Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04 Traffic Impact AnalysisMEMORANDUM To: Mr. Ben Lineberry Virginia Department of Transportation cc: Scott Plein Blue Springs View, LLC INTRODUCTION WELLS ASSOCIATES, LLC. TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING CONSULTANTS Louis Canonico, P.E. Bryan Condie Christopher Consultants, Ltd. From: Michael J. Workosky Melissa T. Hish Date: November 5, 2003 Re: Racey Tract Traffic Analysis Addendum Frederick County, Virginia This memorandum presents an addendum to the Racey Tract traffic impact study prepared by Wells Associates, dated August 21, 2003. The intent of this document is to address the transportation issues and comments regarding the Racey Tract project provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County at a meeting held on October 7, 2003. The following tasks have been completed in an effort to address the issues and comments discussed at the meeting: Apply a five percent regional annual growth rate to the through traffic on Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. Verify the site trip distribution. Analyze background traffic volumes based on the existing roadway network, without roadway improvements. Verify the projected average daily traffic with the Racey Tract project on Driftwood Drive and Trunk Drive to ensure that the roadway cross sections are adequate. Revise traffic volume and report graphics to reflect the revised analyses. Identify roadway improvements to be funded and constructed by Blue Springs View, LLC as part of the Racey Tract project. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Future traffic forecasts were prepared by applying a five percent annual growth rate to the existing traffic counts and adding traffic generated by adjacent development, including full buildout of the Southern Hills project. These volumes represent background conditions. Traffic generated by the Racey Tract project was added to represent total future conditions. The traffic volume and lane use graphics are contained in Appendix A. Capacity analyses of the study intersections were revised for existing, background, and total future conditions using the Syncho /SimTraffic procedure to incorporate the tasks outlined above. The results of these studies are discussed below. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The background traffic forecasts were revised to incorporate a five percent regional annual growth rate to the traffic on Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. Although the trips associated with four pipeline developments were included as part of background conditions, no roadway improvements, including the realignment of Aylor Road, were assumed to be constructed by 2007. Analysis of the existing road network under background conditions indicates the following: The intersections on Fairfax Pike from the 1 -81 ramps to Double Church Road are forecasted to operate at or beyond capacity during the PM peak hour under background conditions. Queues on Fairfax Pike at Town Run Lane are expected to extend back west to Stickley Drive and east to the 1 -81 northbound ramps during the morning and evening peak hours. The total average delay for the Fairfax Pike corridor is forecasted to increase by over 1900 percent during the AM peak hour and over 2400 percent during the PM peak hour from existing delays experienced on the road network. 2 Fuel efficiency for the corridor is expected to decrease by approximately 35 to 70 percent during the peak hours. Carbon monoxide emissions are projected to increase by approximately 40 to 110 percent from existing emissions during the commuter peak hours. Motorists traveling on Fairfax Pike are expected to experience a significant increase in delay due to the additional trips generated by approved future development, ambient traffic growth, and the absence of any funded roadway improvements. Although long range plans are in place, current state and county funding does not include upgraded facilities along this section of Fairfax Pike. SITE TRAFFIC The distribution of site generated trips for the proposed Racey Tract project was developed based on current travel patterns. The existing traffic volume count data was analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hours on a cordon basis to identify the distribution of residential trips in the area. The site traffic distribution analysis is contained in Appendix B. This appendix also includes detailed figures illustrating the assignment of peak hour site trips to the intersection turning movements. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH RACEY TRACT Using the existing road network as a base, the future traffic volumes were analyzed to identify the roadway improvements required to mitigate traffic generated by the Racey Tract project. Based on this study, Blue Springs View, LLC proposes to fund and construct the following roadway improvements with the development of Racey Tract: Restripe the westbound right turn lane on Fairfax Pike at Town Run Lane to a shared through -right lane, which will carry traffic through to the 1 -81 northbound on -ramp. Provide additional funds to construct a new traffic signal on Fairfax Pike at Stickley Drive. Construct a second through travel lane on Fairfax Pike in both the eastbound and westbound directions at Stickley Drive. Construct an exclusive right turn lane on eastbound Fairfax Pike at Stickley Drive. 3 Upgrade northbound Stickley Drive to three lanes at Fairfax Pike, to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, a shared left- through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane for exiting project traffic. Construct a second eastbound through travel lane on Fairfax Pike at Double Church Road. Construct an exclusive southbound left turn lane on Double Church Road at Fairfax Pike. Restripe the northbound approach on Double Church Road at Fairfax Pike to provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through -right lane. Provide for, or wait for improvements to Town Run Lane /Stickley Drive, pursuant to the Southern Hills proffers, prior to homeowner access from the project to Town Run Lane. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The existing, background, and total future traffic forecasts and analyses were analyzed to determine the overall effects of the Racey Tract project, and quantify the proposed improvements on the road network. The total system average delay under current conditions (based on all intersections studied), is 77.0 to 86.9 seconds per vehicle. This delay would increase to 1,594.6 seconds per vehicle during the AM peak hour and 2,203.9 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour under background conditions, without road improvements. This represents an increase of 25 minutes (or nearly 2,000 percent) in delay during the AM peak hour and almost a 35- minute (or nearly 2,500 percent) increase during the PM peak hour that will be experienced by motorists in the area. The roadway improvements proposed by the Racey Tract project would greatly reduce the overall system delay, by 94 percent during the AM peak hour and 89 percent during the PM peak hour. These calculations are summarized in Table I in Appendix C. This appendix also contains a summary of each of the individual intersections and quantifies the effects of the proposed roadway improvements. A cordon analysis was also prepared to identify the net increase in traffic that would be realized with the development of the Racey Tract property. This was prepared by calculating the amount of traffic that is currently entering and exiting the study area, and adding the traffic expected to be generated by the site. The results indicate that the Racey Tract project would increase traffic within the study area by approximately 3.0 percent during the AM peak hour and 3.2 percent during the PM peak hour. 4 CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS The roadway sections of Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive were reviewed to determine if these facilities would adequately accommodate the additional traffic generated by Racey Tract. Roadway plans for these facilities were obtained by Christopher Consultants, and indicate that a cross section of 36 feet, curb -to -curb, with a two -foot gutter pan, is currently provided. Based on the "Subdivision Street Requirements" published by the Virginia Department of Transportation, these roadways could adequately accommodate a total of up to 2,000 average daily (24 -hour) trips each. These roadways were designed by Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, Inc. in anticipation of these future demands. These roadways currently carry 710 trips (Trunk Road) and 680 trips (Driftwood Drive), respectively. Racey Tract traffic would add 410 trips to Trunk Road and 770 trips to Driftwood Drive, resulting in a total of 1,120 trips on Trunk Road and 1,450 trips on Driftwood Drive under total future conditions. Thus, the roadway cross sections would be adequate with the development of the site. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this traffic analysis addendum are as follows: I The existing road network would experience a significant increase in congestion and delay without the development of the Racey Tract, due to background development, ambient growth, and the absence of roadway improvements. 2. The roadway improvements planned to be funded and constructed by the Racey Tract developer would reduce the overall system delays by 94 percent during the AM peak hour and 89 percent during the PM peak hour, while only increasing overall traffic demand by three percent. 3. The revised analyses indicate that no further roadway improvements would be required at the Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive intersections with the development of the Racey Tract. 5 4. The improvements proposed by the developer of the Racey Tract project address existing and future traffic issues not directly related to the development. Many of these improvements are required without the development of the property. 5. The Racey Tract site is being designed in a manner that would not promote cut through traffic. 6. Trunk Road and Driftwood Drive were both designed to facilitate interparcel access in anticipation of future traffic demands. Based on VDOT standards, the existing roadway cross sections would adequately accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Racey Tract O:PROJECTS1903 RAC EY TRACTWACEY TRACT ADDENDUM 6 CI Figure A-1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes —IXXXI Average Daily Traffic (24-Hour) t North Schematic Figure A -2 Background Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts Racey Tract Frederick County, Virginia 1 fe :7 a 'm 7 l9 f 2 G N 752/1 1 o n C f d1 4 ei /7 61 p 80 /223 SITE Fairfax i d� �I v zs/ 32J� 3 y C.:24 r m F 71 0 XX Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) 27/91 Ike North Schematic Bl p 4a- 0 �hB b d 164/180 C o /1/765 i On /Bes I I X83/ I/27 J/ 705/1048 r o b, 1 5/10 37 Ma\j a° N 4' Figure A -3 Total Future Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts el' Z\ Avenue SITE Fairfax 7 450 J 1 c, 11/57 56]/770 101/184 m J t Drive 60/58 o/o 6/6 641 II II 1 i 0/43 t Aop a 4 L —ICXXI Average Daily Traffic (24 -Hour) 4 -527/61 0 c 54/171 r cc notl n c C S /k North Schema Rocey Tract Frederick County, Virginia 400 WELLS ASSOCIATES LLC :RAMC, 1911112EMITOPIF211, lea MUMS, mMaraln 0 Re- Stripe Only Avenue c 277 a N 0 HH Figure A -4 Future Lane Use and Traffic Control F. ct SITE Fairfax a0 c m L rn x I lv o I diQ c c n Drive I I Pik Re Stripe Only 4-- Represents One Travel Lane Signalized Intersection Stop Sign In Future Proposed Improvement e North Schematic Racey Tract Frederick County, Virginia H WELLS ASSOCIATES LLC ewne Iwra/crammc and aIamw ca EVIMAu 10% Figure B -1 Site Generated Trip Assignments 4 1 9% •—a /0 .-7/4 0 /0 SITE Total Site Generated Trips AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 42 128 145 82 Fairfax j ai CO 0) a \e' N. lv' H Site Generated Directional Distribution —IIXXI Average Daily Traffic (24-Hour) 9% 30% a gilr North Schematic Racey Tract Frederick County, Virginia t WELLS ASSOCIATES, LLC nawrc,. "An a afl PAWN. D Figure B -2 Site Generated Trip Distribution 4' CO 9% r SITE Fairfax 1 YY /I 33 %a 48 v 19% 30X H To Site Generated Directional Distribution 9% Pike 30% North Schematic Racey Tract Frederick County, Virginia WELLS ASSOCIATES, LLC OLUVIK muenv1arimr, and mews IIMEKLZINSW I ntersection Control Approach/ Movement Existing wi�tine lane use Background with existing lane use Total Future with proposed improvements Delay Difference Reground vs, Total Future AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak F airfax Pike (Rte. 277)1 Signal 1E8 B(17.9) C (24.3) C (26.1) 4a C (21.7) 6 I -81 58 Ramps WB A (5.6) A (8.5) 8 (11.7) C (25.9f 17(8.4) C (24:1) 58 CI (41.9) E (57.3) E (61.1) E (73.3) D (43.1) 'E (66.9) Overall B (18.0) C (26.3) C (27.9 D (49.4 C (20.9) D (49 7.0 0.1 Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/ Signal E8 A (4 3) B (12.6) A (6.1) 01 0) B (10.3) F (118.3) 1.81 NB Ramps WB A (2.1) A (0.8) A (1.2) A 0.6) A (2.6) A (2.2 NB D(44.3) F(139.5) F (119.2) (215.5) E(56.9) rd) Overall A (9.0) C (26.6) 8 (19.2) E (74.8) B (12.7) F (95.6) 6.5 20.8 F airfax Pike (Rte. 277)/ Signal EB A (4.7) A (9.1) 8 (10.3) C .2) A (5.1) a .9) Town Run lane /Aylor Road WB B(17.9) C (23.0) C (25.7) F (102.3) B(14.9) B(17.8) NB D (42.8) D (47.7) 0 (536) D (51.0) D (38.9) D (36.4) 58 C (32.0) E (56.0) D (49.1) F (117.5) C (34.6) F (137.0) Overall 6 (16.1) C (21.7) C (24.3) E (70.7) B (15.0) D (43.) 9.3 -26.9 Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277) TWSC NB E [45.6] F [87.9] F [v] F [7 NA NA Suckley Drive 58 E [39.1] F [719] F [138.1] F [1 NA NA Signal EB NA NA NA NA A (6.8) B(15.2) WB NA NA NA NA A(5.3) B(10.6) NB NA NA NA NA D (41.0) D (45.4) 5B NA NA NA NA D 148.7) D (47.0) Overall NA NA NA NA B(122) 6(19.8) 1475.9 -1921.8 Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/ Signal EB C (26.9) C (29.3) C (31.4) E (62.2) C (22.6) C (26.7) Double Church Road WB 6(16.9) 8(17.6) 6(18.9) C (32.0) 8(18.5) C (27.5) NB C (24.1) C (27.0) C (28.4) E (70.1) C (27.5) C (32.0) 5B C (26.6) C (32.2) C (30.5) F (108.4) C (27.0) C (27.4) Overall C (22.8) C (25.7) C (26.2) E (58.4) C (22.3) C (28.2) -3.9 -30.2 Double Church Road/ TWSC NBLTR A [7.5] A [7.6) A [7.6] A [8.0] A [7.7] A [8.2] Driftwood DriveiBrardy Lane SBLT A [7.6] A [7.6] A [7.8] A [8.0] A [7.8] A [8.0] WB B[10.1) B [10.2] B[10.9] 8 [12.6] 6 [11.2] 6[13.3) EB B[11.0] B [11.4] B [12.6] C [16.1) 6 [137] C [18.2] 0.3 0.1 Double Church Road/ TWSC NBL A [7.5] A [7.6] A [7.6] A [7.9] A [7.6] A [8.0) Trunk Drive EB El [10.3) 8[10.3] 6 [11.4] B[13.4] B[11.6] 6[139] 0.6 0.4 Total Avenge Delay 77.0 66.9 1,594.6 2,203.9 919 246.4 1501.7 1957.5 Table I Racey Tract Level of Service Summary Wells Associates. LLC McLean, Virginia 2,500.0 2,000.0 1,500.0 1,000.0 500.0 77.0 86.9 Existing Network Performance Average System Delay 1,594.6 2,203.9 AM Reduction (94 92.9 PM Reduction (89 246.4 Background Total Future (without Racey Tract (with Racey Tract imorovements) improvements DAM Peak ©PM Peak Intersection Average Intersection Delay (PM Peak Hour} Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1 81 SB Ramps Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1 81 NB Ramps Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/Town Run Lane /Aylor Road Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277) /Stickley Drive Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277) /Double Church Road Double Church Road /Driftwood Drive /Brandy Lane Double Church Road/Trunk Drive Delay Comparison and Improvement Program Improvements +0% 49.4 49.5 26 :6 ti:' lJ.� k 7`1 8 95.6 I +28% •Restnpe WBR to WBTR 70L7 11 743 .8 1 -38% 3.6 •Signal •Construct second EBT and WBT •Construct EBR •Construct NBL and NBR ly9"4 1 1 19.6 I -yy% *Construct second EBT •Construct SBL •Restripe NB approach for NBL, NBTR 25J 1 5874 28.2 I -52% +I% .5 1 T 2� k .3 1.8 0.8 1.2 +46% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Average Delay (seconds) 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 Existing 0• Future without Racey Tract improvements O Future with Racey Tract improvements Intersection Average Intersection Delay (PM Peak Hour} Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1 81 SB Ramps Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/1 81 NB Ramps Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277)/Town Run Lane /Aylor Road Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277) /Stickley Drive Fairfax Pike (Rte. 277) /Double Church Road Double Church Road /Driftwood Drive /Brandy Lane Double Church Road/Trunk Drive Delay Comparison and Improvement Program Improvements AM PM EX C 22.8 C 25.7 BG C 26.2 E 58.4 TF C 22.3 C 28.2 DIFF -3.9 -30.2 AM PM EX 8.0 7.5 BG 8.2 8.2 TF 8.5 8.3 DIFF +0.3 +0.1 MI PM EX B 18.0 C 26.3 133 C 27.9 D 49.4 TF C 20.9 D 49.5 DIFF +7.0 +0.1 AM PM EX B 16.1 0 21.7 BG C 24.3 E 707 TF B 15.0 D 43.8 DIFF -9.3 -26.9 AM PM EX 2.1 3.6 BG 1488.1 1941.6 TF 12.2 19.8 DIFF -1475.9 1921.8 AM PM EX 1.0 1.2 BG 0.7 0.8 TF 1.3 1.2 DIFF +0.6 +0.4 AM PM EX A 9.0 C 26.6 BG B 19.2 E 74.8 TF B 12.7 F 95.6 DIFF -6.5 +20.8 Fairfa 0 i SITE i J e Figure C -1 Level of Service /Overall Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) Comparison EX Existing LOS and overall average intarsecuon delay (seconds) BG Background LOS and overall average intersection delay (seconds) TF Total Future Los end overall average Inlerseaon delay (seconds) DIFF.. Difference between total future and background delay (seconds) t North Schematic Racey Tract Fredrick Caun Ey. Virginia WELLS ASSOCIATES, LLC nweic rwarrearne an rev MA PM EX 4411 4969 BG 5509 7142 TF 5675 7368 DIFF 167 226 Percent 3.0 32% AM PM EX 925 1131 BG 1311 1897 TF 1361 1964 DIFF 50 67 Percent 3.8 3.5% AM PM EX 1056 1250 BG 1205 1502 TF 1221 1525 DIFF 16 23 Percent 1.3% 1.5% AM PM EX 667 660 BG 768 879 TF 784 899 DIFF 16 20 Percent 2.1% 2.3% AM PM EX 281 254 8G 406 556 TF 421 576 DIFF 15 20 Percent 3 7% 3.6 AAA PM EX 259 453 BG 335 582 TF 347 598 DIFF 12 16 Percent 3.6% 2 .7% AM PM EX 749 690 BG 928 1038 TF 970 1095 DIFF 42 57 Percent 4.5% 5.5% AM PM EX 474 531 BG 556 688 TF 572 711 DIFF 16 23 Percent 2.9% 3.3% i NETWORK TOTAL r Fairtax n 7 f-,,, N v 1 ITE J Figure C -2 Site— Generated Traffic Cordon Analysis Ex Ensundpay hour euH °.obme BG- Background und 2 2-way peak flour lratic volume TF Total Future away peak how traffic volume FIFE- °Merenm in 2 -way traffic volume(Tmal FUwre vs. Background) Percent Percent d Herence In 2-way 4aHm volume (Total Future vs. Background) t North Schematic Ry Tra F r ace edwlek C ounty, Virginia WELLS ASSOCIATES LLC lattla 127•01. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: LAND USE TYPE REAL EST VAL FIRE S RESCUE Racey tract RP $29.890,800 11 File and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriffs Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities NOTES: SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Model Run Date 12130/03 CMM Net Fiscal Impact Costa of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid INPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur Budget Cap. Future GIP/ Tax Credits Revenue. Capital Facilities col sum only) Ober Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other JUpadtustedi Cost Balance 5172,043 5977,592 5575,063 5843.039 5349,980 560,844 536.010 $46,213 558,957 53,119.740 10 Due to changing conditions associated wish development in the County. the resulb of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 1159,985 529505 556,854 5246,314 INDEX I 0" If Cap. Equip Inducted 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev-Cost Bal. "0.0' if Ratio to Ca Avg: PLANNING DQPT PREFERENCES 1.0 Project Descripliart Assu 228 single family dwelling units on 105.65 an raved RP Distract 5776,480 $0 $62,771 $839.251 0.0 1.0 578,874 317.016 $7.356 $0 $0 50 5936,434 5669,49 1 578.874 556,390 $17.016 512.166 $36.860 $26,352 50 $D $119,625 $85,524 Rev -Cost Bit Ratio to Co Avg METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fbcal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is Input In mw total of second column (zero if negative); inducted are (he one -lime tames fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid In Third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of Mute capital expenditure taxes pad in fourth cal as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs coveted by the revenues from the molest (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development) NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include include interest because they are cash payments up from. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. 0.533 0.715 Net Capital Facilities Imoar) $172,043 51.725.20 3 5293.59 0 548.678 19.658 546,213 50 Net Cost Per Dwelling Unit 5755 $7,571 51,288 $213 542 $203 $0 5103,245 51,188,809 5849.923 52,269317 $9.955 $0 58 9 0 $2, 9, 7 9,