intersection configuration and control recommendations are included in the attached document. Signal Justification: A signal justification report is included in the attached document. Based on the results, it is anticipated that a traffic signal is justified at this location. Based on the traffic operations, the signal at the I-81 NB Ramps should be prioritized. 415 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Page 4 of 5 Is an Access Management Exception or Access Management Waiver necessitated by the recommended intersection control method?: ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, please describe the specific spacing requirement that is not met (e.g., which spacing requirement from the Road Design Manual Appendix F) and brief rationale for recommending this condition: 416 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Appendix A: Signal Warrant Analysis 417      A‐1    INTRODUCTION    At the request of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and in accordance with the  evaluation criteria for a new traffic signal,  Wells + Associates (W+A) has prepared a Traffic Signal  Justification Report for the grade‐separated interchange of Reliance Road (Route 627) and the I‐ 81 Ramps in Frederick County, Virginia. This SJR analyzes both I‐81 Ramp intersections as part of  the warrant analysis.  The subject intersections, as shown on Figure 1, are located at I‐81 mile‐ marker 302 and are approximately 2,000 feet east of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11).    This Signal Justification Report is being prepared in conjunction with the rezoning application for  the Hester Trust Property.  The subject property is planned for 848,000 square foot (S.F.) of  general light industrial uses along the east side of Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and west of  Interstate 81. The site is expected to be constructed in a single development phase with  completion planned for 2025. Vehicular access to the site is proposed via two full‐movement  driveways on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11).    This SJR was completed based on traffic data collected by W+A, information from the Hester  Trust Property Traffic Impact Study, dated July 29, 2022, and guidelines contained in VDOT’s IIM‐ TE‐387.1 as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition,  revised through 2012. The Traffic Engineering Applications Package (TEAPAC) computer software  was used to evaluate the MUTCD warrants, and Synchro 11 was used in order to analyze traffic  volumes and levels of service.    It is noted that an Operational and Safety Analysis Report (OSAR) was submitted under separate  cover and approved.      EXISTING 2022 TRAFFIC COUNTS    Vehicle turning movement data was collected during a 13‐hour period on Tuesday, May 3, 2022  from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Traffic counts are included in Attachment I. Minimal pedestrian or  bicycle traffic was noted during on‐site observations. As part of the previously prepared traffic  study, peak hour link volumes on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) north of Mustang Lane were  compared to year 2017 VDOT data.  The recently conducted counts appear to be slightly higher  than published VDOT count data. Therefore, no further adjustments were made to baseline  traffic volumes to account for the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic.       418 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11INTERSTATE81INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\23.0109 SIGNAL WARRANT GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 1Study LocationHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaStudyIntersectionsA-2419 A-3 ROAD NETWORK Interstate 81 is a four-lane divided Interstate highway with a posted speed limit of 70 mph in the vicinity of the Reliance Road interchange. A full-movement interchange is provided at Reliance Road via a diamond configuration with both ramp terminals operating under stop sign control. Reliance Road (Route 627) is classified as a Major Collector that provides east-west access to the area with connections to Interstate 81 via a grade-separated interchange. It generally provides a single travel lane in each direction with stop-controlled intersections at the interchange ramps and Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SPACING The subject driveway is located on Reliance Road. The nearest signal to the west is the planned traffic signal at Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and the nearest signal to the east is at Winchester Road (U.S. Route 522). The required and provide signal spacing is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 Signalized Intersection Spacing1 Segment of Reliance Road Required (feet) Measured (feet) Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)2 to I-81 SB Ramps 660 2,000 Winchester Road (U.S. Route 522) to I-81 SB Ramps 660 30,000 Notes: 1. Distances Measured using Google Earth Pro. 2. Location of Potential Future Traffic Signal Based on Appendix F of the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Road Design Manual, a Major Collector with a design speed between 35 and 45 mph would require traffic signals to be spaced at least 660 feet apart. As shown in Table 1 above, the subject intersections satisfy VDOT’s Access Management spacing guidelines. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The traffic forecasts used in this study were based on the Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study, dated July 29, 2022 (Key excerpts are included in Appendix C). Below presents the various forecast layers to arrive at the 2025 Future Conditions with Development that were utilized in assessing the need for a traffic signal. Refer to Attachment II for traffic volume layers information. 420 A-4 Diurnal rate distributions were used to forecast future land uses (pipeline developments and the proposed light industrial uses) during the hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. These rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. As noted previously, traffic forecast details can be found in Attachment II. Existing Conditions 13-hour vehicular counts of through traffic were collected on Tuesday, May 3, 2022 from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. As noted earlier, a comparison with previously collected VDOT link data indicated that no further adjustments were required to account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Tables II-1 and III-1 of Attachment II. Pipeline Developments Traffic volumes associated with three (3) nearby pipeline developments were assumed in the future traffic forecasts. Trip generation information for pipeline development is shown on Table 1 and detailed pipeline development forecasts are shown on Tables II-2A through II-2E and III-2A through III-2E included in Attachment II. Regional Growth An annual growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was applied to all traffic movements along Reliance Road and the I-81 Ramps to account for growth in regional traffic over time for 2025 conditions. Detailed growth estimates are included in Tables II-3 and III-3 of Attachment II. Future Traffic Forecasts Without Development (2025) Traffic forecasts without the proposed Hester Trust Property development were developed for the horizon year of 2025. These forecasts were based on the existing baseline traffic counts, regional growth estimates, and pipeline trip assignments. Detailed traffic volumes forecasts are shown on Tables II-4 and III-4 of Attachment II. Site Generated Traffic The number of AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the proposed development program were estimated based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition trip rates and equations. ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) was used to prepare the analysis. As shown in Table 2 of Attachment II, the proposed development program (848,000 S.F.) is estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in 421 A-5 and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. Directional Distribution. Consistent with the traffic study the estimated new daily trips were distributed onto the surrounding road network based on the following distributions: Passenger Vehicles Trucks To/From the North on I-81: 25% 40% To/From the South on I-81: 40% 60% To/From the North on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the South on Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11): 15% 0% To/From the East on Reliance Road: 5% 0% Total: 100% 100% 13-Hour Forecasts. Using the trip generation estimates along with the above-described distributions and the diurnal rates, 13-hour site trip forecasts were developed for the site generated traffic. Details of these forecasts can be found in Tables II-5A and II-5B and III-5A and III-5B of Attachment II. Total Future Traffic Forecasts with Development (2025) Combining the existing traffic volumes, regional growth, pipeline developments, and new site generated trips, 13-hour traffic forecasts were derived for the hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM for future conditions with development in 2025. A summary of the 13-hour Total Future traffic volumes is included in Tables II-6 and III-6 of Attachment II. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Criteria. This traffic signal warrant study has been conducted in accordance with the MUTCD, 2009 Edition. The purpose of the study is to determine if the subject intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal under future 2025 conditions. 422 A-6 The MUTCD lists nine (9) warrants that could indicate the need for, and appropriateness of, a new traffic signal and are also summarized in Attachment III. Each of the warrants considered are listed below. Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic Condition C – Combination of Warrants Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Condition A – Peak Hour Delay Condition B – Peak Hour Volume Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume Condition A – Peak Hour Volume Condition B – Four-Hour Volume Warrant 5 – School Crossing Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7 – Crash Experience Warrant 8 – Roadway Network Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing The following warrants were not applicable to the analysis: Warrant 4 – The Pedestrian Volume Warrant (Warrant 4) was not analyzed for the study intersection based on the field observations of negligible pedestrian volumes during all of the study hours. Warrant 5 – School Crossing – This warrant applies only to locations where there is an established school crossing. No known established school crossing exists at this intersection. Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System – This warrant applies only when progressive movement in a coordinated signal system is needed to control platooning. The subject location is not part of a coordinated corridor. Warrant 8 – Roadway Network – This warrant applies only to the intersection of two major roadways. Warrant 9 – Intersection near a Grade Crossing - This warrant is intended for use at a location where none of other eight warrants are met and at-grade (railroad, light-rail, etc.) is a concern and creates a conflict. 423 A-7 One or more of the nine (9) warrants should be satisfied before a new signal is considered for installation; however, satisfaction of a warrant does not in itself justify the need for a new signal. A new signal should improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. For purposes of this analysis, Warrants 1, 2, 3 and 7 are applicable based on available data. Warrants 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are not applicable at the subject intersections. It is noted that a Speed Limit Resolution was approved on July 25, 2022, setting the speed limit of Reliance Road at the I-81 interchange to 35 mph. Therefore the 70% factor was not applied the warrant thresholds. Unsignalized Peak Hour Level of Service Evaluation. Since delay is a required input for TEAPAC, 2022 existing and 2025 future peak hour levels of service (LOS) were estimated at the study intersections based on the forecasted vehicular traffic counts and the existing lane usage shown on Figure 2-4 of Appendix C and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition unsignalized intersection capacity analysis methodology using Synchro 11. The results are presented in Attachment IV and are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Levels of Services (LOS) Summary – Unsignalized Conditions Lane 2022 Existing 2025 Background Without Development 2025 Total Future with Development Group AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road – Stop-Control NBLTR C [23.8] C [16.5] F [109.5] F [284.2] F [802.7] F [475.2] EBLT A [8.1] A [7.9] A [9.2] A [9.1] A [9.4] A [9.4] 2. I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road – Stop-Control WBLT A [8.2] A [8.1] A [9.1] A [9.2] A [9.3] A [9.7] SBLTR B [11.6] B [12.9] D [28.4] F [76.4] F [180.3] F [108.3] Note: Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Methodology, using Synchro 11. As shown in Table 2, The northbound approach of the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the AM and PM peak hours under both background and future conditions. The southbound approach of the I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would operate beyond capacity (LOS “F”) during the PM peak period under background conditions and during both the AM and PM peak hours with the proposed development. Right Turns. At both intersections, the minor street approaches currently consist of a single shared left-thru-right lane. Because exclusive right turn lanes are not provided, no right-turn volume adjustment was applied. 424 A-8 Crash Data. Crash data from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021 was obtained from the VDOT database for the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road and the I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road intersections. The crash data is included in Attachment V and summarized below: I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road Intersection. Four crashes occurred at this intersection within a recent three-year period. One of these crashes were of an angle type and deemed “correctable” by a traffic signal and no crashes involved pedestrians. No fatalities were reported, and the angle crash did not involve injuries. A maximum of one angle crash occurred within a 12-month period but did not involve injuries. I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road Intersection. Three crashes occurred at this intersection within a recent three-year period. All three of these crashes were of an angle type and deemed “correctable” by a traffic signal and no crashes involved pedestrians. No fatalities were reported, and one angle crash involved injuries. A maximum of three angle crashes occurred within a 12- month period, one of which involve injuries. Per VDOT’s IIM-TE-387.1, Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) was assessed based on the Alternative Signal Warrant 7 – Crash Experience documented in FHWA Interim Approval #19 (IA-19). Based on FHWA guidelines, a rural four-leg intersection with single through lane approaches would warrant signalization if it meets at least one of the following criteria:  Four (4) Angle or Pedestrian crashes in a 12-month period  Three (3) Angle or Pedestrian crashes involving injuries in a 12-month period  Six (6) Angle or Pedestrian crashes in a three-year period  Four (4) Angle or Pedestrian crashes involving injuries in a three-year period Based on the crash data described above, neither intersection would meet the Alternative Crash Experience Warrant. MUTCD Warrant Analysis An evaluation of the MUTCD guidelines was prepared based on the 13-hour traffic count data, roadway geometry, and approach delay. For purposes of the TEAPAC analysis, Reliance Road was used as the major street at the subject intersection. The results of the TEAPAC analysis are presented in Attachment VI and are summarized in Table 3. 425 A-9 I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road: As shown in Table 3, the following MUTCD warrants would be met at the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection under 2025 total future conditions with full buildout of the development: • Warrant 1A: 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume • Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay • Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road: As shown in Table 3, the following MUTCD warrants would be met at the I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection under 2025 total future conditions with full buildout of the development: • Warrant 1A: 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume • Warrant 1B: 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic • Warrant 1C: 8-Hour Combination of Warrants • Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay • Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume Traffic Signal Justification VDOT memorandum IIM-TE-387.1 provides the requirements for the justification of a new traffic signal. In order to prioritize mobility and safety on a corridor level, a new traffic signal must be determined to be both warranted and necessary to preserve traffic operations. Reliance Road is not designated as part of the Arterial Preservation Network in Development through Frederick County. However, other alternative traffic controls were assessed. 426 A-10 Table 3 I-81 Ramps/Reliance Road Signal Warrant Study Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 1 Warrant Warrant Requirements Number Title 1-A 8 - Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume 8 hours 12 hours Met 13 hours Met 1-B 8 - Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic 8 hours 4 hours Not Met 12 hours Met 1-C 8 - Hour Combination of Warrants Warrant 1-A (80%)8 hours 13 hours Met 13 hours Met Warrant 1-B (80%)8 hours 10 hours Met 13 hours Met Overall 1-C Warrant 8 hours (Both A +B)Met Met 2 4 - Hour Vehicular Volume 4 hours 11 hours Met 13 hours Met 3-A Peak Hour Delay ≥ 4 vehicle-hours of delay >20 vehicle-hrs >12 vehicle-hrs Overall 3-A Warrant Met Met 3-B Peak Hour Volume 1 hour 4 hour Met 10 hours Met 4-A Pedestrian 4-Hour Volume2 4 hours N/A N/A N/A N/A 4-B Pedestrian Peak Hour Volume2 1 hour N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 School Crossing 2 Min. 20 students/hour N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 Coordinated Signal System 2 Maintain Proper Platooning N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 Crash Experience ≥ 4 correctable accidents 1 crash Not Met 3 crashes Not Met for one 12 month period 8 Roadway Network 2 ≥ 1000 vehs on Sat./Sun. N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing 2, 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1. Warrant summary based on TEAPAC (version 8.60.02) - 2009 MUTCD Warrant Analysis 3. This warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight (8) warrants are met, but the intersection’s proximity to a grade crossing is the principal reason to consider a traffic signal. 2. N/A: Not Applicable or does not apply Analysis Results Warrant Results 2025 Total Future Conditions Warrant Results Analysis Results I-81 NB Ramps/ Reliance Road I-81 SB Ramps/ Reliance Road 427 A-11 Signalized Peak Hour Level of Service Evaluation. Total future delays were estimated for an optimized signalized condition based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 Edition methodology using Synchro 11. The results are presented in Attachment IV and are summarized in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, under future signalized conditions, each approach of the subject intersections and all lane groups are expected to operate at overall LOS “D” or better during the both the AM and PM peak hours under both background and total future conditions with development. Table 4 Levels of Services (LOS) Summary – Signalized Conditions Lane 2025 Background Without Development 2025 Total Future with Development Group AM PM AM PM 1. I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road – Signalized EBLT B (13.8) C (32.3) D (44.4) D (39.4) WBTR A (7.0) A (7.5) B (13.1) A (7.7) NBLTR D (39.1) D (48.0) D (52.3) D (49.3) Overall B (16.6) C (27.7) D (36.8) C (31.7) 2. I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road – Signalized EBTR A (8.9) B (13.0) B (14.6) B (16.9) WBLT A (7.6) A (3.2) C (21.5) A (8.7) SBLTR D (36.6) D (42.8) D (46.3) D (43.6) Overall B (15.1) B (18.1) C (25.3) C (21.3) Note: Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Methodology, using Synchro 11 Roundabout. The Virginia Supplement to the 2009 MUTCD indicates that roundabouts are to be considered when constructing or reconstructing a signalized or an un-signalized intersection. Roundabouts are the preferred alternative if a study shows that they are feasible. Providing roundabouts at the I-81 Ramp intersections would require wider approach cross-sections to accommodate features such as the splitter islands that would provide a greater deflection angle. This roadway widening would likely require a replacement of the Reliance Road bridge over I-81. In addition, due to the proximity of Buckton Road and other commercial entrances to the existing intersections, vehicle access changes to would be required on Reliance Road in the vicinity of the interchange. An exhibit is attached showing the impact of constructing roundabouts at this location. 428 A-12 Diverging Diamond (Innovative Interchange Design). The VDOT Junction Screening Tool provides a number of alternative interchange designs. While an alternative such as the diverging diamond design would maintain the existing overall diamond interchange configuration, a significant redesign of the approaches would be required. Due to the need for a wider cross-section on Reliance Road, the bridge over I-81 would likely need to be replaced. In addition, the location of the I-81 ramps may need to be modified. The VJuST information is contained in Appendix B. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Based on the 13-hour traffic data and the MUTCD traffic signal warrant analyses contained herein a traffic signal is warranted at the Reliance Road/I-81 NB Ramps interchange with buildout of the proposed development. Specifically, the following four (4) warrants would be met at the I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection for 2025 conditions: •Warrant 1A: 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume •Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume •Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay •Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume The following six (6) warrants would be met at the I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road intersection for 2031 conditions: •Warrant 1A: 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume •Warrant 1B: 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic •Warrant 1C: 8-Hour Combination of Warrants •Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume •Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay •Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume It is recommended that in order to accommodate the estimated traffic demand at the subject interchange, a traffic signal should be designed and installed at both locations. As shown above, traffic signal warrants would be met at both intersections. Based on the traffic operations, the signal at the I-81 NB Ramps should be prioritized. Further, providing signalized control would maintain acceptable levels of service at both locations. O:\Projects\8501-9000\8555 Hester Property\Documents\SJR\Reliance Road & I-81 Ramps SJR Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis (Submission 7.12.2024).docx 429 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Appendix A: Signal Warrant Analysis 430 Attachment I  Traffic Count Data     431 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 NB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 701000002418000119070 6:15 AM 1412000003619000910091 6:30 AM 14020000040250001390103 6:45 AM 21040000034240001560104 7:00 AM 251300000481500017170126 7:15 AM 320400000531200024190144 7:30 AM 430500000592100020260174 7:45 AM 320400000362100027120132 8:00 AM 161900000262200018140106 8:15 AM 250200000331800014180110 8:30 AM 201200000382000022110114 8:45 AM 25040000027210001012099 9:00 AM 14130000019160001612081 9:15 AM 804000001916000149070 9:30 AM 291000000173400028100119 9:45 AM 1803000001824000216090 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :3436520000052732600027920001733 APPROACH %'s :85.54% 1.50% 12.97% 0.00%61.78% 38.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.25% 41.75% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :132116000001966900088740576 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.767 0.250 0.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.821 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.815 0.712 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 121500000201900089074 10:15 AM 1408000002425000124087 10:30 AM 11130000019200001814086 10:45 AM 1606000003223000166099 11:00 AM 902000002228000219091 11:15 AM 12070000022270002940101 11:30 AM 1613000002619000169090 11:45 AM 1414000001932000186094 12:00 PM 15030000034250002140102 12:15 PM 22040000031210002170106 12:30 PM 15070000028290002570111 12:45 PM 1905000001821000227092 1:00 PM 200500000223100029120119 1:15 PM 414000002824000277095 1:30 PM 16030000031250002090104 1:45 PM 180600000282000023100105 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :2335750000040438900032612401556 APPROACH %'s :74.44% 1.60% 23.96% 0.00%50.95% 49.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 72.44% 27.56% 0.00% PEAK HR :12:15 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :76021000009910200097330428 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.864 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.798 0.823 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.836 0.688 0.000 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 1703000002224000208094 2:15 PM 2307000001817000175087 2:30 PM 172300000233100025120113 2:45 PM 151800000343100021110121 3:00 PM 250100000343300022190134 3:15 PM 270400000352700029110133 3:30 PM 211500000544100022120156 3:45 PM 221500000504800024110161 4:00 PM 2511200000433200023190155 4:15 PM 230600000444300034130163 4:30 PM 292900000304100033140158 4:45 PM 201600000363500035140147 5:00 PM 241600000393400033140151 5:15 PM 311400000384100026170158 5:30 PM 2201000000373900019110138 5:45 PM 160300000321800025100104 6:00 PM 18050000024190002770100 6:15 PM 13030000030230001812099 6:30 PM 23160000018210002660101 6:45 PM 13010000020300001716097 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :424121070000066162800049624202570 APPROACH %'s :78.08% 2.21% 19.71% 0.00%51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.21% 32.79% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :10452500000143151000127590614 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.839 0.625 0.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.921 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.907 0.868 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9720.838 0.930 0.949 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 12:15 PM - 01:15 PM 0.8990.933 0.882 0.793 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.8280.776 0.828 0.880 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-001 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 NB Ramps I-81 NB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd I-1 432 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location:I-81 SB Ramps & Reliance Rd City:Middletown Project ID: Control:1-Way Stop(SB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 6:00 AM 0000701800351301170091 6:15 AM 00008029004829032000137 6:30 AM 0 0 0 0100340 054200 2240 0144 6:45 AM 0 0 0 0121440 046260 3340 0166 7:00 AM 00006127005733043800166 7:15 AM 00006055006132054900208 7:30 AM 00002137007728046100210 7:45 AM 00009054004729055200196 8:00 AM 00007047004124013500155 8:15 AM 00002141004926033600158 8:30 AM 00006128005218023900146 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 038240 1350 0141 9:00 AM 00004028003119012800111 9:15 AM 0000702000291501220094 9:30 AM 00008127004214035400149 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0110440 032180 2350 0142 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 115 6 566 0 0 739 368 0 41 579 0 0 2414 APPROACH %'s :16.74% 0.87% 82.39% 0.00% 0.00% 66.76% 33.24% 0.00% 6.61% 93.39% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00002321730024212201820000780 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.639 0.500 0.786 0.000 0.000 0.786 0.924 0.000 0.900 0.820 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 10:00 AM 00003126003519032100108 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0130190 036150 6200 0109 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0110180 030150 2260 0102 10:45 AM 00003020005116003100121 11:00 AM 00004024004622052700128 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0100280 039300 5360 0148 11:30 AM 00007036003917013100131 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0100330 040120 4280 0127 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0100220 049210 5310 0138 12:15 PM 00003027004818014100138 12:30 PM 00006030005214023800142 12:45 PM 00004231003412043800125 1:00 PM 00009020004416074100137 1:15 PM 00005028004811042800124 1:30 PM 00003121005212033200124 1:45 PM 00006032004224043800146 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 107 4 415 0 0 685 274 0 56 507 0 0 2048 APPROACH %'s :20.34% 0.76% 78.90% 0.00% 0.00% 71.43% 28.57% 0.00% 9.95% 90.05% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :11:45 AM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0000290112001896501213800545 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.848 0.000 0.000 0.909 0.774 0.000 0.600 0.841 0.000 0.000 0000010001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 2:00 PM 00008020003925053200129 2:15 PM 00004024003011043400107 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0141340 041220 3410 0156 2:45 PM 00007035005723003600158 3:00 PM 00009138005918014600172 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0120360 049150 3510 0166 3:30 PM 00008040008825034200206 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0110380 086250 1440 0205 4:00 PM 00007032006819004800174 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0170450 071190 4540 0210 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0120490 058240 5550 0203 4:45 PM 00009051006324065100204 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0140450 060280 4520 0203 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0150500 063290 4540 0215 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0151450 060200 2370 0180 5:45 PM 00001003400406033900132 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0100400 033140 2440 0143 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0110350 043140 1300 0134 6:30 PM 00009230003012024700132 6:45 PM 0000802100429032700110 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 0 210 5 742 0 0 1080 382 0 56 864 0 0 3339 APPROACH %'s :21.94% 0.52% 77.53% 0.00% 0.00% 73.87% 26.13% 0.00% 6.09% 93.91% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00005001950024410501921200825 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.956 0.000 0.000 0.968 0.905 0.000 0.792 0.964 0.000 0.000 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.9590.942 0.948 0.963 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 11:45 AM - 12:45 PM 0.9600.820 0.907 0.893 NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.9290.786 0.867 0.838 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 22-260042-002 5/3/2022 Data - Total I-81 SB Ramps I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Rd Reliance Rd I-2 433 Attachment II  Traffic Forecasts     434 Table 1Hester Trust PropertyPipeline Development Trip Generation Analysis1ITEAverageLand Use Code Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsVillage at MiddletownSingle‐Family Residential 210 86                 DU 17              48              65              54              32              86        878                Multi‐Family Residential 220 22                 DU2                7                9                8                4                12        148                Stand‐Alone Commercial 820 58,600         SF63              38              101            149            155            304      3,957             Total 82              93              175            211            191            402      4,983             Single Family HousingSingle Family Housing 210 92                 DU18              51              69              58              34              92        935                Gas Station/Convenience Store (4‐5.5k)Gas Station/Convenience Store (4‐5.5k) 945 16                 Fueling 217            216            433            182            182            364      4,114             Pass‐By Trips (60% AM, 56% PM)Positions130           130           260           102           102           204     2,386 New Gas Station Trips87              86              173            80              80              160      1,728             Truck StopFuelingTruck Stop 950 10                 Positions 69              71              140            82              72              154      2,240             Total Pipeline Trips 256            301            557            431            377            808      9,886             Notes:1. Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.AM Peak HourPM Peak HourII-1435 Table 2Hester Trust PropertySite Trip Generation Analysis 1ITE WeekdayAverage Land UseCode Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsProposed DevelopmentGeneral Light Industrial 110 848,000       S.F. 510                70                  580                26                  162                188                3,239              Truck Trip Generation 5                   3                   8                   4                   4                   8                   212                 Passenger Vehicle Trip Generation 505               67                 572               22                 158               180               3,027             Notes:1. Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.AM Peak HourPM Peak HourII-2436 Table II-1Existing Traffic Volumes Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 0 034480 9 156086134368 7:00-8:00 AM0 0 074880161132069196576 8:00-9:00 AM0 0 05564017286081124429 9:00-10:00 AM0 0 0377901026909073360 10:00-11:00 AM0 0 0335402225308795346 11:00-12:00 PM0 0 02884016251010689376 12:00-1:00 PM0 0 02589019071096111411 1:00-2:00 PM0 0 038990181580100109423 2:00-3:00 PM0 0 03683021372010397415 3:00-4:00 PM0 0 053970152950149173584 4:00-5:00 PM0 0 0601250334970151153623 5:00-6:00 PM0 0 0521030232930132146551 6:00-7:00 PM0 0 0418801516709392397 Totals- - - 566 1,101 - 234 23 1,000 - 1,343 1,592 5,859 n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-3437 Table II-2APipeline Development - Village at Middletown (Residential)Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 00000003001417 7:00-8:00 AM0 00000007002532 8:00-9:00 AM0 00000007002027 9:00-10:00 AM0 00000006001420 10:00-11:00 AM0 00000008001321 11:00-12:00 PM0 000000010001222 12:00-1:00 PM0 000000010001323 1:00-2:00 PM0 000000011001425 2:00-3:00 PM0 000000013001427 3:00-4:00 PM0 000000016001430 4:00-5:00 PM0 000000022001739 5:00-6:00 PM0 000000018001735 6:00-7:00 PM0 000000015001429 Totals- - - - - - - - 146 - - 201 347 Percent Inbound35%Percent Outbound45%n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-4438 Table II-2BPipeline Development - Village at Middletown (Retail)Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 0000000600410 7:00-8:00 AM0 000000022001739 8:00-9:00 AM0 000000020001636 9:00-10:00 AM0 000000034002862 10:00-11:00 AM0 000000049004796 11:00-12:00 PM0 0000000590065124 12:00-1:00 PM0 0000000670079146 1:00-2:00 PM0 0000000600080140 2:00-3:00 PM0 0000000540077131 3:00-4:00 PM0 0000000560075131 4:00-5:00 PM0 0000000520070122 5:00-6:00 PM0 0000000610079140 6:00-7:00 PM0 0000000530070123 Totals- - - - - - - - 593 - - 707 1,300 Percent Inbound35%Percent Outbound45%Reliance Roadn/a Reliance Road I-81 NB RampsWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-5439 Table II-2CPipeline Development - Seasons of MiddletownReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 00000002001214 7:00-8:00 AM0 00000006002329 8:00-9:00 AM0 00000006001824 9:00-10:00 AM0 00000006001218 10:00-11:00 AM0 00000007001219 11:00-12:00 PM0 00000009001120 12:00-1:00 PM0 00000009001221 1:00-2:00 PM0 000000010001323 2:00-3:00 PM0 000000012001325 3:00-4:00 PM0 000000014001327 4:00-5:00 PM0 000000020001535 5:00-6:00 PM0 000000016001531 6:00-7:00 PM0 000000014001226 Totals- - - - - - - - 131 - - 181 312 Percent Inbound35%Percent Outbound45%n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-6440 Table II-2DPipeline Development - By-Right Gas Station/Truck Stop (Primary)Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 0 023590230 0 0600165 7:00-8:00 AM00 0 50 129 0 50 0 0 0 129 0358 8:00-9:00 AM0 0 029760290 0 0750209 9:00-10:00 AM0 0 025660250 0 0650181 10:00-11:00 AM0 0 026660260 0 0660184 11:00-12:00 PM0 0 026680270 0 0690190 12:00-1:00 PM0 0 029740290 0 0740206 1:00-2:00 PM0 0 027690270 0 0700193 2:00-3:00 PM0 0 029750300 0 0780212 3:00-4:00 PM0 0 032830320 0 0840231 4:00-5:00 PM00 0 46 120 0 46 0 0 0 120 0332 5:00-6:00 PM0 0 035900350 0 0900250 6:00-7:00 PM0 0 033850320 0 0830233 Totals- - - 410 1,060 - 411 - - - 1,063 - 2,944 Percent Inbound25%65%Percent Outbound25%65%n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-7441 Table II-2EPipeline Development - By-Right Gas Station/Truck Stop (Pass-By)Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 0 018120130-13019-1930 7:00-8:00 AM0 0 044300300-30044-4474 8:00-9:00 AM0 0 024160160-16023-2340 9:00-10:00 AM0 0 021140140-14020-2035 10:00-11:00 AM0 0 021140140-14021-2135 11:00-12:00 PM0 0 021140150-15022-2235 12:00-1:00 PM0 0 017110110-11017-1728 1:00-2:00 PM0 0 015100100-10015-1525 2:00-3:00 PM0 0 017110120-12017-1728 3:00-4:00 PM0 0 018120120-12018-1830 4:00-5:00 PM0 0 024160160-16024-2440 5:00-6:00 PM0 0 020130130-13020-2033 6:00-7:00 PM0 0 019120120-12018-1831 Totals- - - 279 185 - 188 - (188) - 278 (278) 464 Percent Inbound (AM)23%-23%34%-34%Percent Outbound (AM)34%23%Percent Inbound (PM)16%-16%24%-24%Percent Outbound (PM)24%16%n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-8442 Table II-3Regional Growth Existing Year:2022 Growth Rate:1.00%Reliance Road/I-81 NB Ramps Buildout Year:2025Rate:Average WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM0 0011000203411 7:00-8:00 AM0 0023000402617 8:00-9:00 AM0 0022010302414 9:00-10:00 AM0 0012000203210 10:00-11:00 AM0 0012010203312 11:00-12:00 PM0 0013000203312 12:00-1:00 PM0 0013010203313 1:00-2:00 PM0 0013010203313 2:00-3:00 PM0 0013010203313 3:00-4:00 PM0 0023000305518 4:00-5:00 PM0 0024010305520 5:00-6:00 PM0 0023010304417 6:00-7:00 PM0 0013000203312 Totals- - - 18 35 - 7 - 32 - 42 48 182 3.0301%n/aReliance RoadReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-9443 Table II-4Background Condittion 2025Reliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM- - - 76 120 - 45 1 56 - 168 149 615 7:00-8:00 AM- - - 170 250 - 96 1 141 - 244 223 1,125 8:00-9:00 AM- - - 110 158 - 63 2 106 - 181 159 779 9:00-10:00 AM- - - 84 161 - 49 2 103 - 178 109 686 10:00-11:00 AM- - - 81 136 - 63 2 105 - 177 149 713 11:00-12:00 PM- - - 76 169 - 58 2 116 - 200 158 779 12:00-1:00 PM- - - 72 177 - 60 - 148 - 190 201 848 1:00-2:00 PM- - - 81 181 - 56 1 131 - 188 204 842 2:00-3:00 PM- - - 83 172 - 64 3 141 - 201 187 851 3:00-4:00 PM- - - 105 195 - 59 2 172 - 256 262 1,051 4:00-5:00 PM- - - 132 265 - 96 4 178 - 300 236 1,211 5:00-6:00 PM- - - 109 209 - 72 2 178 - 246 241 1,057 6:00-7:00 PM- - - 94 188 - 59 1 139 - 197 173 851 Totals- - - 1,273 2,381 - 840 23 1,714 - 2,726 2,451 11,408 Reliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance Roadn/aWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-10444 Table II-5ASite Trip Assignments (Passenger Vehicle)Light Industrial Passenger Vehicle Diurnal RatesReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBLTotalin out6:00-7:00 AM0 00050004401353 6:00-7:00 AM7.21% 0.70%109 11 7:00-8:00 AM0 000250002020317247 7:00-8:00 AM33.35% 4.45%505 67 8:00-9:00 AM0 000800066031794 8:00-9:00 AM10.82% 4.58%164 69 9:00-10:00 AM0 000600044062884 9:00-10:00 AM7.31% 7.26%111 110 10:00-11:00 AM0 000600047062988 10:00-11:00 AM7.72% 7.76%117 117 11:00-12:00 PM0 000500040063283 11:00-12:00 PM6.51% 8.46%99 128 12:00-1:00 PM0 0007000540841110 12:00-1:00 PM9.02% 10.85%136 164 1:00-2:00 PM0 000600052062892 1:00-2:00 PM8.52% 7.26%129 110 2:00-3:00 PM0 000600044073491 2:00-3:00 PM7.31% 8.86%111 134 3:00-4:00 PM0 000500036094393 3:00-4:00 PM6.01% 11.34%91 172 4:00-5:00 PM0 00010009084058 4:00-5:00 PM1.45% 10.45%22 158 5:00-6:00 PM0 000100070136384 5:00-6:00 PM1.20% 16.72%18 253 6:00-7:00 PM0 0000000102912 6:00-7:00 PM0.10% 2.39%2 36 Totals- - - - 81 - - - - 78 384 1,189 106.54% 101.07%Percent Inbound5%40%Percent Outbound5%25%n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadPercentVehicle Trips3027Wells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-11445 Table II-5BSite Trip Assignments (Passenger Vehicle)Light Industrial Passenger Vehicle Diurnal RatesReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBLTotalin out6:00-7:00 AM0- - - - - - - 0000- 6:00-7:00 AM0.00% 0.00%- - 7:00-8:00 AM0- - - - - - - 30014 7:00-8:00 AM5.00% 3.00%5 3 8:00-9:00 AM0- - - - - - - 600410 8:00-9:00 AM9.09% 9.85%10 10 9:00-10:00 AM0- - - - - - - 10 0 0 717 9:00-10:00 AM15.15% 15.91%16 17 10:00-11:00 AM0- - - - - - - 800715 10:00-11:00 AM12.12% 17.42%13 18 11:00-12:00 PM0- - - - - - - 50027 11:00-12:00 PM7.58% 4.55%8 5 12:00-1:00 PM0- - - - - - - 600410 12:00-1:00 PM9.09% 8.33%10 9 1:00-2:00 PM0- - - - - - - 800614 1:00-2:00 PM12.88% 12.88%14 14 2:00-3:00 PM0- - - - - - - 700411 2:00-3:00 PM10.61% 10.61%11 11 3:00-4:00 PM0- - - - - - - 600410 3:00-4:00 PM9.85% 8.33%10 9 4:00-5:00 PM0- - - - - - - 20024 4:00-5:00 PM3.50% 3.79%4 4 5:00-6:00 PM0- - - - - - - 10012 5:00-6:00 PM0.76% 2.27%1 2 6:00-7:00 PM0- - - - - - - 0000- 6:00-7:00 PM0.00% 0.00%- - Totals- - - - - - - - - - 42 104 95.62% 96.94%Percent Inbound0%60%Percent Outbound0%40%Reliance RoadPercent Vehicle Trips212n/a Reliance Road I-81 NB RampsWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-12446 Table II-62025 Total Future Traffic VolumesReliance Road/I-81 NB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM0 0 0 76 125 0 45 1 100 0 169 152668 7:00-8:00 AM0 0 0 170 275 0 96 1 346 0 247 2411,376 8:00-9:00 AM0 0 0 110 166 0 63 2 178 0 184 180883 9:00-10:00 AM0 0 0 84 167 0 49 2 157 0 184 144787 10:00-11:00 AM0 0 0 81 142 0 63 2 160 0 183 185816 11:00-12:00 PM0 0 0 76 174 0 58 2 161 0 206 192869 12:00-1:00 PM0 0 0 72 184 0 60 0 208 0 198 246968 1:00-2:00 PM0 0 0 81 187 0 56 1 191 0 194 238948 2:00-3:00 PM0 0 0 83 178 0 64 3 192 0 208 225953 3:00-4:00 PM0 0 0 105 200 0 59 2 214 0 265 3091,154 4:00-5:00 PM0 0 0 132 266 0 96 4 189 0 308 2781,273 5:00-6:00 PM0 0 0 109 210 0 72 2 186 0 259 3051,143 6:00-7:00 PM0 0 0 94 188 0 59 1 140 0 199 182863 Totals- - - 1,273 2,462 - 840 23 2,422 - 2,804 2,877 12,701 n/aReliance RoadI-81 NB RampsReliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-13447 Table III-1Existing Traffic Volumes Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM125 1370959000881830538 7:00-8:00 AM173 2 23 0 200 18 0 0 0 122 242 0780 8:00-9:00 AM149 22501457000921800600 9:00-10:00 AM119 13001397000661340496 10:00-11:00 AM831 30 0 98 11 0 0 0 65 152 0440 11:00-12:00 PM121 0 31 0 122 15 0 0 0 81 164 0534 12:00-1:00 PM110 2 23 0 148 12 0 0 0 65 183 0543 1:00-2:00 PM101 1 23 0 139 18 0 0 0 63 186 0531 2:00-3:00 PM113 1 33 0 143 12 0 0 0 81 167 0550 3:00-4:00 PM152 14001838000832820749 4:00-5:00 PM177 0 45 0 208 15 0 0 0 86 260 0791 5:00-6:00 PM174 1 54 0 182 13 0 0 0 83 223 0730 6:00-7:00 PM126 23801488000491480519 Totals1,723 15 432 - 1,950 153 - - - 1,024 2,504 - 7,801 I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-14448 Table III-2APipeline Development - Village at Middletown (Residential)Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM4 000300001114032 7:00-8:00 AM9 000700001925060 8:00-9:00 AM9 000700001520051 9:00-10:00 AM8 000600001114039 10:00-11:00 AM10 000800001013041 11:00-12:00 PM13 000100000912044 12:00-1:00 PM13 0001000001013046 1:00-2:00 PM14 0001100001114050 2:00-3:00 PM17 0001300001114055 3:00-4:00 PM20 0001600001114061 4:00-5:00 PM28 0002200001317080 5:00-6:00 PM23 0001800001317071 6:00-7:00 PM20 0001500001114060 Totals188 - - - 146 - - - - 155 201 - 690 Percent Inbound45%35%Percent Outbound35%45%I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-15449 Table III-2BPipeline Development - Village at Middletown (Retail)Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM8 0006000034021 7:00-8:00 AM28 0002200001317080 8:00-9:00 AM26 0002000001316075 9:00-10:00 AM44 00034000022280128 10:00-11:00 AM63 00049000036470195 11:00-12:00 PM76 00059000050650250 12:00-1:00 PM86 00067000061790293 1:00-2:00 PM77 00060000062800279 2:00-3:00 PM70 00054000060770261 3:00-4:00 PM72 00056000058750261 4:00-5:00 PM67 00052000054700243 5:00-6:00 PM78 00061000062790280 6:00-7:00 PM68 00053000054700245 Totals763 - - - 593 - - - - 548 707 - 2,611 Percent Inbound45%35%Percent Outbound35%45%I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-16450 Table III-2CPipeline Development - Seasons of MiddletownReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM3 00020000912026 7:00-8:00 AM8 000600001823055 8:00-9:00 AM8 000600001418046 9:00-10:00 AM7 00060000912034 10:00-11:00 AM9 00070000912037 11:00-12:00 PM11 00090000811039 12:00-1:00 PM12 00090000912042 1:00-2:00 PM13 0001000001013046 2:00-3:00 PM15 0001200001013050 3:00-4:00 PM18 0001400001013055 4:00-5:00 PM26 0002000001215073 5:00-6:00 PM21 0001600001215064 6:00-7:00 PM18 000140000912053 Totals169 - - - 131 - - - - 139 181 - 620 Percent Inbound45%35%Percent Outbound35%45%I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-17451 Table III-2DPipeline Development - By-Right Gas Station/Truck Stop (Primary)Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 023036230000370119 7:00-8:00 AM0 050079500000800259 8:00-9:00 AM0 029047290000460151 9:00-10:00 AM0 025040250000400130 10:00-11:00 AM0 026041260000410134 11:00-12:00 PM0 027042260000420137 12:00-1:00 PM0 029046290000460150 1:00-2:00 PM0 027042270000430139 2:00-3:00 PM0 030046290000480153 3:00-4:00 PM0 032051320000520167 4:00-5:00 PM0 046074460000740240 5:00-6:00 PM0 035055350000550180 6:00-7:00 PM0 032052330000510168 Totals- - 411 - 651 410 - - - - 655 - 2,127 Percent Inbound25%40%Percent Outbound40%25%I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-18452 Table III-2EPipeline Development - By-Right Gas Station/Truck Stop (Pass-By)Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total6:00-7:00 AM0 00000000000- 7:00-8:00 AM0 00000000000- 8:00-9:00 AM0 00000000000- 9:00-10:00 AM0 00000000000- 10:00-11:00 AM0 00000000000- 11:00-12:00 PM0 00000000000- 12:00-1:00 PM0 00000000000- 1:00-2:00 PM0 00000000000- 2:00-3:00 PM0 00000000000- 3:00-4:00 PM0 00000000000- 4:00-5:00 PM0 00000000000- 5:00-6:00 PM0 00000000000- 6:00-7:00 PM0 00000000000- Totals- - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent Inbound (AM)Percent Outbound (AM)Percent Inbound (PM)Percent Outbound (PM)I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-19453 Table III-3Regional Growth Existing Year:2022 Growth Rate:1.00%Reliance Road/I-81 SB Ramps Buildout Year:2025Rate:Average WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM4 0103000036017 7:00-8:00 AM5 0106100047024 8:00-9:00 AM5 0104000035018 9:00-10:00 AM4 0104000024015 10:00-11:00 AM3 0103000025014 11:00-12:00 PM4 0104000025016 12:00-1:00 PM3 0104000026016 1:00-2:00 PM3 0104100026017 2:00-3:00 PM3 0104000025015 3:00-4:00 PM5 0106000039024 4:00-5:00 PM5 0106000038023 5:00-6:00 PM5 0206000037023 6:00-7:00 PM4 0104000014014 Totals53 - 14 - 58 2 - - - 32 77 - 236 3.0301%I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Road - Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-20454 Table III-4Background Condittion 2025Reliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM144 1 61 - 145 32 - - - 114 256 - 753 7:00-8:00 AM223 2 74 - 320 69 - - - 176 394 - 1,258 8:00-9:00 AM197 2 55 - 229 36 - - - 137 285 - 941 9:00-10:00 AM182 1 56 - 229 32 - - - 110 232 - 842 10:00-11:00 AM168 1 57 - 206 37 - - - 122 270 - 861 11:00-12:00 PM225 - 59 - 246 41 - - - 150 299 - 1,020 12:00-1:00 PM224 2 53 - 284 41 - - - 147 339 - 1,090 1:00-2:00 PM208 1 51 - 266 46 - - - 148 342 - 1,062 2:00-3:00 PM218 1 64 - 272 41 - - - 164 324 - 1,084 3:00-4:00 PM267 1 73 - 326 40 - - - 165 445 - 1,317 4:00-5:00 PM303 - 92 - 382 61 - - - 168 444 - 1,450 5:00-6:00 PM301 1 91 - 338 48 - - - 173 396 - 1,348 6:00-7:00 PM236 2 71 - 286 41 - - - 124 299 - 1,059 Totals2,896 15 857 - 3,529 565 - - - 1,898 4,325 - 14,085 I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-21455 Table III-5ASite Trip Assignments (Passenger Vehicle)Light Industrial Passenger Vehicle Diurnal RatesReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBLTotalin out6:00-7:00 AM27 00049000043083 6:00-7:00 AM7.21% 0.70%109 11 7:00-8:00 AM126 000227000027200400 7:00-8:00 AM33.35% 4.45%505 67 8:00-9:00 AM41 00074000028210164 8:00-9:00 AM10.82% 4.58%164 69 9:00-10:00 AM28 00050000044330155 9:00-10:00 AM7.31% 7.26%111 110 10:00-11:00 AM29 00053000047350164 10:00-11:00 AM7.72% 7.76%117 117 11:00-12:00 PM25 00045000051380159 11:00-12:00 PM6.51% 8.46%99 128 12:00-1:00 PM34 00061000066490210 12:00-1:00 PM9.02% 10.85%136 164 1:00-2:00 PM32 00058000044330167 1:00-2:00 PM8.52% 7.26%129 110 2:00-3:00 PM28 00050000054400172 2:00-3:00 PM7.31% 8.86%111 134 3:00-4:00 PM23 00041000069520185 3:00-4:00 PM6.01% 11.34%91 172 4:00-5:00 PM6 00010000063470126 4:00-5:00 PM1.45% 10.45%22 158 5:00-6:00 PM5 00080000101760190 5:00-6:00 PM1.20% 16.72%18 253 6:00-7:00 PM1 000100001411027 6:00-7:00 PM0.10% 2.39%2 36 Totals405 - - - 727 - - - 612 458 - 2,202 106.54% 101.07%Percent Inbound25%45%0%Percent Outbound40%30%0%PercentVehicle Trips3027I-81 SB RampsReliance Road-Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-22456 Table III-5BSite Trip Assignments (Passenger Vehicle)Light Industrial Passenger Vehicle Diurnal RatesReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBLTotalin out6:00-7:00 AM0- - - - - - - 0000- 6:00-7:00 AM0.00% 0.00%- - 7:00-8:00 AM2- - - 3 - - - 02108 7:00-8:00 AM5.00% 3.00%5 3 8:00-9:00 AM4- - - 6 - - - 064020 8:00-9:00 AM9.09% 9.85%10 10 9:00-10:00 AM6- - - 10 - - - 0 10 7 033 9:00-10:00 AM15.15% 15.91%16 17 10:00-11:00 AM5- - - 8 - - - 0 11 7 031 10:00-11:00 AM12.12% 17.42%13 18 11:00-12:00 PM3- - - 5 - - - 032013 11:00-12:00 PM7.58% 4.55%8 5 12:00-1:00 PM4- - - 6 - - - 054019 12:00-1:00 PM9.09% 8.33%10 9 1:00-2:00 PM6- - - 8 - - - 086028 1:00-2:00 PM12.88% 12.88%14 14 2:00-3:00 PM4- - - 7 - - - 074022 2:00-3:00 PM10.61% 10.61%11 11 3:00-4:00 PM4- - - 6 - - - 054019 3:00-4:00 PM9.85% 8.33%10 9 4:00-5:00 PM2- - - 2 - - - 02208 4:00-5:00 PM3.50% 3.79%4 4 5:00-6:00 PM0- - - 1 - - - 01103 5:00-6:00 PM0.76% 2.27%1 2 6:00-7:00 PM0- - - - - - - 0000- 6:00-7:00 PM0.00% 0.00%- - Totals40 - - - 62 - - - 60 42 - 204 95.62% 96.94%Percent Inbound40%60%0%Percent Outbound60%40%0%Vehicle Trips212I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Road - Reliance RoadPercentWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-23457 Table III-62025 Total Future Traffic VolumesReliance Road/I-81 SB RampsAverage WeekdayHour of DaySBRSBTSBL WBR WBT WBL NBRNBTNBL EBR EBT EBLTotal6:00-7:00 AM171 1 61 0 194 32 0 0 0 118 259 0836 7:00-8:00 AM351 2 74 0 550 69 0 0 0 205 415 01,666 8:00-9:00 AM242 2 55 0 309 36 0 0 0 171 310 01,125 9:00-10:00 AM216 1 56 0 289 32 0 0 0 164 272 01,030 10:00-11:00 AM202 1 57 0 267 37 0 0 0 180 312 01,056 11:00-12:00 PM253 0 59 0 296 41 0 0 0 204 339 01,192 12:00-1:00 PM262 2 53 0 351 41 0 0 0 218 392 01,319 1:00-2:00 PM246 1 51 0 332 46 0 0 0 200 381 01,257 2:00-3:00 PM250 1 64 0 329 41 0 0 0 225 368 01,278 3:00-4:00 PM294 1 73 0 373 40 0 0 0 239 501 01,521 4:00-5:00 PM311 0 92 0 394 61 0 0 0 233 493 01,584 5:00-6:00 PM306 1 91 0 347 48 0 0 0 275 473 01,541 6:00-7:00 PM237 2 71 0 287 41 0 0 0 138 310 01,086 Totals3,341 15 857 - 4,318 565 - - - 2,570 4,825 - 16,491 I-81 SB Ramps Reliance Road - Reliance RoadWells + Associates, IncTysons, VirginiaII-24458 Attachment III  MUTCD Warrant Descriptions     459 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 III-1 460 13 14 15 16 17 18 01 02 03 III-2 461 04 05 06 07 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100% a 80%b 70%c 56%d 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d 1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100% a 80%b 70%c 56%d 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d 1 1 750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42 2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56 1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 a Basic minimum hourly volume b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures c May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 III-3 462 08 01 02 03 01 02 03 04 05 06 III-4 463 Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 100 200 300 400 60* 80* 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 100 200 300 400 500 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 115* 80* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume III-5 464 150* 100*100 200 300 400 500 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 600 1500400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1600 1700 1800 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 100 200 300 400 75* 100* 1100 1200 1300 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE III-6 465 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 III-7 466 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 100 200 300 400 500 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 107* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume 200 1000 100 200 300 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 75* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. 400 500300 600 800700 900 Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume (70% Factor) III-8 467 300 1800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 133* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. 600 700 800500400 900 1000 1100 1200 15001300 16001400 1700 Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour 100 200 300 400 500 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 93* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. 200 400300 600 800 1000500700900 1100 1200 Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor) III-9 468 03 04 05 01 02 03 01 02 III-10 469 03 01 02 03 01 02 03 04 III-11 470 Figure 4C-9. Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing) MINOR STREET, CROSSING APPROACH - EQUIVALENT VPH** 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) D = 1 3 0 f t D = 1 1 0 f t D = 9 0 f t D = 7 0 f t D = 5 0 f t D = 3 0 f t 25* Major Street Minor Street D 6 ft * 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume ** VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-2, 4C-3, and/or 4C-4, if appropriate MINOR STREET, CROSSING APPROACH - EQUIVALENT VPH** 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 25* MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)D = 130 f t D = 1 1 0 f t D = 9 0 f t D = 7 0 f t D = 5 0 f t D = 3 0 f t Minor Street D 6 ft Major Street Figure 4C-10. Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing) * 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume ** VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-2, 4C-3, and/or 4C-4, if appropriate III-12 471 05 06 07 08 09 10 Table 4C-4. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Percentage of Tractor-Trailer Trucks % of Tractor-Trailer Trucks on Minor-Street Approach Adjustment Factor D less than 70 feet D of 70 feet or more 0% to 2.5%0.50 0.50 2.6% to 7.5%0.75 0.75 7.6% to 12.5%1.00 1.00 12.6% to 17.5%2.30 1.15 17.6% to 22.5%2.70 1.35 22.6% to 27.5%3.28 1.64 More than 27.5%4.18 2.09 Table 4C-2. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Daily Frequency of Rail Traffic Rail Traffic per Day Adjustment Factor 1 0.67 2 0.91 3 to 5 1.00 6 to 8 1.18 9 to 11 1.25 12 or more 1.33 Table 4C-3. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Percentage of High-Occupancy Buses % of High-Occupancy Buses* on Minor-Street Approach Adjustment Factor 0%1.00 2% 1.09 4% 1.19 6% or more 1.32 * A high-occupancy bus is defined as a bus occupied by at least 20 people. III-13 472 Attachment IV  Synchro Worksheets     473 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 196 69 0 0 88 74 132 1 16 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 231 81 0 0 104 87 155 1 19 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 191 0 - - - 0 691 734 81 Stage 1 ------543543- Stage 2 ------148191- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - 0 0 - - 409 346 976 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 580 518 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 877 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 -----3370976 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3370- Stage 1 ------4780- Stage 2 ------8770- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 6 0 23.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)363 1377 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 0.167 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.8 8.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 0.6 - - - IV-1 474 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing AM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Future Vol, veh/h 0 242 122 18 200 0000232173 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 260 131 19 215 0000252186 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 391 0 0 579 644 215 Stage 1 ------ 253253- Stage 2 ------ 326391- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1162 - 0 475 390 822 Stage 1 0 ----0 787696- Stage 2 0 ----0 729605- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1162 - -466 0 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4660- Stage 1 ------ 7870- Stage 2 ------ 7150- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1162 - 754 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.282 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.2 0 11.6 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.2 IV-2 475 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 143 151 0 0 127 59 104 5 25 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 147 156 0 0 131 61 107 5 26 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 192 0 - - - 0 612 642 156 Stage 1 ------450450- Stage 2 ------162192- Critical Hdwy 4.13 -----6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 -----3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - 0 0 - - 455 391 887 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 640 570 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 865 740 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 -----4020887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4020- Stage 1 ------5650- Stage 2 ------8650- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 3.9 0 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)450 1375 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.107 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 7.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.4 - - - IV-3 476 HCM 6th TWSC 2022 Existing PM 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/25/2022 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Future Vol, veh/h 0 244 105 19 212 0000500195 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 0 254 109 20 221 0000520203 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 363 0 0 570 624 221 Stage 1 ------ 261261- Stage 2 ------ 309363- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - -6.43 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.43 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.43 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1190 - 0 481 400 816 Stage 1 0 ----0 780690- Stage 2 0 ----0 742623- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1190 - -472 0 816 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------4720- Stage 1 ------ 7800- Stage 2 ------ 7280- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 12.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 1190 - 710 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.017 - 0.359 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.1 0 12.9 HCM Lane LOS - - A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 - 1.6 IV-4 477 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM (TWSC) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 25 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 223 244 0 0 250 170 141 1 96 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 223 244 0 0 250 170 141 1 96 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 242 265 0 0 272 185 153 1 104 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 457 0 - - - 0 1114 1206 265 Stage 1 ------749749- Stage 2 ------365457- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1104 - 0 0 - - 230 184 774 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 467 419 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 702 568 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1104 -----1710774 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------1710- Stage 1 ------3470- Stage 2 ------7020- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.4 0 109.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)250 1104 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.035 0.22 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 109.5 9.2 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 10.4 0.8 - - - IV-5 478 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background AM (TWSC) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 394 176 69 320 0000742223 Future Vol, veh/h 0 394 176 69 320 0000742223 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 428 191 75 348 0000802242 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 619 0 0 1022 1117 348 Stage 1 ------ 498498- Stage 2 ------ 524619- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 961 - 0 261 207 695 Stage 1 0 ----0 611544- Stage 2 0 ----0 594480- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 961 - -236 0 695 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2360- Stage 1 ------ 6110- Stage 2 ------ 5360- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 28.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 961 - 468 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.078 - 0.694 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.1 0 28.4 HCM Lane LOS - - A A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 - 5.3 IV-6 479 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM (TWSC) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 67 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 236 300 0 0 265 132 178 4 96 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 236 300 0 0 265 132 178 4 96 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 257 326 0 0 288 143 193 4 104 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 431 0 - - - 0 1200 1271 326 Stage 1 ------840840- Stage 2 ------360431- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1129 - 0 0 - - 204 168 715 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 424 381 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 706 583 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1129 -----~ 1470715 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 1470- Stage 1 ------3060- Stage 2 ------7060- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4 0 284.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)204 1129 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.481 0.227 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 284.2 9.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 18.4 0.9 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon IV-7 480 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Background PM (TWSC) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 21.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 444 168 61 382 0000922303 Future Vol, veh/h 0 444 168 61 382 0000922303 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 483 183 66 415 00001002329 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 666 0 0 1122 1213 415 Stage 1 ------ 547547- Stage 2 ------ 575666- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 923 - 0 228 182 637 Stage 1 0 ----0 580517- Stage 2 0 ----0 563457- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 923 - -207 0 637 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------2070- Stage 1 ------ 5800- Stage 2 ------ 5110- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 76.4 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 923 - 429 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.072 - 1.006 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 0 76.4 HCM Lane LOS - - A A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 12.9 IV-8 481 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM (TWSC) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 260.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 241 247 0 0 275 170 346 1 96 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 241 247 0 0 275 170 346 1 96 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 262 268 0 0 299 185 376 1 104 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 484 0 - - - 0 1184 1276 268 Stage 1 ------792792- Stage 2 ------392484- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1079 - 0 0 - - ~ 209 167 771 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 446 401 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 683 552 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1079 -----~ 1490771 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 1490- Stage 1 ------~ 3190- Stage 2 ------6830- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 0 $ 802.7 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)181 1079 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.66 0.243 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) $ 802.7 9.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 41.9 1 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon IV-9 482 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future AM (TWSC) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 46.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 415 205 69 550 0000742351 Future Vol, veh/h 0 415 205 69 550 0000742351 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 451 223 75 598 0000802382 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 674 0 0 1311 1422 598 Stage 1 ------ 748748- Stage 2 ------ 563674- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 917 - 0 175 136 502 Stage 1 0 ----0 468420- Stage 2 0 ----0 570454- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 917 - -154 0 502 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------1540- Stage 1 ------ 4680- Stage 2 ------ 5000- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 180.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 917 - 360 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.082 - 1.289 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.3 0 180.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 - 21.2 IV-10 483 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM (TWSC) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 109.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 278 308 0 0 266 132 189 4 96 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 278 308 0 0 266 132 189 4 96 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 302 335 0 0 289 143 205 4 104 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 432 0 - - - 0 1300 1371 335 Stage 1 ------939939- Stage 2 ------361432- Critical Hdwy 4.12 -----6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -----3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1128 - 0 0 - - ~ 178 146 707 Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 380 343 - Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 705 582 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1128 -----~ 1190707 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------~ 1190- Stage 1 ------2550- Stage 2 ------7050- Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 4.4 0 $ 475.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR Capacity (veh/h)165 1128 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.904 0.268 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) $ 475.2 9.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 23.6 1.1 - - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon IV-11 484 HCM 6th TWSC 2025 Total Future PM (TWSC) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 27.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 493 233 61 394 0000920311 Future Vol, veh/h 0 493 233 61 394 0000920311 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 536 253 66 428 00001000338 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 789 0 0 1223 1349 428 Stage 1 ------ 560560- Stage 2 ------ 663789- Critical Hdwy - - - 4.12 - -6.42 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------5.42 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------5.42 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 831 - 0 198 151 627 Stage 1 0 ----0 572511- Stage 2 0 ----0 512402- Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 831 - -177 0 627 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------1770- Stage 1 ------ 5720- Stage 2 ------ 4590- Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 108.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)- - 831 - 397 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.08 - 1.103 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.7 0 108.3 HCM Lane LOS - - A A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 - 15.6 IV-12 485 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM (Signalized) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 223 244 0 0 250 170 141 1 96 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 223 244 0 0 250 170 141 1 96 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 242 265 0 0 272 185 153 1 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 401 419 0 0 701 477 184 1 125 Arrive On Green 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 501 620 0 0 1038 706 1006 7 684 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 507 000045725800 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1121 00001743 1697 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 12.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 12.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.59 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 820 00001178 311 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.83 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 820 00001178 519 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 33.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BAAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 507 457 258 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.8 7.0 39.1 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 63.4 63.4 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 47.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 31.4 11.8 14.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 2.9 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6 HCM 6th LOS B IV-13 486 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM (Signalized) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 394 176 69 320 0000742223 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 394 176 69 320 0000742223 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 428 191 75 348 0 80 2 242 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 792 353 179 799 0 94 2 284 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1225 547 190 1235 0 403 10 1218 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 619 423 0 0 324 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1772 1425 0 0 1631 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 14.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 14.2 16.2 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.31 0.18 0.00 0.25 0.75 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1146 978 0 0 381 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.54 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1146 978 0 0 533 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 8.9 7.6 0.0 0.0 36.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AAAAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 619 423 324 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 7.6 36.6 Approach LOS A A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 22.0 53.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.2 16.3 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 1.3 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1 HCM 6th LOS B IV-14 487 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM (Signalized) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 236 300 0 0 265 132 178 4 96 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 236 300 0 0 265 132 178 4 96 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 257 326 0 0 288 143 193 4 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 372 436 0 0 754 374 220 5 119 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 474 682 0 0 1179 586 1096 23 591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 583 000043130100 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1156 00001765 1709 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.64 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 808 00001128 344 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.88 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 808 00001128 376 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 29.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 48.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C AAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 583 431 301 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.3 7.5 48.0 Approach LOS C A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.9 53.9 21.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 46.5 16.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 39.5 10.8 14.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 2.7 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 6th LOS C IV-15 488 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM (Signalized) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 444 168 61 382 0000920303 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 444 168 61 382 0000920303 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 483 183 66 415 0 100 0 329 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 759 288 128 762 0 111 0 365 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1293 490 125 1297 0 379 0 1248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 666 481 0 0 429 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1782 1422 0 0 1627 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 18.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 18.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.23 0.77 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1047 890 0 0 476 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.64 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1047 890 0 0 531 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 13.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AABAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 666 481 429 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.0 3.2 42.8 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.6 26.4 48.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 21.0 27.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.9 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 6th LOS B IV-16 489 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future AM (Signalized) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 241 247 0 0 275 170 346 1 96 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 241 247 0 0 275 170 346 1 96 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 262 268 0 0 299 185 376 1 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 303 271 0 0 607 376 403 1 112 Arrive On Green 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 427 483 0 0 1081 669 1356 4 375 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 530 000048448100 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 910 00001750 1735 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 22.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 47.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 22.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.78 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 574 000098351600 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.93 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 574 000098353100 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 29.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 23.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 52.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D AAAABDAA Approach Vol, veh/h 530 484 481 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.4 13.1 52.3 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.7 53.7 31.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 47.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.7 16.2 24.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8 HCM 6th LOS D IV-17 490 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future AM (Signalized) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 415 205 69 550 0000742351 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 415 205 69 550 0000742351 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 451 223 75 598 0 80 2 382 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 672 332 108 724 0 87 2 414 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1181 584 95 1272 0 279 7 1331 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 674 673 0 0 464 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1765 1368 0 0 1617 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 20.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 20.0 34.3 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.33 0.11 0.00 0.17 0.82 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1004 831 0 0 503 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.67 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1004 831 0 0 528 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.94 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.3 14.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 6.9 7.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 14.6 21.5 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A B C A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 674 673 464 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 21.5 46.3 Approach LOS B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.2 27.8 47.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 22.8 36.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.5 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 6th LOS C IV-18 491 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future PM (Signalized) 1: I-81 NB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 308 0 0 266 132 189 4 96 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 278 308 0 0 266 132 189 4 96 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 335 0 0 289 143 205 4 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 385 375 0 0 748 370 232 5 118 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 496 592 0 0 1181 584 1121 22 569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 637 000043231300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1088 00001765 1712 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 13.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 13.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.65 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 760 00001118 354 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.88 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 760 00001118 377 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 28.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D AAAAADAA Approach Vol, veh/h 637 432 313 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.4 7.7 49.3 Approach LOS D A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.5 53.5 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 46.5 16.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 45.9 10.9 15.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.7 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.7 HCM 6th LOS C IV-19 492 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Total Future PM (Signalized) 2: I-81 SB Ramp & Reliance Rd 07/09/2024 Hester Property Synchro 11 Report Wells + Associates Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 493 233 61 394 0000920311 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 493 233 61 394 0000920311 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 536 253 66 428 0 100 0 338 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222 Cap, veh/h 0 700 330 105 634 0 110 0 373 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1201 567 86 1088 0 371 0 1255 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 789 494 0 0 438 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1768 1174 0 0 1626 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 25.2 16.1 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 25.2 41.3 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.32 0.13 0.00 0.23 0.77 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 1031 739 0 0 483 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.77 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1031 739 0 0 531 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 5.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 8.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 16.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 43.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS AABAAA DAA Approach Vol, veh/h 789 494 438 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.9 8.7 43.6 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.2 26.8 48.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.2 21.4 43.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3 HCM 6th LOS C IV-20 493 Attachment V  Crash Data     494 I‐81 NB Ramps & Reliance RoadDocument Nbr Crash DateCrash Military Time Crash SeverityK_People A_People B_People C_People Persons InjPedestrianPedestrianVehicle Co Collision Type191145223 4/22/2019 1630 PDO. Property Damage Only 000000021. Rear End193435503 12/9/2019 1011 PDO. Property Damage Only 000000021. Rear End212435332 8/14/2021 1841 B. Visible Injury 001120023. Head On212535039 9/8/2021 2236 PDO. Property Damage Only 000000022. AngleV-1 495 I‐81 SB Ramps & Reliance RoadDocument Nbr Crash Date Crash Military Time Crash Severity K_People A_People B_People C_People Persons InjPedestrianPedestrianVehicle CouCollision Type192435102 8/29/2019 1105 B. Visible Injury 001010022. Angle190395051 2/7/2019 1505 PDO. Property Damage Only 000000022. Angle191275105 5/3/2019 1036 PDO. Property Damage Only 000000022. AngleV-2 496 Attachment VI  Signal Warrant Analysis  497 I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:30:38 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - MUTCD Warrant Analysis Conditions Used for Warrant Analysis 2009 MUTCD Intersection # 1 Major Street Direction EastWest Number of Lanes in North-South direction 1 Number of Lanes in East-West direction 1 Approach speed on major street is greater than 40 mph No Isolated community has population less than 10,000 No Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to improve conditions Yes Number of accidents correctable by a signal 1 Peak hour stop sign delay for worst minor approach (veh-hours)20 Number of accidents correctable by a multi-way stop 0 Peak hour average delay for all minor approaches (sec/veh)0 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 1A Analysis - 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1500 1200 1700 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 268 260 259 248 243 150 Major Volume 933 984 879 700 883 694 700 640 500 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 12 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 1A IS MET << Warrant 1B Analysis - 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Start Time 700 1600 1500 1700 1200 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 260 268 259 248 243 75 Major Volume 933 984 879 883 700 694 700 640 750 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 4 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 1B IS NOT MET << VI-1 498 I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:30:38 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 1A Analysis (80%) - 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1500 1200 1700 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 268 260 259 248 243 120 Major Volume 933 984 879 700 883 694 700 640 400 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Warrant 1B Analysis (80%) - 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traf Start Time 700 1600 1500 1200 1700 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 268 260 259 248 243 60 Major Volume 933 984 879 700 883 694 700 640 600 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 10 Warrant 1C Analysis - 8-Hour Combination of Warrants 80% of Warrants 1A and 1B are met Yes Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to reduce delays Yes >> WARRANT 1C IS MET << Warrant 2 Analysis - 4-Hour Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1500 1200 1700 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 268 260 259 248 243 Minor Reqrmt 117 104 131 180 130 182 180 201 <-- Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 11 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 2 IS MET << VI-2 499 I-81 NB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:30:38 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 3A Analysis - Peak Hour Delay Start Time 700 1600 1500 1200 1700 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 268 260 259 248 243 100 Total Volume 1376 1273 1154 968 1143 953 948 883 650 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Delay for worst minor approach (must be at least 4 veh-hours)20 >> WARRANT 3A IS MET << Warrant 3B Analysis - Peak Hour Volume Start Time 700 1600 1500 1700 1200 1400 1300 800 Req. Minor Volume 443 289 275 260 268 259 248 243 Minor Reqrmt 225 210 244 243 320 323 320 350 <-- Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 1 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 4 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 3B IS MET << Warrant 7 Analysis - Crash Experience 80% of Warrant 1A or 1B is met Yes Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to reduce accidents Yes Number of correctable accidents (must be 5 or more per year)1 >> WARRANT 7 IS NOT MET << Summary of MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Warrant 1A 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume MET Warrant 1B 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic NOT MET Warrant 1C 8-Hour Combination of Warrants MET Warrant 2 4-Hour Vehicular Volume MET Warrant 3A Peak Hour Delay MET Warrant 3B Peak Hour Volume MET Warrant 7 Crash Experience NOT MET >> Traffic Signal Warrant is MET << VI-3 500 I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:31:58 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - MUTCD Warrant Analysis Conditions Used for Warrant Analysis 2009 MUTCD Intersection # 1 Major Street Direction EastWest Number of Lanes in North-South direction 1 Number of Lanes in East-West direction 1 Approach speed on major street is greater than 40 mph No Isolated community has population less than 10,000 No Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to improve conditions Yes Number of accidents correctable by a signal 3 Peak hour stop sign delay for worst minor approach (veh-hours)12 Number of accidents correctable by a multi-way stop 0 Peak hour average delay for all minor approaches (sec/veh)0 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 1A Analysis - 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 150 Major Volume 1239 1181 1143 1153 1002 963 880 776 500 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 1A IS MET << Warrant 1B Analysis - 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 75 Major Volume 1239 1181 1143 1153 1002 963 880 776 750 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 12 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 1B IS MET << VI-4 501 I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:31:58 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 1A Analysis (80%) - 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 120 Major Volume 1239 1181 1143 1153 1002 963 880 776 400 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Warrant 1B Analysis (80%) - 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traf Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 60 Major Volume 1239 1181 1143 1153 1002 963 880 776 600 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Warrant 1C Analysis - 8-Hour Combination of Warrants 80% of Warrants 1A and 1B are met Yes Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to reduce delays Yes >> WARRANT 1C IS MET << Warrant 2 Analysis - 4-Hour Vehicular Volume Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 Minor Reqrmt 80 81 83 82 100 109 131 161 <-- Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 2 IS MET << VI-5 502 I-81 SB Ramps/Reliance Road 07/09/24 2025 Total Future 10:31:58 TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Warrant Analysis for Traffic Signal Warrant 3A Analysis - Peak Hour Delay Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 100 Total Volume 1666 1584 1541 1521 1319 1278 1192 1086 650 Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 13 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Delay for worst minor approach (must be at least 4 veh-hours)12 >> WARRANT 3A IS MET << Warrant 3B Analysis - Peak Hour Volume Start Time 700 1600 1700 1500 1200 1400 1100 1800 Req. Minor Volume 427 403 398 368 317 315 312 310 Minor Reqrmt 140 155 164 162 204 216 244 290 <-- Warrant Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Number of 1-hour periods meeting the warrant 10 Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes >> WARRANT 3B IS MET << Warrant 7 Analysis - Crash Experience 80% of Warrant 1A or 1B is met Yes Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Yes Trials of other remedies have failed to reduce accidents Yes Number of correctable accidents (must be 5 or more per year)3 >> WARRANT 7 IS NOT MET << Summary of MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Warrant 1A 8-Hour Minimum Vehicular Volume MET Warrant 1B 8-Hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic MET Warrant 1C 8-Hour Combination of Warrants MET Warrant 2 4-Hour Vehicular Volume MET Warrant 3A Peak Hour Delay MET Warrant 3B Peak Hour Volume MET Warrant 7 Crash Experience NOT MET >> Traffic Signal Warrant is MET << VI-6 503 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Appendix B: VJuST Input and Results Worksheets 504 Project Title: E-W Facility: N-S Facility: Date: Through Right Eastbound 247 0 3.00% Westbound 275 170 3.00% Northbound 1 96 3.00% Southbound 0 0 3.00% Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85 Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85 Through Right Approach Eastbound 254 0 502 Westbound 283 175 458 Northbound 1 99 456 Southbound 0 0 0 July 8, 2024 Equivalent Passenger Car Volume Volume (pc/hr) Traffic Volume Demand Truck Percent (%) Truck to PCE Factor Critical Lane Volume Suggested = 2.00 Direction 1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Truck to PCE Factor 1600 VDOT Junction Screening Tool Input Worksheet 2025 Total Future AM Reliance Road I-81 NB Ramps Volume (veh/hr) 2.00 U-Turn / Left Notes: U-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles 241 0 346 U-Turn / Left Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Left-turn Adjustment Factor Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection 0 0 248 0 356 1B-1 505 # Intersections Information Consider?Justification 1 Conventional -Y 2 Bowtie Link N 3 Center Turn Overpass Link N 4 Continuous Green-T Link N 5 Echelon Link N 6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N 7 Median U-Turn Link N 8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N 9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N 10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N 11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N 12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N 13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N 14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N 15 Single Loop Link N 16 Split Intersection Link N 17 Thru-Cut Link N 18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N 19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N 20 Roundabout Link Y 21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y # Interchanges Information Consider? Justification 22 Traditional Diamond Link N 23 Contraflow Left Link N 24 Displaced Left Turn Link N 25 Diverging Diamond Link N 26 Double Roundabout Link N 27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N 28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N 29 Single Point Link N 30 Single Roundabout Link N Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered. Possible Configurations VDOT Junction Screening Tool Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections 2B-2 506 Intersections Direction TwoDirList FourDirList EchelonList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList SingleLoopList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList Interchanges Direction TwoDirList Base Number of Through Lanes Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A Question N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Bowtie Continuous Green-T Echelon Median U-Turn Partial Displaced Left Turn Thru-Cut Single Loop Split Intersection N/A N/A Partial Median U-Turn Restricted Crossing U-Turn N/AN/A VDOT Junction Screening Tool Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided. N/A N/A Question N/A N/A 3B-3 507 U-Turn / Left Through Right 241 247 0 0 275 170 346 1 96 000 Volumes (veh/hr) Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound VDOT Junction Screening Tool Results Worksheet Intersection Results Project Title: EW Facility: NS Facility: Date: General Information 2025 Total Future AM Reliance Road I-81 NB Ramps July 8, 2024 General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each worksheet.CongestionPedestrianSafetyNotes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Conventional Weighted Total Conflict Points Conventional -0.76 48 Roundabout -0.62 8 Two-Way Stop Control -2.07 48 *The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference. 1B-4 508 Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafety Notes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Traditional Diamond Weighted Total Conflict Points Congestion Pedestrian Safety Information The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection. Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange. Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts 2B-5 509 Conventional Conventional EW Split? FALSENS Split? FALSE NS Facility:I-81 NB Ramps VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.76 N DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION Project Name:2025 Total Future AM Critical Lane Volume Sum Date:July 8, 2024 EW Facility:Reliance Road < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 No Shared ? Shared ? Yes Yes SB Critical Vol473 Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells. S Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Shared ? WE No 0.76 V / C 1223 pcph pcph pcph 000 0pcphYes 000 EB Critical Vol489 Yes Shared ?pcph00No Channelized w/ Rcv Lane?0Yes Shared ?pcph00pcph750489pcph0Shared ? Yes 0 473 011223 0010 pcph1 Merging 1 Diverging 1 Weighted Total Conflict Points 48 Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs) Weighted Total Conflict Points 12 Diverging 3 Total 9 Conflict Type Weight Crossing 2 Merging 1 Diverging Conflict Type Total Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Weight Crossing 2 Conflict Type Count Crossing Merging Diverging 16 8 8 32 WB Critical Vol750 NB Critical Vol0 Conflict Type Count Crossing 3 Merging 3 Yes Yes Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? pcph pcph pcph Shared ? Shared ? No 1Zone 5 Zone 5 Back to Results VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL Ver 1.0 1 B-6 510 1111● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two circulating lanes.● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl exiting the roundabout.● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM 6th Edition.Predicted approach capacityPredicted approach capacitySlip Lane?NoPredicted approach capacityLane 2EBSafety - Conflict Point DiagramConflict Type CountCrossing 0Merging8Conflict Type WeightCrossingLane 10.36WESPredicted approach capacityLane 1Lane 2V/CV/C Lane 2Lane 10.62V/CLane 2 V/CV/CV/C Lane 10.55V/C2025 Total Future AMCritical Lane Volume SumI-81 NB RampsV/CJuly 8, 2024VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.62N0WB2Total 8Slip Lane?AssumptionsSBNumber of Entry LanesWeighted Total Conflict PointsMergingDiverging 11Diverging 44Number of Circulating Lanes1pcph 248Slip Lane?Number of Entry Lanes1Number of Circulating LanesNumber of Entry Lanes0pcphpcph0100pcph pcphDESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONCAPACITY CALCULATIONS0.50Lane CapacityEW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 16001175pcphThrough lane utilization factor283pcphProject Name:NS Facility:Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Date:2pcph pcph V/C RATIO V/C RATIO639 SBWBConflicting flow0 458pcphNoNumber of Circulating Lanes1pcph 502V/C RATIO0.36745V/C RATIOpcphConflicting flow60510.62V/C RATIO21Conflicting flow Number of Circulating LanesNoSlip Lane?1Through lane utilization factor Number of Entry Lanes0 254 248 pcph V/C RATIONo110.50pcphConflicting flow502EBLane Capacity 1380V/C RATIOpcph 254356 1 99827356pcph pcph pcph pcph 0Number of Entry LanesNumber of Circulating LanesLane A B11-1380 0.001021420 0.00085-2121NBThrough lane utilization factor0.000910.000911420Right12Lane Capacity0.509911 1Lane Capacity175283122Left135010.50Through lane utilization factor0Left1420RoundaboutRoundaboutRoundaboutEQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)10.55456pcphV/C RATIONB0.000920.000851420Right22Zone 1Zone 3Zone 2Zone 4Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-7 511 Priority MVMTRank1 EBL 2 1 2 241 0 Yes0.03vc,1445.00tc,14.13tf,12.23cp,11109.88cm,11109.881 1109.8810.222EBT1 4 2 0 0 Yes0.03vc,4247.00tc,44.13tf,42.23cp,41313.03cm,41313.032 1800.0020.143 EBR 1 7 3 346 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,71089.00tc,76.43tf,73.53cp,7237.37cm,7177.6313 1500.0030.004WBL2 80 1vc,8tc,8tf,8cp,8cm,804 1313.0340.005WBT1 9 2 96 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,9247.00tc,96.23tf,93.33cp,9789.29cm,9789.2915 1800.0050.156WBR1 100 0 0vc,10tc,10tf,10cp,10cm,1006 1500.0060.117NBL3 110 0vc,11tc,11tf,11cp,11cm,110--------NBT012 000vc,120.00tc,12tf,12cp,12cm,1207-8-9 213.587-8-9 2.079NBR2--------SBL 0 2 1 247 10.03vc,I,7729.00tc,I,75.43-- -- 0.00SBT0 3 1 0 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,7360.00tc,II,75.4311 11 0.00StopsSBR 0 5 1 275 10.03vc,I,8729.00tc,I,8cp,I,7475.62cm,I,7355.91cm,7177.63----0.0016 1 170 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,8445.00tc,II,8cp,II,7703.74cm,II,7703.74cm,8#VALUE!MAJOR MINORvc,I,10tc,I,10cp,I,8cm,I,8cm,10EB NBvc,II,10tc,II,10cp,II,8cm,II,8cm,11WBvc,I,11tc,I,11cp,I,10cm,I,10vc,II,11tc,II,11cp,II,10cm,II,102cp,I,11cm,I,11TRUEcp,II,11cm,II,11TRUEy70.63cT,7262.27y8cT,8y10cT,10y11cT,11p0,10.78p0,41.00a0.91p*0,10.75p0,80.00p0,90.88p*0,41.00p0,111.00p0,121.00p"70.748p'70.81fp,70.81p"10p'10#VALUE!fp,10#VALUE!x1i,1+20.14x4i,1+20.27ThroughRightf80.75f110.75f70.75f100.75fI,80.75fII,81.00p0,I,81.00fI,111.00fII,110.75p0,I,111.00fI,70.75fII,71.00fI.101.00fII.100.66Two StageOne StageTwo-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Intersection V/C2.07Shared Movement CapacitiesMovementCapacitiesPotentialCapacitiesFollow-UpHeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?Stop controlled?Truck %DESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONProject Name:0Stop-controlled approachesMvmt 4, shared leftMvmt 7, 4-legMvmt 10, 4-legNoApproach Stop Controlled?OneNS Major?Major street lanesM1 Shared?M4 Shared?Mvmt 1, excl leftMvmt 4, excl leftFALSENumber of Lanes00170vphShared?Yes1Mvmt 1, shared leftvph● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM, 6th Edition. The calculations are based on vehicles per hour.HCM 6 CALCULATIONSStep 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Approach Stop Controlled?No2.07YesShared?Shared?YesYesOne or two-stage minor street left and through movments*?001Safety - Conflict Point DiagramAssumptionsApproach Stop Controlled?YesYes YesShared?Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersectionShared?Conflict Type CountCrossing 16Total 32Diverging 1Diverging 848Conflict Type WeightWeighted Total Conflict PointsCrossing 2Merging 8Merging 12025 Total Future AMCritical Lane Volume SumYesApproach Stop Controlled?I-81 NB RampsVOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:NDate:July 8, 2024EW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 1600NS Facility:WESNumber of Lanes Stop-controlled approavph vph vph00vph1100 Shared?241 0 0 Shared?Yes01Stop-controlled approaNumber of Lanes247 Yes1 Number of Lanes1Shared?vph 0 0 Stop-controlled approachesvph 0 0Movement CapacitiesMovement V/COne storage space in median (nm = 1) for two-stage turns*Assumption:Rank18001500960vph vph10vph0113460275vphSaturation Flow Rates213.580.00NoTwo-Stage Movement CapacitiesSingle-Stage Movement CapacitiesV/C Not Reported for Any Movements?Two-Stage Potential CapacitiesZone 5Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-8 512 Project Title: E-W Facility: N-S Facility: Date: Through Right Eastbound 308 0 3.00% Westbound 266 132 3.00% Northbound 4 96 3.00% Southbound 0 0 3.00% Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85 Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85 Through Right Approach Eastbound 317 0 603 Westbound 274 136 410 Northbound 4 99 298 Southbound 0 0 0 278 0 189 U-Turn / Left Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Left-turn Adjustment Factor Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection 0 0 286 0 195 1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Truck to PCE Factor 1600 VDOT Junction Screening Tool Input Worksheet 2025 Total Future PM Reliance Road I-81 NB Ramps Volume (veh/hr) 2.00 U-Turn / Left Notes: U-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles July 8, 2024 Equivalent Passenger Car Volume Volume (pc/hr) Traffic Volume Demand Truck Percent (%) Truck to PCE Factor Critical Lane Volume Suggested = 2.00 Direction 1B-9 513 # Intersections Information Consider?Justification 1 Conventional -Y 2 Bowtie Link N 3 Center Turn Overpass Link N 4 Continuous Green-T Link N 5 Echelon Link N 6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N 7 Median U-Turn Link N 8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N 9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N 10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N 11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N 12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N 13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N 14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N 15 Single Loop Link N 16 Split Intersection Link N 17 Thru-Cut Link N 18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N 19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N 20 Roundabout Link Y 21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y # Interchanges Information Consider? Justification 22 Traditional Diamond Link N 23 Contraflow Left Link N 24 Displaced Left Turn Link N 25 Diverging Diamond Link N 26 Double Roundabout Link N 27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N 28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N 29 Single Point Link N 30 Single Roundabout Link N Unsignalized Intersections Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered. Possible Configurations VDOT Junction Screening Tool Signalized Intersections 2B-10 514 Intersections Direction TwoDirList FourDirList EchelonList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList SingleLoopList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList Interchanges Direction TwoDirList N/AN/A VDOT Junction Screening Tool Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided. N/A N/A Question N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Bowtie Continuous Green-T Echelon Median U-Turn Partial Displaced Left Turn Thru-Cut Single Loop Split Intersection N/A N/A Partial Median U-Turn Restricted Crossing U-Turn N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Question N/A N/A N/A Southbound 1 1 1 1 Base Number of Through Lanes Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet. Eastbound Westbound Northbound 3B-11 515 U-Turn / Left Through Right 278 308 0 0 266 132 189 4 96 000 2025 Total Future PM Reliance Road I-81 NB Ramps July 8, 2024 General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each worksheet. VDOT Junction Screening Tool Results Worksheet Intersection Results Project Title: EW Facility: NS Facility: Date: General Information Volumes (veh/hr) Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound CongestionPedestrianSafetyNotes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Conventional Weighted Total Conflict Points Conventional -0.75 48 Roundabout -0.49 8 Two-Way Stop Control -1.43 48 *The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference. 1B-12 516 Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafety Notes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Traditional Diamond Weighted Total Conflict Points Congestion Pedestrian Safety Information The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection. Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange. Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts 2B-13 517 WB Critical Vol889 NB Critical Vol0 Conflict Type Count Crossing 3 Merging 3 Yes Yes Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? pcph pcph pcph Shared ? Shared ? No 1Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Weight Crossing 2 Conflict Type Count Crossing Merging Diverging 16 8 8 32 1 Merging 1 Diverging 1 Weighted Total Conflict Points 48 Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs) Weighted Total Conflict Points 12 Diverging 3 Total 9 Conflict Type Weight Crossing 2 Merging 1 Diverging Conflict Type Total 434pcph0Shared ? Yes 0 315 011204 0010 pcphYes Shared ?pcph00No Channelized w/ Rcv Lane?0Yes Shared ?pcph00pcph889S Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Shared ? WE No 0.75 V / C 1204 pcph pcph pcph 000 0pcphYes 000 EB Critical Vol434 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 No Shared ? Shared ? Yes Yes SB Critical Vol315 Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells. Conventional Conventional EW Split? FALSENS Split? FALSE NS Facility:I-81 NB Ramps VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.75 N DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION Project Name:2025 Total Future PM Critical Lane Volume Sum Date:July 8, 2024 EW Facility:Reliance Road < 1200 1200 - 1399 Zone 5 Zone 5 Back to Results VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL Ver 1.0 1 B-14 518 1111RoundaboutRoundaboutRoundaboutEQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)40.40298pcphV/C RATIONB0.000920.000851420Right22Lane Capacity136274122Left135010.50Through lane utilization factor0Left1420 0.000910.000911420Right12Lane Capacity0.509911 1 pcph 0Number of Entry LanesNumber of Circulating LanesLane A B11-1380 0.001021420 0.00085-2121NBThrough lane utilization factorpcph 317195 4 99746195pcph pcph pcph pcph V/C RATIONo110.50pcphConflicting flow603EBLane Capacity 1380V/C RATIONumber of Circulating LanesNoSlip Lane?1Through lane utilization factor Number of Entry Lanes0 317 286 pcph 603V/C RATIO0.44841V/C RATIOpcphConflicting flow48510.49V/C RATIO21Conflicting flow 0 410pcphNoNumber of Circulating Lanes1469SBWBConflicting flow2pcph pcph V/C RATIO V/C RATIO DESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONCAPACITY CALCULATIONS0.50Lane CapacityEW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 16001136pcphThrough lane utilization factor274pcphProject Name:NS Facility:Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Date:Slip Lane?Number of Entry Lanes1Number of Circulating LanesNumber of Entry Lanes0pcphpcph0100pcph pcphWB2Total 8Slip Lane?AssumptionsSBNumber of Entry LanesWeighted Total Conflict PointsMergingDiverging 11Diverging 44Number of Circulating Lanes1pcph 286 2025 Total Future PMCritical Lane Volume SumI-81 NB RampsV/CJuly 8, 2024VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.49N00.44WESPredicted approach capacityLane 1Lane 2V/CV/C Lane 2Lane 10.49V/CLane 2 V/CV/CV/C Lane 10.40V/C● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two circulating lanes.● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl exiting the roundabout.● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM 6th Edition.Predicted approach capacityPredicted approach capacitySlip Lane?NoPredicted approach capacityLane 2EBSafety - Conflict Point DiagramConflict Type CountCrossing 0Merging8Conflict Type WeightCrossingLane 1Zone 1Zone 3Zone 2Zone 4Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-15 519 Priority MVMTRank1 EBL 2 1 2 278 0 Yes0.03vc,1398.00tc,14.13tf,12.23cp,11155.19cm,11155.191 1155.1910.242EBT1 4 2 0 0 Yes0.03vc,4308.00tc,44.13tf,42.23cp,41246.93cm,41246.932 1800.0020.173 EBR 1 7 3 189 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,71196.00tc,76.43tf,73.53cp,7204.66cm,7145.2413 1500.0030.004WBL2 80 1vc,8tc,8tf,8cp,8cm,804 1246.9340.005WBT1 9 2 96 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,9308.00tc,96.23tf,93.33cp,9729.64cm,9729.6415 1800.0050.156WBR1 100 0 0vc,10tc,10tf,10cp,10cm,1006 1500.0060.097NBL3 110 0vc,11tc,11tf,11cp,11cm,110--------NBT012 000vc,120.00tc,12tf,12cp,12cm,1207-8-9 198.907-8-9 1.439NBR2--------SBL 0 2 1 308 10.03vc,I,7864.00tc,I,75.43-- -- 0.00SBT0 3 1 0 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,7332.00tc,II,75.4311 11 0.00StopsSBR 0 5 1 266 10.03vc,I,8864.00tc,I,8cp,I,7411.00cm,I,7291.68cm,7145.24----0.0016 1 132 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,8398.00tc,II,8cp,II,7724.66cm,II,7724.66cm,8#VALUE!MAJOR MINORvc,I,10tc,I,10cp,I,8cm,I,8cm,10EB NBvc,II,10tc,II,10cp,II,8cm,II,8cm,11WBvc,I,11tc,I,11cp,I,10cm,I,10vc,II,11tc,II,11cp,II,10cm,II,102cp,I,11cm,I,11TRUEcp,II,11cm,II,11TRUEy70.49cT,7222.54y8cT,8y10cT,10y11cT,11p0,10.76p0,41.00a0.91p*0,10.71p0,80.00p0,90.87p*0,41.00p0,111.00p0,121.00p"70.710p'70.78fp,70.78p"10p'10#VALUE!fp,10#VALUE!x1i,1+20.17x4i,1+20.24ThroughRightf80.71f110.71f70.71f100.71fI,80.71fII,81.00p0,I,81.00fI,111.00fII,110.71p0,I,111.00fI,70.71fII,71.00fI.101.00fII.100.62Saturation Flow Rates198.900.00NoTwo-Stage Movement CapacitiesSingle-Stage Movement CapacitiesV/C Not Reported for Any Movements?Two-Stage Potential CapacitiesMovement CapacitiesMovement V/COne storage space in median (nm = 1) for two-stage turns*Assumption:Rank18001500960vph vph10vph0111890266vph0 Shared?Yes01Stop-controlled approaNumber of Lanes308 Yes1 Number of Lanes4Shared?vph 0 0 Stop-controlled approachesvph 0 0 SNumber of Lanes Stop-controlled approavph vph vph00vph1100 Shared?278 0 2025 Total Future PMCritical Lane Volume SumYesApproach Stop Controlled?I-81 NB RampsVOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:NDate:July 8, 2024EW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 1600NS Facility:WEConflict Type CountCrossing 16Total 32Diverging 1Diverging 848Conflict Type WeightWeighted Total Conflict PointsCrossing 2Merging 8Merging 1Safety - Conflict Point DiagramAssumptionsApproach Stop Controlled?YesYes YesShared?Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersectionShared?1Mvmt 1, shared leftvph● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons arebased on the HCM, 6th Edition. The calculations are based on vehicles per hour.HCM 6 CALCULATIONSStep 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Approach Stop Controlled?No1.43YesShared?Shared?YesYesOne or two-stage minor street left and through movments*?0010Stop-controlled approachesMvmt 4, shared leftMvmt 7, 4-legMvmt 10, 4-legNoApproach Stop Controlled?OneNS Major?Major street lanesM1 Shared?M4 Shared?Mvmt 1, excl leftMvmt 4, excl leftFALSENumber of Lanes00132vphShared?YesTwo StageOne StageTwo-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Intersection V/C1.43Shared Movement CapacitiesMovementCapacitiesPotentialCapacitiesFollow-UpHeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?Stop controlled?Truck %DESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONProject Name:Zone 5Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-16 520 Project Title: E-W Facility: N-S Facility: Date: Through Right Eastbound 415 205 3.00% Westbound 550 0 3.00% Northbound 0 0 3.00% Southbound 2 351 3.00% Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85 Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85 Through Right Approach Eastbound 427 211 638 Westbound 567 0 638 Northbound 0 0 0 Southbound 2 362 440 July 8, 2024 Equivalent Passenger Car Volume Volume (pc/hr) Traffic Volume Demand Truck Percent (%) Truck to PCE Factor Critical Lane Volume Suggested = 2.00 Direction 1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Truck to PCE Factor 1600 VDOT Junction Screening Tool Input Worksheet 2025 Total Future AM Reliance Road I-81 SB Ramps Volume (veh/hr) 2.00 U-Turn / Left Notes: U-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles 0 69 0 U-Turn / Left Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Left-turn Adjustment Factor Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection 74 76 0 71 0 1B-17 521 # Intersections Information Consider?Justification 1 Conventional -N 2 Bowtie Link N 3 Center Turn Overpass Link N 4 Continuous Green-T Link N 5 Echelon Link N 6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N 7 Median U-Turn Link N 8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N 9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N 10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N 11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N 12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N 13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N 14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N 15 Single Loop Link N 16 Split Intersection Link N 17 Thru-Cut Link N 18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N 19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N 20 Roundabout Link N 21 Two-Way Stop Control -N # Interchanges Information Consider? Justification 22 Traditional Diamond Link N 23 Contraflow Left Link N 24 Displaced Left Turn Link N 25 Diverging Diamond Link N 26 Double Roundabout Link N 27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N 28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N 29 Single Point Link N 30 Single Roundabout Link N Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered. Possible Configurations VDOT Junction Screening Tool Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections 2B-18 522 Intersections Direction TwoDirList FourDirList EchelonList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList SingleLoopList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList Interchanges Direction TwoDirList Base Number of Through Lanes Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A Question N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Bowtie Continuous Green-T Echelon Median U-Turn Partial Displaced Left Turn Thru-Cut Single Loop Split Intersection N/A N/A Partial Median U-Turn Restricted Crossing U-Turn N/AN/A VDOT Junction Screening Tool Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided. N/A N/A Question N/A N/A 3B-19 523 U-Turn / Left Through Right 0 415 205 69 550 0 000 74 2 351 Volumes (veh/hr) Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound VDOT Junction Screening Tool Results Worksheet Intersection Results Project Title: EW Facility: NS Facility: Date: General Information 2025 Total Future AM Reliance Road I-81 SB Ramps July 8, 2024 General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each worksheet.CongestionPedestrianSafetyNotes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Conventional Weighted Total Conflict Points Conventional -0.80 48 Roundabout -0.61 8 Two-Way Stop Control -0.66 48 *The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference. 1B-20 524 Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafety Notes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Traditional Diamond Weighted Total Conflict Points Congestion Pedestrian Safety Information The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection. Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange. Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts 2B-21 525 Conventional Conventional EW Split? FALSENS Split? FALSE NS Facility:I-81 SB Ramps VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.80 N DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION Project Name:2025 Total Future AM Critical Lane Volume Sum Date:July 8, 2024 EW Facility:Reliance Road < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 No Shared ? Shared ? Yes Yes SB Critical Vol0 Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells. S Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Shared ? WE No 0.80 V / C 1284 pcph pcph pcph 0 504 0 0pcphYes 010 EB Critical Vol780 Yes Shared ?pcph00No Channelized w/ Rcv Lane?0Yes Shared ?pcph00pcph675780pcph0Shared ? Yes 00011284 0000 pcph1 Merging 1 Diverging 1 Weighted Total Conflict Points 48 Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs) Weighted Total Conflict Points 12 Diverging 3 Total 9 Conflict Type Weight Crossing 2 Merging 1 Diverging Conflict Type Total Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Weight Crossing 2 Conflict Type Count Crossing Merging Diverging 16 8 8 32 WB Critical Vol675 NB Critical Vol504 Conflict Type Count Crossing 3 Merging 3 Yes Yes Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? pcph pcph pcph Shared ? Shared ? No 1Zone 5 Zone 5 Back to Results VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL Ver 1.0 1 B-22 526 1111● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two circulating lanes.● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl exiting the roundabout.● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM 6th Edition.Predicted approach capacityPredicted approach capacitySlip Lane?NoPredicted approach capacityLane 2EBSafety - Conflict Point DiagramConflict Type CountCrossing 0Merging8Conflict Type WeightCrossingLane 10.54WESPredicted approach capacityLane 10.61Lane 2V/CV/C Lane 2Lane 10.46V/CLane 2 V/CV/CV/C Lane 1 V/C2025 Total Future AMCritical Lane Volume SumI-81 SB RampsV/CJuly 8, 2024VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.61N1WB2Total 8Slip Lane?AssumptionsSBNumber of Entry LanesWeighted Total Conflict PointsMergingDiverging 11Diverging 44Number of Circulating Lanes1pcph 0Slip Lane?Number of Entry Lanes1Number of Circulating LanesNumber of Entry Lanes71pcphpcph3621276pcph pcphDESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONCAPACITY CALCULATIONS0.50Lane CapacityEW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 16000pcphThrough lane utilization factor567pcphProject Name:NS Facility:76Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Date:4401 720362pcph pcph V/C RATIO V/C RATIO 0.616382SBWBConflicting flow149638 pcphNoNumber of Circulating Lanes1pcph 638V/C RATIO0.541380V/C RATIOpcphConflicting flow010.46V/C RATIO1Conflicting flow Number of Circulating LanesNoSlip Lane?1Through lane utilization factor Number of Entry Lanes211 427 0 pcph V/C RATIO1No100.50pcphConflicting flow503EBLane Capacity 1185V/C RATIOpcph 427000pcph pcph pcph pcph 211Number of Entry LanesNumber of Circulating LanesLane A B11-1380 0.001021420 0.00085-2122NBThrough lane utilization factor0.000910.000911420Right12Lane Capacity0.50121 1Lane Capacity0567122Left135010.50Through lane utilization factor71Left1420RoundaboutRoundaboutRoundaboutEQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)pcphV/C RATIONB0.000920.000851420Right22Zone 1Zone 3Zone 2Zone 4Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-23 527 Priority MVMTRank4EBL2 12 69 0Yes0.03vc,1620.00tc,14.13tf,12.23cp,1955.66cm,1955.661 955.6610.075EBT1 4 2 0 0 Yes0.03vc,4550.00tc,44.13tf,42.23cp,41014.71cm,41014.712 1800.0020.316 EBR 1 7 3 74 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,71205.50tc,76.43tf,73.53cp,7201.98cm,7180.9813 1500.0030.001WBL2 80 1vc,8tc,8tf,8cp,8cm,804 1014.7140.002WBT1 9 2 351 1 No Yes 0.03vc,9550.00tc,96.23tf,93.33cp,9532.84cm,9532.8405 1800.0050.233WBR1 100 0 0vc,10tc,10tf,10cp,10cm,1006 1500.0060.14NBL 0 110 0vc,11tc,11tf,11cp,11cm,110--------NBT012 000vc,120.00tc,12tf,12cp,12cm,1207-8 180.987-8 0.41NBR 09 532.8490.667 SBL 3 2 1 550 10.03vc,I,7688.00tc,I,75.43-- -- 0.00SBT0 3 1 0 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,7517.50tc,II,75.4311 11 0.00Stops9 SBR 2 5 1 415 10.03vc,I,8688.00tc,I,8cp,I,7497.04cm,I,7445.36cm,7180.98----0.0016 1 205 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,8620.00tc,II,8cp,II,7596.15cm,II,7596.15cm,8#VALUE!MAJOR MINORvc,I,10tc,I,10cp,I,8cm,I,8cm,10EB SBvc,II,10tc,II,10cp,II,8cm,II,8cm,11WBvc,I,11tc,I,11cp,I,10cm,I,10vc,II,11tc,II,11cp,II,10cm,II,102cp,I,11cm,I,11TRUEcp,II,11cm,II,11TRUEy70.76cT,7302.02y8cT,8y10cT,10y11cT,11p0,10.93p0,41.00a0.91p*0,10.90p0,80.00p0,90.34p*0,41.00p0,111.00p0,121.00p"70.896p'70.92fp,70.92p"10p'10#VALUE!fp,10#VALUE!x1i,1+20.31x4i,1+20.37ThroughRightf80.90f110.90f70.90f100.90fI,80.90fII,81.00p0,I,81.00fI,111.00fII,110.90p0,I,111.00fI,70.90fII,71.00fI.101.00fII.100.31Two StageOne StageTwo-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Intersection V/C0.66Shared Movement CapacitiesMovementCapacitiesPotentialCapacitiesFollow-UpHeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?Stop controlled?Truck %DESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONProject Name:0Stop-controlled approachesMvmt 4, shared leftMvmt 7, 4-legMvmt 10, 4-legNoApproach Stop Controlled?OneNS Major?Major street lanesM1 Shared?M4 Shared?Mvmt 1, excl leftMvmt 4, excl leftFALSENumber of Lanes000vphShared?Yes1Mvmt 1, shared leftvph● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM, 6th Edition. The calculations are based on vehicles per hour.HCM 6 CALCULATIONSStep 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Approach Stop Controlled?No0.66YesShared?Shared?NoYesOne or two-stage minor street left and through movments*?011Safety - Conflict Point DiagramAssumptionsApproach Stop Controlled?YesYes YesShared?Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersectionShared?Conflict Type CountCrossing 16Total 32Diverging 1Diverging 848Conflict Type WeightWeighted Total Conflict PointsCrossing 2Merging 8Merging 12025 Total Future AMCritical Lane Volume SumYesApproach Stop Controlled?I-81 SB RampsVOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:NDate:July 8, 2024EW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 1600NS Facility:WESNumber of Lanes Stop-controlled approavph vph vph351 2 vph11740 Shared?0 0 0 Shared?Yes691Stop-controlled approaNumber of Lanes415 Yes1 Number of Lanes0Shared?vph 205 0 Stop-controlled approachesvph 0 0Movement CapacitiesMovement V/COne storage space in median (nm = 1) for two-stage turns*Assumption:Rank1800150000vph vph00vph11100550vphSaturation Flow Rates180.980.00NoTwo-Stage Movement CapacitiesSingle-Stage Movement CapacitiesV/C Not Reported for Any Movements?Two-Stage Potential CapacitiesZone 5Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-24 528 Project Title: E-W Facility: N-S Facility: Date: Through Right Eastbound 493 233 3.00% Westbound 394 0 3.00% Northbound 0 0 3.00% Southbound 0 311 3.00% Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85 Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85 Through Right Approach Eastbound 508 240 748 Westbound 406 0 469 Northbound 0 0 0 Southbound 0 320 415 July 8, 2024 Equivalent Passenger Car Volume Volume (pc/hr) Traffic Volume Demand Truck Percent (%) Truck to PCE Factor Critical Lane Volume Suggested = 2.00 Direction 1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Truck to PCE Factor 1600 VDOT Junction Screening Tool Input Worksheet 2025 Total Future PM Reliance Road I-81 SB Ramps Volume (veh/hr) 2.00 U-Turn / Left Notes: U-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles 0 61 0 U-Turn / Left Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles Left-turn Adjustment Factor Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection 92 95 0 63 0 1B-25 529 # Intersections Information Consider?Justification 1 Conventional -Y 2 Bowtie Link N 3 Center Turn Overpass Link N 4 Continuous Green-T Link N 5 Echelon Link N 6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N 7 Median U-Turn Link N 8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N 9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N 10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N 11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N 12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N 13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N 14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N 15 Single Loop Link N 16 Split Intersection Link N 17 Thru-Cut Link N 18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N 19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N 20 Roundabout Link Y 21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y # Interchanges Information Consider? Justification 22 Traditional Diamond Link N 23 Contraflow Left Link N 24 Displaced Left Turn Link N 25 Diverging Diamond Link N 26 Double Roundabout Link N 27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N 28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N 29 Single Point Link N 30 Single Roundabout Link N Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered. Possible Configurations VDOT Junction Screening Tool Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections 2B-26 530 Intersections Direction TwoDirList FourDirList EchelonList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList SingleLoopList TwoDirList TwoDirList TwoDirList Interchanges Direction TwoDirList Base Number of Through Lanes Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A Question N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Bowtie Continuous Green-T Echelon Median U-Turn Partial Displaced Left Turn Thru-Cut Single Loop Split Intersection N/A N/A Partial Median U-Turn Restricted Crossing U-Turn N/AN/A VDOT Junction Screening Tool Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided. N/A N/A Question N/A N/A 3B-27 531 U-Turn / Left Through Right 0 493 233 61 394 0 000 92 0 311 Volumes (veh/hr) Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound VDOT Junction Screening Tool Results Worksheet Intersection Results Project Title: EW Facility: NS Facility: Date: General Information 2025 Total Future PM Reliance Road I-81 SB Ramps July 8, 2024 General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each worksheet.CongestionPedestrianSafetyNotes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Conventional Weighted Total Conflict Points Conventional -0.79 48 Roundabout -0.64 8 Two-Way Stop Control -0.48 48 *The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference. 1B-28 532 Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafety Notes Type Dir Maximum V/C Accommodation Compared to Traditional Diamond Weighted Total Conflict Points Congestion Pedestrian Safety Information The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection. Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange. Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts 2B-29 533 Conventional Conventional EW Split? FALSENS Split? FALSE NS Facility:I-81 SB Ramps VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.79 N DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION Project Name:2025 Total Future PM Critical Lane Volume Sum Date:July 8, 2024 EW Facility:Reliance Road < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 No Shared ? Shared ? Yes Yes SB Critical Vol0 Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells. S Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? Shared ? WE No 0.79 V / C 1261 pcph pcph pcph 0 471 0 0pcphYes 010 EB Critical Vol595 Yes Shared ?pcph00No Channelized w/ Rcv Lane?0Yes Shared ?pcph00pcph790595pcph0Shared ? Yes 00011261 0000 pcph1 Merging 1 Diverging 1 Weighted Total Conflict Points 48 Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs) Weighted Total Conflict Points 12 Diverging 3 Total 9 Conflict Type Weight Crossing 2 Merging 1 Diverging Conflict Type Total Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Weight Crossing 2 Conflict Type Count Crossing Merging Diverging 16 8 8 32 WB Critical Vol790 NB Critical Vol471 Conflict Type Count Crossing 3 Merging 3 Yes Yes Channelized w/ Rcv Lane? pcph pcph pcph Shared ? Shared ? No 1Zone 5 Zone 5 Back to Results VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL Ver 1.0 1 B-30 534 1111● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two circulating lanes.● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl exiting the roundabout.● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are based on the HCM 6th Edition.Predicted approach capacityPredicted approach capacitySlip Lane?NoPredicted approach capacityLane 2EBSafety - Conflict Point DiagramConflict Type CountCrossing 0Merging8Conflict Type WeightCrossingLane 10.64WESPredicted approach capacityLane 10.49Lane 2V/CV/C Lane 2Lane 10.34V/CLane 2 V/CV/CV/C Lane 1 V/C2025 Total Future PMCritical Lane Volume SumI-81 SB RampsV/CJuly 8, 2024VOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:0.64N1WB2Total 8Slip Lane?AssumptionsSBNumber of Entry LanesWeighted Total Conflict PointsMergingDiverging 11Diverging 44Number of Circulating Lanes1pcph 0Slip Lane?Number of Entry Lanes1Number of Circulating LanesNumber of Entry Lanes63pcphpcph3201095pcph pcphDESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONCAPACITY CALCULATIONS0.50Lane CapacityEW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 16000pcphThrough lane utilization factor406pcphProject Name:NS Facility:95Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Date:4151 855320pcph pcph V/C RATIO V/C RATIO 0.494690SBWBConflicting flow158469 pcphNoNumber of Circulating Lanes1pcph 748V/C RATIO0.641380V/C RATIOpcphConflicting flow010.34V/C RATIO1Conflicting flow Number of Circulating LanesNoSlip Lane?1Through lane utilization factor Number of Entry Lanes240 508 0 pcph V/C RATIO1No100.50pcphConflicting flow603EBLane Capacity 1175V/C RATIOpcph 508000pcph pcph pcph pcph 240Number of Entry LanesNumber of Circulating LanesLane A B11-1380 0.001021420 0.00085-2122NBThrough lane utilization factor0.000910.000911420Right12Lane Capacity0.50121 1Lane Capacity0406122Left135010.50Through lane utilization factor63Left1420RoundaboutRoundaboutRoundaboutEQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)pcphV/C RATIONB0.000920.000851420Right22Zone 1Zone 3Zone 2Zone 4Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-31 535 Priority MVMTRank4EBL2 12 61 0Yes0.03vc,1726.00tc,14.13tf,12.23cp,1872.46cm,1872.461 872.4610.075EBT1 4 2 0 0 Yes0.03vc,4394.00tc,44.13tf,42.23cp,41159.12cm,41159.122 1800.0020.226 EBR 1 7 3 92 0 Yes Yes 0.03vc,71125.50tc,76.43tf,73.53cp,7225.69cm,7205.4913 1500.0030.001WBL2 80 1vc,8tc,8tf,8cp,8cm,804 1159.1240.002WBT1 9 2 311 1 No Yes 0.03vc,9394.00tc,96.23tf,93.33cp,9652.83cm,9652.8305 1800.0050.273WBR1 100 0 0vc,10tc,10tf,10cp,10cm,1006 1500.0060.16NBL 0 110 0vc,11tc,11tf,11cp,11cm,110--------NBT012 000vc,120.00tc,12tf,12cp,12cm,1207-8 205.497-8 0.45NBR 09 652.8390.487 SBL 3 2 1 394 10.03vc,I,7516.00tc,I,75.43-- -- 0.00SBT0 3 1 0 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,7609.50tc,II,75.4311 11 0.00Stops9 SBR 2 5 1 493 10.03vc,I,8516.00tc,I,8cp,I,7597.10cm,I,7543.65cm,7205.49----0.0016 1 233 0 Yes No 0.03vc,II,8726.00tc,II,8cp,II,7540.59cm,II,7540.59cm,8#VALUE!MAJOR MINORvc,I,10tc,I,10cp,I,8cm,I,8cm,10EB SBvc,II,10tc,II,10cp,II,8cm,II,8cm,11WBvc,I,11tc,I,11cp,I,10cm,I,10vc,II,11tc,II,11cp,II,10cm,II,102cp,I,11cm,I,11TRUEcp,II,11cm,II,11TRUEy71.23cT,7325.76y8cT,8y10cT,10y11cT,11p0,10.93p0,41.00a0.91p*0,10.91p0,80.00p0,90.52p*0,41.00p0,111.00p0,121.00p"70.910p'70.93fp,70.93p"10p'10#VALUE!fp,10#VALUE!x1i,1+20.22x4i,1+20.43ThroughRightf80.91f110.91f70.91f100.91fI,80.91fII,81.00p0,I,81.00fI,111.00fII,110.91p0,I,111.00fI,70.91fII,71.00fI.101.00fII.100.48Two StageOne StageTwo-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)Intersection V/C0.48Shared Movement CapacitiesMovementCapacitiesPotentialCapacitiesFollow-UpHeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?Stop controlled?Truck %DESIGN AND RESULTSDATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATIONProject Name:0Stop-controlled approachesMvmt 4, shared leftMvmt 7, 4-legMvmt 10, 4-legNoApproach Stop Controlled?OneNS Major?Major street lanesM1 Shared?M4 Shared?Mvmt 1, excl leftMvmt 4, excl leftFALSENumber of Lanes000vphShared?Yes1Mvmt 1, shared leftvph● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons arebased on the HCM, 6th Edition. The calculations are based on vehicles per hour.HCM 6 CALCULATIONSStep 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.Approach Stop Controlled?No0.48YesShared?Shared?NoYesOne or two-stage minor street left and through movments*?011Safety - Conflict Point DiagramAssumptionsApproach Stop Controlled?YesYes YesShared?Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersectionShared?Conflict Type CountCrossing 16Total 32Diverging 1Diverging 848Conflict Type WeightWeighted Total Conflict PointsCrossing 2Merging 8Merging 12025 Total Future PMCritical Lane Volume SumYesApproach Stop Controlled?I-81 SB RampsVOLUME / CAPACITY RATIO:NDate:July 8, 2024EW Facility:Reliance Road< 12001200 - 1399 1400 - 1599≥ 1600NS Facility:WESNumber of Lanes Stop-controlled approavph vph vph311 0 vph11920 Shared?0 0 0 Shared?Yes611Stop-controlled approaNumber of Lanes493 Yes1 Number of Lanes0Shared?vph 233 0 Stop-controlled approachesvph 0 0Movement CapacitiesMovement V/COne storage space in median (nm = 1) for two-stage turns*Assumption:Rank1800150000vph vph00vph11100394vphSaturation Flow Rates205.490.00NoTwo-Stage Movement CapacitiesSingle-Stage Movement CapacitiesV/C Not Reported for Any Movements?Two-Stage Potential CapacitiesZone 5Backto ResultsVDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOLVer 1.01B-32 536 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Appendix C: TIA, Safety Study, and/or other Studies 537 HESTER TRUST PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY July 27, 2022 C-1 538 www.WellsAndAssociates.com @WellsAssoc @WellsandAssociates Wells + Associates HESTER TRUST PROPERTY Transportation Impact Analysis Frederick County, Virginia July 27, 2022 Prepared for: Middletown, LLC Prepared by: Wells + Associates Michael J. Workosky, PTP, TOPS, TSOS John F. Cavan, P.E., PTOE (703) 917-6620 C-2 539 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 2-4Existing Lane Use an Traffic ControlHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTIONSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP 13C-3540 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 3-1Existing Peak Hour Traffic VolumesHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11173/1952/023/50200/21218/19122/105242/24474/5988/12716/251/5132/10469/151196/143140/27569/2041/4150/3665/18133/190FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/075/215112/138190/1320/193/144108/132134/1130/00/10/00/116C-4541 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-1Regional Growth (2022-2025)Hester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 115/60/01/26/61/14/37/72/23/40/10/04/32/56/44/80/00/00/00/04/6FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/02/73/46/40/03/43/44/30/00/00/00/023C-5542 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table4‐1Hester Trust PropertyPipeline Development TripGeneration Analysis1,2ITEAverageLand Use Code Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsVillage at MiddletownSingle‐Family Residential 210 86                 DU 17              48              65              54              32              86        878                Multi‐Family Residential 220 22                 DU2                7                9                8                4                12        148                Stand‐Alone Commercial 820 58,600         SF63              38              101            149            155            304      3,957             Total 82              93              175            211            191            402      4,983             Single Family HousingSingle Family Housing 210 92                 DU18              51              69              58              34              92        935                Gas Station/Convenience StoreGas Station/Convenience Store 945 8 Stations 108            108            216            91              91              182      2,057             Pass‐By Trips (60% AM, 56% PM)65             65             130           51             51             102     1,193 New Gas Station Trips43              43              86              40              40              80        864                Total Pipeline Trips143            187            330            309            265            574      6,782             Notes:1. Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.2. Assumes 8 fueling positions and ~5,000 S.F. convenience storeAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour25C-6 543 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-3Pipleline Trip AssignmentsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 1145/1210/05/1055/11013/1351/7972/11733/2243/3426/180/020/8650/3843/8917/450/00/00/00/027/38FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/04/114/912/180/033/6649/479/70/00/00/00/026C-7544 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 4-42025 Future Traffic Forecasts Without DelopmentHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11223/3222/029/62261/32832/30177/187231/368109/83134/16542/441/5156/193121/194245/236161/32868/2061/4150/3665/18164/234FUTUREINTERSECTIONFUTUREINTERSECTION0/081/233119/151208/1540/1129/214160/183147/1230/00/10/00/127C-8545 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 5‐1Hester TrustPropertySite Trip Generation Analysis1ITE WeekdayAverage Land UseCode Size Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily TripsProposed DevelopmentGeneral Light Industrial 110 848,000       S.F. 510                70 580                26 162                188                3,239              Truck Trip Generation538448212Passenger Vehicle Trip Generation 505               67572               22 158               180               3,027             Notes:1.Trip Generation obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour32C-9 546 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 5-1Site Generated TripsHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11128/80/00/0230/120/029/6521/490/025/10/00/0205/113/818/4160/1380/00/00/00/0434/230/010/2450/115359/190/00/00/076/30/00/00/00/024/5725/13/836/81256/13179/1025/151/27/1624/57179/103/815 % / 0 % 25 % / 4 0 % 4 0 % / 6 0 %5%/0%1 5 % / 0 %Passenger VehicleHeavy TruckDirectional Trip DistributionX% / X%33C-10547 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-12025 Future Traffic Forecasts With DelopmentHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaAM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR000 / 0001RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11351/3302/029/62491/34032/30206/252342/417109/83159/16642/441/5361/204124/202263/277221/46668/2061/4150/3665/18298/2570/091/257169/266567/1730/1129/214160/183223/1260/00/10/00/1255/40625/13/836/81256/13406/286256/35051/27/1624/57179/10230/28437C-11548 SITEV A L L E Y P I K E M A I N S T R E E T MUSTANGLANE11123456INTERSTATE81RELIANCE ROADNORTHO:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\GRAPHICS\22.0609 GRAPHICS.DWGFigure 6-22025 Future Conditions with Development Lane Use and Traffic ControlHester Trust PropertyFrederick County, VirginiaSTOPStop SignSignalized IntersectionRepresents One Travel Lane1RELIANCEROADI-81 NBOFF-RAMPI-81 NBRELIANCEROADON-RAMP2I-81 SBON-RAMPI-81 SBOFF-RAMP3PRIVATEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11MAIN STREETDRIVEWAYUS ROUTE 114LANEMUSTANG5DRIVEWAYSOUTH SITERELIANCEROADRELIANCEROADROADRELIANCEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 116DRIVEWAYNORTH SITEVALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11VALLEY PIKEUS ROUTE 11STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP 38C-12549 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 6‐1Hester Trust PropertyTotal Future with Development Conditions Levels of Service Summary1LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)1. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR C 23.8 C 16.5 E 43.8 F 69.2 F 420.5 F 134.2 F 420.5 F 134.2EBLA 8.1 A 7.9 A 8.5 A 8.4 A 8.7 A 8.5 A 8.7 A 8.5Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTA 1.6 A 1.6 A 5.2 A 2.0 A 5.2 A 2.0WBTRA 4.9 A 5.3 A 9.3 A 5.5 A 9.3 A 5.5NBLTRD 35.7 D 42.4 D 45.4 D 43.4 D 45.4 D 43.4OverallB 11.0 B 13.3 C 21.6 B 13.5 C 21.6 B 13.52. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLA 8.2 A 8.1 A 8.6 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 9.2 A 8.8 A 9.2SBLTR B 11.6 B 12.9 B 14.3 C 24.2 E 40.3 D 28.3 E 40.3 D 28.3Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBTRA 8.7 B 13.2 B 14.0 B 15.0 B 13.9 D 15.0WBLTA 0.6 A 0.9 A 2.0 A 1.5 A 2.0 A 1.5SBLTRD 36.4 D 44.6 D 46.1 D 45.5 D 46.1 D 45.5OverallB 13.2 B 19.1 B 18.1 B 19.9 B 18.1 B 19.93. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedNBLA 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0EBLTR A 0.0 B 14.5 A 0.0 C 16.3 A 0.0 C 23.0 A 0.0 C 23.0WBLC 16.2 C 24.8 C 19.7 F 51.8 D 32.5 F 218.8 D 32.5 F 218.8WBRB 10.8 B 10.0 B 11.4 B 10.5 D 33.5 B 10.7 D 33.5 B 10.7SBLA 8.1 A 8.1 A 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 8.8Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTRA 0.0 B 13.4 A 0.0 B 15.4 A 0.0 B 15.4WBLTB 15.2 B 16.7 B 16.3 B 19.5 B 16.3 B 19.5WBRB 13.0 B 11.3 C 25.8 B 10.8 C 25.8 B 10.8NBLTRB 15.5 B 17.6 C 27.6 C 21.2 C 27.6 C 21.2SBLA 9.1 B 10.8 B 17.9 B 12.6 B 17.9 B 12.6SBTRA 5.2 A 7.0 B 10.7 A 7.4 B 10.7 A 7.4OverallB 12.9 B 13.2 C 23.4 B 14.6 C 23.4 B 14.64. U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR B 11.7 B 11.7 B 11.8 B 12.7 C 22.2 B 14.2 C 22.2 B 14.4SBLA 7.9 A 7.7 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 9.4 A 7.9 A 9.4 A 7.95. South Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLRB13.2 B 14.1 C 15.4 C 15.3SBLA9.2A7.9A9.5A7.96. North Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLRB 11.9 B 12.7SBLA8.4A7.91. Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th methodology, using Synchro 11 unless otherwise noted.2025 (One Driveway) Future Conditions with Development2025 (Two Driveways) Future Conditions with DevelopmentAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak HourExisting Conditions2025 Future Conditions without DevelopmentPM Peak HourNotes:AM Peak HourApproach/ Lane GroupPM Peak Hour40C-13 550 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 Table 6‐2Hester Trust PropertyTotal Future with Development Conditions Queuing Summary50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile50th%tile95th%tile1. I‐81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR‐‐63‐33‐133‐200‐755‐290‐755‐290EBL‐‐15‐10‐20‐18‐22‐22‐22‐22Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLT‐35 58 43 67 131 63 47 72 131 63 47 72WBTR‐28 69 32 63 49 91 33 64 49 91 33 64NBLTR‐86 141 102 174 187 #344 107 #189 187 #344 107 #1892. I‐81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBL‐‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3‐3SBLTR‐‐30‐40‐53‐138‐213‐160‐213‐160Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBTR‐ ‐‐‐‐61 162 79 225 97 254 107 307 97 254 107 307WBLT‐ ‐‐‐‐13 148 95 224 220 m335 108 233 220 m335 108 233SBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐15 76 28 99 51 123 28 99 51 123 28 993. Reliance Road/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedNBLTR‐‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0EBLTR‐‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0‐0WBL‐‐23‐58‐40‐153‐70‐318‐70‐318WBR240‐25‐15‐30‐18‐260‐20‐260‐20SBL285‐8‐10‐10‐10‐15‐23‐15‐23Potential Improvement: SignalizationEBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐000000000000WBLT‐ ‐‐‐‐36 97 64 155 43 116 71 173 43 116 71 173WBR240‐‐‐‐0 31 0 24 29 139 0 26 29 139 0 26NBLTR‐ ‐‐‐‐68 163 66 174 111 246 75 194 111 246 75 194SBL285‐‐‐‐16 44 25 68 25 63 48 118 25 63 48 118SBTR‐ ‐‐‐‐11 32 40 11 13 37 46 11 13 37 46 114. U.S. Route 11/Mustang Road ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐‐18‐13‐18‐13‐43‐18‐43‐18SBL300‐5‐3‐5‐3‐8‐3‐8‐35. South Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐8‐19‐18‐38SBL‐3‐0‐8‐06. North Site Driveway/U.S. Route 11 ‐ UnsignalizedWBLR‐5‐263SBL‐5‐0Notes:  1.Capacity analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, using Synchro 11.2. "~" ‐ 50th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.3. "#" ‐ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.4. "m" ‐ Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Approach/ Lane GroupStorage Length (ft)Existing Conditions2025 Future Conditions without Development2025 (One Driveway) Future Conditions with Development2025 (Two Driveways) Future Conditions with DevelopmentAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour43C-14 551 Hester Trust Property Traffic Impact Study July 27, 2022 SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions The principal findings of this traffic impact analysis are as follows: 1.The existing conditions analysis indicates that all study intersections, that currently operate under stop sign control, operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) “C” or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. This includes the I-81 ramps on Reliance Road, the Reliance Road/Valley Pike intersection, and the Valley Pike/Mustang Road intersection. 2.Under future conditions without development, regional traffic growth and pipeline developments would cause select movements and/or approaches at the I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections to operate beyond capacity. Signalization of the intersections would be needed to restore acceptable levels-of-service at these locations, assuming warrants for signalization are met. 3.The Hester Trust Property industrial development is planned to be built in a single phase by 2025. It is proposed to include 848,000 square feet (S.F.) of light industrial uses that are estimated to generate 580 AM peak hour trips (510 in and 70 out), 188 PM peak hour trips (26 in and 162 out), and 3,239 average daily (24-hour) trips when fully occupied. Trucks would account for eight (8) AM peak hour, eight (8) PM peak hour, and 212 daily trips. 4.The results of the future conditions analysis with the development indicate that the new site generated traffic would have only a minor effect on overall intersection delays. Acceptable levels-of-service at I-81 NB Ramp/Reliance Road and the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11)/Reliance Road intersections would continue to be maintained with the installation of traffic signals, consistent with background conditions. While I-81 SB Ramp/Reliance Road intersection would approach capacity under Stop-control conditions, installing a traffic signal would improve overall levels-of-service. All proposed traffic signals would satisfy warrants for signalization and have been previously recommended in other area traffic studies. 5.The proposed site entrances would operate at acceptable levels-of-service, whether one or two entrances are provided. The proposed access would meet VDOT spacing standards but would warrant exclusive right and left turn lanes, which would be satisfied by the existing two-way left turn lane. O:\PROJECTS\8501-9000\8555 HESTER PROPERTY\DOCUMENTS\REPORT\HESTER PROPERTY TIA (7.27.2022).DOCX 44 C-15 552 VDOT Signal Justification Report Template - Version 2.0 - December 2019 Appendix D: Roundabout Layout Exhibit 553 © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution AirbusDSS BUCKTON RD (RT 842)RELIANCE R D ( R T 6 2 7 )N BUCKTON RD (RT 842)I-81 SOUTHBOUNDI-81 NORTHBOUNDEXIT 302NORTHBOUND ON -RAMP RE L I A N C E R D ( R T 6 2 7 )I-81 SOUTHBOUNDI-81 NORTHBOUNDEXIT 302SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMPEXIT 302SOUTHBOUND ON -RAMPEXIT 302NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMPEX. RIGHT-OF-WAYEX. RIGHT-OF-WAYEX. RIGHT-OF-WAYEX. RIGHT-OF-WAYEX. RIGHT-OF - W A Y EX. R I G H T - O F - W A Y DATE:C.I.=OFSHEETFND 1971 ENGI NEERI NG PROUDLY SERVING VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIAOFFICES IN: ASHBURN, VA, WINCHESTER, VA, & MARTINSBURG, WV 45145 RESEARCH PLACEASHBURN, VIRGINIA 20147TELEPHONE: (703) 328-0788FAX: (540) 722-9528WWW.GREENWAYENG.COMSCALE:I-81 EXIT 302 ROUNDABOUT EXHIBIT MIDDLETOWN, LLC. - HESTER PROPERTY FREDERICK COUNTY, VAN/A2023-06-19111"=100'554 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: November 20, 2024 Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items Title: Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) - (Mr. Bishop) Attachments: PC11-20-24EasternFrederickCountyTransportationStudy_Draft.pdf 555 FREDERICKCOUNTY VA WV CLARKECOUNTY WINCHESTER SHENANDOAH COUNTY WARREN COUNTY STUDYAREA WVEastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 556 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 2 The following individuals and groups have been instrumental to this report: Frederick County including John Bishop, Wyatt Pearson, and Kayla Peloquin; Virginia Department of Transportation including Brad Reed; McCormick Taylor The lead consultant for the Eastern Frederick County Transportati on Study (EFCTS) Acknowledgments 557 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 3 Frederick County, Virginia is pursuing this study of transportation issues (needs) and possible solutions for the area to the east of the City of Winchester. As shown in Figure 1, the study area will include I-81 in the west to the Frederick County/Clarke County line in the east; and will extend from Route 761 on the north side of the city to the Tasker Road area east of the I-81 Exit 310. The study identified and documented specific transportation needs then developed potential solutions as concepts. The public had opportunities to provide input on the purpose, needs and conceptual solutions. Conceptual solutions were refined for public comment and an implementation plan was developed to include a prioritized list of improvements with estimates of probable costs. The study team was aware of previous efforts to pursue a Route 37 east bypass around Winchester. A bypass was considered, along with other transportation improvements, during the conceptual solution development and analysis process. The goal of the study is to develop a well-defined set of transportation needs to be addressed by a fiscally implementable set of transportation improvements. Additional recommendations, such as land use or access management controls, will also be included in the final plan. Additional alternatives analyses as a part of a Phase II study will be required to further develop alternatives to be viable for grant funding such as Smart Scale.Figure 1: Study Area Study Overview 558 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 4 The Study Area is in the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County. To accommodate anti cipated residenti al growth, this porti on of the County has been identi fi ed as the area where more intensive forms of residenti al development will occur. While the UDA currently consists of primarily suburban residenti al types of development, with some multi family units, parti cular areas have been identi fi ed to accommodate a more intensive mix of land uses and residenti al housing opportuniti es.1 According to the Comprehensive Plan, Frederick County has grown signifi cantly in the past two decades in both populati on and economic development. One of the contributors to the County’s populati on growth was the migrati on of people from inside of the Washington Metropolitan Stati sti cal Area (WMSA) to Frederick County for a higher quality of life including lower housing costs and a lower tax rate. Frederick County, because of its locati on and excellent access to Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., has become a desirable place to live for those commuters. Frederick County has also become an att racti ve place to live for reti rees. The UDA should allow for housing that will meet the needs of fi rst- ti me buyers, reti rees, move-up residents, and seniors.2 While the Comprehensive Plan does not state projected numbers for the total populati on or jobs in 2035, the Winchester/Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organizati on (WinFred MPO) shared combined projecti ons for the City of Winchester and Frederick County in their Transportati on Plan 2040 (see Figure 2). 1 Frederick County, “Residenti al Development: Current Conditi ons”, Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 2 Frederick County, “Residenti al Development: Focus for the Future”, Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Figure 2: Combined Projected Growth | Source: WinFred MPO Trasnsportati on Plan 2040 107,115 151,408 93,000 55,796 2015 2040 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 200,000 People Jobs Demographics and Socioeconomics 559 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 5 Given the nature of the study area, a specifi c point was made to identi fy problems throughout as opposed to focusing solely on the original Route 37 Bypass study and EIS statements. It was also desired to determine if any of the original segments of the Route 37 Bypass had logical termini and independent uti lity and would eff ecti vely address any of the problems now and in the future that were found in the problem assessment phase of the study. To create the purpose and needs statements, an evaluati on of the most recent studies and existi ng comprehensive plan was completed. Additi onally, conversati ons with staff at Frederick County Planning and VDOT helped to provide context and frame these statements. A review of the PSI segments and intersecti ons was also conducted, and the needs statements refl ect improvements proposed in that list. A thorough region wide travel demand model analysis was completed to determine areas of traffi c growth in 2050 and origin and desti nati on of these trip pairs as noted earlier in the report. Project Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate a range of alternati ves to improve mobility and safety for all road users, reduce congesti on, and enhance system conti nuity while meeti ng the needs of interstate, regional, and local traffi c passing through and moving within the study area, including the evaluati on of the proposed Route 37 bypass. Project Purpose & Need The purpose and needs statements were included in a survey for public input and presented at a public meeti ng, and the results are discussed in the following secti on. 560 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 6 Project Needs Bicycle/Pedestrian As indicated in the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update3, the existing bicycle network lacks infrastructure and 62% of roadways have Level of service (LOS) D (adequate for advanced riders) or worse. The pedestrian results showed that 60% of the network was either deemed adequate or adequate but not likely used for choice users (people who prefer to use walking as their primary mode of transportation). With land development since 2014, it is likely that bicycle and pedestrian needs have only increased since this time and linkages are desired to regional parks, schools, and commercial development. Congestion Virginia State Route 7 between the Frederick/Clarke County line and the City of Winchester is the major link between Frederick County and destinations in Northern Virginia. Volumes from the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) study in 2017 indicate that the average daily traffic (ADT) on this corridor is projected to reach 40,800 vehicles per day (VPD) by 2047. There is a current System for the Management and Allocation of Resources for Transportation (SMART) Scale project aimed at improving safety and traffic flow on Route 7 between Route 815/Millbrook Drive/Blossom Drive and Route 656/First Woods Drive/Greenwood Drive; however, additional segments have been identified in the PSI. In addition, two segments of Route 7 within the study area fall within the 1.5 > V/C > 1. • The intersection of I-81 Exit 317 and Route 11 is the most congested intersection in the Staunton District and is currently being redesigned as a diverging diamond interchange. Additionally, improved connectivity is needed between Route 7 and Route 11 to alleviate congestion. • Development in the area near the airport along both the Route 50 and Route 522 corridors has the potential to create congestion issues in the future, both at Exit 313 and at intersections along both corridors and the intersection with Crossover Boulevard. The extension of Crossover Boulevard to US 17/50 has been identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as an important connection and will offer improved access to the Virginia Inland Port. 3 NSVRC, WinFred MPO, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 561 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 7 • Large-scale residential land development on the study area’s southern end uses Warrior Drive and Tasker Road to access I-81 and Route 37. Additional interstate or state route connectivity from Warrior Drive is critical to continue residential development in this area and relieve congestion on Tasker Road. The Comprehensive plan includes a proposed link to extend Warrior Drive to the proposed Route 37 alignment as a potential solution to redistribute traffic in this area. Safety Upon reviewing the VDOT crash data from 2017-2021 and the Top PSI intersections it also becomes apparent that there is a significant safety issue on Route 7. • Since 2017, there have been 206 reportable crashes in the 3.76-mile stretch of roadway on Route 7 between the City of Winchester and the Frederick/Clarke County line. The 1.28-mile segment between Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road has been identified as the #7 top PSI priority by VDOT statewide. A SMART Scale project is in the design phase to add capacity and reduce conflict points to a 0.52-mile segment of roadway in this crash cluster area, but this project only addresses a portion of the study area. • The VA 7 and US 11 corridors have two of the more prominent crash histories, including significant numbers of fatal and injury crashes. • ADT on Route 7 Eastbound4: 14,000 VPD; Route 7 Westbound: 14,000 VPD; Total Crashes = 735; Fatal/Injury (FI) Crashes = 176 • ADT on Route 11 Northbound5: 14,000 VPD; Route 11 Southbound: 14,000 VPD; Total Crashes = 347; FI = 71 • The study area includes 24 intersections and 15 segments in the Statewide VDOT 2017-2021 Top 100 PSI list. • Six of the 15 segments are located on Route 7: • Begin milepost (MP) 1.75, end MP 2.00: Total Crashes = 23; Fatal/Injury (FI) Crashes = 8 (VDOT District Rank 26) 4,5 ArcGIS, VDOT, https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=a8da35dd9ce54993b25f64487c3717ec 562 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 8 • Begin MP 2.10, end MP 2.26: Total Crashes = 52; FI = 10 (VDOT District Rank 2) • Begin MP 2.26, end MP 2.51: Total Crashes = 16; FI = 3 (VDOT District Rank 60) • Begin MP 2.51, end MP 2.82: Total Crashes = 21; FI = 6 (VDOT District Rank 13) • Begin MP 2.82, end MP 3.26: Total Crashes = 17; FI = 3 (VDOT District Rank 94) • Begin MP 3.48, end MP 4.76: Total Crashes = 59; FI = 14 (VDOT District Rank 7) – improvements to this segment have been committed in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), with construction completed in 2026. I-81 Needs – Identified in the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan: • While not specifically identified in the I-81 CIP and outside of the study area, improvements are warranted at the intersection of I-81 Exit 307 to address safety and congestion. A project Pipeline study has been completed at this interchange to identify cost effective solutions to address safety and congestion concerns. • Recent improvements were completed at the I-81 and Route 37 interchange at Exit 310. The installation of a changeable message sign (CMS) is proposed as a safety measure. • Safety and congestion are an issue at the I-81 and Route 50 interchange at Exit 313. CMS’s are proposed at this interchange, however that does not address the existing congestion issue. • Widening I-81 to three lanes between Exits 313 and 317 (both Northbound and Southbound) was recommended for funding. • The addition of an auxiliary lane is a recommended improvement between Exits 313 and 315. • The addition of traffic cameras was recommended at Exit 317. • A design concept was created for a diverging diamond interchange at Exit 317 to address congestion and safety. 563 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 9 The McCormick Taylor project team collaborated with VDOT, Frederick County, the City of Winchester, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) and the WinFred MPO over the course of this project. Bi-weekly project status meetings were conducted with Frederick County, and project status reports, including PowerPoint presentations, were consistently delivered to the Frederick County Transportation Committee by the McCormick Taylor consultant team Project Managers, Brian St. John, P.E., PTOE, and Alexandra Castrechini, P.E. The communications protocols and public outreach practices utilized for this project were developed to align with VDOT’s Governance Document Public Involvement Manual (revised November 2021). The draft Public Engagement Plan (PEP) was shared with the public for review and comment and presented to Frederick County for implementation approval. The draft Purpose and Needs statements were also shared with the public for review and comment and were overwhelmingly accepted as depicted in Figure 17. 81 Draft Bicycle/Pedestrian Needs Draft Purpose Statement 148 Purpose and Needs Statement Surveys Received 28 Additional Comments 139 (95%) agree with statements as presented 8 (5%) disagree with statements as presented 1 did not provide a response Draft Congestion Needs Draft Interstate 81 Needs 79% 78 agree with statements as presented 21% 21 disagree with statements as presented 49 did not provide a response 91% 92 agree with statements as presented 9% 9 disagree with statements as presented 47 did not provide a response 88% 95 agree with statements as presented 12% 13 disagree with statements as presented 40 did not provide a response 86% 104 agree with statements as presented 14% 17 disagree with statements as presented 0 did not provide a response Draft Safety Needs Figure 17: Purpose & Needs Survey Results Agency & Public Engagement 564 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 10 Data collection and analysis efforts focused on using existing available traffic data, including current and future projections (generally a 20-year horizon). No additional traffic counts were completed as part of the study. Traffic generated by new and pending development within, or that influence the transportation network in the study area, was included in the updated demographic forecasts used in the model. The traffic model used 2019 as the base year and forecasted traffic volumes in 2050. Overall growth in Vehicle-miles Traveled (VMT) between 2019 and 2050 is 1.7% using a linear growth rate. This growth aligns with that in households (1.2% per year) and external traffic (1.8% per year). The study area was broken up into traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) and an analysis was completed to determine what the existing and future traffic patterns look like between these zones. This analysis is included in the report in detail. Another aspect of the analysis was to look at volume to capacity ratios (V/C). V/C ratios provide a measurement of how well a facility can accommodate traffic. For instance, a ratio of 0 indicates free flow traffic and a ratio of 1 or greater indicates severe congestion. LOS is another metric used to describe traffic flow used to symbolize the quality of traffic services. It is used to examine highways by categorizing traffic flow and allocating quality levels based on performances like speed, density, delay and many more. The key to an effective LOS is the ability of a transportation system to provide safe and reliable service for its users. LOS ranges from A (best quality of traffic/free flow of traffic) to F (worst quality of traffic/breakdown of traffic flow). Frederick County ordinance requires a minimum LOS C for transportation impact analyses (TIA’s) for new development. Figure 11 shows the locations where the V/C ratio would exceed 0.85 (on roadways with LOS D or worse) in 2050.Figure 11: Locations Where V/C (LOS D) Ratio 0.85 ≥ in 2050 | Source: WRA Traffic Analyses 565 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 11 Each segment of the original bypass was considered and an evaluati on completed. Detailed cost esti mates were not developed for the original proposed four lane limited access confi gurati on but engineering judgement and comparable faciliti es were used to develop costs referenced in this secti on of the report. Detailed work was completed to develop potenti al soluti ons to address the needs noted earlier in the document. Refer to Figure 18 on for a map showing each of the following segments. Bypass Segment 1 from Route 37 on the west side of I-81 to Route 11 includes a system interchange with Route 37 on the west and a cloverleaf interchange with I-81. The cloverleaf interchange as proposed would be diffi cult if not impossible to meet interchange spacing requirements and would require signifi cant additi onal im- provements on Interstate 81 and sideroads to meet current design criteria. This segment had the least traffi c volume in the updated travel demand model at approximately 13,000 VPD and it is the most expensive segment of the original bypass. Engineering judge- ment would lead to a cost of over half a billion dollars for that seg- ment of the original bypass including the interchange with I-81 and Route 37. Bypass Segment 2 from Route 11 to Route 7 (Berryville Pike) at- tracts about 18,000 VPD and is in an area of the study area that is rapidly growing from both a residenti al and employment per- specti ve. It would also allow some relief to Berryville Pike which is one of the corridors with high V/C rati os in 2050. This segment in the four-lane limited access confi gurati on would likely be over $250 million dollars given the interchanges, right of way (ROW), and structures required. BYPASSSEGMENT-1 BYPASSSEGMENT-2 BYPASSSEGMENT-3 BYPASSSEGMENT-4 BYPASSSEGMENT-5 Berryville Pike Berryvill e A v e Welltown RdWyck S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSenseny R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdSnowdenBridge R d Park Jim Barnett ParkIzaacWalton Club Country Winchester Course GolfValley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 S U N N Y S I D E E S TAT E S FA IR WAY H E I G H T S B UF F L IC K S O U T H V I E WWESTWOOD MI L L S PA R K I N S H E I G H T S S E N S E N Y H E IG H TS M I L L E R PA R K C O L L E G E HILLS SHENAND OAH S P R I N G S J O R D A N FA C TO RY B U R N T S P R I N G VA L L E Y H E I G HT S G R E E N W OO D K N O LL S B U R N I N G 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY www.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Original Route 37 Bypass | Segments Figure 18: Original Bypass Segments Berryville PikeBerryville Ave Welltown RdWyck St Woods Mill RdValley Mill RdGreenwood RdSenseny Rd Senseny RdE Cork St Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRdFairmountAveFortCollierRdParkJimBarnett Park Izaac Walton ClubCountryWinchesterCourseGolfValleyCarper'sRegional AirportWinchester 84,80013,40011,400 18,30028,10021,50013,40021,7009,000 21,20024,400 26,10026,70049,8 0 083,600102,20017 1717522522522 522 8181 81 1111117 7 73781 0 10.50.25 MilesN Legend Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) The average number of vehicles that use this road in a day. Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) The volume of vehicles a given road can handle at a time. A higher number (greater than 1.50) means the demand for road space is higher than its capacity, thus causing excessive traffic delays and congestion. Less than 0.85 0.85 to 1.00 1.00 to 1.50 Greater than 1.50 ##### TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTYwww.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Projected Traffic in 2050 | With Bypass Original Route 37 Bypass Assessment 566 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 12 Bypass Segment 3 from Route 7, Berryville Pike to US 17/50 (Millwood Pike) is a link through relati vely undeveloped land and may increase sprawl and encourage development that is not desirable. This segment of the original bypass att racts approximately 22,000 VPD in 2050 but has less independent value as it relates to the needs identi fi ed in this study. This segment would also likely cost over $200 million in the prior confi gurati on. The segment from Berryville Pike to Senseny Road has more value and could reduce traffi c on Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and provide an alternati ve to Route 7 Berryville Pike. The segment south of Senseny Road to Millwood Pike traverses signifi cant topography and an al- ternati ves analysis would be recommended to fi nd the best and most economically feasible route. Bypass Segment 4 from US 17/50 (Millwood Pike) to US 522 (Front Royal Pike) is another link through relati vely undeveloped land but would provide access to appropriately zoned land and areas targeted for development in and around the airport and along both Millwood Pike and Front Royal Pike. It would also provide for alternate connecti ons to Papermill and Airport Road/Crossover Boulevard for future relief. This segment would also likely cost over $200 million dollars in the prior confi gurati on and would att ract approximately 26,000 VPD in the 2050 forecast. BYPASSSEGMENT-1 BYPASSSEGMENT-2 BYPASSSEGMENT-3 BYPASSSEGMENT-4 BYPASSSEGMENT-5 Berryville Pike Berryvil l e A v e Welltown RdW y c k S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSensen y R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdSnowdenBridge R d ParkJimBarnett Park Izaac Walton Club CountryWinchester CourseGolf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 S U NN Y S I DE E S TAT E S FAI RWAY H EIG HTS B UFFL I CK S O U T H V I E WWESTWOOD MI LL S PARK IN S H EI G H T S S E N S E N Y H E IG H T S M I L LE R PA R K C O L L E G E HILLS SHENANDOAH S P R I NG SJORDAN FA C T O RY B U R N T S PR I N GVALLEY HEI GH T S G REE N W OO D K NO L L S B U RN I N G 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTYwww.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Original Route 37 Bypass | Segments Figure 18: Original Bypass Segments Berryville Pi k eBerryvill e A v e Welltown RdWyck S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSenseny Rd Senseny R d E C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdPark Jim Barnett ParkIzaacWalton Club CountryWinchester Course Golf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester 84,80013,40011,400 1 8 , 3 0 0 28,100 21,5 0 0 13,400 21,7009,000 21,20024,400 26,10026,70049,8 0 083,600102,20017 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 0 10.50.25 MilesN Legend Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) The average number of vehicles that use this road in a day. Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) The volume of vehicles a given road can handle at a time. A higher number (greater than 1.50) means the demand for road space is higher than its capacity, thus causing excessive traffic delays and congestion. Less than 0.85 0.85 to 1.00 1.00 to 1.50 Greater than 1.50 ##### TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTYwww.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Projected Traffic in 2050 | With Bypass 567 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 13 Bypass Segment 5 from US 522 (Front Royal Pike) to I-81/Tasker Road is the most southern secti on of the original Route 37 bypass and att racts a signifi cant amount of traffi c both in the total bypass confi gurati on and independently by itself in the 2050 travel demand model. It is a costly segment in the original confi gurati on and also in the new alternate confi gurati on due to number of structures and wetland/fl oodplain impact. It does, however, provide for addressing congesti on needs in this area and a future connecti on to Warrior Drive. The segment of the bypass between Tasker Road and the Warrior Drive extension is forecasted to have about 50,000 VPD and would require a four-lane typical secti on; the capacity of a two-lane roadway with minimal access points is approximately 23,000 to 29,000 VPD. From the Warrior Drive extension to US 17/50, a two-lane roadway would be suffi cient for the 2050 forecasted demand of approximately 27,000 VPD. Using a maximum of 29,000 VPD capacity for a two-lane roadway as a guide, each segment of the Route 37 bypass would be suffi ciently served in 2050 with a two-lane roadway, except for the segment between Tasker Road and the Warrior Drive extension which would warrant a four-lane highway based on projected volumes. Using a maximum of 29,000 VPD capacity for a two-lane roadway as a guide, each segment of the Route 37 bypass would be suffi ciently served in 2050 with a two-lane roadway, except for the segment between Tasker Road and the Warrior Drive extension which would warrant a four-lane highway based on projected volumes. BYPASSSEGMENT-1 BYPASSSEGMENT-2 BYPASSSEGMENT-3 BYPASSSEGMENT-4 BYPASSSEGMENT-5 Berryville Pike Berryvil l e A v e Welltown RdW y c k S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSensen y R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRdFairmountAve FortCollierRdSnowdenBridge R d Park Jim Barnett Park Izaac Walton Club Country Winchester Course Golf ValleyCarper's Regional Airport Winchester 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 111111 7 7 7 37 81 S U NN Y S I DE E S TAT E S FAI RWAY H EIG HTS B UFFL I CK S O U T H V I E WWESTWOOD MI LL S PARK IN S H EI G H T S S E N S E N Y H E IG H T S M I L LE R PA R K C O L L E G E HILLS SHENANDOAH S P R I NG SJORDANFACTORYBURNTSPRINGVALLEY HEI GH T S G REE N W OO D K NO L L S B U RN I N G 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTYwww.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Original Route 37 Bypass | Segments Figure 18: Original Bypass Segments Berryville Pi k eBerryvill e A v e Welltown RdWyck S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood Rd Senseny Rd Senseny R d E C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRdFairmountAve FortCollierRdPark Jim Barnett ParkIzaacWalton Club CountryWinchester Course Golf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester 84,80013,40011,400 18,300 28,100 21,5 0 0 13,400 21,7009,000 21,20024,400 26,10026,70049,8 0 083,600102,20017 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 111111 7 7 7 37 81 0 10.50.25 MilesN Legend Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) The average number of vehicles that use this road in a day. Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) The volume of vehicles a given road can handle at a time. A higher number (greater than 1.50) means the demand for road space is higher than its capacity, thus causing excessive traffic delays and congestion. Less than 0.85 0.85 to 1.00 1.00 to 1.50 Greater than 1.50 ##### TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTYwww.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Projected Traffic in 2050 | With Bypass 568 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 14 Concept Development & Potential Solutions Formulation of different concepts and solutions were centered around the needs identified and presented to the public. The Partial Limited Access Concept is defined by the following characteristics as defined in VDOTs Roadway Design Manual: provides access to select public roads, crossings at grade, and some private driveway connections. Project cost summaries for the following Potential Improvement Projects are shown on Figure 19 on page 15 and summarized in Table 13 on page 16. Taking the conglomerate dataset of the public feedback, the 2050 forecasted volumes and V/C ratios, and analysis of the sections of the Route 37 bypass from the 2001 EIS, the following concepts were formulated and proposed to the public in March 2024 for feedback. This study focused on providing cost-effective alternatives and volume appropriate solutions to address the 2050 forecasted volumes. This includes a look at the sections of the Route 37 Bypass to determine if a two-lane partial limited access roadway in lieu of a four-lane highway full limited access could adequately meet future needs. Included in the following discussion are findings from the analysis of Potential Projects 1, 3 and 4 and design considerations that were considered or warrant further analysis. The alignments from the Route 37 bypass in the 2001 EIS and UPC 85972 Study Update were used as a basis for these discussions. Since 2001, there has been land development which occurred either in or in proximity to these alignments. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges which warrant further analysis during a potential preliminary engineering phase. 569 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 15 Potenti al Improvement Project 1: Route 37 extension from Route 11 to Route 7 as a two-lane parti al limited access roadway (anti cipated Major Collector). Potenti al Improvement Project 2: Widening Airport Road from its current confi gurati on of two lanes to four lanes between US 522 and Admiral Byrd Drive (anti cipated Major Collector) to help alleviate congesti on (1 > V/C > 0.85) entering the Airport from I-81. Potenti al Improvement Project 3: Tasker Road/Route 37 to US 522 (anti cipated Major Collector/Minor Arterial) as a full limited access highway from Tasker Road/Route 37 to Warrior Drive and parti al limited access roadway from Warrior Drive to US 522. Potenti al Improvement Project 4: This project entails the extension of Haggerty Boulevard/Hallowed Crossings Way (anti cipated Major Collector). Potenti al Improvement Project 5: This proposed improvement includes the additi on of a center turn lane to Senseny Road between I-81 and Greenwood Road. 1 2 5 4 3 MAJOR C O L L E C T O R MAJOR COL L E C T O R / MINOR ART E R I A L MAJOR COLLECTORMAJORCOLLECTOR MAJ O R C O L L E C T O R Berryville Pike Berryvil l e A v e Welltown RdW y c k S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSensen y R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdSnowden Bridge R d Park Jim Barnett Park Izaac Walton Club Country Winchester Course Golf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester SU NNY SID E ES TATE S FA I RWAY HEIG HT SBUFFLICK S OUT HV I E WWESTWOOD M ILLS PARKINS HEI GHTS S ENSE N Y HEIGHTS M I LLE R PARK CO LLEGE HILLS SHENANDOAH SP R IN GS J OR DA N FA CTORY B UR NT SPRI N G VA L LE Y H EI GHTS GREE NWOOD KNOLLS B UR NING 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY www.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Concept Development | Proposed Solutions 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 Figure 19: Potenti al Improvement Projects 570 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 16 ✓ The cost estimate summary can be found in Table 13. These planning level estimates included the following assumptions: Drainage/Stormwater Management (SWM)/Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) is 25% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities Utilities is 3% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities Signal Performance Measures (SPM)/Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) is 8% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities Preliminary Engineering is 10% of the construction subtotal Final Design is 7% of the construction subtotal ROW is 5% of the construction subtotal Construction Engineering & Inspection (CEI) is 17.5% of the construction subtotal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Planning Level Cost Estimates Table 13: Construction Cost Estimate – Side-By-Side Costs May 2024 Inflation Increase of 5% Compounded Each Year Project #Project Total With Contingencies (millions)2025 (millions)2026 (millions)2027 (millions)2028 (millions)2029 (millions) 1 $179.5 $188.5 $198 $208 $218 $229 3 $13.5 $14 $15 $16 $17 $17.5 2 $196 $206 $216 $227 $238.5 $250 4 $49 $51.5 $54 $56.5 $59.5 $62.5 5 $25.5 $27 $28 $29.5 $31 $33 TOTAL $463.5 $487 $511 $537 $564 $592 571 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 17 In addition to searching for grant opportunities to fund the potential solutions proposed, this study can be used in many ways. Reviewing the information provided in this study to re-calibrate the thought process behind the necessity of constructing the Route 37 Eastern bypass is an important one. Consideration should be made to update the Comprehensive Transportation Plan/Eastern Frederick County Road Plan to show that a two-lane roadway can meet the future transportation needs in certain segments of the bypass. Additionally, consider adding the other proposed improvements in this study to support long term transportation planning goals to increase mobility and safety for the residents of Frederick County and the traveling public. Examples include capacity preservation on US 522 and US 17/50 as this intersection and segments/intersections along US 522 were identified on VDOT’s Top PSI list. As development increases in Frederick County, these areas of preservation should receive special attention and consideration. It is also a recommendation to find a mechanism to ensure that future development will not interfere with projects included in the Transportation Plan. As noted previously, sections of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass will not be constructable on the alignment scoped in the 2001 EIS due to development that has occurred since. Consider asking developers to provide a GIS layer with the proposed footprint to avoid these conflicts in the future. This study is intended to precipitate a Phase II analysis to fully vet the alternatives so that the County and Commonwealth make the best-informed decisions possible with tax funds. As noted in the section above, SMART SCALE applications in the 6th round now require the following for roadways on new alignments: “Provide a Planning Study/Safety Study, which includes an operational analysis and documents a preferred alternative that is consistent with the scope described in the application to support this feature. The study must include an alternatives analysis that considers improvements not on a new alignment” (https://smartscale.virginia.gov/media/smartscale/documents/508_R6_Technical-Guide_FINAL_FINAL_acc043024_PM.pdf, Table 2.6). It was not within this study’s scope to do this detailed analysis for the proposed roadways on new alignment; therefore, a Phase II is necessary to enable the County to apply for SMART SCALE funding in the future. Next Steps 572 Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) MAY 2024 FREDERICKCOUNTY VA WV CLARKECOUNTY WINCHESTER SHENANDOAH COUNTY WARREN COUNTY STUDYAREA WV 573 INTRODUCTION Study Overview Project Purpose PAST & CURRENT STUDIES EXISTING CONDITIONS Environmental Overview Traffic Analyses PROJECT NEEDS AGENCY & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Pulic Engagement Plan Overview Stakeholder Identification Public Meetings Community Context Audit LOGICAL TERMINI, INDEPENDENT UTILITY, & CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Logical Termini & Independent Utility Original Route 37 Bypass Assessment Concept Development GRANT OPPORTUNITIES & NEXT STEPS APPENDICES 5 5 6 7 11 11 18 33 36 36 38 38 41 44 44 45 47 58 60 Table of Contents 574 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 3 The following individuals and groups have been instrumental to this report: Frederick County including John Bishop, Wyatt Pearson, and Kayla Peloquin; Virginia Department of Transportation including Brad Reed; McCormick Taylor The lead consultant for the Eastern Frederick County Transportati on Study (EFCTS). Acknowledgments 575 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 4 ACS American Community Survey ADT Average Daily Traffic CBD Central Business District CEI Construction Engineering and Inspection CLV Critical Lane Volume CMS Changeable Message Sign EDA Economic Development Authority EFCTS Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study EIS Environmental Impact Statement EJScreen Environmental Justice Screen EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESC Erosion and Sedimentation Control FI Fatal/Injury GIS Geographic Information System I-81 Interstate 81 iCAP Interchange Control Assessment Program LOS Level of Service MP Milepost MOT Maintenance of Traffic MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NSVRC Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission NTP Notice to Proceed PEP Public Engagement Plan PSI Potential for Safety Improvement RMSE Root Mean Square Error ROD Record of Decision ROW Right of Way SCALE Safety, Congestion reduction, Accessibility, Land use, and Economic development and the Environment SS4A Safe Streets for All SAAA Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging SMART System for the Management and Allocation of Resources for Transportation SPF Safety Performance Function SPM Signal Performance Measure STARS Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions SWM Stormwater Management SYIP Six Year Improvement Plan TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones TIA Transportation Impact Analysis UDA Urban Development Area USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation VADEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality V/C Volume to Capacity VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation VHSIP Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program VJuST VDOT’s Junction Screening Tool VMT Vehicle-miles Traveled VPD Vehicles per Day VWP Virginia Water Protection WinFred Winchester/Frederick County WMSA Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area WRA Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP Acronyms 576 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 5 Figure 1: Study Area Introduction Study Overview Frederick County, Virginia is pursuing this study of transportation issues (needs) and possible solutions for the area to the east of the City of Winchester. As shown in Figure 1, the study area will include Interstate 81 (I-81) in the west to the Frederick County/Clarke County line in the east; and will extend from Route 761 on the north side of the city to the Tasker Road area east of the I-81 Exit 310. The study identified and documented specific transportation needs then developed potential solutions as concepts. The public had opportunities to provide input on both the needs and conceptual solutions. Conceptual solutions were refined for public comment and an implementation plan was developed to include a prioritized list of improvements with estimates of probable costs. This plan will be used by the County for funding transportation improvements in the study area. 577 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 6 Board of Supervisors Vision Statement “Ensuring the quality of life of all Frederick County Citizens by preserving the past and planning for the future through sound fiscal management.” The study team was aware of previous efforts to pursue a Route 37 east bypass around Winchester. A bypass was considered, along with other possible transportation improvements, during the conceptual solution development and analysis process. The goal of the study is to develop a well-defined set of transportation needs to be addressed by a fiscally implementable set of transportation improvements. Additional recommendations, such as land use or access management controls, will also be included in the final plan. Additional alternatives analyses as a part of a Phase II study will be required to further develop alternatives to be viable for grant funding such as Smart Scale. Project Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives to improve mobility and safety for all road users, reduce congestion, and enhance system continuity while meeting the needs of interstate, regional, and local traffic passing through and moving within the study area, including the evaluation of the proposed Route 37 bypass. 578 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 7 Past & Current Studies Route 37 Bypass- Final EIS and UPC 85972 Study Updates The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Route 37 east bypass and existing Record of Decision (ROD) was completed in 2001 and left the County, stakeholders, and the permitting agencies at a crossroads in the course of action to move forward. Several options and traffic forecasts were created as part of this activity and a final alignment with detailed environmental impacts and mitigations was identified for this project. The final solution was a four-lane, limited access alternative with several interchanges with key roadways along the corridor. However, traffic volumes have not met those projections to date and the five-year validity of those forecasts have rendered the EIS and ROD unusable. In 2010-2013, there was a Route 37 Eastern Bypass Study (UPC 85972) which updated the prior ROD. Modifications were made to the prior alignments to upgrade and address geometry concerns. The resulting alignments continued the divided highway concept with interchanges. The work from this study was incorporated into the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Frederick County US 11 to SR 7 Connector Technical Memo Frederick County requested assistance from VDOT Staunton District Planning in assessing the pros and cons of a more direct connection between US 11 and SR 7 as it compares to existing route options. The analysis looked at existing data to identify needs prior to providing two alternatives. While this memo is a great starting point, there needs to be a more formal study/alternatives analysis completed for any alternatives to be eligible for SMART SCALE funding. Route 7 STARS Corridor Study The study of the Route 7 Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) corridor from Pleasant Valley Road to Greenwood Drive/First Woods Drive was completed by Michael Baker and finalized in September 2021. Several improvements at intersections along this corridor were included in that study, and certain improvements have advanced through other funding means. Traffic problems along this corridor are expected to continue. 579 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 8 I-81 Corridor Improvement Program The I-81 Corridor Improvement Program consists of innovative, targeted improvements that will have a substantial effect on the safety and reliability of a critical portion of the nation’s infrastructure. Within Virginia, I-81 connects 30 colleges and universities, 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. It parallels the Blue Ridge Parkway, making this program critical to supporting job growth and economic vitality while reducing congestion, enhancing safety and reliability, and improving quality of life for everyone in the region. The 325- mile corridor spans three Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) districts and also acts as a critical north-south backbone of the East Coast’s freight network. Nearly 50% of the state’s value of goods are transported along the corridor, which has the highest per capita truck volume in Virginia1. This study was used as information only and referenced for problems identified during the course of the Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) project. The I-81 Corridor Improvement Program is advancing independently and will address several problems identified by the public during the EFCTS project. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The latest version was adopted on November 10, 2021, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Information from this Plan was used as input into this study. 1 VDOT, “What is the I-81 Corridor Improvement Program”, Improve 81, https://improve81.vdot.virginia.gov/ 580 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 9 Serial Title Agency & Year of Publication 1 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan-Proposed Lane Divide Frederick County, 2022 2 The 2035 Comprehensive Plan Assessment Need Frederick County, 2017 3 Fredrick County Primary & Secondary Road Improvement Plan Frederick County, 2022 4 VDOT Staunton District Planning-2019 VDOT, 2019 5 North Winchester Area Safety and Operational Analysis Report WinFred MPO, 2020 6 Route 7 STARS Corridor Study VDOT, 2021 7 US-522 Realignment Study NSVRC/WinFred MPO, 2022 8 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan VDOT, 2010 9 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan WinFred MPO, 2022 11 Frederick County ArcGIS REST Services Frederick County 12 PSI Top 100 Segments and Intersections VDOT, 2023 Table 1: Studies and Other References Reviewed Potential Sites Identified by Other Studies There are multiple simultaneous efforts and studies occurring within Frederick County as captured in Table 1. To gain a complete picture of the areas of concern in the County and what has been studied to date, these items were all evaluated. Table 2 shows the sites in the study area with potential improvement scopes or known transportation issues as reported in prior studies. It also shows whether they were noted by stakeholders, the road classification, and if they were identified as a Potentially Safety Improvement (PSI) intersection or segment according to VDOT based on crash data from 2018 to 2022. Of the top roads in Table 2, US 11/Martinsburg Pike has been discussed for both operational and safety improvements via widening and I-81 interchange reconfiguration. The second project has been studied for installing partial median U-turn intersections and US 17/50 widening. Notable plans tested or considered for the remaining roads include Redbud Road realignment, realigning US 522 near US 50 to mitigate congestion, and adding turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and Crestleigh Drive. 581 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 10 Location Studies Covered Noted by Stakeholders 2050 V/C >1 Major Collector Improved Major Collector Minor Collector Improved Minor Collector Minor Arterial PSI Intersections PSI Segment US-11/ Martinsburg Pike 8 12 ✓✓6 I-81 Exit 313 Bridge/ Millwood Pike/US 50 7 10 ✓✓3 ✓ I-81 Exit 317 and Redbud Road 6 13 ✓ Route 7/ Berryville Pike 5 12 ✓✓9 ✓ US 522/Front Royal Pike Near US-50 5 3 2 ✓ Snowden Bridge 4 2 ✓ Senseny Road 4 4 ✓✓2 ✓ Warrior Drive 3 3 ✓1 Parkins Mill Road 2 0 ✓ Papermill Road 2 0 ✓ Old Charles Town Road 2 1 ✓✓1 Tasker Road 2 1 ✓✓1 ✓ lnverlee Way Extension 1 0 Getty Lane 1 0 ✓ Valley Mill Road 1 2 ✓ Farmington Boulevard 1 0 ✓ Highcliffe Drive 1 0 ✓ Coverstone Drive 1 0 ✓ Prince Frederick Drive 1 0 ✓ Crossover Blvd 1 1 ✓ Table 2 : Roads That Showed Up in Past Studies | Sources: Frederick County, NSVRC, VDOT, WinFred MPO 582 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 11 Location Studies Covered Noted by Stakeholders 2050 V/C >1 Major Collector Improved Major Collector Minor Collector Improved Minor Collector Minor Arterial PSI Intersections PSI Segment Independence Drive 1 0 ✓ Coldwell Lane 1 0 ✓ White Oak Road 1 1 ✓ Brabant Drive 1 0 ✓ Fox Drive 1 0 East Tevis Street 1 0 Sulphur Spring Road 1 0 North Frederick Pike 1 0 1 ✓ North Pleasant Valley Road 1 0 2 ✓ Greenwood Road 1 3 ✓2 ✓ Martin Drive 0 0 ✓ Macedonia Church Road 0 0 ✓ Table 2 (Continued): Roads That Showed Up in Past Studies | Sources: Frederick County, NSVRC, VDOT, WinFred MPO 583 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 12 Existing Conditions Environmental Overview Demographics & Socioeconomics The Study Area is primarily located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County. To accommodate anti cipated residenti al growth, this porti on of the County has been identi fi ed as the area where more intensive forms of residenti al development will occur. While the UDA currently consists of primarily suburban residenti al types of development, with some multi family units, parti cular areas have been identi fi ed to accommodate a more intensive mix of land uses and residenti al housing opportuniti es.2 Due to the suburban-style of development within the Study Area, the transportati on network is primarily auto-centric. Public transit is currently unavailable within Frederick County; however, the County has recently parti cipated in the Winchester/Frederick County (WinFred) Metropolitan Planning Organizati on (MPO) Transit Feasibility Study to determine how this can be improved. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are currently limited within the study area as well; however, are encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan for new development and retrofi ts where logical. Goal 1 in the Community Benefi ts Secti on of the Comprehensive Plan is “to promote the development of new roadways and the redevelopment of existi ng roadways in a manner that makes them open, available, and safe to all modes of transportati on.” Regarding parks access, another goal is “to have every resident of Frederick County’s UDA within walking or biking distance of a recreati on area.” These goals illustrate the sincere commitment by the County to increase walking and biking in their community. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Frederick County has grown signifi cantly in the past two decades in both populati on and economic development. One of the contributors to the County’s populati on growth was the migrati on of people from inside of the Washington Metropolitan Stati sti cal Area (WMSA) to Frederick County for a higher quality of life including lower housing costs and a lower tax rate. Frederick County, because of its locati on and excellent access to Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., has become a desirable place to live for those commuters. Frederick County has also become an att racti ve place to live for reti rees. The UDA should allow for housing that will meet the needs of fi rst-ti me buyers, reti rees, move-up residents, and seniors.3 2 Frederick County, “Residenti al Development: Current Conditi ons”, Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 3 Frederick County, “Residenti al Development: Focus for the Future”, Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 584 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 13 Means of Transportati on to Work Percent Drove Alone 81.10% Carpooled 8.80% Public Transportati on (Excluding TaxiCab) 0.30% Walked 1.10% Bicycle 0.10% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other Means 0.80% Worked From Home 7.80% Table 3: Frederick County Journey to Work Source: American Census Survey 2021 107,115 151,408 93,000 55,796 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2015 2040 Figure 2: Combined Projected Growth | Source: WinFred MPO Trasnsportati on Plan 2040 200,000 People Jobs While the Comprehensive Plan does not state projected numbers for the total populati on or jobs in 2035, the WinFred MPO shared combined projecti ons for the City of Winchester and Frederick County in their Transportati on Plan 2040 (see Figure 2). Growth in populati on and employment will conti nue to place signifi cant demands on the transportati on system. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, studies performed by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) have shown that Frederick County remains primarily an in-commute locati on. Frederick County is also home to a large populati on of residents that commute out of the County for employment. According to the U.S. Census, 89.90% of County workers aged 16 years and over drive to work with an average commute ti me of 33 minutes, compared to 75% of Virginian workers aged 16 years and over with an average commute ti me of 25 minutes. See Table 3 for the means of transportati on uti lized to travel to work in Frederick County. 585 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 14 According to the US Census Bureau On The Map tool: • 31,895 people live within Frederick County but are employed outside of the County. • 18,810 people are employed within Frederick County, but live outside of the County. • 9,460 people are employed and live within Frederick County. Figure 3: Workers in Frederick County | Source: US Census Bureau, On the Map Refer to Figure 3 for a depiction of where workers who are employed in Frederick County live. 586 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 15 Figure 4: Frederick County Low-Income Populations | Source: US EPA EJScreen Using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environmental Justice Screen (EJScreen), low-income populations (see Figure 4) and populations over the age of 64 (see Figure 5) were analyzed. EJScreen uses American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 5-year estimate data. The low-income populations and populations over the age of 64 in Frederick County were compared to Virginia state. The state percentile signifies what percent of the state population has an equal or lower value, meaning a lower percent low- income or population over age of 64. 587 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 16 Figure 5: Frederick County Populations Over 64 | Source: US EPA EJScreen Owning and maintaining a car costs about $12,000 annually4. That means it would make up nearly a third of the household budget for a family of four living right at the poverty line. Populations over the age of 65 include individuals with a wide range of needs and abilities. Many seniors experience physical or financial limitations that prevent them from owning and operating a vehicle while also experiencing an increased need for medical services. Seniors are significant users of human service transportation. In the Comprehensive Plan, a strategy to increase cost-effective alternatives to vehicles includes coordinating with existing agencies such as the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging (SAAA) and Access Independence to better accommodate seniors. Natural Resources An important component of reviewing transportation alternatives is the analysis of impacted natural resources. This can help guide the alternatives process and identify less impactful solutions. 4 American Automobile Association, Your Driving Costs, 2023 588 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 17 Layer Source Metadata or Service URL 1. Existing County Parks Frederick County VA GIS https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_Planning/Planning_CIP/MapServer/3 2. Streams https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_GIS/FrederickCountyGIS/MapServer/23 3. Ponds https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_GIS/FrederickCountyGIS/MapServer/25 4. Lakes https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_GIS/FrederickCountyGIS/MapServer/24 5. Floodplains https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_GIS/FrederickCountyGIS/MapServer/20 6. Community Park https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_Planning/Planning_CIP/MapServer/4 7. Park Trails https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_Planning/Planning_CIP/MapServer/6 8. Conservation Easement https://fredcogis.fcva.us/maps/rest/services/ FC_GIS/FrederickCountyGIS/MapServer/34 9. Wetlands US Fish & Wildlife Web Mapping Services https://fwspublicservices.wim.usgs.gov/wet- landsmapservice/rest/services/Wetlands/Map- Server/0 10. Human Geography Basemap ESRI https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.htm- l?id=3582b744bba84668b52a16b0b6942544 Table 4: Natural Resources Native Source Data The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USEPA are the federal agencies which regulate watercourses (streams) as governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) administers the Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit program to regulate impacts to surface waters. To protect water quality, VADEQ is also tasked with protecting wetlands and streams to preserve their beneficial uses. The VWP permit program follows Section 62 of the Code of Virginia and federal guidelines under the Clean Water Act Section 401. The identification of watercourses/streams identified in the study area are depicted in Table 4. These layers were imported into a custom webmap that was created for this project to provide many of the graphics in this report. Streams in the study area include Opequon Creek, Lick Run, Ash Hollow Run, Redbud Run, Abrams Creek, Hoge Run, Buffalo Lick Run, Sulphur Spring Run, Wrights Run, and their tributaries. Many of these streams would be impacted by the construction of the Route 37 bypass or the alternatives included in this report. To avoid impacts to streams and floodplains, almost one mile of bridges would be required for the proposed projects (5,736 linear feet). Most of the impacts from bridges are on the northern and southern 589 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 18 Figure 6: Natural Resources | Source: Frederick County, Virginia Open Source Date sections of the Route 37 bypass alignment. Measures can be researched during the preliminary engineering phase of these projects to mitigate these effects. Examples of best management practices are retaining walls, using box or pipe culverts where possible, steepening of bank slopes, and usage of wingwalls or abutments to decrease the footprint. Due to the quantity of streams in the study area, wetland impacts would also be anticipated. Using the existing Geographic Information System (GIS) layers available, a minimum of about 5 acres (about twice the area of a Manhattan city block) of wetland impacts are anticipated. Wetland delineation occurs as part of the preliminary engineering process for each project. If temporary wetland impacts occur, they would be restored to pre- construction conditions, succeeding construction, to the maximum extent possible. This would include re-seeding, soil segregation, wetland mapping, and use of sediment/silt rocks. If permanent impacts are unavoidable, mitigation will include the replacement of the wetland within the applicable watershed. Additional natural resources were considered during our analysis as shown in Table 4 on the previous page and in Figure 6 on this page. 590 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 19 Land Use and Planning The study utilized the WinFred current travel demand model (2015 base year) and updated demographic forecasts for the ongoing VDOT model update (to 2020 base year) to get the most accurate information available for the timeframe of the study. The network and traffic analysis zones (TAZs) structure was also modified to include roadway improvements through 2019. In addition, updated future year demographics were used to create a 2050 future year for this analysis. All results should be validated once the travel demand model update is complete from VDOT. Traffic Analyses Data collection and analysis efforts focused on using existing available traffic data, including current and future projections (generally a 20-year horizon). No additional traffic counts were completed as part of the study. Traffic generated by new and pending development within, or that influence the transportation network in the study area, was included in the updated demographic forecasts used in the model. The traffic model used 2019 as the base year and forecasted traffic volumes in 2050. Overall growth in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) between 2019 and 2050 is 1.7% using a linear growth rate. This growth aligns with that in households (1.2% per year) and external traffic (1.8% per year). The study area was broken up into TAZs and an analysis was completed to determine what the existing and future traffic patterns look like between these zones. This analysis is included in the report in detail. Another aspect of the analysis was to look at volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. V/C ratios provide a measurement of how well a facility can accommodate traffic. For instance, a ratio of 0 indicates free flow traffic and a ratio of 1 or greater indicates severe congestion. Level of service (LOS) is another metric used to describe traffic flow used to symbolize the quality of traffic services. It is used to examine highways by categorizing traffic flow and allocating quality levels based on performances like speed, density, delay and many more. The key to an effective LOS is the ability of a transportation system to provide safe and reliable service for its users. LOS ranges from A (best quality of traffic/free flow of traffic) to F (worst quality of traffic/breakdown of traffic flow). Frederick County ordinance requires a minimum LOS C for transportation impact analyses (TIAs) for new development. 591 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 20 Variable 2019 2050 Population 119,846 167,159 Households 48,485 67,063 Workers 64,562 87,110 Vehicles 97,955 131,849 High Traffic Retail Employment 7,152 9,487 Industrial Employment 16,560 25,265 Office Employment 5,422 6,786 Retail Employment 6,062 8,151 Service Employment 19,734 26,849 Employment 54,930 83,410 Table 5: Zonal Demographic Totals | Source: MPO Existing Traffic Existing problem areas and challenges were evaluated based on V/C ratios from the calibrated 2019 travel demand model and updated with anecdotal information and information from VDOT and Streetlight validation. Streetlight uses big data analytics to estimate travel patterns between geometric zones. Future Traffic Projections Updating 2015 Model The regional travel demand model, as provided by VDOT for this study, was modified to include a 2019 and 2050 set of model years. The newest demographic data (recently updated by the County) was used with the existing VDOT model so that results were as accurate as possible. VDOT is undertaking a more robust update of the entire model, but it was not yet available for this study. Results from this study can be validated against that update in the future. The zonal data based on new zone splits the MPO has developed is shown in Table 5. The new zonal splits are shown in Figure 7 on the following page. The external station volumes for 2019 were set to be equal to available count data from VDOT. 2050 external station forecasts were developed by applying the 2015 to 2040 MPO annual growth rates to the 2019 count data. The EFCTS Traffic Study area encompasses the eastern half of the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model. The model zones that are part of the study area are shown in Figure 7. The 2015 roadway network was used to create the 2019 network. The primary change included updating the network to reflect recent projects that have been completed in the region. The only new roadway connection (completed between 2015 and 2019) added was Crossover Boulevard. 592 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 21 Figure 7: Changes in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) | Source: Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP (WRA) Roadway Type Percent Error 2015 2019 Target Freeway 3 3.6 +/-7 Major Arterial -2.1 8.8 +/- 10 Minor Arterial -4.7 18.9 +/- 15 Collector & Local 2.7 22.5 +/- 20 Total 2 6.34 +/- 5 Table 6: Percent Error by Roadway Type Source: VDOT Volume Group Percent RMSE 2015 2019 Target 0 - 5000 29.09 38.2 100 5000 - 10000 25.36 38.2 45 10000 - 20000 19 64 17.2 35 20000 - 50000 6.81 11 8 27 Total 19.12 18.4 40 Table 7: Percent RMSE by Volume Group Source: VDOT Validating 2019 Model To make sure the model was performing as expected, the 2019 model results were evaluated against 2019 counts from VDOT’s database. The percentage error by roadway type and percent root mean square error (RMSE) by volume group were calculated and compared against the documented 2015 model validation results. Table 6 reports the percent error by roadway type. The target or criterion is based on the VDOT Travel Model Policy Guidelines. Table 7 reports the percent RMSE calculated by volume group with the assigned target or criterion as established by VDOT. 593 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 22 Table 8: VMT by Facility Type | Source: WRA Facility Type 2019 2050 Interstate 1 1,438,063 2,233,955 Minor Freeway 2 244,691 413,828 Primary Arterial 4 936,733 1,410,431 Major Arterial 5 541,897 800,128 Minor Arterial 6 697,129 1,133,993 Major Collector 7 130,600 197,644 Minor Collector 8 249,523 395,627 Ramp 10 91,349 122,719 Centroid Connector 11 419,922 581,949 External 12 210,209 348,358 TOTAL 4,960,116 7,638,632 The 2019 model meets the validation targets by volume group and by percent error by roadway type for freeways and major arterials. Because the 2019 zonal data has changed significantly from the past model inputs, a change in validation results is anticipated. Given the ability to meet several of the criteria as established by VDOT for the region and on higher level facilities, the model is considered suitable for the evaluation included in this study. Model Results Overall growth in VMT between 2019 and 2050 is 1.7% using a linear growth rate. This growth aligns with that in households (1.2% per year) and external traffic (1.8% per year). Table 8 provides a summary of the VMT by facility type for the two model years. Origin-Destination Trip Volumes On the following page, Figure 8 shows the district map used for the traffic analyses and estimates the origin-destination matrix within and bordering Frederick County. Districts 15 through 19 are the five external districts. Tables 9 through 12 on the following pages show the district-to-district trip volumes and the ranking of the origin-destination pairs for 2022 and 2050. The highest zone to zone totals were used to establish needs within the study area. Table 9 displays the model outcomes for origin-destination trip volumes in 2022, while Table 10 ranks the matrix cells based on those volumes. The top two highest origin- destination pairs are between Central Business District (CBD) zones 7 and 8. Following closely, between 15 and 16, are the next two highest pairs, located outside the north and south boundaries of the county, largely due to through traffic on I-81. Additionally, residential districts 2 and 4 show high trip volumes to and from CBD zones 7 and 8. Tables 11 and 12 serve as companions to Tables 9 and 10, focusing on data for 2050. Interestingly, there are few changes in the ranking matrix, as all the district pairs that were top ranked in 2022 remain at the top in 2050. Among the other district pairs, the traffic growth (not shown in the tables) between districts 3 and 7 and 9 and 8 are notable. 594 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 23 Figure 8: Frederick County District Map | Source: WRA 595 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 24 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -3,151 668 920 343 1,833 6,131 4,092 615 334 556 359 141 238 729 299 143 1,335 131 2 3,138 -1,735 1,139 291 755 10,159 9,326 589 104 404 237 70 99 196 264 368 2,568 119 3 657 1,732 -1,976 631 360 2,438 3,162 628 105 253 352 103 130 121 212 622 250 96 4 902 1,123 1,976 -4,049 445 4,371 9,937 2,552 103 307 286 130 111 364 1,123 408 615 361 5 333 282 630 4,049 -174 1,540 3,408 1,849 39 108 108 61 43 120 586 102 192 139 6 1,841 769 360 439 174 -3,786 2,190 371 398 587 255 75 186 590 226 93 266 90 7 6,139 10,156 2,395 4,348 1,526 3,815 -16,946 3,350 1,344 3,239 2,772 649 1,155 1,992 2,495 1,445 4,276 987 8 4,141 9,299 3,156 9,934 3,405 2,231 17,007 -5,447 664 1,709 2,382 720 710 982 1,889 1,162 1,838 693 9 615 576 618 2,549 1,848 374 3,361 5,450 -106 422 626 381 140 201 926 160 315 186 10 336 107 105 100 37 398 1,341 658 105 -252 122 12 1,060 76 173 54 94 55 11 562 407 240 301 106 589 3,227 1,703 420 252 -799 112 312 164 260 100 233 141 12 366 241 340 282 106 257 2,761 2,382 625 122 799 -161 415 135 310 119 216 171 13 143 72 103 129 61 75 643 720 381 12 112 161 -12 39 71 36 67 24 14 240 103 129 108 41 187 1,151 706 139 1,060 312 415 12 -45 157 48 77 411 15 729 196 121 364 120 590 1,992 982 201 76 164 135 39 45 -15,330 284 735 221 16 299 264 212 1,123 586 226 2,495 1,889 925 173 260 310 71 157 15,323 -236 622 156 17 143 368 622 408 102 93 1,445 1,162 160 54 100 119 36 48 285 236 -102 27 18 1,335 2,568 250 615 192 266 4,276 1,838 315 94 233 216 67 77 735 622 102 -72 19 131 119 96 361 139 90 987 693 186 55 141 171 24 411 221 156 27 72 - Table 9: 2022 District-to-District Trip Volumes | Source: WRA 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -33 105 89 164 60 12 20 121 167 134 162 244 201 97 177 241 71 253 2 34 -61 77 179 94 5 9 127 282 146 202 314 294 217 187 153 37 265 3 108 62 -51 111 160 43 31 113 279 193 163 283 255 261 213 116 196 295 4 90 78 51 -21 135 15 7 39 283 175 180 255 271 156 78 143 121 158 5 168 183 112 21 -225 65 25 55 329 272 272 317 327 263 130 287 219 248 6 57 93 160 136 225 -24 48 152 147 129 192 307 222 125 207 299 185 301 7 11 6 44 16 66 23 -2 28 69 29 35 109 75 49 41 67 17 83 8 19 10 32 8 26 47 1 -14 106 63 45 99 101 85 53 73 58 103 9 121 132 120 40 56 151 27 13 -276 137 114 149 247 215 87 235 169 222 10 166 275 279 291 332 147 70 107 279 -194 259 339 81 305 227 321 297 319 11 133 145 199 176 276 127 30 64 138 194 -91 269 171 231 189 291 205 244 12 155 198 165 183 276 191 36 45 115 259 91 -233 139 251 173 265 211 229 13 241 309 283 257 317 307 110 99 149 339 269 233 -339 329 312 333 315 337 14 199 283 257 272 328 221 76 102 248 81 171 139 339 -325 237 323 303 141 15 97 217 261 156 263 125 49 85 215 305 231 251 329 325 -3 182 95 209 16 177 187 213 78 130 207 41 53 88 227 189 173 312 237 4 -203 116 239 17 241 153 116 143 287 299 67 73 235 321 291 265 333 323 181 203 -287 335 18 71 37 196 121 219 185 17 58 169 297 205 211 315 303 95 116 287 -309 19 253 265 295 158 248 301 83 103 222 319 244 229 337 141 209 239 335 309 - Table 10: 2022 District-to-District Trip Volumes Ranking | Source: WRA 596 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 25 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -35 91 82 159 56 12 28 96 216 128 190 258 233 61 103 255 67 225 2 36 -47 75 198 83 6 9 107 294 150 234 316 300 135 123 192 26 239 3 92 48 -43 119 144 39 31 111 279 197 179 274 265 172 131 121 160 243 4 84 78 44 -13 117 21 7 37 283 183 198 253 273 89 49 188 101 145 5 164 203 120 13 -214 79 51 65 327 271 281 314 325 200 87 305 221 237 6 55 81 143 118 213 -34 60 134 170 130 196 287 232 73 139 303 167 259 7 11 5 40 22 80 33 -1 42 99 45 63 180 112 19 15 93 17 85 8 25 10 32 8 52 59 2 -24 162 76 71 157 151 53 29 105 57 97 9 95 110 114 38 66 133 41 23 -275 171 125 174 249 141 69 261 165 217 10 215 293 280 287 328 169 100 163 278 -223 294 341 108 251 203 329 291 319 11 127 149 206 186 272 129 46 77 174 223 -115 297 207 183 147 309 219 245 12 187 229 182 202 282 195 64 71 126 294 115 -261 192 211 137 307 227 235 13 257 313 275 253 314 286 181 158 174 341 297 261 -339 317 287 337 321 333 14 229 297 266 277 326 229 113 152 250 108 207 191 339 -284 209 331 301 155 15 61 135 172 89 200 73 19 53 141 251 183 211 317 284 -3 248 178 267 16 103 123 131 49 87 139 15 29 69 203 147 137 287 209 3 -241 153 269 17 255 192 121 188 305 303 93 105 261 329 309 307 337 331 245 241 -311 335 18 67 26 160 101 221 167 17 57 165 291 219 227 321 301 177 153 311 -323 19 225 239 243 145 237 259 85 97 217 319 245 235 333 155 267 269 335 323 - Table 11: 2050 District-to-District Trip Volumes | Source: WRA 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -4,878 1,403 1,781 634 3,217 8,656 5,579 1,286 379 871 496 192 310 2,899 1,203 197 2,624 325 2 4,850 -3,677 2,024 423 1,760 13,830 10,965 1,160 125 678 306 83 120 793 943 450 5,663 264 3 1,376 3,672 -3,766 1,022 739 4,414 5,178 1,102 146 428 571 150 182 578 851 1,007 631 233 4 1,734 1,994 3,763 -7,023 1,033 6,344 12,471 4,427 136 517 423 198 154 1,416 3,660 501 1,231 727 5 613 409 1,020 7,023 -390 1,844 3,454 2,713 48 166 140 84 54 419 1,657 107 339 265 6 3,238 1,787 742 1,030 394 -5,044 2,971 821 592 857 442 131 312 2,070 759 114 603 188 7 8,661 13,831 4,352 6,291 1,816 5,099 -21,843 4,139 1,251 3,728 2,831 562 1,089 6,370 6,830 1,362 6,786 1,671 8 5,667 10,934 5,167 12,456 3,446 3,029 21,842 -5,876 618 2,006 2,215 645 672 3,349 5,472 1,182 3,180 1,266 9 1,301 1,127 1,082 4,423 2,712 831 4,152 5,886 -149 579 918 576 210 754 2,605 185 609 375 10 382 128 145 131 46 593 1,249 615 147 -335 125 13 1,128 204 409 44 130 80 11 879 685 406 506 163 861 3,719 2,000 576 335 -1,046 124 404 517 697 93 371 231 12 503 313 552 417 138 446 2,824 2,215 917 125 1,046 -185 450 396 787 105 322 266 13 194 85 149 198 84 133 555 644 576 13 124 185 -14 82 131 22 71 27 14 313 124 180 148 52 313 1,086 669 209 1,128 404 451 14 -134 401 42 116 649 15 2,899 793 578 1,416 419 2,070 6,370 3,349 754 204 517 396 82 134 -14,674 230 572 176 16 1,203 943 851 3,660 1,657 759 6,830 5,472 2,605 409 697 787 131 401 14,674 -260 659 169 17 197 450 1,007 501 107 114 1,362 1,182 185 44 93 105 22 42 231 260 -92 24 18 2,624 5,663 631 1,231 339 603 6,786 3,180 609 130 371 322 71 116 573 659 92 -63 19 325 264 233 727 265 188 1,671 1,266 375 80 231 266 27 649 176 169 24 63 - Table 12: 2050 District-to-District Trip Volume Ranking | Source: WRA 597 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 26 Figure 9: WinFred Regional TAZs Within the Study Area | Source: WRA 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 10: Trip Percentages from District 3 | Source: Streetlight Data and WinFred Model Streetlight WinFred Model Refer to Figure 9 for the regional travel demand model zones within the study area. Comparison with Streetlight Data The model results of district-to-district trip distributi on were compared with those obtained from Streetlight data. To illustrate with an example, Figure 10 shows the percentages of trips from District 3 to all the districts according to the Streetlight data and the WinFred model. It shows that, with some excepti ons, the percentages correspond well between the model and Streetlight data for most districts. 598 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 27 Figure 11: Locations Where V/C (LOS D) Ratio 0.85 ≥ in 2050 | Source: WRA Capacity / LOS Analysis The maximum flow rate at LOS D and E for different road types are estimated based on the Highway Capacity Manual. The model converts daily productions and attractions into trips from origins to destinations by four time periods: AM (6:00 a.m. – 8:59 a.m.), Midday, PM (3:00 p.m. – 5:59 p.m.), and Night. The time-of-day factors are applied by period, and simultaneously convert production-attraction flows to origin-destination flows by time of day. The peak hour V/C ratio is then estimated to highlight the segments and intersections that are critical in terms of traffic operations. Figure 11 shows the locations where the V/C ratio would exceed 0.85 (LOS D or worse) in 2050. 599 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 28 Safety Analysis The road safety aspect of this project was analyzed from three perspectives. The first one identified locations that are predicted to experience high traffic demand in 2050, which may pose safety issues. The second focused on safety issues for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. The third perspective looked at freight-related accidents on I-81 to determine the potential impact of diversion of truck traffic to other routes. Archived crash data from VDOT was utilized for the analysis. Sites with Potential Safety Issues and High Future Traffic Demand The capacity analysis previously discussed identified areas with a high future V/C ratio. This information was then combined with data from VDOT on PSI locations. These PSI locations are determined by VDOT through network screening using safety performance functions (SPFs) that consider crash history, roadway factors, and traffic characteristics to prioritize areas for safety investments. Figure 12 maps out the top 100 PSI segments and intersections for the years 2018-2022 highlighting segments with V/C ratios above 0.85 predicted for 2050. The map highlights six locations where both top PSI intersections or segments and V/C values greater than 0.85 intersect. These locations are listed below in sequence corresponding to the numerals on the map. • Route 7 near I-81: There are several top PSI intersections, a top PSI segment, and the predicted V/C is between 0.85 and 1.0. • Route 7 (Woods Mills to Clarke County Line): There is a top PSI intersection and segment as well as a predicted V/C between 1.0 and 1.5. • Greenwood Road south of Valley Mill Road: There is a top PSI intersection, and the predicted V/C is between 1.0 and 1.5. • Senseny Road between Meade Drive and Williamson Road: There are a pair of top PSI intersections that overlap with the predicted V/C on Senseny Road between 1.0 and 1.5. • US 17/50 (Millwood Pike) and US 522 (Front Royal Pike): The intersection is associated with and close to several top PSI segments and intersections. The V/C of Millwood Pike and the I-81 northbound ramp is between 1.0 and 1.5. 600 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 29 Figure 12: Top 100 PSI Intersections & Segments (2018-2022) & Locations Where the V/C (LOS D) Ratio ≥ 0.85 in 2050 | Source: VDOT • Greenwood Road north of Sulphur Spring Road: The long segment is a top PSI with the predicted V/C between 0.85 and 1.0. • Airport Road and US 522 (Front Royal Pike): This intersection is a top PSI and the predicted V/C of the east approach is between 0.85 and 1.0. Earlier, some of these six locations were discussed for potential capacity improvements. The above observations highlight that they need to be considered for safety improvements alongside operational treatments. Vulnerable Road User Safety Pedestrian and bicycle crashes are less common than crashes involving only motorized vehicles, but they tend to be more severe. A total of six bicycle and eight pedestrian- involved crashes occurred within the study area between 2017 and 2021. Regarding bicycle crashes, Route 7 and Senseny Road each had a cluster of crash pairs located within 601 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 30 1,200 feet, although there was no apparent pattern or significant clustering. Pedestrian- involved crashes showed more clustering. Six of the eight crashes occurred within a half- mile radius from the intersection of US 522 (Front Royal Pike), US 17/50, and the I-81 ramps at Exit 313A, as shown in Figure 13. As is common for pedestrian crashes, most of them resulted in serious injuries. The land use pattern of the portion of US 17/50 and US 522 shown in Figure 13 is noteworthy in that the north side of US 17/50 has seven hotels and university housing, while the south side has approximately 10 convenience stores and restaurants. The land use on the two sides of US 522 is somewhat similar. Additionally, these road sections coincide with top PSI segments and intersections identified from 2018 to 2022. Significant pedestrian exposure to traffic is expected on both roads, however, there are very limited pedestrian amenities (sidewalks or crosswalks) present on either road within the extent of the map. These conditions make this area a candidate for further investigations regarding pedestrian safety. Figure 13: Clustering of Pedestrian-Related Crashes Near I-81 Ramps at MM 313A, US 522, US 17/50 | Source: VDOT 602 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 31 Freight Accident Analysis The purpose of this analysis was to identify time-based patterns of freight accidents on the interstate route that may suggest the diversion of truck traffic to local roads. The analysis was motivated by the public’s concern about truck traffic on I-81 being diverted to local roads due to congestion on I-81. The portion of I-81 within the study area is a major freight route, with more than 20% of daily traffic consisting of trucks. Accident data for trucks and other vehicles by time of day were used for this analysis. As such, a preliminary analysis was completed to see if there was any indication of increased truck exposure on the local roads during peak hours. Analysis of accident data by time of day showed that the percentage of truck accidents occurring during peak hours is higher on I-81 than on other major local routes like Route 37. According to recent crash data, 24% of truck accidents on I-81 occurred during peak hours. On Route 37, the distribution is more uniform, with 16% of truck accidents occurring during peak hours. For the overall city of Winchester, this percentage is 20%. The pattern suggests that there is no indication of increased truck diversion from I-81 to local roads during peak hours. Additional analysis could be completed in the future if public concerns continue to be voiced. 603 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 32 Project Needs Given the nature of the study area, a specific point was made to identify problems throughout as opposed to focusing solely on the original Route 37 Bypass study and EIS statements. It was also desired to determine if any of the original segments of the Route 37 Bypass had logical termini and independent utility and would effectively address any of the problems now and in the future that were found in the problem assessment phase of the study. To create the purpose and needs statements, an evaluation of the most recent studies and existing comprehensive plan was completed. Additionally, conversations with staff at Frederick County Planning and VDOT helped to provide context and frame these statements. A review of the PSI segments and intersections was also conducted, and the needs statements reflect improvements proposed in that list. A thorough region wide travel demand model analysis was completed to determine areas of traffic growth in 2050, and origin and destination of these trip pairs as noted earlier in the report. Bicycle/Pedestrian As indicated in the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update5, the existing bicycle network lacks infrastructure and 62% of roadways have LOS D (adequate for advanced riders) or worse. The pedestrian results showed that 60% of the network was either deemed adequate or adequate but not likely used for choice users (people who prefer to use walking as their primary mode of transportation). With land development since 2014, it is likely that bicycle and pedestrian needs have only increased since this time and linkages are desired to regional parks, schools, and commercial development. Congestion Virginia State Route 7 between the Frederick/Clarke County line and the City of Winchester is the major link between Frederick County and destinations in Northern Virginia. Volumes from the STARS study in 2017 indicate that the average daily traffic (ADT) on this corridor is projected to reach 40,800 vehicles per day (VPD) by 2047. There is a current SMART SCALE project aimed at improving safety and traffic flow on Route 7 between Route 815/ Millbrook Drive/Blossom Drive and Route 656/First Woods Drive/Greenwood Drive; however, additional segments have been identified in the PSI. In addition, two segments of Route 7 within the study area fall within the 1.5 > V/C > 1. 5 NSVRC, WinFred MPO, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 604 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 33 • The intersection of I-81 Exit 317 and Route 11 is the most congested intersection in the Staunton District and is currently being redesigned as a diverging diamond interchange. Additionally, improved connectivity is needed between Route 7 and Route 11 to alleviate congestion. • Development in the area near the airport along both the Route 50 and Route 522 corridors has the potential to create congestion issues in the future, both at Exit 313 and at intersections along both corridors and the intersection with Crossover Boulevard. The extension of Crossover Boulevard to US 17/50 has been identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as an important connection and will offer improved access to the Virginia Inland Port. • Large-scale residential land development on the study area’s southern end uses Warrior Drive and Tasker Road to access I-81 and Route 37. Additional interstate or state route connectivity from Warrior Drive is critical to continue residential development in this area and relieve congestion on Tasker Road. The Comprehensive plan includes a proposed link to extend Warrior Drive to the proposed Route 37 alignment as a potential solution to redistribute traffic in this area. Safety Upon reviewing the VDOT crash data from 2017-2021 and the Top PSI intersections it also becomes apparent that there is a significant safety issue on Route 7. • Since 2017, there have been 206 reportable crashes in the 3.76-mile stretch of roadway on Route 7 between the City of Winchester and the Frederick/Clarke County line. The 1.28-mile segment between Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road has been identified as the #7 top PSI priority by VDOT statewide. A SMART SCALE project is in the design phase to add capacity and reduce conflict points to a 0.52-mile segment of roadway in this crash cluster area, but this project only addresses a portion of the study area. • The VA 7 and US 11 corridors have two of the more prominent crash histories, including significant numbers of fatal and injury (FI) crashes. • ADT on Route 7 Eastbound6: 14,000 VPD; Route 7 Westbound: 14,000 VPD; Total Crashes = 735; FI = 176 6 ArcGIS, VDOT, https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=a8da35dd9ce54993b25f64487c3717ec 605 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 34 • ADT on Route 11 Northbound7: 14,000 VPD; Route 11 Southbound: 14,000 VPD; Total Crashes = 347; FI = 71 • The study area includes 24 intersections and 15 segments in the Statewide VDOT 2017- 2021 Top 100 PSI list. • Six of the 15 segments are located on Route 7: • Begin milepost (MP) 1.75, end MP 2.00: Total Crashes = 23; FI = 8 (VDOT District Rank 26) • Begin MP 2.10, end MP 2.26: Total Crashes = 52; FI = 10 (VDOT District Rank 2) • Begin MP 2.26, end MP 2.51: Total Crashes = 16; FI = 3 (VDOT District Rank 60) • Begin MP 2.51, end MP 2.82: Total Crashes = 21; FI = 6 (VDOT District Rank 13) • Begin MP 2.82, end MP 3.26: Total Crashes = 17; FI = 3 (VDOT District Rank 94) • Begin MP 3.48, end MP 4.76: Total Crashes = 59; FI = 14 (VDOT District Rank 7) – improvements to this segment have been committed in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), with construction completed in 2026. I-81 Needs – Identified in the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan: • While not specifically identified in the I-81 CIP and outside of the study area, improvements are warranted at the intersection of I-81 Exit 307 to address safety and congestion. A project Pipeline study has been completed at this interchange to identify cost effective solutions to address safety and congestion concerns. • Recent improvements were completed at the I-81 and Route 37 interchange at Exit 310. The installation of a changeable message sign (CMS) is proposed as a safety measure. • Safety and congestion are an issue at the I-81 and Route 50 interchange at Exit 313. CMSs are proposed at this interchange, however that does not address the existing congestion issue. • Widening I-81 to three lanes between Exits 313 and 317 (both Northbound and Southbound) was recommended for funding. 7 ArcGIS, VDOT, https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=a8da35dd9ce54993b25f64487c3717ec 606 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 35 • The addition of an auxiliary lane is a recommended improvement between Exits 313 and 315. • The addition of traffic cameras was recommended at Exit 317. • A design concept was created for a diverging diamond interchange at Exit 317 to address congestion and safety (this is a funded project). The purpose and needs statements were included in a survey for public input and presented at a public meeting, and the results are discussed in the following section. 607 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 36 Agency & Public Engagement The overall goal of the PEP was to: • Heighten public awareness and understanding of the project • Identify and purposefully engage key stakeholders in the project development process • Provide public access to current and accurate project information • Deliver timely responses to public inquiries • Assimilate public views, preferences, and support for project outcomes that enhance mobility, safety, and efficiency The McCormick Taylor project team collaborated with VDOT, Frederick County, the City of Winchester, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) and the WinFred MPO over the course of this project. Bi-weekly project status meetings were conducted with Frederick County, and project status reports, including PowerPoint presentations, were regularly delivered to the Frederick County Transportation Committee by the McCormick Taylor consultant team Project Managers, Brian St. John, P.E., PTOE, and Alexandra Castrechini, P.E. The communications protocols and public outreach practices utilized for this project were developed to align with VDOT’s Governance Document Public Involvement Manual (revised November 2021). The draft Public Engagement Plan (PEP) was shared with the public for review and comment and presented to Frederick County for implementation approval. PEP Overview The PEP for the EFCTS project outlines the comprehensive, proactive outreach strategy implemented during the project. As part of the project development process, Frederick County aimed to have clear, accurate, and regular communications with the public, including project stakeholders, public officials, and the media, as appropriate. Their goal was to effectively plan and implement engagement opportunities to dialogue with stakeholders and collect project-related public input and feedback. 608 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 37 Figure 14: Disadvantaged Communities | Source: Climate and EJScreen The PEP was updated over the course of the project to reflect the actual strategies and activities implemented and includes documentation of modifications made to be responsive to public needs. A primary first step in the implementation of the PEP was to identify the demographics of the population in the vicinity of the project area. This step included the use of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. For the varying perspectives to be considered, it was important to identify the disadvantaged communities, populations of color, and low- income communities at the earliest possible time in project development (Figures 14 and 15). Additional information on identified low-income communities can be found in the Appendix. Historically, these groups have been unintentionally left out of the planning and project development process for transportation projects. Early identification and specific strategies to reach and be inclusive of disadvantaged communities can help improve transportation project outcomes that will benefit the broader community while also minimizing potential harm from a project. 609 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 38 Figure 15: Populations of Color | Source: US EPA EJScreen Stakeholder Identification McCormick Taylor and Frederick County worked together to develop a stakeholder database that could be expanded with the continued progress of the project development process. The database created for this phase of the project included property and business owners, educational institutions, and local, state, and federal elected officials within the project area. The stakeholder database was used primarily for the Community Context Audit (CCA) which is discussed in more detail as part of this section on Page (41). Public Meetings There were three public meetings held in the Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ Room to engage, educate, and inform the public. The timeline of public engagement activities is shown in Figure 16 on the following page. The McCormick Taylor project team received an advance Notice to Proceed (NTP) so the key team members could take part in the Transportation Forum conducted on Thursday, November 10, 2022, which is not shown on 610 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 39 QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 20242023 JUN.APR.MAY QUARTER 4 QUARTER 1 QUARTER 2 SEPT.JUL.AUG.DEC.OCT.NOV.MAR.JAN.FEB.JUN.APR.MAY PROJECT WEBSITE STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS PUBLIC MEETINGS (2) PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS Figure 16: Public Involvement Acti viti es Schedule | Source: US EPA EJScreen the schedule. The schedule refl ects the offi cial start of the outreach process following the issuance of the full NTP for the study beginning in the second quarter of 2023. As noted previously, an introductory public meeti ng for the EFCTS project was held on November 10, 2022, and provided for a brief introducti on to the planned project, in additi on to an opportunity for the public to express their thoughts, provide feedback, and ask questi ons about the previous Route 37 Bypass project. A paper survey was made available to meeti ng att endees to provide an opportunity for them to provide responses to questi ons on the work already completed, and senti ments on next steps. Eleven completed survey forms were collected before att endees left the meeti ng.ng. z A review of the 11 completed surveys indicated the Route 37 Bypass was sti ll on the minds of the respondents at the meeti ng. Of the 11 respondents, seven stated that they were familiar with the previous Route 37 studies (two were new to the area, and two lived outside of the project area), and 10 respondents said they support County funding for the Route 37 East Project. Copies of the completed surveys are provided in the Appendix. A second public meeti ng was held on November 16, 2023, again as part of the regularly scheduled Fredrick County Transportati on Forum. Assistant Director John Bishop, AICP moderated the meeti ng, and Alex Castrechini, P.E., the McCormick Taylor Project Manager, provided an update on the project status and next steps. Meeti ng att endees were also advised of the availability of the draft PEP for public review and comment, which provided a preview of the planned public outreach strategies for the project. Ms. Castrechini’s PowerPoint presentati on also included a web map developed to visually convey projected traffi c volume data. She explained what the roadway network would look like in 2050 if no improvements were made. Ms. Castrechini shared the results of the CCA and invited the public to review a copy of the report which was available at the project display stati on 611 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 40 81 Draft Bicycle/Pedestrian Needs Draft Purpose Statement 148 Purpose and Needs Statement Surveys Received 28 Additional Comments 139 (95%) agree with statements as presented 8 (5%) disagree with statements as presented 1 did not provide a response Draft Congestion Needs Draft Interstate 81 Needs 79% 78 agree with statements as presented 21% 21 disagree with statements as presented 49 did not provide a response 91% 92 agree with statements as presented 9% 9 disagree with statements as presented 47 did not provide a response 88% 95 agree with statements as presented 12% 13 disagree with statements as presented 40 did not provide a response 86% 104 agree with statements as presented 14% 17 disagree with statements as presented 0 did not provide a response Draft Safety Needs Figure 17: Purpose & Needs Survey Results in the rear of the meeting room. A copy of the PEP, and the CCA summary are included in the Appendix. Of equal importance, Ms. Castrechini reviewed the draft Purpose and Needs statements as part of the presentation. She explained that these statements were developed based on the consultant team analyses. A survey form specific to the Purpose and Needs statements was provided to the meeting attendees to review each of the statements individually, and then provide feedback. Since the survey was extensive and no responses were received the evening of the meeting, an online version was created and released for public use in early December 2023, remaining available until mid-January 2024. The same comment form was also posted on the county website for easy access. A total of 148 surveys were received during the public comment period. The draft Purpose and Needs statements were overwhelmingly accepted as depicted in Figure 17. A copy of the Purpose and Needs Statement Survey and a more detailed summary of the survey results are provided in the Appendix. A third and final public meeting was held on March 14, 2024, at the Frederick County Board of Supervisors Room. This meeting included a presentation of numerous proposed transportation solutions in the form of conceptual designs to be evaluated by the County for more detailed evaluation, analysis, and design. Mr. Brian St. John, P.E., PTOE, presented on behalf of the McCormick Taylor team providing a comprehensive review of the project development process leading up to the proposed transportation solutions, and then reviewed each proposed solution individually. He also 612 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 41 revisited the results of the public feedback received on the Purpose and Needs statements survey noting that 95% of the responses received were in agreement with the Purpose and Needs Statements as presented. Displays of the proposed conceptual designs of the transportation solutions were available for the public to review upon the completion of the presentation. Members of the County, VDOT, and the McCormick Taylor project team were present to interact with the meeting attendees and respond to questions. A meeting summary for the public meetings conducted by the McCormick Taylor project team was prepared for each session held in 2023 and 2024, and copies of the meeting summaries, meeting plans, proposed meeting publicity is included in the Appendix. Community Context Audit McCormick Taylor worked with the County to identify fifteen key stakeholders to be invited to take part in the CCA. The purpose of the CCA was to solicit a sampling of local interests, concerns, and perceptions about transportation within the project area during the early stages of the project development process. The audit was accomplished through an interview process that could be completed using a method of their choice: 1) an in- person interview; 2) a telephone interview; or 3) a Microsoft Teams Conference Call. The interviews allowed the project team to proactively cultivate relationships with key stakeholders, establish points of contact with local organizations and within the business communities, and establish reliable lines of communication to share project updates. The method for the interview was selected by each individual stakeholder and was conducted on a date and at a time set by the interviewee. The interview questions and methods were prepared by the McCormick Taylor project team and reviewed and approved by the County in advance of implementation. Interviews of the key stakeholders began on July 14, 2023, with the initial goal to reach all 15 key stakeholders. Stakeholders were given the option to take the interview at the time of the phone call or to schedule a future date for the interview using the method of their choice as noted previously. Four stakeholders who were contacted did not respond to the invitation to participate in the interview; two interviewees opted for a phone interview; and a total of eight interviewees opted for a Microsoft Teams video interview. All interviews were recorded for accuracy and with advance permission from each interviewee. No one requested an in-person interview 613 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 42 Stakeholders who completed the interview process: Stakeholders who were contacted, but opted out of the interview process:• Larry Oliver, Frederick County Fire and Rescue • Whit Wagner, Fort Collier • Chris Durant, Navy Federal Credit Union • Cynthia Schnieder, Top of VA Chamber • Jeff Buettner, City of Winchester Economic Development Authority • Gray Farland, Shockey Companies • JP Carr, Glaize Development • Nick Sabo, Winchester Regional Airport • Barry Schnoor, Shenandoah University • Patrick Barker, Frederick County Economic Development Authority • Lenny Millholland, Frederick County Sheriff’s Office • Seth Levy, Shenandoah Agency on Aging • Abbey Rembold, Valley Health System • Justin Kerns, Winchester Frederick County Convention & Visitors Bureau By July 18, 2023, the initial outreach to the stakeholders was completed. With 14 contacts successfully initiated and 10 of the interviews successfully completed, it was determined that the effort made was sufficient. The following information is a summary of the feedback received from the interviewees in total. It is worthy of note that the identified themes below represent the collective opinions of the interviewees. Collective Themes • Alleviating traffic congestion and reducing crashes on I-81 is key to improving mobility in Frederick County. • Traffic congestion and tractor trailers on local roads are caused by drivers avoiding traffic congestion on I-81. 614 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 43 Board of Supervisors Core Value “A government unit based on honesty, trust, integrity, and respect that understands the importance of clear communication and a willingness to listen.” • Traffic congestion on I-81 causes challenges for emergency services to reach emergencies. • There is concern that the roads where development is planned or underway, like in northern Frederick County, are not sufficiently sized for future traffic and that the development will worsen traffic congestion. • Alternative forms of transportation are valued and need to be improved and expanded including walking, biking, and public transit. • Frederick County’s location (proximity to I-81, Virginia Inland Port, Frederick County Regional Airport) is ideal for the warehouse/manufacturing/freight industry, which is resulting in increased truck/tractor trailer traffic. • Roadway infrastructure capacities at present are not enough for the scale and volume of planned developments. • Frederick County is becoming a less affordable place to live, causing people to live further away from their jobs in Frederick County. • Proximity to congested commuter routes has a detrimental impact on housing purchase choices. • Frederick County is becoming a suburb of Washington, D.C. As a result, morning and evening rush hour has worsened, despite an increase in remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic. A copy of the stakeholders list, the interview script, and the CCA Interview Summary which includes additional detail is provided in the Appendix. 615 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 44 Logical Termini, Independent Utility, & Concept Development Logical Termini & Independent Utility Logical termini for project development are defined as rational end points for a transportation improvement and for a review of the environmental impacts from such improvement. Typically, the most common termini are points of major traffic generation, especially intersecting roadways. This is because in most cases, traffic generators determine the size and type of facility being proposed. However, there are also cases where the project improvement is not primarily related to congestion due to traffic generators, and the choice of termini based on these generators may not be appropriate. For projects involving safety improvements, almost any termini (e.g., political jurisdictions, geographical features) can be chosen to correspond to those sections where safety improvements are most needed. The first criterion, that the project connects logical termini and be of sufficient length to address matters on a broad scope, is largely irrelevant due to the limited scope of most safety improvements. Furthermore, even if other safety improvements are needed, the project termini need not be expanded to include these other improvements. The other two criteria still need to be met to choose logical termini: the safety improvements must have independent utility (i.e., they can function as stand- alone improvements without forcing other improvements that may have impacts), and these improvements must not restrict consideration of other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements (such as major safety improvements in an adjoining section). In addition, environmental requirements must still be met. For this project, improvements were evaluated in the entire study area for the EFCTS project and attempted to consider all additional studies that had been or were in process in the development of logical transportation improvements listed in the matrix of potential projects. Projects must have independent utility meaning they must be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made. The original Route 37 bypass was considered, in addition to other projects that will be covered on the following pages. 616 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 45 Original Route 37 Bypass Assessment Each segment of the original bypass was considered, and an evaluation completed. Detailed cost estimates were not developed for the original proposed four lane full limited access configuration, but engineering judgement and comparable facilities were used to develop costs referenced in this section of the report. Detailed work was completed to develop potential solutions to address the needs noted earlier in the document. Refer to Figure 18 on page 47 for a map showing each of the following segments. Bypass Segment 1 from Route 37 on the west side of I-81 to Route 11 includes a system interchange with Route 37 on the west and a cloverleaf interchange with I-81. The cloverleaf interchange as proposed would be difficult if not impossible to meet interchange spacing requirements and would require significant additional improvements on Interstate 81 and sideroads to meet current design criteria. This segment had the least traffic volume in the updated travel demand model at approximately 13,000 VPD and it is the most expensive segment of the original bypass. Engineering judgement would lead to a cost of over half a billion dollars for that segment of the original bypass including the interchange with I-81 and Route 37. Bypass Segment 2 from Route 11 to Route 7 (Berryville Pike) attracts about 18,000 VPD and is in an area of the study area that is rapidly growing from both a residential and employment perspective. It would also allow some relief to Berryville Pike which is one of the corridors with high V/C ratios in 2050. This segment in the four-lane limited access configuration would likely be over $250 million dollars given the interchanges, right of way (ROW), and structures required. Bypass Segment 3 from Route 7, Berryville Pike to US 17/50 (Millwood Pike) is a link through relatively undeveloped land and may increase sprawl and encourage development that is not desirable. This segment of the original bypass attracts approximately 22,000 VPD in 2050 but has less independent value as it relates to the needs identified in this study. This segment would also likely cost over $200 million in the prior configuration. The segment from Berryville Pike to Senseny Road has more value and could reduce traffic on Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and provide an alternative to Route 7 Berryville Pike. The segment south of Senseny Road to Millwood Pike traverses significant topography and an alternatives analysis would be recommended to find the best and most economically feasible route. 617 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 46 Bypass Segment 4 from US 17/50 (Millwood Pike) to US 522 (Front Royal Pike) is another link through relatively undeveloped land but would provide access to appropriately zoned land and areas targeted for development in and around the airport and along both Millwood Pike and Front Royal Pike. It would also provide for alternate connections to Papermill and Airport Road/Crossover Boulevard for future relief. This segment would also likely cost over $200 million dollars in the prior configuration and would attract approximately 26,000 VPD in the 2050 forecast. Bypass Segment 5 from US 522 (Front Royal Pike) to I-81/Tasker Road is the most southern section of the original Route 37 bypass and attracts a significant amount of traffic both in the total bypass configuration and independently by itself in the 2050 travel demand model. It is a costly segment in the original configuration and also in the new alternate configuration due to number of structures and wetland/floodplain impact. It does, however, provide for addressing congestion needs in this area and a future connection to Warrior Drive. The segment of the bypass between Tasker Road and the Warrior Drive extension is forecasted to have about 50,000 VPD and would require a four-lane typical section; the capacity of a two-lane roadway with minimal access points is approximately 23,000 to 29,000 VPD. From the Warrior Drive extension to US 17/50, a two-lane roadway would be sufficient for the 2050 forecasted demand of approximately 27,000 VPD. Using a maximum of 29,000 VPD capacity for a two-lane roadway as a guide, each segment of the Route 37 bypass would be sufficiently served in 2050 with a two-lane roadway, except for the segment between Tasker Road and the Warrior Drive extension which would warrant a four-lane highway based on projected volumes. 618 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 47 BYPASSSEGMENT-1 BYPASSSEGMENT-2 BYPASSSEGMENT-3 BYPASSSEGMENT-4 BYPASSSEGMENT-5 Berryville Pike Berryvill e A v e Welltown RdWyc k S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSensen y R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdS n o wd e n Bridge R d Park Jim Barnett Park Izaac Walton Club CountryWinchester Course Golf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 S U N N Y S I D E E S TAT E S FA IRWAY H E I G HT S B UF F LIC K S O U T H V I E WWESTWOOD M I L L S PA R K I N S H E I G H T S S E N S E N Y H E I G H TS M I L L E R PA R K C O L L E G E HILLS SH E NAND OAH S P R I N G S J O R D A N FA C TO RY B U R N T S P R I N G VA L L E Y HE I G H TS G RE E N WO O D KNO L L S B U R N IN G 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY www.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Original Route 37 Bypass | Segments Figure 18: Original Bypass Segments 619 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 48 Concept Development and Potential Solutions Formulation of different concepts and solutions were centered around the needs identified and presented to the public. The Partial Limited Access Concept is defined by the following characteristics as defined in VDOTs Roadway Design Manual: provides access to select public roads, crossings at grade, and some private driveway connections. Project cost summaries for the following Potential Improvement Projects are shown on Figure 19 on page 51 and summarized in Table 13 on page 52. Taking the conglomerate dataset of the public feedback, the 2050 forecasted volumes and V/C ratios, and analysis of the sections of the Route 37 bypass from the 2001 EIS, the following concepts were formulated and proposed to the public in March 2024 for feedback. This study focused on providing cost-effective alternatives and volume appropriate solutions to address the 2050 forecasted volumes. This includes a look at the sections of the Route 37 Bypass to determine if a two-lane partial limited access roadway in lieu of a four-lane highway full limited access could adequately meet future needs. Included in the following discussion are findings from the analysis of Potential Projects 1, 3 and 4 and design considerations that were considered or warrant further analysis. The alignments from the Route 37 bypass in the 2001 EIS and UPC 85972 Study Update were used as a basis for these discussions. Since 2001, there has been land development which occurred either in or in proximity to these alignments. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges which warrant further analysis during a potential preliminary engineering phase. Potential Improvement Project 1: Route 37 extension from Route 11 to Route 7 as a two- lane partial limited access roadway (anticipated Major Collector). Preliminary Assessment There is a large commercial property at the northern end of this alignment that would be bisected by the alignment and may warrant additional analysis in the future if this segment were to be widened and residential development that interferes with the planned alignment. At grade intersections with Woods Mill Road, Burnt Factory Road, and Pine Road are geometrically challenging due to the topography. Where the alignment connects with Route 7, a long span structure would likely be required due to floodplain impacts. Approximately ~2700 ft of bridge is required to construct this on alignment. See 620 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 49 Table 14 for a preliminary cost estimate based on the existing alignment and additional design criteria. Potential Improvement Project 2: Widening Airport Road from its current configuration of two lanes to four lanes between US 522 and Admiral Byrd Drive (anticipated Major Collector) to help alleviate congestion (1 > V/C > 0.85) entering the Airport from I-81. Potential Improvement Project 3: Tasker Road/Route 37 to US 522 (anticipated Major Collector/Minor Arterial) as a full limited access highway from Tasker Road/Route 37 to Warrior Drive and partial limited access roadway from Warrior Drive to US 522. Preliminary Assessment An at-grade connection of the existing alignment with US 522 is located ~350 ft from two driveway connections on U2 522. It may be desirable to find an alternative location in the vicinity to create an at-grade connection with US 522. The existing alignment for Warrior Drive crosses Opequon Creek at one of the wider locations of the floodplain which would result in a long span structure. Between these two roadway segments, there is over ~2,000 ft of bridge required to span floodplains in this area. It would be advisable to revisit these alignments to reduce these stream impacts and decrease structure lengths. See Table 16 for a preliminary cost estimate based on the existing alignment and additional design criteria. This project is projected to require four-lanes between I-81 and Warrior Drive as the projected volumes in 2050 exceed the range shown in the typical section below. The typical section graphic was developed and presented at the March 14, 2024. 621 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 50 Potential Improvement Project 4: This project entails the extension of Haggerty Boulevard/ Hallowed Crossings Way (anticipated Major Collector). Preliminary Assessment The recent development “The Retreat at Winding Creek” is in the vicinity of this alignment but is not thought to be a conflict or area of concern with respect to this alignment. See Table 17 for a preliminary cost estimate based on the existing alignment and additional design criteria. Potential Improvement Project 5: This proposed improvement includes the addition of a center turn lane to Senseny Road between I-81 and Greenwood Road. 622 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 51 1 2 5 4 3 MAJOR C O L L E C T O R MAJOR COL L E C T O R / MINOR ART E R I A L MAJOR COLLECTORMAJORCOLLECTOR MAJ O R C O L L E C T O R Berryville Pike Berryvil l e A v e Welltown RdWy c k S t Woods Mill RdValley Mill R d Greenwood RdSensen y R d Senseny R d Haggerty BlvdE C o r k S t Greenwood RdHillandale RdWhite Oak RdWarrior DrTasker RdTasker R d Old CharlesTownRd FairmountAveFortCollierRdS n o wd e n Bridge R d Park Jim Barnett ParkIzaacWalton Club Country Winchester Course Golf Valley Carper's Regional Airport Winchester S U N N Y S I D E E S TAT E S FA I R WAY H EIG HTS B UFFL IC K S O U T H V I E WWESTWOOD MIL LS PA R K I N S H E I G H T S S E N S E N Y HE I GH T S M I L L E R PA R K C O L L E G E HILLS SHENANDOAH S P R I N G S J O R D A N FA C T O RY B U R N T S P R I N G VA L L E Y H E I GH T S GR E EN WOO D K N O L L S B U R N I N G 0 10.50.25 MilesN TRANSPORTATION STUDYEASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY www.FCVA.us/Departments/Planning-Development/Transportation Concept Development | Proposed Solutions 17 17 17 522 522 522 522 81 81 81 11 11 11 7 7 7 37 81 Figure 19: Potenti al Improvement Projects 623 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 52 Details are provided in subsequent tables and graphics in this section. Additional detail of the travel demand model analysis is included in a memorandum completed by WRA as part of this project and included in the Appendix. To gain perspective and perform analyses, the webmap developed for this project included layers from multiple sources such as Frederick County planning, VDOT planning, and the traffic forecast by WRA. The needs statements are centered around VDOT’s PSI Segments and Intersections, review of the projected V/C ratios in 2050, origin/destination (O-D) review, and VDOT/County/citizen comments throughout the project. While reviewing these datasets, the apparent first area of concern was Route 7. There are projects in the top 100 PSI listing in this area and many crashes on Route 7 between Route 81 and the Frederick/Clark County line. This segment of Route 7 is also included in the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan as a potential improvement project. One remediation to the congestion and safety issues on Route 7 is to examine a connection between Route 7 and Route 11. The traffic model shows that the construction of the bypass in this area would reduce the projected volume in 2050. On the southern end of the study area, the intersection of I-81 and Tasker Road was also identified as a problematic area by County staff and VDOT. As of 2019, Tasker Road at the interchange with I-81 and Route 37 is over capacity with a V/C Ratio between 1 and 1.5. One logical solution to this problem is to create a connection with Warrior Drive to serve the large residential developments in the area. A recurring theme during the public input process was citizen discussion of Senseny Road. This roadway was cited as problematic for this study and for the SS4A project. Lack of shoulders creates an unsafe condition for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the lack of a consistent center turn lane from I-81 to Greenwood Road causes queues to form. The V/C Table 13: Construction Cost Estimate – Side-By-Side Costs May 2024 Inflation Increase of 5% Compounded Each Year Project # Project Total With Contingencies (millions) 2025 (millions) 2026 (millions) 2027 (millions) 2028 (millions) 2029 (millions) 1 $179.5 $188.5 $198 $208 $218 $229 3 $13.5 $14 $15 $16 $17 $17.5 2 $196 $206 $216 $227 $238.5 $250 4 $49 $51.5 $54 $56.5 $59.5 $62.5 5 $25.5 $27 $28 $29.5 $31 $33 TOTAL $463.5 $487 $511 $537 $564 $592 624 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 53 ratio on this segment is greater than 1 and less than 1.5 in 2050. To relieve some of the congestion on Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (also V/C greater than 1 and less than 1.5 in 2050) construction of a segment along the current bypass alignment that continues from Haggerty Boulevard (currently in construction) was evaluated. To further evaluate these alternatives, we conducted an analysis of the potential VHT (vehicle hour time) impacts by looking at the following scenarios: • The No build scenario (not changing the existing roadway network) • Construction of Potential Project 1 (referred to as Northern Section) • Construction of Potential Project 3 (referred to as Southern Section) • Full bypass build (construction of the bypass as a full limited access facility as planned previously) The results of this analysis can be found in the Appendix. This comparison was completed for AM peak, Mid-day peak, PM peak, nighttime, and daily average time of day to assess the differences between these time periods. Also, the impacts to different facility types were conducted during the various times of day and for each scenario. The tables include volumes and percent changes between the volumes. Time of day did have a significant impact on the volumes themselves but not in the percent change relative to each scenario. Most apparent is the 68% increase in FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway) for the full bypass build scenario. This increase is coupled with a decrease in the minor arterial and collector facility types which would provide network benefit for these facility types which were identified as potential problems based on v/c ratios. A full bypass type connection provides the most benefit but the northern and southern possible connection provides relief as well. In contrast, impacts to VHT from the independent construction of Potential Project 1 and 3 are less than 10%. In terms of the VHT analysis, although marginally better, the southern connection offers slightly more benefit than the northern connection. 625 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 54 These planning level estimates included the following assumptions: • Drainage/Stormwater Management (SWM)/Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) is 25% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities • Utilities is 3% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities • Signal Performance Measures (SPM)/Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) is 8% of the subtotal of major roadway quantities • Preliminary Engineering is 10% of the construction subtotal • Final Design is 7% of the construction subtotal • ROW is 5% of the construction subtotal • Construction Engineering & Inspection (CEI) is 17.5% of the construction subtotal Planning Level Cost Estimates The cost estimate summary can be found in Table 13 on page 52. Breakdowns by project can be found in Tables 14 to 18. 626 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 55 Table 14: Constructi on Cost Esti mate – Potenti al Improvement Project 1 Item Quanti ty / Percentage Unit Cost Cost (Millions) Full-Depth Pavement (sf)383178 $12 $4.5 Milling (sf)0 $24 - Leveling (sf)0 $3 - Shoulder Pavement (sf)224400 $8 $2 Regular Excavati on (cy)1126486 $20 $22.5 Bridge / Structure(s) (sf)99316 $400 $40 Subtotal $69 Drainage / SWM / ESC 25%-$17 Uti lity 3%-$2 SPM / MOT 5%-$3.5 Traffi c Signals 4 $500,000 $2 Subtotal $93.5 Mobilizati on --$4.5 Constructi on Survey (1% + 5,000)--$1 Subtotal $99 Conti ngency 30%-$29.5 Constructi on Subtotal $129 PE 10%-$13 FD 7%-$9 ROW 5%-$6 CEI 17.50%-$22.5 Project Total (With Conti ngencies)$179.5 ADT - Terrain Rolling Design Speed 60 MPH Minimum Radius 1200’ SSD 570’ Lane Width 12’ Shoudler Width 6’ Max Grade 10% Berryvill e P i k e Valley Mill Rd Brentwood Terrace Shenandoah Hills Route 11 81 81 P o t e n t i a l C o n n e c t i o n Major Collector 627 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 56 Mil l w o o d P i k e Bufflick Heights 81 81 Winchester Regional Airport Southview Bu f f l i c k R d VictoryRdFront Royal PikeAi r p o r t R d Airport R d Table 15: Constructi on Cost Esti mate – Potenti al Improvement Project 2 ADT >2,000 (2050) Terrain Rolling Design Speed 25 MPH Minimum Radius 115’ SSD 155’ Lane Width 12’ Shoudler Width 6’ Max Grade 10% Major Collector Item Quanti ty / Percentage Unit Cost Cost (Millions) Full-Depth Pavement (sf)26767 $12.00 $0.5 Milling (sf)135067 $24.00 $3 Leveling (sf)135067 $3.00 $0.5 Shoulder Pavement (sf)36545 $8.00 $0.5 Regular Excavati on (cy)28663 $20.00 $0.5 Bridge / Structure(s) (sf)0 $400.00 - Subtotal $5 Drainage / SWM / ESC 25%-$0.5 Uti lity 3%-$0.5 SPM / MOT 8%-$0.5 Traffi c Signals 1 $500,000 $0.5 Subtotal $7 Mobilizati on --$0.5 Constructi on Survey (1% + 5,000)--$0.5 Subtotal $8 Conti ngency 30%-$2 Constructi on Subtotal $10 PE 10%-$1 FD 7%-$0.5 ROW 5%-$0.5 CEI 17.50%-$1.5 Project Total (With Conti ngencies)$13.5 628 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 57 Table 16: Constructi on Cost Esti mate – Potenti al Improvement Project 3 Item Quanti ty / Percentage Unit Cost Cost (Millions) Full-Depth Pavement (sf)590090 $12.00 $7 Milling (sf)0 $24.00 - Leveling (sf)0 $3.00 - Shoulder Pavement (sf)201572 $8.00 $1.5 Regular Excavati on (cy)985450 $20.00 $20 Bridge / Structure(s) (sf)112835 $400.00 $45 Subtotal $73.5 Drainage / SWM / ESC 25%-$18.5 Uti lity 3%-$2 SPM / MOT 8%-$6 Traffi c Signals 4 $500,000 $2 Subtotal $102 Mobilizati on --$5 Constructi on Survey (1% + 5,000)--$1 Subtotal $108 Conti ngency 30%-$32.5 Constructi on Subtotal $140.5 PE 10%-$14 FD 7%-$10 ROW 5%-$7 CEI 17.50%-$24.5 Project Total (With Conti ngencies)$196 ADT - Terrain Rolling Design Speed 60 MPH Minimum Radius 1200’ SSD 570’ Lane Width 12’ Shoudler Width 6’ Max Grade 6% Major Collector Front Royal Pike81 81 SouthveiwWestwood Bufflick HeightsPlainfield Heights Taske r Rd Warrior DrPeperm i l l Rd 37 Route37Extension Warr i orDrEx t e n si o n 629 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 58 Table 17: Constructi on Cost Esti mate – Potenti al Improvement Project 4 Item Quanti ty / Percentage Unit Cost Cost (Millions) Full-Depth Pavement (sf)92910 $12.00 $1 Milling (sf)0 $24.00 - Leveling (sf)0 $3.00 - Shoulder Pavement (sf)54198 $8.00 $0.5 Regular Excavati on (cy)298887 $20.00 $6 Bridge / Structure(s) (sf)25200 $400.00 $10 Subtotal $17.5 Drainage / SWM / ESC 25%-$4.5 Uti lity 3%-$0.5 SPM / MOT 5%-$1 Traffi c Signals 4 $500,000 $2 Subtotal $25.5 Mobilizati on --$1 Constructi on Survey (1% + 5,000)--$0.5 Subtotal $27 Conti ngency 30%-$8 Constructi on Subtotal $35 PE 10%-$3.5 FD 7%-$2.5 ROW 5%-$2 CEI 17.50%-$6 Project Total (With Conti ngencies)$49 ADT >2,000 (2050) Terrain - Design Speed 60 MPH Minimum Radius 1200’ SSD 570’ Lane Width 12’ Shoudler Width 6’ Max Grade 6% Major Collector Berryville Pik e Sulpher Spring Rd Miller Heights Fairway Estates 81 81 Greenwood Heights Senseny Heights Berryvil l e A v e Senseny R d GreenwoodRdChanning DrHaggerty Blvd/Hallowed Crossing Way630 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 59 Table 18: Constructi on Cost Esti mate – Potenti al Improvement Project 5 Item Quanti ty / Percentage Unit Cost Cost (Millions) Full-Depth Pavement (sf)186520 $12.00 $2 Milling (sf)99680 $24.00 $2.5 Leveling (sf)99680 $3.00 $0.5 Shoulder Pavement (sf)111300 $8.00 $1 Regular Excavati on (cy)62812 $20.00 $1 Bridge / Structure(s) (sf)3072 $400.00 $1 Subtotal $8 Drainage / SWM / ESC 25%-$2 Uti lity 3%-$0.5 SPM / MOT 8%-$0.5 Traffi c Signals 4 $500,000 $2 Subtotal $13 Mobilizati on --$0.5 Constructi on Survey (1% + 5,000)--$0.5 Subtotal $14 Conti ngency 30%-$4 Constructi on Subtotal $18 PE 10%-$2 FD 7%-$1.5 ROW 5%-$1 CEI 17.50%-$3 Project Total (With Conti ngencies)$25.5 ADT >2,000 (2050) Terrain - Design Speed 35 MPH Minimum Radius 316’ SSD 250’ Lane Width 12’ Shoudler Width 6’ Max Grade 9% Major Collector Berryvill e P i k e Sulpher Spring Rd Miller Heights Fairway Estates 81 81 Greenwood Heights Senseny Heights Berryvill e A v e Senseny R d GreenwoodRdChanningDr Haggerty Blvd/Hallowed Crossing Way631 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 60 Table 19: Mini TIP Potential Improvement Project 1 Project Total With Contingencies $179.5 Million Project Needs Safety - This project would improve safety by diverting traffic off Route 7 (2050 ADT without project: ~47,000, 2050 with project ~28,000) Access - This was proposed to be a four-lane limited access highway (similar to the existing Route 37 bypass) Mobility - Projected volume in 2050 is ~18,000 Issues that May Affect Design or Construction This project poses many difficulties from constructability standpoint. These are documented in the logical Termini, Independent Utility, and Concept Development section of the report. Potential Improvement Project 3 Project Total With Contingencies $196 Million Project Needs Safety - In the absense of this link, existing traffic uses Tasker Road in order to gain access to the xx residential parcels in the vicinity of Warrior Drive Access - This was proposed to be a four-lane limited access highway similar to the existing Route 37 bypass. Volumes could justify a four lane roadway from Tasker Road to Warrior Drive in 2050 Mobility - Projected volume in 2050 is ~50,000 between I-81 and future Warrior Drive and ~27,000 between future Warrior Drive and US 522 Issues that May Affect Design or Construction There are a number of environmental impacts in this area, these are documented in the Logical Termini, Independent Utility, and Concept Development section of the report. Potential Improvement Project 2 Project Total With Contingencies $13.5 Million Project Needs Safety - There are two severe injury crashes and two minor crashes between 2017 and 2021 Access - The projected V/C ratio in 2050 is between 0.85 and 1. Construction of this project will help with access to the airport as it grows Mobility - Projected volume in 2050 is ~17,000 Issues that May Affect Design or Construction Maintaining phased construction (this section cannot be closed). 632 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 61 Table 19 (Continued): Mini TIP Potential Improvement Project 5 Project Total With Contingencies $25.5 Million Project Needs Safety - 15 crashes reported from 2017 - 2022 - There are 2 intersection projects in VDOT’s Top 100 PSI 18-22 Listing - V/C > 1 in 2050 Access - There are no bicycle or pedestrian accomodations Mobility - There are 27 driveways/intersecting roadways along this corridor where a center turn lane would prevent queuing Issues that May Affect Design or Construction This project would need to be completed using phased construction and significant delays could occur. Lack of shoulders will make phasing difficult. May not be a competitive project for grants. Potential Improvement Project 4 Project Total With Contingencies $49 Million Project Needs Safety - There is 1 intersection on the Top 100 PSI list on Greenwood Road in this area and one segment south of Senseny Road. Construction of this segment would take some demand off Greenwood Road Access - The top half of Haggerty Boulevard is being constructed by a developer. It makes sense to close the connection to Senseny Boulevard to improve access in this area Mobility - This creates an alternate roadway to Greenwood Road to get north/south through the project area Issues that May Affect Design or Construction A development in this area, The Re- treat at Winding Creek, was construct- ed since the originaly bypass was pro- posed. It will be challenging to either tie into the existing road network here or do some kind of flyover bridge. 633 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 62 Grant Opportunities & Next Steps Grant Opportunities There are multiple grant opportunities available to fund any project or combination of these projects. At the time of this report, the SS4A Action Plan has been completed and adopted by the WinFred MPO. This report included street, intersection, and sidewalk improvements. Projects identified in this Action Plan are eligible for an Implementation Grant by United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). USDOT has a grant round that opens annually in the early spring. The local match required is 20% and the federal match is 80%. A project on Route 7 has been identified in the Action Plan that could be eligible for a supplemental planning grant or implementation grant, depending on the wishes of Frederick County. SMART SCALE is a bi-annual funding opportunity offered by VDOT. In the 6th round offered this year, VDOT has institutes the “Gating Process” whereby the project readiness requirements are increased from prior grant rounds. Roadways on new alignments, adding managed lanes (HOV, etc.), and major widening now require an alternatives analysis. As such, the pieces of the Route 37 bypass proposed as projects in this study would have to be further studied to be eligible. Early coordination with VDOT is key to a successful application and working relationship throughout the project, and it is a critical “gate” for the SMART SCALE pre-application. The project which includes the addition of a center- turn lane on Senseny Road may be eligible for SMART SCALE using these criteria, but discussion with VDOT is encouraged to accurately ensure eligibility. There are many more grant opportunities available in the Commonwealth. The Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program (VHSIP) uses state and federal safety funding to implement safety improvements. Localities can submit applications between August 1 and October 31 annually for these funds. Examples of improvements eligible for grant funding are flashing yellow arrows, pedestrian crossings, road diets, unsignalized intersection improvements, and curve delineation. Some of these creative solutions could be utilized throughout the project area to enhance safety at a lower cost to the residents. Revenue Sharing provides a matching allocation up to $5 million for projects designated by the locality for improvement, construction, maintenance, or reconstruction of highway systems. The projects proposed in this study far exceed the $5 million mark, but utilizing these funds for other projects can help the County re-allocate funds to be able to support these larger scale projects in the future. 634 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 63 Next Steps In addition to searching for grant opportunities to fund the potential solutions proposed, this study can be used in many ways. Reviewing the information provided in this study to re-calibrate the thought process behind the necessity of constructing the Route 37 Eastern bypass is an important one. Consideration should be made to update the Comprehensive Transportation Plan/Eastern Frederick County Road Plan to show that a two-lane roadway can meet the future transportation needs in certain segments of the bypass. Additionally, consider adding the other proposed improvements in this study to support long term transportation planning goals to increase mobility and safety for the residents of Frederick County and the traveling public. Examples include capacity preservation on US 522 and US 17/50 as this intersection and segments/intersections along US 522 were identified on VDOT’s Top PSI list. As development increases in Frederick County, these areas of preservation should receive special attention and consideration. It is also a recommendation to find a mechanism to ensure that future development will not interfere with projects included in the Transportation Plan. As noted previously, sections of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass will not be constructable on the alignment scoped in the 2001 EIS due to development that has occurred since. Consider asking developers to provide a GIS layer with the proposed footprint to avoid these conflicts in the future. This study is intended to precipitate a Phase II analysis to fully vet the alternatives so that the County and Commonwealth make the best-informed decisions possible with tax funds. As noted in the section above, SMART SCALE applications in the 6th round now require the following for roadways on new alignments: “Provide a Planning Study/Safety Study, which includes an operational analysis and documents a preferred alternative that is consistent with the scope described in the application to support this feature. The study must include an alternatives analysis that considers improvements not on a new alignment” (https:// smartscale.virginia.gov/media/smartscale/documents/508_R6_Technical-Guide_FINAL_ FINAL_acc043024_PM.pdf, Table 2.6). It was not within this study’s scope to do this detailed analysis for the proposed roadways on new alignment; therefore, a Phase II is necessary to enable the County to apply for SMART SCALE funding in the future. 635 EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY (EFCTS)PAGE | 64 A. Public Engagement Plan B. Community Context Audit Summary C. Community Context Audit Interview Script D. Purpose and Needs Statement Survey E. Purpose and Needs Survey Results Summary F. Transportation Forum Meeting Agenda G. Transportation Forum Project Overview H. Transportation Forum Public Comment Form I. Traffic Forecasting Analysis by WRA Appendix 636 637 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Project Description 3 1.2 Plan Purpose 3 2. Regulatory Compliance 3 3. Disadvantaged Communities and Environmental Justice 5 4. PEP Approach 7 4.1 Project Communications 8 4.2 Project Website/Web Page 9 4.3 Stakeholder Identification 10 4.4 Public Engagement 10 5. American with Disabilities Act of 1990 10 6. Quality Control/Quality Assurance 11 7. Public Engagement Activities Schedule 11 638 3 Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study Draft Public Engagement Plan (PEP) Last Updated 10-27-23 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Frederick County is studying transportation issues and viable solutions for the project area situated to the east of the City of Winchester. The goal of the study is to develop a well-defined and documented set of transportation needs and implementable transportation improvements. The study area includes Interstate 81 (I-81) in the west to the Frederick County/Clarke County line in the east; and extends from Route 761 on the north side of the city to the Tasker Road area east of the I-81 Exit 310. The study will analyze transportation issues related to the road network and conceptually develop viable transportation solutions for the area through data collection and interviews. A map of the project area is provided in Figure 1. 1.2 Plan Purpose As part of the project development process, Frederick County will communicate regularly with the public, project stakeholders, and public officials and the media, as appropriate, and provide opportunities for project-related input and feedback. The Public Engagement Plan (PEP) outlines a comprehensive, proactive outreach strategy to be implemented during the study. The overall goal of the PEP is to: • Heighten public awareness and understanding of the project • Identify and purposefully engage key stakeholders in the project development process • Provide public access to current and accurate project information • Deliver timely responses to public inquiries; and • Assimilate public views, preferences, and support for project outcomes that enhance mobility, safety, and efficiency 2. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Public participation in the transportation planning process has been a priority for federal, state, and local officials since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 and its successors, the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21); the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015; and continues to be maintained in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) which was signed by President Biden on November 15, 2021. The IIJA also requires agencies to prioritize investments in low-income, historically underserved, economically disadvantaged areas, including rural communities and tribal lands. 639 4 Figure 1: Project Area Map 640 5 The Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study PEP is comprised of strategies and activities designed to meet or exceed the guidance and directives prescribed in the IIJA, and the following: • The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA of 1969); • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 2016; • Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994; • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; • Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990; and • Executive Order 14091 of February 16, 2023. Additionally, the overall framework and context of this PEP are consistent with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Public Involvement Manual, dated November 2021. The PEP follows the guidance in the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) document, Promising Practices for Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making, dated October 2022, to reduce inequities and ensure communities have a voice in the transportation decision-making process. 3. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Beyond requirements to identify disadvantaged communities, it is important to analyze for these populations at the earliest possible time in project development because, historically, these groups have been left out of the planning and project development process. Early identification of disadvantaged communities can improve transportation for the entire community, as well as minimize or avoid potential harm from a project. Additionally, appropriate communication tools and outreach activities for these groups can be determined in advance. In January of 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which directed the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. The tool has an interactive map and uses datasets that are indicators of burdens in eight categories: climate change, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development. The tool uses this information to identify communities that are experiencing these burdens. These are the communities that are disadvantaged because they are overburdened and underserved. Within the study area, there are no United States (US) Census tracts that are considered disadvantaged. However, within Winchester City, adjacent to the Interstate 81 border, Census tract 51840000100 is considered to be disadvantaged (Figure 2). 641 6 Figure 2: Disadvantaged Communities Source: Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool VDOT requires that all projects be evaluated using EJSCREEN. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed an Environmental Justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool, called Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). It is based on nationally consistent data and is an approach that combines environmental and demographic indicators in maps and a standard report. EJSCREEN uses demographic factors as very general indicators of a community’s potential susceptibility to environmental pollutants. The latest version (2019) of EJSCREEN uses the 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimates summary file data. EJ is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EJSCREEN defines low-income as individuals whose ratio of household income to poverty level in the past 12 months was less than 2 (as a fraction of individuals for whom ratio was determined). At the block group level, Figure 3 compares the low-income population of the study area to the rest of the state. Within the study area, there is one block group that is in the 89th percentile. This means that 89% of the block group’s population is low-income. 642 7 Figure 3: Low-income Populations Source: EJSCREEN EJSCREEN defines people of color people as who list their racial status as a race other than white alone and/or list their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. That is, all people other than non-Hispanic white-alone individuals. The word "alone" in this case indicates that the person is of a single race, not multiracial. Figure 4 on the following page compares the population of people of color at the block group level to the rest of the state. Within the study area, there is one block group that is in the 69th percentile and one block group that is in the 51st percentile. 4. PEP APPROACH The following PEP approach outlines the communication methods to be utilized by the McCormick Taylor project team. The components are well-defined but may be modified as the project progresses to be responsive to the needs of key stakeholders, impacted communities within the study area, public officials, and for the continued advancement of the project. The primary components include project communications, project website, key stakeholder coordination, and public engagement. 643 8 Figure 4: People of Color The McCormick Taylor project team will implement, maintain, and update the PEP in collaboration with Frederick County over the course of this project. To ensure the quality of PEP materials, McCormick Taylor employs a corporatewide Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Process for the overall public involvement effort and materials generated by the McCormick Taylor project team. 4.1 Project Communications Responding to Public Inquiries Effective and timely project communications are fundamental to a successful public involvement program. From responses to public inquiries to meeting invitations, it is critical that all project communications contain accurate information, reflect consistency with overall project messaging, and represent Frederick County in a professional and thoughtful manner. Accordingly, a protocol for processing and tracking public inquiries received via the project website, written correspondence, telephone, or other means will be developed for this project as directed by the County. The protocol may include establishing standard content to open and close responses, standardized replies to sensitive issues, and standardized copy lists so that key project team members consistently review and receive copies of all outgoing responses. The protocol also helps minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility of an untimely response or no response being provided. 644 9 Branding An easily identifiable project brand will be created to distinguish this study from other studies or projects completed for or associated with the Route 37 east bypass. This will foster public recognition of materials, communications, and other related public-facing communications resources. The branding will be utilized on the project website, meeting materials, reports, display boards, publications, and electronic communications, including social media, and is featured in this document design. Social Media Social media helps expand project-related communications and engage traditionally underserved populations throughout the project area. Research has shown that social media is a highly effective tool to reach Latinos and African Americans; particularly via Facebook and Twitter, where representation is higher than average. Frederick County social media sites will be used to share important project information and events, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. McCormick Taylor will coordinate social media posts with the Frederick County Public Information Office. Social media campaigns are supported through the development of project-related graphics and content designed specifically for the identified platform. Content for use on social media is most effective when it includes attention-getting visual explanations and concise copy. Mass Communications Project-related communications with the public are coordinated with Frederick County Project Manager and Public Information Office. Email blasts and ‘e-bulletins’ will be developed as requested by the County, and as the project progresses to keep the impacted community members and key stakeholders informed. This will help to further the public’s comprehension of the project and foster an open and continuing dialogue regarding the project. Potential email topics include meeting announcements, project website updates, schedule updates, and other significant project developments. Media Coordination All project-related communications with the media are to be coordinated with Frederick County Project Manager and Public Information Office. All media inquiries received by phone, electronically or in person are re-directed to the Public Information Officer. McCormick Taylor will develop news releases, media advisories and other project-related advertisements in draft format for review and comment by the Frederick County Project Manager and the Public Information Office. The final versions of the news releases, media advisories and other forms of project-related advertisements are to be placed or disseminated as directed by Frederick County Public Information Office. 4.2 Project Website/Web page The consultant project team will consult with Frederick County to establish a project web-based resource on the County’s website. McCormick Taylor will design and develop content for the website/web page. Additionally, two types of comprehensive content/graphic updates are planned for the project website/web page over the course of the project as follows: • Updates associated with milestones and progress during the study (including materials/information about the two public meetings), and • Updates after presenting the proposed alternatives. 645 10 4.3 Stakeholder Identification McCormick Taylor and Frederick County worked together to develop a stakeholder database. It will be updated at least twice throughout this phase of the project and includes property and business owners, as well as local officials within the study area. The database serves as a stakeholder list to be utilized for information-sharing. Fifteen stakeholders were identified for interviews as part of the Community Context Audit. The purpose of the Community Context Audit was to solicit a sampling of local interests, concerns, and perceptions about transportation within the study area. The interviews were conducted in the summer of 2023 and will allow the project team to proactively cultivate relationships with stakeholders, establish points of contact with local organizations and within the business communities, and establish reliable lines of communication to share project updates. The stakeholder list will be updated regularly as the project development progresses. 4.4 Public Engagement Public Meetings Two public meetings will be held to engage, educate, and inform the public. The first meeting will be scheduled for Fall 2023 (November Transportation Forum) and will present the updated draft purpose and need statement for the project based on the consultant team analyses. A second public meeting will be held in Spring 2024 for the presentation of the proposed alternative concepts to carry forward for more detailed evaluation, analysis, and design. If a meeting space is not available in the County Office, the project team will select a meeting venue that is accessible to all people in the community. Participants will be able to access the meeting in-person or online on the County website following the in-person session. Traditional media and public meeting promotion often does not always reach disadvantaged and environmental justice communities. McCormick Taylor will identify methods to inform these groups of the public meetings as directed by the County. In coordination with Frederick County, McCormick Taylor will prepare advertisements, social media posts, invitations, handouts, presentations, graphic displays, comment forms, sign-in sheets, nametags, and other material needed for the meetings as appropriate. Following the public meeting, meeting materials will be posted on the County website unless otherwise directed by the County. A summary for each meeting will be prepared and will include documentation of notifications, materials, attendance, and follow-up actions for project documentation. 5. AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that individuals with disabilities be provided equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from public services, programs, and activities provided by all state and local governments. In conjunction with the implementation of this PEP, Frederick County and the consultant project team have considered the needs of individuals with disabilities. In addition to seeking out those individuals who are often under-represented in this process, Frederick County and the 646 11 consultant project team are committed to encouraging the involvement of individuals with disabilities to gain their invaluable perspective on the attitudes and needs of a vital component of the community for whom the transportation project is being implemented. To accommodate individuals with hearing, speech, vision or mobility limitations, accessibility and/or auxiliary aids or services needed for communications and participation in project-related public events are made available upon requests received at least 48 hours before the date of the scheduled event. Public meetings are also held in facilities that are accessible to individuals with physical disabilities. All public notices and advertisements for public meetings will include Frederick County contact information for individuals needing special assistance due to a physical disability to participate. 6. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE All materials developed by McCormick Taylor and our sub consultant team members are subject to McCormick Taylor’s Quality Control/Quality Assurance Process (QC/QA). The QC/ QA Process ensures that our project deliverables are technically accurate, appropriate, complete, satisfy the expectations of Frederick County, and meet the project needs. All draft and final versions of project-related materials designed for public consumption will undergo an internal quality control review before delivery to Frederick County. Final versions of public engagement materials will also include a quality assurance review prior to delivery to Frederick County. 7. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE The timeline of public engagement activities shown below in Figure 5 is based on the current overall project schedule and is subject to change. The schedule is updated as needed to reflect changes in the program’s components and/or the progress of the project development process. Figure 5: Public Involvement Activities Schedule 647 Community Context Audit Interview Summary July 2023 FREDERICKCOUNTY VA WV CLARKECOUNTY WINCHESTER SHENANDOAH COUNTY WARREN COUNTY STUDYAREA WV 648 July 28, 2023 1 Community Context Audit Interview Summary Interview outreach of up to 15 stakeholders began on July 14, 2023, via phone. Stakeholders who were reached were given the op�on to take the interview at the �me of the phone call or to schedule a future date for a phone, Microso� (MS) Teams video, or in-person interview. Barry Schnoor, Director, Physical Plant, Shenandoah University, and Jeff Buetner, Interim Economic Development Authority Execu�ve Director, opted for a phone interview. Eight interviewees opted for an MS Teams video interview. All interviews were recorded for accuracy and with permission from each interviewee. No one requested an in-person interview. By July 18, 2023, the ini�al outreach to the 15 stakeholders was completed. If the phone was not answered, a voice mail was le�. Follow-up emails were sent if our ini�al calls were not returned as requested. Ten stakeholders were interviewed. There were four stakeholders who did not respond to the invita�on to take part in the interviews. It is also worthy of note that the informa�on received and summarized below represents the collec�ve opinions of the interviewees. This feedback and summary informa�on will only be u�lized for the purposes of the community context audit. Completed Interviews (10): • Larry Oliver, Frederick County Fire and Rescue • Whit Wagner, Fort Collier • Chris Durant, Navy Federal Credit Union • Cynthia Schnieder, Top of VA Chamber • Jeff Buetner, City of Winchester Economic Development Authority • Gray Farland, Shockey Companies • JP Carr, Glaize Development • Nick Sabo, Winchester Regional Airport • Barry Schnoor, Shenandoah University • Patrick Barker, Frederick County Economic Development Authority Unsuccessful Interview Contacts: • Lenny Millholland, Frederick County Sheriff’s Office • Seth Levy, Shenandoah Agency on Aging • Abbey Rembold, Valley Health System • Jus�n Kerns, Winchester Frederick County Conven�on & Visitors Bureau Themes • Allevia�ng traffic conges�on and reducing crashes on I-81 is key to improving mobility in Frederick County. 649 July 28, 2023 2 • Traffic conges�on and tractor trailers on local roads are caused by drivers avoiding traffic conges�on on I-81. • Traffic conges�on on I-81 causes challenges for emergency services to reach emergencies. • There is concern that the roads where development is planned or underway, like in northern Frederick County, are not sufficiently sized for future traffic and that the development will worsen traffic conges�on. • Alterna�ve forms of transporta�on are valued and need to be improved and expanded: walking, biking, public transit. • Frederick County’s loca�on (proximity to I-81, Virginia Inland Port, Frederick County Regional Airport) is ideal for the warehouse/manufacturing/freight industry, which is resul�ng in increased truck/tractor trailer traffic. • Roadway infrastructure capaci�es at present are not enough for the scale and volume of planned developments. • Frederick County is becoming a less affordable place to live, causing people to live further away from their jobs in Frederick County. • Proximity to congested commuter routes has a detrimental impact on housing purchase choices. • Frederick County is becoming a suburb of Washington, D.C. As a result, morning and evening rush hour has worsened, despite of an increase in remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic. 650 July 28, 2023 3 Interview Summaries by Topic Commuter Concerns • I-81 has a perceived high volume of traffic and a perceived high rate of crashes. o Capacity does not appear to be, based on interviewee input, sufficient for the needs of the community. o Safety appears to be an issue on I-81. There is a high concentra�on of crashes on I-81 and the interchanges – this will be verified and validated through the study traffic analysis. o The par�al clover leaf and diamond shape designs of the I-81 interchanges are thought to contribute to traffic conges�on. • I-81 interchanges/exits of concern: Interchanges where development is occurring are problema�c at peak �mes. At these loca�ons there is limited land, which is challenging for making improvements. Interchange traffic levels appear to be maxed out and the known growth that is occurring cause concerns that level of service below expecta�ons. o 317 o 310 o 313: Signal �ming causes traffic to back up. o 315: Where Route 7 comes in, especially going westbound in the evening o Route 11 & I-81 interchange (north of Winchester City): On-off ramp, convergence of major arteries, unsynchronized signals, industrial park, and manufacturing plant appear to contribute to conges�on. o I-66 and I-81 interchange: When there is a crash, there is 5 to 10 miles of traffic conges�on between Winchester City and the interchange. o Route 50 and Route 522 interchange with I-81: Especially during rush hour. Future growth/developments are planned and could contribute to conges�on in the following areas: o 321 (Route 672) o 323 (Route 669) o 307 (Stephen City) & Stephen’s City Bridge (Route 277 – south of this study area) o 302 (Middletown) Route 627 – south of this study area o 277 (south of Winchester City) -Bowman’s Crossing, Route 614 • Development and growth in other areas, combined with cars and trucks trying to bypass traffic on I-81, is increasing conges�on on other routes. 651 July 28, 2023 4 o 7/Leesburg Pike: especially during rush hour since it catches commuters from DC to the Winchester area. o 37 o 50/17 o 522 o 11 (Clearbrook and Stevenson areas) o Between Route 50 and City of Winchester, especially at Victory Avenue.  Currently, Route 50 has two lanes in each direc�on with turning lanes at some intersec�ons. Will the length of these turning lanes be sufficient for future traffic? o 661/Redbud Road: On-off ramps are misaligned, and traffic signal sequences are off. • Local roads are also seeing increased traffic. o Senseny Road: Experiencing a lot of development growth; two-lanes might not be sufficient for future traffic. o Tasker Road: Tractor trailer traffic o Pleasant Valley Road at Millwood Avenue (near Shenandoah University) • Other Areas experiencing traffic congestion: o Bottlenecks around the West Virginia border. • Rush hour o Exists and is getting worse: 8:00 AM, 3:30/4:00 PM o Commuter Destinations outside of Frederick County: • Washington, D.C. (Frederick County is the “new suburb of Washington, D.C.”)  Cumberland, Maryland • Lack of public transit in Frederick County. • Lack of alternate routes: o There are limited east-west connections through the County. o Many roads feed right into downtown Winchester City, instead of being able to bypass. Development/Growth • Infrastructure o Capacities at present are not enough for the scale and volume of developments coming up. o Development needs to happen where infrastructure (u�li�es, water/sewer, roads) already exists or where it can be delivered in a short �me period. Those areas are few and far between. 652 July 28, 2023 5 • A lot of development and growth in the County, especially in the north and towards the eastern side. • Residen�al, retail, and mixed-use developments causing more traffic: o Crosspointe Center o Crossover Boulevard: Recently completed road improvements. • The Shops at Crossover Boulevard: >20 acres of developable commercial land • 311-unit apartment complex • Home2 Suite by Hilton hotel: 90 guests • Trex Co, Inc. • Hang 10 Car Wash • Carmax Dealership • First Bank & Trust Co • Known planned industrial developments brining more traffic: o Carmeus: Stone manufacturer with several stone quarries in Clearbrook and Middletown o One Logis�cs: Route 50 connec�on to the airport. (Also known as Carpers Valley project: 300 acres under development located on Route 50.) o “Fruit Hill” mixed use development: 2.1 million square feet of warehouse space. Equus Development: Applica�on has been withdrawn. o Valley Innova�on Park: A 147-acre development with advanced, bioscience manufacturing located southwest of 310 Interchange with access to I-81. o Planned industrial zoning near Exit 321/323 o More industrial land uses are being developed towards the northern part of the study area. • Other development concerns: o Development near northern part of I-81, near Exit 319 – a JJJ bus stopping area. o Concerns about traffic management during planned construc�on at the Route 50-522 and I-81 interchange. o Speculated expansion of airport could, if ever realized, bring more traffic conges�on. o Route 37 east bypass will have on-ramps to Route 50, causing more traffic conges�on. o Subdivisions cause sprawl and require people to drive to their des�na�ons. o People who work in Frederick County can’t afford to live in Frederick County, causing people to commute further to/from work. • Developers work closely with the County to minimize negative impacts to the community: o Developer participation in transportation improvements through revenue-sharing, proffers, and “smart-scale” projects (essentially formula grants) o Developers can be asked to put up money, about $10,000 per acre, plus setbacks, easements, and right of way 653 July 28, 2023 6 Historical Resources/Environmental Concerns • Air pollution from tractor trailers. • Lack of EV infrastructure in the County. • “Every field” is a historical site from the Revolutionary War era. • Natural beauty and history of Frederick County provides a sense of identity and quality of life • Excessive transportation infrastructure can also negatively impact water runoff etc. • If uncurbed, development moving westward can threaten natural and agricultural land that forms an economic and cultural foundation for the area. • Expanding Route 37 on the west side of Frederick County can help relieve traffic, but it is important to see how its building will impact the environment. Large Trucks/Tractor Trailers • The area is genera�ng more truck traffic every year. I-81 is the only major north-south route on the east coast that has no major ci�es or bridges. This allows truckers to move more quickly than other interstates, like I-95. As a result, the Winchester City and Frederick County area is a major hub for industrial/warehouse/trucking. • Major distribution hubs cause a large volume of freight flowing through the area. • Large trucks/tractor trailer travel patterns: o Most trucks are on I-81 or the major arteries. o Truckers use a few local roads to get between industrial parks and I-81. o Truckers stop between Exits 317 and 323 before crossing over into the West Virginia border. o Truckers use “all the local roads” along I-81 to avoid traffic conges�on on I-81 and the interchanges. o GPS is rerou�ng tractor trailers to local roads to avoid traffic conges�on. o A lot of truckers have no op�on but to go through downtown, because of the way exits are designed. • Route 50 to Route 522: Truckers coming from Maryland or West Virginia • Welltown Pike (coming from Stonewall Industrial Park): When traffic is backed up on Exit 317. • Fredrick County retail industry genera�ng freight: o Amazon o Walmart o Lowe’s o Home Depot o Trex 654 July 28, 2023 7 Emergency Services • Traffic conges�on on I-81 and the interchanges causes the volunteer fire company and emergency services to use circuitous routes to reach emergencies, especially during rush hour: o Route 522-50 corridor at Millwood Pike. o Intersection of I-81 and Berryville Pike (around Route 7). o In the City of Winchester, because of delays at traffic signals. • Reducing emergency response �me is always a priority for the airport. • By Shenandoah University, there is a planned replacement of the Route 50 bridge over I-81. As a result, Route 50 entry/exit to residen�al halls will close. Concerns about fire rescue response �me and ability to get to that part of campus. School Bus Traffic Concerns • Some issues with people passing stopped school buses with red lights activated. • Some concerns of speeding in residential areas. • Could be congestion concerns for schools near industrial areas, such as Stonewall Elementary on Route 11 north. • Potential concerns on hilly roads: o Armel Elementary on Route 522. o Blind spots at Greenwood Mill Elementary School, off Channing Road and High Cliff Drive. Frederick County Regional Airport/Virginia Inland Port • Currently, neither location is a heavy node for freight operations, so they don't attract large volumes of truck traffic o However, several Frederick County businesses and industrial warehouses and manufacturing companies heavily rely upon the airport and Inland Port. o Manufacturing companies rely on private plane delivery of parts (faster than FedEx). o Manufacturing companies have several trucks (sometimes 20) that travel to/from Inland Port every day. o Some fright comes in from arterial highways, namely Routes 50 and 522. • Connections to airport and Inland Port could be a need in the future depending on the regional growth and expansion of the manufacturing and trucking industry. Current connections might impact freight movement timeframes. • If future plans for airport expansion would materialize, an increase in truck traffic would need to be considered. 655 July 28, 2023 8 o Aircra� manufacturing is a targeted growth sector, which could generate new ac�vity in freight and handling. • Virginia Inland Port o Located in Warren County. o Currently, the four-lane road system at the Inland Port feels sufficient. • A lot of freight is transported by train (Norfolk Southern and CSX). Other Transportation and Demographic Studies • Logistics One Traffic Study • Study of traffic light at Route 50 and Independence Avenue • Crosspointe TIA, by Glaize Development • Carpers Valley project TIA • Equus Development TIA • Rumor of a private entity in talks with the State to add a toll road and build and manage the third and fourth lanes of I-81. • Transportation and demographic studies concerns: o 2020 Census could be underestimating total population in Frederick County. o Understand “real” versus “projected” traffic numbers. VDOT’s guidelines overestimate traffic projections, and most developers who carry out their own studies are meant to follow them. Some might have published their actual counts in a traffic impact analysis or an appendix as part of a rezoning study. o Reevaluation of Route 522, and a potential relocation and realignment of the intersection of Routes 50 and 522 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Concerns • Most local roads are like country roads with so� shoulders, no curb, guter, or walking paths; though people regularly try to walk and bike to/from downtown. • No shoulders on rural roads. • No sidewalks in subdivisions. Other Recommended Stakeholders • Public Safety Communications Department • Planning Department, Frederick County and Winchester City • Charles Daniels, VP, Fortessa, and Chair of the Board of Top of Virginia Regional Chamber [crdaniels@fortessa.com] • Chris Boies, Clarke County Administrator [cboies@clarkecounty.gov] • Adielle Rivera, Loan Officer with a local business, can reach out to Hispanic residents and business-owners [adielle.rivera@guildmortgage.net] • Ed Podboy, Logistics One, 703-608-9393 (mobile) 656 July 28, 2023 9 • Facebook group: “What’s Happening in Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia” • Jason Akins Developments • Industry: HP Hood, Trex, Rubbermaid, Southeastern Container, American Woodmark Cabinetry • Mike Perry of Perry, civil contractor who deals with traffic and trucks in the area • Denny Perry, quarry owner and truck operator • Dave Foley, Cargo Operator, Winchester Regional Airport • Chris Rucker, Valley Health System [crucker2@valleyhealthlink.com] • Jason Craig, EdD, BCBA, VHS Director, Community Health, 540-536-5949 (direct line) [jcraig@valleyhealthlink.com] • Winchester Wheelmen • WinFred MPO bike and pedestrian advocacy committee Other Groups • Spanish materials (18% of the City of Winchester are Hispanic) • There is not an overarching voice for businesses. The Chamber and “EDOs” can help promote public engagement opportuni�es to the businesses. Stakeholder Ideas • Build safer connectors (beter shoulders and curbs) to enable people to walk and bike. • Expand public transit to the County, especially the Westview Business Park Center, and major industrial and manufacturing employers. This could help atract talent. • Expand bike lanes and sidewalks. • Create a parkway with at-grade crossings and traffic moving at 45-55 mph, instead of a limited access highway. This would help move domes�c traffic stuck in I-81 traffic conges�on. o Would also allow for more development that can �e in with secondary feeder roads coming in at at-grade crossings. • Realign Redbud Road on the east side of I-81 to fix signal �ming issues. • Coordinate with City of Winchester on improving bike-ability, walkability, and public transporta�on, including on-demand transit. • Efficiency measures need to be put in place on I-81 so there aren’t issues/interac�ons between tractor trailers and personal vehicles. • Improvements to Coverstone Road through the One Logis�cs Park could help with reducing emergency response �me. • Improve Route 522 connection between airport and Inland Port; currently traffic congestion prohibits truckers to arrive on time. • Install shoulders on the rural/county roads to benefit the safety of bicyclists and drivers. 657 Lasted updated: July 14, 2023 1 Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study Community Context Audit Interview Questions Subject: Commuter Concerns 1. Are you aware of transportation issues that affect local drivers’ ability to reach their destinations on time? 2. Other than I-81, are you aware of any commuter routes where local drivers experience traffic congestion? If so, what are those routes? Subject: Development/Growth 3. Are you aware of any recent or known planned developments that will generate truck traffic, or a large number of vehicles in the study area? 4. We are aware of the County’s urban growth areas and sewer/water service area. Are there any areas where growth/development should be limited or restricted? 5. As part of this study, we are looking at transportation studies completed by Frederick County and the WinFred MPO. Are you aware of studies developed by private industry, developers, or other governmental agencies that can help us better understand population or economic/job growth, traffic generators, proposed development, etc.? 6. Do you know if developers are being asked to participate in transportation improvements, through actual construction or transportation impact fees (TIFs), etc.? 7. Do you have any concerns about the transportation system impacting the environment or cultural and historic resources within the study area? Subject: Large Trucks 8. For non-businesses: Are there large trucks, such as tractor trailers or freight trucks, on local/residential roads? 9. For businesses: Do large trucks, such as tractor trailers or freight trucks, belonging to your business use local/residential roads? 658 Lasted updated: July 14, 2023 2 Subject: Emergency Services 10. Do you have knowledge of any specific emergency services/first responders concerns in the study area? Subject: School Bus Traffic Concerns 11. Are you aware of issues that school bus drivers and students have when traveling to/from school (conflicts with freight, access issues, speeding, etc.)? If so, what are they and where are the locations? Subject: Frederick County, VA Regional Airport 12. Is there any freight handling/shipping occurring at the regional airport? If so, which industries or companies are generating the freight? How is the freight getting to the airport). Subject: Virginia Inland Port 13. Do you have a relationship with the Virginia Inland Port? If so, what is that relationship and will it have an impact on traffic in general or to/from the Airport? Subject: Stakeholder Preferences/Demographics 14. Are you interested in receiving updates on the study? How do you prefer to receive your information? 15. Do you live and/or work in the study Area? What is your ZIP code? 16. Is there another individual or organization that you believe should be considered a key stakeholder in conjunction with this study? What is their name and contact information? 17. Are there any populations, communities, or groups in Frederick County who may need assistance to participate in a public meeting and/or need assistance with accessing project - related information in either a print or electronic format? For example, language barriers, lack of internet access, or no access to a personal vehicle. 659 1 Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study Purpose and Needs Statements Survey Summary The Purpose and Needs Statements survey was initially shared with public meeting attendees at the Frederick County Transportation Forum on November 16, 2023. A digital version of the survey was made available to the public from December 20, 2023, through January 31, 2024. The digital version was posted on the Frederick County website to extend the opportunity for public input through the end of January 2024. A detailed compilation of the survey responses received (paper copies and digital) was provided to the County at the conclusion of the public comment period. A total of 148 surveys were submitted. The following summation is provided as a general overview of the survey results including the total number of responses received, the number/percentage of respondents who selected ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ as their response to each statement as presented, and the number of respondents who did not provide a response to specific statements. To receive a copy of the detailed version of the Purpose and Needs Statements survey summary, please contact Alexandra Castrechini at Amcastrechini@mccormicktaylor.com or by phone at (804) 915-1584. 148 Purpose and Needs Statement Surveys Received # of Responses/Statement Purpose and Needs Statement Topics Agree with Statements as Presented Disagree with Statements as Presented No Response Comments 1. Draft Purpose 139 (95%) 8 (5%) 1 2. Draft Need – Bicycle/Pedestrian 104 (86%) 17 (14%) 0 3. Draft Need - Congestion 95 (88%) 13 (12%) 40 4. Draft Need: Safety 92 (91%) 9 (9%) 47 5. Draft Need: Interstate 81 78 (79%) 21 (21%) 49 Additional Comments 28 Total Responses 508 Agree 68 Disagree 137 No Response 28 660 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 1 / 13 94.31%116 5.69%7 Q1 Do you agree with the Purpose statement as presented? Answered: 123 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 123 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 661 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 2 / 13 Q2 If no, please state below the basis for your disagreement and how your concern may be addressed. Answered: 8 Skipped: 116 #RESPONSES DATE 1 The Route 37 bypass is a pipe dream. The County has out built itself in the areas required to fulfill it (i.e. Stonewall Industrial Park). It would cost the County a tremendous amount of money that c ould be better spent elsewhere. 1/21/2024 12:11 PM 2 But s pending money on Cons ultant s really is n’t the answer. Open your ey es and the answers to most of the is sues are obv ious. 1/20/2024 6:28 PM 3 Too many buz z words around important issues!1/19/2024 6:08 PM 4 I believ e spending money to create a plan that will never be funded is a waste of tax pay er money. I would recommend utiliz ing the last plan that inc luded RT 37 around the eas tern side of FC. 1/19/2024 4:01 PM 5 Route 37 will not be built on the proposed route bec ause neither the state nor local gov ernment has bought the land. 1/19/2024 10:57 AM 6 Bec aus e it's ev ident of the work needed on Rt 7 and Rt 50. Also remov al of st op lights and signs will keep traf fic mov ing constant ly. Maintain what y ou have already. Pleas e hav e a look in Loco to s ee their motorway s etups . 1/19/2024 10:10 AM 7 Need t o ex pand on, brief description of, or link to what is the propos ed Route 37 is .1/19/2024 7:48 AM 8 Stop the mass building and roadway improv ements won’t be needed 1/18/2024 11:26 PM 662 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 3 / 13 86.14%87 13.86%14 Q3 Do the Bicycle/Pedestrian Needs statements encompass the mobility issues in the project area adequately? Answered: 101 Sk ipped: 23 TOTAL 101 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 663 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 4 / 13 Q4 If no, please explain what bicycle/pedestrian need(s) should be included and the area where the need(s) exist. Answered: 12 Sk ipped: 112 #RESPONSES DATE 1 The statements seem s omewhat disjoint ed. 2014 = infrastruc ture is lac k ing, but it seems that what does exis t is kinda OK. Then there is the totally subjective guess that current infrastructure is inadequate. Though subject ive, my personal obs erv ation is that bik ing needs are woefully and embarras s ing lac king, inc luding c ommunity connec tivity and linkages. 1/21/2024 12:54 PM 2 Focus more on pedes trian t raff ic as bik ers use the road ins tead of paved bike paths.1/21/2024 12:12 PM 3 This isn’t something that needs addressed as a priorit y.1/20/2024 6:28 PM 4 It pres umes roads are the problem, not having s idewalks and other pav ed equivalents away from the roads! 1/19/2024 6:11 PM 5 2014 was 10 years ago and little has been done to address shortc omings in this area. I believe the County returned $ around this time that c ould have expanded the shoulder on Sens eny Rd. Do not do a survey if leadership has no interest in acting. 1/19/2024 4:06 PM 6 They are dangerous. t hey refuse to follow t raff ic laws that pertain to them. There is already and iss ue wit h the traffic. Why ball it up with cyclist s? 1/19/2024 10:11 AM 7 The county is too large for bike travel alone to suff iciently address the majority of travel needs , though I am in favor of inc reas ing available bike trav el. Increases in public t rans port seems more viable with depots at larger residential areas, ex ample Shawneeland 1/19/2024 12:01 AM 8 None.1/18/2024 11:27 PM 9 Don't need no bik e lanes 1/18/2024 8:52 PM 10 Bic ycles and pedes trians is not a priority and s hould not be included in any transport ation plans . It’s abs urd. 1/18/2024 8:32 PM 11 60% of the network was deemed adequate or adequat e?” Something isn’t right here. The two are not a c hoice. Cons tituents should be provided the criteria. What is the other 40% id 60 is advanc ed riders or wors e? 40% is rideable.That s eems unlik ely. 1/18/2024 7:32 PM 12 Apple Pie Ridge Road 1/16/2024 4:16 PM 664 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 5 / 13 89.66%78 10.34%9 Q5 Do the Congestion Needs statements encompass the mobility issues in the project area adequately? Answered: 87 Sk ipped: 37 TOTAL 87 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 665 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 6 / 13 Q6 If no, please explain what congestion need(s) should be included and the area where the need(s) exist. Additional space is available for feedback on page 6 of this survey. Answered: 12 Sk ipped: 112 #RESPONSES DATE 1 All that said, why is a new 700ish home s ubdiv ision being allow t o c onnect to VA-7 in the area noted? Again, obvious answers and people with k nowledge are not managing wit h the public’s best interes t. 1/20/2024 6:31 PM 2 All four areas mentioned require hav e issues, but most of the stated s olutions seem to be based on political as s umptions! 1/19/2024 6:15 PM 3 New dev elopments and increased t raff ic along Senseny Rd need to be addres s ed, particularly from the bridge on Sens eny Rd that div ides Winc hes ter and Frederick County to Senseny Glen Dr. Both turning lef t onto Senseny Rd from a side road where there is no light and turning left off of Senseny Rd to a side road where there is no light are is s ues. In addition during higher traf fic times , the s toplight-ed int ers ec tion at Sens eny Rd and Greenwood Rd often does not mov e bec ause the turn lane from Senseny Rd to Greenwood Rd is not long enough. 1/19/2024 5:40 PM 4 no more houses please 1/19/2024 5:32 PM 5 I believ e t he last bullet should s tate FC will not be able to approv e future new home construc tion plans until transportation and other infras tructure needs are addressed. 1/19/2024 4:10 PM 6 Think of the implic ations on s c hools and bus commutes !1/19/2024 11:23 AM 7 These ques tions are overly complicated for your ev eryday person. Even VDOT employees don't k now what they mean unless you taught them. 1/19/2024 10:13 AM 8 There is significant traf fic c oming east to west that is trying to get to the west of the City of Winches ter that has to go through Winchest er bec aus e there is no other direct or higher speed route. Connec tion from Route 7 south c onnect ing 7 and 50 to Route 37 would alleviate the conges tion at all the conges tion point s lis ted in the draft s tatement. A high speed on off ramp road lik e 37 wes t of Winc hester east of Winc hester would HIGHLY benef it traffic if it could route traffic from Rout e 7 and 50 to Exit 310 c onnect ing t o Route 37. 1/19/2024 7:57 AM 9 Warrior drive does not need to be c ontinued thru. We need to stop building and slow the growth. The county lac k s all infrast ruc ture and needs to f ix all issues before any more hous es are built 1/18/2024 10:20 PM 10 Additional dev elopment off Rt7 at the Fred co/Clark e Co line will increase volume on 7.1/18/2024 8:34 PM 11 Conges tion on Fairfax Pike, Main Street, and the Interat ate 81 307 interchange f ar supersedes any of these projects. It’s an embarrassment it’s not t he number one priority. 1/18/2024 8:33 PM 12 Merge lanes at ent ranc es to 81 and exit lanes off of 81 are too short and do not allow adequate dis tanc e t o mitigate c ongestion. 1/18/2024 7:39 PM 666 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 7 / 13 91.46%75 8.54%7 Q7 Do the Safety Needs statements encompass the mobility issues in the project area adequately? Answered: 82 Sk ipped: 42 TOTAL 82 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 667 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 8 / 13 Q8 If no, please explain what safety need(s) should be included and the area where the need(s) exist. Answered: 8 Skipped: 116 #RESPONSES DATE 1 It s eems that the focus areas s olely involv e Rt 7. What other geographic problem/growth areas are under consideration to address ? 340, 522, 277, 11, etc . 1/21/2024 12:58 PM 2 See previous ans wers…..1/20/2024 6:31 PM 3 We need more roads and lanes on I81 1/19/2024 4:13 PM 4 Mos t of this will never be done bec ause the money goes to NOVA and RIC.1/19/2024 11:00 AM 5 Nobody unders tands your c raz y analytic s .1/19/2024 10:14 AM 6 Rus h hour traffic effect s needs to be studied on Sens eny. Signific ant traffic is diverting off of Valley Mill (7) down Greenwood to us e Senseny to cross through Winchest er t o get to 50 or 522 to avoid the conges tion on 7 f rom Greenwood into Winches ter on 7. Again a high s peed limited ac c ess road from 7 and 50 to Route 37 would eliminate signific ant conges tion. 1/19/2024 8:04 AM 7 The problem I see is lack of police enf orc ement in the areas in ques tion.1/18/2024 9:36 PM 8 Slowing traffic or rather c reating an atmosphere where drivers obs erv e pos ted speed limit may be necessary to improve saf ety on rt 7 between Winc hes ter and Clarke county. 1/18/2024 7:23 PM 668 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 9 / 13 77.78%63 22.22%18 Q9 Do the Interstate 81 Needs statements encompass the mobility issues in the project area adequately? Answered: 81 Sk ipped: 43 TOTAL 81 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 669 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 10 / 13 Q10 If no, please explain what Interstate 81 need(s) should be included and the area where the need(s) exist. Answered: 20 Sk ipped: 104 #RESPONSES DATE 1 I81 needs to be widened from MM296 to WV st ate line not just in the area of 313 to 317.1/21/2024 6:47 PM 2 Exit 310 needs much more improvement 1/21/2024 1:32 PM 3 There are already traffic cameras at the 317.1/21/2024 12:14 PM 4 You guys really c an’t figure out the basics…1/20/2024 6:32 PM 5 Exit 317 needs t o be done ASAP.1/20/2024 12:03 AM 6 Exit 307 conges tion issues are worse than at 313. Not sure why this would be ex c luded from this study s ince massiv e hous ing developments are being created whic h will further exacerbat e this problem. 1/19/2024 8:59 PM 7 Need t o add a longer entrance ramp at mile marker 317 NB and SB due to the incline and larger v ehicles trying to merge ont o the interstate at a slower s peed due to t he incline. 1/19/2024 8:33 PM 8 We need 3 lanes from the WV line through all of FC. Unfortunately I81 is one of the f ew roads in FC moving local traffic north and s outh of Winchester. 1/19/2024 4:16 PM 9 Exc eption of dis agreement is 37 11 interc hange is worse becaus e it's s lower & does n't f low. Should have been clov erleaf wit h merges not traffic signals 1/19/2024 1:58 PM 10 I-81 should be widened to 3 lanes (northbound and southbound) for all of Frederic k County VA to allev iate traffic conges tion and increase saf ety. 1/19/2024 8:31 AM 11 Widening should go from 321 to 310 t o ac tually facilitate reduc ing conges tion. Widening between 313 and 315 is already ac c omplis hed and helps and from 317 to 315 may help but it is limit ed in vis ion as traffic c ontinues to build. To really plan for the future widening from 321 to 310 will facilitate North South I-81 traffic for many years to come while helping to facilitate loc al traffic that may use the ex its between 310 and 321 to get to work, sc hool, appointments etc wit hout the need to go through the city. 1/19/2024 8:12 AM 12 I think the entire length of I-81 through Frederic k County s hould be widened, not jus t a few spot s. And what will the t raff ic cameras help with? 1/18/2024 10:29 PM 13 81 needs to be 3-4 lanes in both direct ions f rom wv line to shen co line 1/18/2024 10:23 PM 14 We s hould begin widening to 6 lanes beginning at the WV line just as WV is doing and complete this through Frederic k County. 1/18/2024 10:08 PM 15 Again, a lac k of police enforcement is what is needed here!1/18/2024 9:37 PM 16 The three lanes may address this- but there is a need to get slow mov ing truc k s out of t he lef t lane ex ac erbating the conges tion issue. 1/18/2024 8:37 PM 17 The 307 interchange is vas tly more important than any other project.1/18/2024 8:35 PM 18 Adding a right turn lane to enter I-81 South f rom Route 37 South (Ex it 310). It c an be dangerous to merge onto I-81 South f rom Route 37 South because of c ongestion from traffic coming from Route 11. 1/18/2024 7:41 PM 19 A separate truc k lane and longer merge lanes are needed.1/18/2024 7:41 PM 20 I’m not s ure widening I81 is a worthwhile invest ment. In plac es where I81 has been widened I find the t hird lane is either not nec essary, creates bottlenec ks when reducing bac k down to 2 lanes , or driv es traffic from loc al roads onto the int ers tate (Jev ons Paradox). If the primary iss ue wit h traffic on 81 is related to ac c ident c ongestion, does the third lane c reate any significant improvement in the event of an accident? 1/18/2024 7:29 PM 670 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 11 / 13 671 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 12 / 13 Q11 Please utilize the remaining space to provide additional project-related comments or questions. If a response is needed, please provide your name and email or US Postal Address so that we may respond accordingly. Answered: 20 Sk ipped: 104 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Exit 307 causes major conges tion on Fairfax Pike. Extending Rt37 t o Warrior Drive could help alleviate some of this is s ue. 1/21/2024 6:48 PM 2 Explore adding a right turn lane at greenwood road and rt 7 light 1/20/2024 7:26 PM 3 Until the polit icians profiting of the Count y’s growth are replac ed with people that unders tand the most bas ic traffic engineering principles , Frederick County is doomed. Remember, a straight line is t he best way to get from point A to B. 1/20/2024 6:34 PM 4 Fix the traffic issues at Rout e 7 and I 81 (ex it 317) and at Ex it 307.1/19/2024 9:00 PM 5 Traffic in the route 11/81/37 area des perately needs to be addres sed 1/19/2024 8:55 PM 6 We are was ting local taxpay er money c reating plans state lawmakers are not c ommitted to funding. Our elected state repres entatives need to get more s tate trans portation money for our area. They are failing in this regard. Not s ure this plan does much more than spend loc al tax dollars instead of using them on s erv ices for our residents . 1/19/2024 4:30 PM 7 Timing of traffic light needs to be addres s ed, espec ially at the inters ection of US 50 & 522 as well as on 522 directly south of US 50 1/19/2024 3:04 PM 8 While I agree with the previous s tatements wit hin t he s tudy I c annot stress enough the need for change in the traffic on rout e 11 from Old Charles town Rd to t he route 11 s plit into downtown. The inability to merge traffic , the lights being improperly s taggered, and the traffic. The current infrastructure does not meet the needs of the rapid ex pansion the area has experienc ed. 1/19/2024 2:51 PM 9 Building the remainder of the route 37 loop on the eas t side of winc hester will make t raff ic in this area immeas urably better. 1/19/2024 11:25 AM 10 I think even a toll lane “fast lane” on Rt 7 would help fund more polic e pres enc e to eliminate speeding and people generally driving aggres s ively would be helpf ul as well as easing up some of t he c ongestion. 1/19/2024 11:07 AM 11 Safety improv ements much needed on Rt7 between Frederick and Clark s Counties, partic ularly the left turn from Rt7 westbound onto Valley Mill. And the c ongest ion at Rt7 and I 81 (too many lraffic within a small s ection on 7) and the I81 Rt11/37 ex it (again too many traffic lights within a s mall area c ontributing to t he c on.) Als o, t he traffic light timing cycles need adjus ted for the light at Valley Mill to get onto I81 and Rt7. 1/19/2024 2:51 AM 12 Please s top the mas s s ubdivisions !1/18/2024 11:29 PM 13 The I 81 and 7 exit c ould be bet ter handled c urrent ly with better traffic signaingl in the mean time. Thank you for this study 1/18/2024 11:17 PM 14 I appreciate t he c hanges that are being proposed. They are urgently needed as t he c ounty has allowed continued growth wit hout c ons idering the infrastructure. 1/18/2024 10:11 PM 15 Inv estigat e the area polic e to find out why they are not enforc ing driving laws in thes e areas adequately. 1/18/2024 9:38 PM 16 The Rt 11/81 intersec tion and ex tended s tretc h from Rutherford crossing to the start of 37 is one of the mos t frustrating s tretc hes of road I’v e ev er encountered. There are too many lights 1/18/2024 8:39 PM 672 Eastern Frederic k County Transportation Study 13 / 13 that are not synchroniz ed. I ’m not sure what a divergent diamond is, but it s eems that adding flyovers and eliminating light s would help. 17 If and when Warrior drive is ex tended to 37 Tas ker Rd will need improvements . Sev eral lef t turns bet ween whit e oak and Tas k er lack lef t turn lanes. I believe that Warrior and Tasker would be well s uited for s ome s ort of large traf fic c ircle des ign that could incorporate more safe pedestrian cros sing. The same c ould be said for other int ers ec tions. Forc ed right turn only from s ome neighborhoods with a short distanc e to a traffic c irc le where direction could be changed would help s low traffic and eliminate left t urns and reduce crashes. The issues wit h exit 307 need to be addressed as well. May be one direc tion c ros s ing at a time is a better solution for the time being. J onathan Luety jluety@hotmail.c om 1/18/2024 8:09 PM 18 Exit 317/Route 11/Welltown Road/Red Bud Road area is a mess. Next to prioritiz e f ix in the near term (2 y ears or less). 1/16/2024 7:24 PM 19 There needs to be an assessment of some “Quic k fix /Low Cost” areas. For example, there are cont inuing wrecks at t he SB 310 Ex it on I-81. When y ou c ome down this ex it there is a cont inuous “appearing” lane that s uddenly ends . There are no signs, no arrows on the pavement , it jus t ends and y ou have two v ehicles s uddenly in the same lane. I know there are others . Least ex perienced VDOT work ers need to driv e around and just f ollow the s igns or lack of signs and indicators .. (To find out t he worst ones , hold a contest with VDOT workers with a small c as h award or a day off.) Thanks for listening Brenda.belew@hotmail.com 1/16/2024 4:25 PM 20 Rural hous ing off of woods mill & burnt fac tory s houldn’t be affec ted.1/16/2024 4:12 PM 673 Winchester/Frederick County Regional Transportation Projects Public Meeting Frederick County Administration Building Board of Supervisors Room Thursday, March 14, 2024 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Meeting Agenda 1. Meeting Registration 5:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. 2. Welcome and Introductions John Bishop, Assistant Director Frederick County 3. EFCTS Transportation Study & Alexandria Castrechini, P.E. Safe Streets for All Project Presentations Project Manager, McCormick Taylor, Inc. 4. Visit Plans Displays & Complete Comment Forms 5. Meeting Concludes 8:00 p.m. Accommodations: Onsite Spanish Language Translator: Diana Patterson 674 Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study Project Overview Frederick County, Virginia has hired McCormick Taylor, Inc., an engineering, planning and environmental consulting firm, to perform a study of transportation issues (needs) and possible solutions for the area to the east of the City of Winchester. The study area will generally include Interstate 81 (I-81) in the west to the Frederick County/Clarke County line in the east; and will extend from Route 761 on the north side of the city to the Tasker Road area east of the I-81 Exit 310. You can view a map of the study area on the second page of this document. Data collection and analysis efforts will focus on traffic data, including current and future projections (generally a 20-year horizon). Traffic generated by new and pending development within, or that influence the transportation network in the study area, will be included in the analyses. The traffic data will be supplemented with existing background information and local knowledge provided by various key stakeholders and the public. Opportunities for public engagement and input will be announced on the County’s website, along with updates on the study. The purpose of the study is to identify and document specific transportation needs. Possible solutions for these needs will then be developed as concepts. The public will then have opportunities to provide input on both the needs and any conceptual solutions. Once the conceptual solutions have been refined for public comment, an implementation plan that is expected to include a prioritized list of improvements with estimates of probable costs will be developed for the County’s use for implementation of funding for transportation improvements in the study area. The study team is aware of previous efforts to pursue a Route 37 east bypass around Winchester. A bypass will be considered, along with other possible transportation improvements, during the conceptual solution development and analysis process. The goal of the study is to develop a well- defined and documented set of transportation needs to be addressed by a prioritized and fiscally implementable set of transportation improvements. Additional recommendations, beyond transportation improvements, such as land use or access management controls, may also be included in the final plan. 675 Project Area for the Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS) 676 1 Public Comment Form March 14, 2024 Thank you for attending our meeting this evening. The County and its EFCTS Consultant Project Team would appreciate your feedback. Please place your completed form in the designated drop box or scan a copy of your completed form and send it to Alexandra Castrechini at amcastrechini@mccormicktaylor.com. If you would like to receive a response to your comment(s), please provide your name, email address or US Postal Address in the box below so that we may respond accordingly. Thank you in advance for your participation. Please note your comments/questions below and use the back of this sheet if you need additional space. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ and/or US Postal Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (City) (State) Zip Code 677 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 678 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 679 MEMORANDUM \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Date: May 10, 2024 To: Alexandra Castrechini Work Order Number: 45792.000 From: Jonathan Avner Subject: EFCTS Traffic Study – Travel Demand Modeling Project: EFCTS Traffic Study CC: Other recipients The purpose of this memorandum is to document the development and use of the outputs of the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model for use in the EFCTS Traffic Study Update. Information provided in this memorandum includes details regarding base model development with new zonal data, model validation, demographic comparisons, demand analysis, and results that compare 2050 no build assumptions to 2050 future year alternative scenarios. Development of EFCTS Traffic Study Model WRA was provided the 2015 WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model to develop the alternative forecasts for this study. In preparing the model for use in the study a new model base year of 2019 was defined as well as updating the model to include the latest socioeconomic data from the MPO. The traffic analysis zones (TAZ) for the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model area are shown in Figure 1. The EFCTS Traffic Study area encompasses the eastern half of the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model. The model zones that are part of the study area are outlined in Figure 2. 680 May 8, 2024 Page 2 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 1 WinFred Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) 681 May 8, 2024 Page 3 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 2: Study Area Zones 682 May 8, 2024 Page 4 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Zonal Data Updates Using the socioeconomic data provided by the MPO, Table 1 provides a summary of the zonal demographic inputs for the 2015 WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model and the new model base year of 2019. Table 1: Zonal Demographic Totals (Source: MPO) Variable 2015 2019 POP 106,316 119,846 HH 39,889 48,485 WORK 52,973 64,562 VEH 79,832 97,955 HTRET 6,132 7,152 IND 14,671 16,560 OFF 4,733 5,422 RET 7,097 6,062 SER 17,339 19,734 EMP 55,504 54,930 2019 Network Assumptions The 2015 roadway network was used to create the 2019 network. The primary change included updating the network to reflect recent projects that have been completed in the region. The only project added was Crossover Boulevard as shown in Figure 3. 683 May 8, 2024 Page 5 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 3: Roadway Network Changes 684 May 8, 2024 Page 6 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Base Year (2019) Model Validation The 2019 model results were evaluated against 2019 counts from VDOT’s database. The percent error by roadway type and percent RMSE by volume group were calculated and compared against the documented 2015 model validation results. Table 2 reports the percent error by Roadway Type. The Target or Criterion is based on the VDOT Travel Model Policy Guidelines. Table 3 reports the Percent RMSE calculated by volume group with the assigned Target or Criterion as established by VDOT. Table 2: Percent Error by Facility Type Roadway Type 2015 2019 Target Freeway 3.0 3.6 +/- 7 Major Arterial -2.1 8.8 +/- 10 Minor Arterial -4.7 18.9 +/- 15 Collector & Local 2.7 22.5 +/- 20 Total 2.0 6.34 +/- 5 Table 3: Percent RMSE by Volume Group Volume Group 2015 2019 Target 0 – 5000 29.09 38.2 100 5000 – 10000 25.36 38.2 45 10000 – 20000 19.64 17.2 35 20000 – 50000 6.81 11.8 27 Total 19.12 18.4 40 The 2019 model meets the validation targets by volume group and by percent error by roadway type for freeways and major arterials. Because the 2019 zonal data has changed significantly from the past model inputs, the change in validation results is anticipated. Given the ability to meet several of the criterion as established by VDOT for the region and on higher level facilities, the model is considered suitable for the evaluation included in this study. 685 May 8, 2024 Page 7 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Demand Comparison Using Streetlight At the request of VDOT, comparisons were made between the 2019 Winfred Regional Travel Demand Model and Streetlight observed data for 2019. The analysis was completed by aggregating the TAZs to a system of districts. Figure 4 shows a map displaying the reference numbers assigned to each district. Figure 4 District Reference Map Comparisons were made for each district to all other districts. Intra-district flows were intentionally removed and are shown as blanks/zeros below. Table 4 presents the district-to-district flow differences between StreetLight to the model daily trip data. The top 10 highest volume differences are highlighted in red, and a decrease in volume shown in parentheses implies a negative difference. Table 5 reports the ranking of trip interchanges with the top 10 highest trip pairs highlighted in red. Figure 4 is used as a reference map for Tables 4 and 5. Following are the specifications used in extracting information from StreetLight. This period was selected to be consistent with the 2019 model scenario: • Data Period: Apr 01, 2019 to May 31, 2019 and Sep 01, 2019 to Oct 31, 2019 • Day Type: Weekday (Mon. – Thur.) • Day Part: All Day (12am to 12am) 686 May 8, 2024 Page 8 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Table 4 District to District Trip Volume Differences from 2019 Winchester Street Light to 2019 Model Table 5 District to District Trip Volume Rankings from 2019 Winchester Street Light to 2019 Model District to District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 (54) (98) 174 152 452 2,707 1,840 94 132 (363) 107 103 3 180 (1,333) 18 (676) (187) 2 (107) 95 377 34 448 5,851 5,171 (34) 49 (28) 157 45 18 (109) (255) 333 520 (735) 3 (215) 39 (74) 242 92 551 418 134 48 (25) 196 69 14 (369) (682) 562 (195) (881) 4 213 371 (82) 519 93 1,515 5,154 (237) 59 (85) 159 5 35 (599) 444 358 62 (86) 5 137 18 238 605 82 803 2,153 211 22 (27) 65 8 11 (295) 384 95 36 123 6 608 493 126 77 93 1,804 1,153 31 241 (595) 134 66 78 (367) (1,428) 20 (323) (142) 7 2,398 5,748 456 1,503 790 1,783 4,312 1,002 735 549 1,920 433 213 178 (184) 1,084 1,563 60 8 1,762 4,903 178 4,799 2,139 1,208 4,991 1,582 393 (34) 1,400 505 161 (1,189) (286) 804 (38) (494) 9 92 43 136 (53) 49 99 962 1,646 8 (342) 244 250 4 (841) 394 55 (225) 79 10 185 55 41 51 19 284 763 407 2 (275) 77 - 905 30 146 53 (45) 29 11 (274) 5 20 (50) (31) (469) 894 183 (380) (264) (493) (212) (621) (17) (31) (350) 3 58 12 158 152 175 122 62 156 1,880 1,441 164 84 (303) 49 333 86 202 (20) (56) 107 13 117 47 77 8 (23) 67 403 550 223 8 (155) 49 3 31 51 29 - 15 14 62 33 (21) 29 3 95 234 172 (25) 923 (615) 347 (2) (25) 73 11 (136) 369 15 232 (122) (404) (580) (360) 4 169 (1,104) (744) 40 (13) 96 35 (41) 10,527 255 (837) 206 16 (1,214) (255) (634) 440 455 (2,028) (378) (305) 334 140 (71) 202 56 75 11,140 65 136 (514) 17 36 332 569 339 93 30 963 816 1 54 (124) (21) 31 17 254 44 (10) - 18 (1,022) 896 (100) 185 82 (283) 1,597 (77) (204) (26) (60) 11 13 (88) (585) 189 (22) 50 19 (208) (743) (710) (125) 119 (103) (2) (568) 86 30 42 99 15 384 203 (481) (1) 46 District to District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 264 274 107 116 58 11 17 140 125 308 131 133 229 103 340 210 327 286 2 277 137 70 195 59 3 5 257 177 254 114 184 210 278 294 77 52 330 3 291 190 268 85 144 49 63 123 181 249 98 158 216 310 328 48 287 335 4 91 71 270 53 141 25 6 293 167 271 112 225 193 323 60 73 163 272 5 120 210 87 46 149 41 13 93 206 253 161 221 218 301 68 137 191 127 6 45 55 126 153 141 18 30 197 86 322 123 160 152 309 341 207 304 283 7 12 4 56 26 42 19 10 32 44 51 15 62 91 104 285 31 24 166 8 20 8 104 9 14 29 7 23 67 257 28 54 111 338 300 40 259 317 9 144 186 121 263 177 134 34 21 221 305 84 83 227 334 66 170 292 151 10 100 170 188 174 209 80 43 64 233 298 153 235 36 200 118 173 261 203 11 297 225 207 262 255 314 38 102 312 296 316 290 325 243 255 306 229 168 12 113 116 106 128 163 115 16 27 110 148 302 177 77 146 96 244 265 131 13 130 182 153 221 248 159 65 50 90 221 284 177 229 197 174 203 235 214 14 163 196 245 203 229 137 88 108 249 35 324 74 239 249 157 218 282 72 15 89 279 313 320 307 227 109 337 332 189 242 136 193 260 2 81 333 94 16 339 294 326 61 57 342 311 303 76 119 267 96 169 156 1 161 121 318 17 191 79 47 75 141 200 33 39 234 172 280 245 197 213 82 185 241 235 18 336 37 275 100 149 299 22 269 288 252 266 218 217 273 321 99 247 176 19 289 331 329 281 129 276 239 319 146 200 187 134 214 68 95 315 238 183 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 687 May 8, 2024 Page 9 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx No Build Model Updates The regional travel demand model, as provided by VDOT for this study, was modified to include a 2019 and 2050 set of model years. To create the 2019 and 2050 zonal demographics, data developed by the MPO to support future model efforts was adapted to the provided model structure. This included aggregation of zonal data based on new zone splits the MPO has developed. The external station volumes for 2019 were set to be equal to available count data from VDOT. 2050 external station forecasts were developed by applying the 2015 to 2040 MPO annual growth rates to the 2019 count data. Table 6 provides a summary of the zonal demographic inputs for 2019 and 2050. Table 6: Zonal Demographic Totals (Source: MPO) Variable 2019 2050 POP 119,846 167,159 HH 48,485 67,063 WORK 64,562 87,110 VEH 97,955 131,849 HTRET 7,152 9,487 IND 16,560 25,265 OFF 5,422 6,786 RET 6,062 8,151 SER 19,734 26,849 EMP 54,930 83,410 Socioeconomic data comparisons between 2019 and 2050 are shown in the figures below. The map in Figure 5 highlights the change in population by zone and Figure 6 displays the change in employment by zone. The color- coded maps range from lighter to darker colors, exhibiting the least amount of change to the greatest, respectively. 688 May 8, 2024 Page 10 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 5 Change in Population between 2019 and 2050 689 May 8, 2024 Page 11 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 6 Change in Employment between 2019 and 2050 Demand Analysis District-to-district trip volume growth is shown from the 2019 model to the forecasted 2050 model data results. Intra- district flows were intentionally removed and shows as blanks/zeros. Table 7 shows the district-to-district volume growth with the highest volume growth displayed in red, and Table 8 displays the rankings with the top 10 highest trip pairs highlighted in red. A decrease in volume growth is shown in parentheses. Figure 4 is used as a reference map for Tables 7 and 8. 690 May 8, 2024 Page 12 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Table 7 District to District Trip Volume Growth from 2022 to 2050 Table 8 District to District Trip Volume Growth Ranking from 2022 to 2050 District to District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 1,692 726 846 291 1,347 2,481 1,521 668 45 303 145 51 73 671 469 49 1,119 189 2 1,677 1,906 878 134 990 3,527 1,574 588 21 270 73 13 21 115 252 7 2,116 103 3 710 1,905 1,760 401 369 1,995 1,924 454 39 172 213 44 49 124 295 244 343 118 4 818 863 1,757 2,862 579 1,905 2,511 1,824 33 207 122 55 43 287 1,245 84 642 366 5 278 129 400 2,861 212 321 61 816 9 57 24 16 11 82 541 8 171 138 6 1,360 1,003 373 582 217 1,160 794 443 188 256 185 56 124 555 279 24 372 104 7 2,478 3,531 1,977 1,875 307 1,187 4,517 752 (102) 427 41 (90) (69) 863 1,785 (141) 2,426 632 8 1,561 1,570 1,920 2,500 56 810 4,455 339 (47) 276 (174) (69) (41) 515 1,545 (28) 1,322 534 9 683 568 444 1,823 816 450 754 346 43 153 286 197 71 139 739 19 297 181 10 45 21 38 31 9 189 (100) (45) 43 81 2 1 54 15 83 (11) 35 22 11 304 274 162 202 56 259 429 277 152 81 240 13 90 71 182 (9) 142 84 12 146 75 206 121 23 187 45 (175) 285 2 240 23 31 41 180 (19) 103 81 13 51 13 43 55 16 56 (90) (69) 197 1 13 23 2 5 26 (10) 17 7 14 73 21 49 41 11 125 (68) (39) 70 54 90 31 2 10 75 (10) 29 143 15 671 115 124 287 82 555 863 515 139 15 71 41 5 10 11,244 (93) 95 33 16 469 252 295 1,245 541 279 1,785 1,545 739 83 182 180 26 75 11,275 115 935 242 17 49 7 244 84 8 24 (141) (28) 19 (11) (9) (19) (10) (10) (93) 115 (3) - 18 1,119 2,116 343 642 171 372 2,426 1,322 297 35 142 103 18 29 96 934 (3) 47 19 189 103 118 366 138 104 632 534 181 22 84 81 7 143 34 242 - 47 District to District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 31 67 57 117 40 11 38 72 239 112 166 231 214 70 89 233 47 147 2 32 21 53 175 50 6 33 77 273 128 214 285 273 185 131 297 15 191 3 68 22 29 97 102 17 19 91 251 159 140 242 233 178 115 133 106 183 4 58 54 30 7 79 22 9 25 256 142 181 227 243 118 43 199 73 103 5 124 176 98 8 141 109 221 59 293 222 265 281 289 205 83 295 160 173 6 39 49 99 78 139 46 62 94 150 130 152 223 178 81 122 265 100 189 7 12 5 18 24 110 45 3 64 338 96 247 333 330 54 27 339 13 75 8 35 34 20 10 223 61 4 108 328 126 341 330 326 87 36 323 41 85 9 69 80 93 26 59 92 63 105 243 163 120 145 217 171 65 277 113 155 10 239 273 252 258 293 147 337 327 243 207 303 307 229 283 203 319 253 271 11 111 127 162 144 223 129 95 125 164 207 137 285 197 217 153 313 169 199 12 165 211 143 182 268 151 239 342 121 303 137 268 258 247 157 321 191 207 13 231 285 243 227 281 223 333 330 145 307 285 268 303 301 263 315 280 297 14 214 273 233 247 289 177 329 325 220 229 197 258 303 291 211 315 261 167 15 70 185 178 118 205 81 54 87 171 283 217 247 301 291 2 335 196 256 16 89 131 115 43 83 122 27 36 65 203 153 157 263 211 1 185 51 135 17 233 297 133 199 295 265 339 323 277 319 313 321 315 315 335 185 311 309 18 47 15 106 73 160 100 13 41 113 253 169 191 279 261 195 52 311 237 19 147 191 183 103 173 189 75 85 155 271 199 207 297 167 255 135 309 237 1 - 10 Highest Trip Pairs 691 May 8, 2024 Page 13 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx No Build Model Results Overall growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) between 2019 and 2050 is 1.7% calculated using a linear growth rate. This growth aligns with the growth in households (1.2% per year) and external traffic (1.8% per year). Table 9 provides a summary of the VMT by facility type for the two model years. Table 9: VMT by Facility Type FACTYPE 2019 2050 Interstate 1.00 1,438,062.62 2,233,954.67 Minor Freeway 2.00 244,690.57 413,828.05 Pri Art 4.00 936,733.21 1,410,430.91 Maj Art 5.00 541,896.80 800,127.68 Min Art 6.00 697,129.38 1,133,993.47 Maj Col 7.00 130,599.83 197,643.67 Min Col 8.00 249,522.89 395,626.90 Ramp 10.00 91,349.15 122,719.23 CC 11.00 419,921.92 581,948.96 External 12.00 210,209.44 348,358.47 Total 4,960,115.81 7,638,632.01 Roadway link volume/capacity (v/c) ratios were examined to uncover any links with high vehicle volumes to capacity in the study area. V/C ratios for the network links in both the 2019 and 2050 models were assessed at level-of- service (LOS) D. To facilitate a comparison between 2019 and 2050, Figures 7 and 8 show color coded maps of v/c ratios for several criteria ranges. The 2019 model reveals scattered areas where the v/c ratio indicates volumes that exceed available capacity on minor and major arterials. In comparison, the 2050 model shows that the potential roadway demand exceeds the available capacity for the majority of Interstate 81 and several major collectors within the study area. Additionally, Figures 9 and 10 show the daily model volumes along the roadways in the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model study area. 692 May 8, 2024 Page 14 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 7: 2019 Volume/Capacity Ratio Figure 8: 2050 Volume/Capacity Ratio 693 May 8, 2024 Page 15 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 9: 2019 Daily Directional Volumes Figure 10: 2050 Daily Directional Volumes 694 May 8, 2024 Page 16 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Model Forecasting Two proposed build alternatives are presented for the year 2050: one at the southern end and the other at the northern end of the study area. The volumes for both future year scenarios are compared to the 2050 no build volumes. Additionally, both the no build and build scenarios were modified to include a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) at I-81 Exit 317 and SR 11 Martinsburg Pike. Southern Build Proposed Alternatives The model assumptions for the 2050 southern build alternative are described in Table 10 and highlighted in Figure 11. Volume comparisons for this alternative to the no build model are shown in Figures 12 and 13. The change in volume is displayed in Figure 14. Table 10 Southern Build Alternative Assumptions Southern Build Alternative Model Assumptions SR 37 Bypass Divided facility with 2 lanes in each direction Speed at 55pmh Warrior Drive Ext Undivided facility with 1 lane in each direction At grade with SR 37 Bypass Speed at 35mph SR 522 Front Royal Pike At grade with SR 37 Bypass Tasker Road At grade with SR 37 Bypass Northern Build Proposed Alternatives The model assumptions for the northern build alternative are described in Table 11 and highlighted in Figure 15. Volume comparisons for this alternative to the no build model are shown in Figures 16 and 17. The change in volumes is displayed in Figure 18. Table 11 Northern Build Alternative Assumptions Northern Build Alternative Model Assumptions SR 37 Divided facility with 2 lanes in each direction Speed at 55pmh SR 7 Berryville Pike At grade with SR 37 Snowden Bridge Blvd At grade with SR 37 Wood Mill Rd At grade with SR 37 695 May 8, 2024 Page 17 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 11 Southern Build - Model Assumptions 696 May 8, 2024 Page 18 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 12 Southern No-Build - Volumes Figure 13 Southern Build - Volumes 697 May 8, 2024 Page 19 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 14 Southern Build Volume Deltas - Build minus No Build 698 May 8, 2024 Page 20 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 15 Northern Build – Model Assumptions 699 May 8, 2024 Page 21 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 16 Northern No Build - Volumes Figure 17 Northern Build - Volumes 700 May 8, 2024 Page 22 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 18 Northern Build Volume Deltas – Build minus No Build 701 May 8, 2024 Page 23 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Full 2050 Build A full 2050 proposed build was completed that includes the entire SR 37 Bypass. For this scenario, the bypass was modeled as a four lane, limited access highway. V/C ratios for the network links in both the 2050 no build and 2050 build models were assessed at level-of-service (LOS) D. To facilitate a comparison between 2050 no build and 2050 build, Figures 19 and 20 show color coded maps of v/c ratios for several criteria ranges. The 2050 no build model shows that the potential roadway demand exceeds the available capacity for the majority of Interstate 81 and several major collectors within the study area. In comparison, with inclusion of the entire Route 37 bypass, the model shows a decrease in the v/c ratios for most of the major collectors with roadway demand falling below the available capacity. However, the majority of Interstate 81 continues to show potential roadway demand exceeding available capacity. Additionally, Figures 21 and 22 show the daily model volumes along the roadways in the WinFred Regional Travel Demand Model study area for the 2050 no build and build models. 702 May 8, 2024 Page 24 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 19: 2050 Volume/Capacity Ratio - No Build Figure 20: 2050 Volume/Capacity Ratio - Build 703 May 8, 2024 Page 25 Work Order Number 45792.000 \\vrserver\projects1\10590_VA_NSVRC_OnCall\01_Rt_37_East_Study\200_Disciplines\260_Planning\PLANNING REPORT DRAFT\Appendices\ECFTS - Model Application 05 10 2024 WRA.docx Figure 21: 2050 Daily Directional Volumes – No Build Figure 22: 2050 Daily Directional Volumes - Build 704 Time of Day: AM Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build Time of Day: AM Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)7,758 8,219 8,309 8,266 FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)-6%-1%1%0% FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)1,761 1,115 1,052 1,053 FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)67%6%0%0% FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)5,215 5,750 5,476 5,771 FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)-10%0%-5%0% FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)3,099 3,161 3,227 3,212 FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)-4%-2%0%0% FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)3,875 4,458 4,748 4,968 FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)-22%-10%-4%0% FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)694 713 722 726 FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)-4%-2%-1%0% FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)1,552 1,571 1,625 1,637 FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)-5%-4%-1%0% FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)688 531 531 560 FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)23%-5%-5%0% Total VHT 24,642 25,518 25,690 26,193 Total VHT -6%-3%-2%0% AM Change in VHT Compared to No Build 705 Time of Day: MD Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build Time of Day: MD Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)24,686 25,988 26,188 26,178 FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)-6%-1%0%0% FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)4,703 2,985 2,817 2,798 FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)68%7%1%0% FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)12,853 14,268 13,779 14,233 FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)-10%0%-3%0% FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)8,468 8,758 8,728 8,648 FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)-2%1%1%0% FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)10,189 11,469 12,307 12,666 FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)-20%-9%-3%0% FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)1,798 1,823 1,847 1,863 FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)-3%-2%-1%0% FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)4,046 4,155 4,206 4,319 FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)-6%-4%-3%0% FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)1,698 1,337 1,319 1,366 FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)24%-2%-3%0% Total VHT 68,441 70,783 71,191 72,071 Total VHT -5%-2%-1%0% MD Change in VHT Compared to No Build 706 Time of Day: PM Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build Time of Day: PM Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)6,496 6,907 7,119 7,132 FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)-9%-3%0%0% FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)2,216 1,429 1,324 1,321 FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)68%8%0%0% FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)6,083 6,675 6,550 6,705 FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)-9%0%-2%0% FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)4,298 4,422 4,523 4,484 FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)-4%-1%1%0% FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)5,094 5,734 6,214 6,438 FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)-21%-11%-3%0% FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)804 813 822 829 FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)-3%-2%-1%0% FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)1,904 1,980 2,005 2,034 FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)-6%-3%-1%0% FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)951 784 788 809 FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)18%-3%-3%0% Total VHT 27,846 28,744 29,345 29,752 Total VHT -6%-3%-1%0% PM Change in VHT Compared to No Build 707 Time of Day: NT Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build Time of Day: NT Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)9,147 9,577 9,565 9,584 FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)-5%0%0%0% FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)2,150 1,312 1,295 1,276 FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)68%3%1%0% FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)6,157 6,635 6,437 6,658 FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)-8%0%-3%0% FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)3,701 3,781 3,661 3,635 FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)2%4%1%0% FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)4,170 4,553 4,890 4,887 FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)-15%-7%0%0% FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)3,931 4,338 4,619 4,732 FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)-17%-8%-2%0% FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)1,731 1,742 1,745 1,769 FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)-2%-2%-1%0% FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)762 690 657 701 FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)9%-2%-6%0% Total VHT 31,749 32,628 32,869 33,242 Total VHT -4%-2%-1%0% NT Change in VHT Compared to No Build 708 Time of Day: Daily Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build Time of Day: Daily Full Bypass Build Southern Section Northern Section No Build FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)48,087 50,691 51,181 51,160 FACTYPE 1 (Interstate)-6%-1%0%0% FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)10,830 6,841 6,488 6,448 FACTYPE 2 (Minor Freeway)68%6%1%0% FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)30,308 33,328 32,242 33,367 FACTYPE 4 (Principal Arterial)-9%0%-3%0% FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)19,566 20,122 20,139 19,979 FACTYPE 5 (Major Arterial)-2%1%1%0% FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)23,328 26,214 28,159 28,959 FACTYPE 6 (Minor Arterial)-19%-9%-3%0% FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)7,227 7,687 8,010 8,150 FACTYPE 7 (Major Collector)-11%-6%-2%0% FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)9,233 9,448 9,581 9,759 FACTYPE 8 (Minor Collector)-5%-3%-2%0% FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)4,099 3,342 3,295 3,436 FACTYPE 10 (Ramp)19%-3%-4%0% Total VHT 152,678 157,673 159,095 161,258 Total VHT -5%-2%-1%0% Daily Change in VHT Compared to No Build 709