HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12 Impact AnalysisTraffic Impact Study
Clearbrook Commercial C
November 4, 2011
Prepared for
GreyWolfe, Inc.
1073 Redbud Road
Winchester, VA 22603 -4757
Prepared by .
Stowe Engineering, PLC
220 Serviceberry Court
Stephens City, VA. 22655
TIMO Y S. STOWE 4.
No. 2.192
o j 1S l
SSt �NAL tit
_Executive ,Summary
a
Table of Contents
Execwtive Summary: :..:..: .. : :...::..:.... :: ....: ::: :........... ..:: :;... .. ................. ::. : T
Appendices::: ...................................... .... :; .....:. .....::. ....... :3
Introduction : ...... 4
Purpose'.... ........ ..................... ....................
Stud Obyectives- ••
(. + .... .... .. :. 4
y J
Background° Information .......:........ ..................... :..:..:... ....... ....... .......: ...... ......... ....................4
Transportation Irnprovements Assumed.: :..:..:..... :.:. ...... :.: ..... :. :............:.4
Trans ort "anon Im ro "vements,Plarined
p p
Development Description,::: , ....., 4
SiteLocation ,.... ... ......... . :,..: ...._.. ............... .. ....... ....... ..............................4
Descn tion.oftfie Parcel l ................ :...
Gene ral Terrain Features ....... ..:.... • 5
Location within Jurisdiction and Region ... ................... .....5.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations ........ .... :..........................................................
. 5
CurrentZo,ning ..... :........................... ...... .....:.. ....... .... ......, :
Study Area Description ..:........... _ ..............7
Study Area; ... 7
*Proposed and Existmg.Uses. ................ . ................ .. .............
Existing Use .....:.: ...... ...........
Proposed Uses &Access.:......... .:.. ::: ..... ..... ....::: ...... 7
Nearby Uses ....: . ..:..:::..:.:.......: ..... ....... ...._. ... , ....... .. .
..7
Existing,Roadways ........ , .,
:;.
Existing Traffic Conditions 2011 .................................... -
Data Collection....: .. ::...::. ::..:..:. ............... .. .. ....... ......... .....
9
Analysis- _.................... _ ............. .................... :. ::...........................
- 9
Background Traffic Gondifions (20 14) . ......... ......... .......... ...... ....
Analysis „
.............. ........ .. ....... ... ••
Trip Generation &Distribution-
:.:. .: .......: _ ... •• ... 13
Trip Generation .: :. .. ..
...... ..
Trip. Distribution ..............
2014 Build -out Conditions:. .....: •
14'
Analysis......................................................... _ ....... .:: ........; ....:,..: 14
Recommended Roadway Improvements:.. ._.:-. ... , .. _......; ..::........... 16
Design.Year (2020)..... :......:. ......... ....... ::.. ... .... .....:17
Analysis' :.: : ..:....:::.......: ....................... ............:..............:.:. LL .17
Queue Analysis ......... :::......... :.: ... :. ............. ...... 19
Pedestrian and Bicycle,Tra'ffic ..:.;...; :..: ... :: :..... ....:: .............:: ... .. - ... .19'
Conclusions ...... ::, ........19
Appendices
z.
Introduction
"Purpose
., p, y prepared pp q g p p y,
f known as Clearbrook Commercial, Center. The project will develop.:120,000 squa_re,feet of, retail busi
ThisTraffic.lrn act Stud has been re ared to su ort the request for the rezoning of the ro ert'
° H ess
space.on the property.
_
Study Objectives
�.
ewo on trafficc.ope rations within the, study area as a resultof constructing -a
- commercial:deuelopment.
2 Future conriectivityto pedestrian and bicycle :fac_ ilities 'that may result from the construction of -the
`commercial development.
Background.Information
The f spo tr . p is Assumed
Transportation Improvements
g1 p' ce with the proposed commercial
assumed improvements were assume a in la
Aevelopment:
- 1 A` continuous auxiliary /rigi5tturn lane along the front of "the property:.
„ 2 A traffic signal at,the entrance to the site when warranted. °
:3 Pave Pa,vement.markin Mod ifications.needed to .use the center . lane'as a left turn Kane of the site `
entrance.
u 00
Transportation Improvements Planned
A review,of the1UDAT Six year lmprovement'Plan showed no planned construction projectsin the
' vicinity'of the proposed rezoning,
A review of the, 2009 -2010 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick,County, VA-displayed a
° proposed major improvement .pro ject on Brucetown Road (,Route 672) from its i,nterseetion� Wilt h;
° Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) eastward for 0:35:miles.The projectis unscheduledlinthe,plan This project`.,
is just south of the site on whichthis project is proposed.
A regional roadway improvement projeftis also being planned by Frederick County. The project wi
ali n the intersections of Hopewell and Br a_ town. Roads
the flow urg Pike. This project Will
>-' g" p ucetown Roads on.Martinsbu
E eliminate. the current lane constructions an f traffic through the intersection.
F
Development Description
Site Location
Th -'s -6ject property is located' west of US Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) and, south of,Cedar Hill Road:;
Figure 1.shows the location of the property:
__j
7� Property, Location Map
71__-!,� f
J
z.Y
A-
V
hi,
00
;o
1 01
`�'CEKit,321
Ow
W /*
A-
VEf";J�'
4
N
Figurel Prope"I".ation Map
Description ofthe Parcel
Ir nned is a 14.53 acre,,tr'att W1.
ith'frontage:on
... The,prope y-onwhich Clearbrodk Commercial Center is 0 a
R6ute*,11.-' A, eez0nihg'is.beihg sought for all of the property, for construction ofre1ai (b�qsines s*es.
'�.General,'Terrain Features
T oUnding areas, have, gentle�gracle& With slopesthat d�ainto,t,lhe�east'..I.-�81,rb-n's north-
.
_antl I
ace
"sou'tha-di- o� he. Western property boundary of the rezoning, area
iction and Region'
Location Within Jurisd
r C Frederick County, VA.
The�subject property'is located in the Stone.wa.11,11'rnogisterial dist i t,
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
.'The.2010'Northeast Frederick Land Use �Plan, upclate ofthe, Frederick-County-Cbi.npeehehs.ive Plah,lcalls.-.
for the subject property,to be developed With., a- business land use. Sureounding,properties are al'So,-
2,hi blights the subject pro y on the Northeast Frederick
designated as business land use. Figure ig .1 pert
��and Us Plaorpap,-,
■
F. ✓"
�1 f
< ** .� on N:MMD
y r�
4.'
��lF %3 ?Trdrlf� ••�.v °��. ���:�� —� Nu a�,�°ti. I . j-� -.. .,
`}#S�v
MM
Study Area Description
Stud ''A
For-fhe purposes of thisTraffie Impact Study, the limits of the study area extend ea "st to IVlartinsburg
Pike,;west =to 181,;north to Cedar Hill Road ;Road, and south to Hopewell, Road:,
Ther.are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the:site that were not included in the
study
Proposed and , Existing Use
Existiing Use,
The existing site is a house with several out buildings., " .
Proposed Uses & Access
The proposed use the property is retail development
Access to the sitewill be provided via a proffered infer - parcel connector on �the.property to the south. A
new signalized, intersection on Route 11 will be co.n"structed on °the property to the south, approximately
1050.feet south of the unsignalized intersection on Cedar Hill Road. This intersection will provide access
to three parcels, including the'Clearbrook Commercial`Center:
Nearby Uses
ng,land,uses:_near °the proposed site are
The existi _
North:= Residential
West -T-8 ,and residential -
'South —'Vacant (zoned B -3)
• East = Vacant (zoned B -3)
Existing 'Roadways _
Figure 4 shows`theexisting roadwaysin; the "subject property. The typical; sections.forthe roadways in.
the vicinity of the project are described as:
• Martinsburg Pike 'is a rural arterial roadway with one, lane in each,direction and a Variable direction
turn lane"in the center:
• Hopewell Road'is a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in `the intersections: _ n
Brucetown- Road is"a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in the; intersections: .
Cedar Hill Road is..a rural two lane roadway with,shouIders and no'turn lanes -in the intersections.;
Cedar Hill Road is-a.rural two lane roadway with'shoulders and no'turn lanes in;the: intersections:
Woodside Road is:a rural gravel surface two lane roadway,..
• The 1 -81 rampsare single lane ramps with,shoulders.
Future
Transportation Improvements •
The subject property is located in the Virginia De P artment of Transportation's,Staunton District, and'
Edinbur g Re "sid enc y '.area ofes p onsibilit y . A r euiew ofthe-VDOT Six year lmprovement Plan,showed'no
tanned construction projects in the vicinity of the prop
osed rezoning:
P p 1 Y P P.
_ g
i
i
r r r
LU
'i
Z'-
AA
./
sM1'
16-Ni
0�
611
r
h
�
a
�
7
61ti as
;;
�o
/
i
� O
O
Hope`NeI1 Road
672'
I
All
`
°
,
r
A
Existing Traffic °Conditions 20,11
Data. Collection
movement counts were; performed
at fi
To, analyze the existing traffic conditions, peak. hour turning p ve -
® intersections under study,These are:
® • 1 -81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road
• 1 -81 NB Ramps and Hopewell'Road
•: - Ma.rtinsburg Pike.and Hopewell Road.
• Martinsburg -Pike and Brucetown Road --
• Martinsburg_ Pike at Cedar Hill. Road
®®
24 hour classified traffic counts were:al'so conducted on.Hopewell: Road and Route 11. These counts are
included in Appendix A of°thM report.
A'K;factor' was applied'to the PM peak hour volumes to obtain the,average annual daily traffic (AADT)
The ',k' factor varied depending upon roadway. The 'k factor'for Hopewell Road ,was,determined from
theintersection and 24 hour counts "performed for this report. For Route 11 insufficient.data was
obtained
in the'24.hour count to compute a `k' factor, therefore: the reportedVDOT'k' factor'was Used.
�.
The V factors used are:"
• ° Hopewell Rd. --0.086
•
Route 11= 0.093 „
r Raw count data was'smoothed and balanced;as need "ed.
Analysis -
The existing Wand PM: peak hour intersectionturning movements were analyzed using the Synchro
7.0 traffic modeling software. The existing peak, hour traffic volumes are,shown in figure 5, the existing
lane: geometry and levels of service, arehshown "in figure 6, and the modeling results (levels of service:,and
delays and 95% queue length) are shown Jwtabular form in Table 1. '
672
0
Y�
- o
fC
-'
N
C' C
`O D
� W
,w a�
-
o U
i-a
u
� c
4
J
Ln
o
T _n
Table 1:-2011 Existing levels of Service;,Delays an 95% Queue :Length.
Intersection Type of
AM,Peak,Hour PM Peak Hour
Control LOS :El�elay Queue LOS Delay Queue'
ec) (feet) (sec) (feet);
6
A;
- emu.
i I.wu
IT
B
East -West: Hopewell Road (Route•67,2)
14
• �EB
RT .
A
2.0
North- South: 1-81 :SB ramps
Unsi nalized'
g
WB..
LT .:
' A
5'9'
WB -
Thru
1.43
.,E; -
SIB
'L/Rff
B
114,9
B
19 3
EB'
Thru
109
C
East -West: Hopewell' Road (Route,,672),
399' ,
E&;
LT
A
1.9
North- South: 1 -81 NB ramps
Unsignalized
,WB
RT
46 .8, '
° 1121,
WB `
Thru
"
'C
NB UR/-
A
9.6
179
G'-
EB:
UR '
. E
57.3
West: .,Hopewell Road'(Route 672)
; '14•.2
NB` -
LT'
C
24.4
North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11)
Signalized '
NB -
Thru
C
31,3
4 '
SB
RT
i
SB
Thru ,
A
0.3
WB.
UR W
' D
43`:8'
West:` Brucetown Road (Route 672)
NB
RT'•
`
North- South:,Martinsburg Pike (US 11)
Signalized
NB
Th[u
A
0.1
SO, "
LT
B,
1`6.7
`ThtU -.
C
30.5
WB,
Lff /R
,B
123
West Cedar Hill Road (Route 671)
East: Woodside Road (Route 671)
Unsignalized
EB
LMR
B"
10:2
North - South:. Martins burg Pike {US Y1)
NB -
Lfl /R
A,
77
SB"
L/T/R,
6
A;
3.8 4 .
IT
B
12 -1
14
2
A
2.0
2 -.
6
B
10.5.
13
1.43
.,E; -
- ;58,7
:205
39
B
19 3
° 6b
109
C
34 0,'
399' ,
0
A
0,3
0
118
'D.
46 .8, '
° 1121,
1'8
'C
21:2;,
21
"
179
G'-
28:4
`h 161
1
B
; '14•.2
2
7
B
11,:6
S'
1,
A
7'8
4 '
i
1�
12
Background''-Traffic Conditions (2014)
Backgrounditraffic conditions in' 2014 are those that are expected to exist .without the proposed
rezoning, and associated development. These Were ;established by growing the existing;2011 traffic at
'1.5% peryearto th`e build- out.year of 2014,. -The growth factorofl.5% waszde,termined by VD:OT
Staunton District; Planning staff and is based on the historical and,anticipate`d growth in traffic volumes "
in the project area. Traffic -,on all roadways in the study area Was grown. at this rate. The roadway
network is unchanged from the Exisfing Conditions (2011=
conditions).
One "other develo ,ment; rib ect'is se-eking a rezoning, co
therefore,t was also. considered' in the b g g' nstruction offhe: project is in the future'a_ and
p p 'J
ackground traffic volumes,; The traffic associated with the
project "was obtained.fromthe ITE Trip Generation, manual. . The result is;shown in Table 2.
Table1 Other Developments Contributing to Background Traffic
Avg AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land �lJse I :
Coe Amount daps, In Out Total In' `Out, Total
Specialty .Retail'(35' ;500 sq ft); 814 35.5; 1,556 11;7 126 243 100 78: 178
Fast' Food Restaurant w/ drive thru
4 5 , 2 233 126 1.21 24:7 10
(4,500 sq ft) 934 9 1,0.1 210
Total. 3,78.9 242t 247 489 209 179 388'
ass -b tri s code 8.14
R Y @ 25 % p ( )
7389 -29 -32 -'61 -25 4 0. 45
.pass -by itrips' @ 40% ;(code 934) -893 -50 -48 -99 -44 -4.0 ` -84
Total.New Trips 2,5,07 163 167 330 140 119. -,260
Analysis
The 2014 Background AIVl,and PIVI peakbd&— intersection turning movements were analyzed us ngahe.
SyncNro.7.0 traffic modeling software.. The peak ,traffic volurnes are
shown in. Figure 7, 'and the lane
geometry and level of`service are shown in Fig_ ure 8. The modeling results (levels of service) delay and
95 %queue:) are tabulated in,Table3'.
. v
M
'
a
-
i --
O
0
..
W
a
r'
1sM
Q
_ h•
arz
u'
cc
N \ 0.
ti
Do
tl
at
Z
''
Geda�
of
yh
6�1�
.�
0
r
ee
I
srr
i
,
O" 0851
i
It✓J(� 13411021
II
oG % -.
I
•may -
9 -
i°•
81d9)�►
-
a�ioaa
36(10)
I
I
—
�
a1231 '
0
U
•
Road
I
t r►
'^
Hopewell
672
r _
n"
s
n
,<
1�
iss
'
23123) to ?w
g
162(143)
Table 3' 1614 Background Level,olf Service Delay and 95% Queue.Length
'tersection' Type of
AM Peak,Hour
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
I Queue
LOS
Delay
Queue,
In.
Control
North- South: 1 -81 S& ramps
Unsi nalized
g
(sec)
(feet)
A
"(sec)
- (feet), '
3
9
EB ..
Thou
7 .
East -West: Hopewell' Road (Route 672).
31
EB
RT
22
North- South: 1 -81 S& ramps
Unsi nalized
g
VV..B
ALT
A
6:
1�3:
fWB
Thru_;
19
6
179.
' SB
URYT
C
7
109
EB
Thru
128 ; , .. '
East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672)
•
EB',
�� `
LT
A
North- South: 1 -81 NB lamps
Unsignalized
WB
RT
0
152
WBf _
Thru
212
0
N6:..,
L/R/T
B
I
-
EB;';
UR.
D e
West.: Hopewell Road` (Route 672)
207
NB'
IT
B 1
North - South:. Martinsburg Pike (US 11)
Si nalized,
g
NB.
Thru
C i
0.4
6
SB --'-RT
11.9
5
7..7
1
8B,4, ,
hru
A, I
T.6'
0
WB
m
UR
_
D 4
West';Brucetown Road (Roufe�672)'
N B. .k,
RT -"
North .South: ,Martinsburg Pike (US 11,
Signalized
NB
Thru .
, A
SB'
LT
C 2
SB- 'Thru
C 3
WB
UT/R
B
West: Cedar Hill, Road (Route 671)
East: Woodside Road (Route671)
'Unsignalized
E.B
L/T /R
B.
North - South: Martinsburg Pike (U5 11):
NB
LIT/R. '
A
`SBA
. L./T /R,
3
9
A
46;
7 .
7
31
B
14:2
22
2
A
13
2
6:
1�3:
B
11° 1
19
6
179.
E
77."6 ..,
308
7
109
:C _
. 20.8 '
128 ; , .. '
1
1�40
D35.4
492,.' -
0
A,
0'3
0
152
F
82..
212
0
A
0:4
13
I
'21,
'
207
tC
30.7
209
0.4
1
B
14:0
2
0.4
6
B
11.9
5
7..7
1
A
7.9
4
T.6'
0
A
8t2.
0 _._
'
Trip Generation & Distribution
Trip
~�� __-._-__`_- . .
Trip gemerationfolr,the uses was,.developed fronnth�[TE oerud6nK8anua[7yedbkon -
bas�donthe proobsed|andUses The fuUbuUd�outofthe' - ^e�ct,isp|onned,tmVCcorbvtheyearZU1/i'. �
Table Trip Generation
`'
AM,R"k, Hour
PM- Peak Hour
Avg. Daily.
Land Use ITE Amount
I-n Out Tota I
'in Out Total
Trips
Code
Shopping Center 820 12`0
'10.7,
68
175
339
M7
-106
.7,6 1 45
Total New Trips
80
5 1
131
530
5,734
i
Co
Lu
N
Z-
rA
C
4
0
.MO)y
U
,
1,
t
rn
0
fp
CL
a
..
o
..
f6
4J
i
Q
w
J
R
rr�
L
A O
4131
� 1
. O
U
1
N
-
r
J
-
r
,zh, k,.ws
-
(6)9
(S,6 3 }o►
(89)(6
LU
.
..
An..
;
-.
_
1
A
8s,•�II; ._
•)
j' 138(142) -$
0 i.
:3'
.I 44(214)
R•t
-
it
I
c
6i1
...
� V
/
f1
C
,� 971172)J;�
18212~`'ol'i
104(236) -A
"
194(155)
231231 �%•
'.18612191
-�,.�
ti
ti
3
N
a
m
ad..
N
O C
�Qaa�
tl
_
671
;
mm
D'
t 9
1,
1
� •r'-
�L'..
^r O'
Road
r
P
r
a
HoPeWell
r
M O,
672:
LLJ
V.
i
Table, 5, 2614 Build-out' Level of Service for Scenario 1. 0.61.0y, ancI15%
Intersection
East -West: Hopewell Road (Rout&672)
North,-South: 1-81 S13.ramps
East -West: HopeW-ell Road (Route 672)
Nqrto-South7-1'7181. N.5 ramps
West Hopewell,Road (Route 672)
North-South:. Mar
tinsburg Pike (U.S 11-)
West. BrucetoWh Road (Route 672)
North' - South: Martinsburg' Pike (Us f)
Cedar Hill Road (Route 671)
East. Woodside; Road (Route 671
North South:- Martinsburg, Pike,(LI,& 11)
AM Peak He
L OS , I
Delay
(sec)
b
Recommended Roadway Improvements
The primary effect on- traffic operations identifi;ed,in the traffic modeling is the cumulative
p p `
effect ofthe growth in background traffc�and,trafficfrom other fanned developments This
accumulatedtraffic on the, width restricted roadways (Hopewell and- Brucetown Roads), results
in a LOS_' of F forthe Hopewell Rd. and Brucetown Road approached'to
Martinsburg Pikeinthe,
design year 2020: Traffic congestion has long 'been a, problem in -this intersection, and 'Fred'erick
County has, begun long range planning for` improvements here. There are no practical short
term solutionsto this problem, which .is why a. more regional solution is being developed. Since
the regional improvementswill be expensive and involve right of wayjacquisition from
potentially unwilling project. participants, it is recommended that Glearbrook, Commercial
Center make a financial contribution "to these improvements, to help the county'and VDOT .
carry out the needed improvements.
Approaches in two other intersections report a; LOS of D in the design year 2020. These are the
5B 81 off'.ramp at Hopewell, Rd: and the WB Woodside Rd at _Martinsburg Pike. The'SB 81 off.
ramp carries 171 vehicles in the PM. peak,hour with 17- 9,61rucks an&a 28.8 sec average
delay. The queue at 95% 'is reported to be 84' long, so there is no impact on the mainline traffic
operations'.
The Woodside Road approach carries 19 vehicles in,the PM. peak hour with an_avera e
y Pp ' ..
g
delay of 28':4 seconds. While the approach' LOS, of D.'is less than the desired LOS of C,.all other "
a r
pp oaches' in both intersections operate: at.either LOS A or & in 2020.. The- minimal impacts
to traffic operations resultingfrom the, LOS of D in'these approaches indicate that these .
intersections should be, at a future time, as more development occurs,.As
no improvements are proposed.
There are improvements that are appropriate °at.the entrance for this development These are:;
1., .Development of a traffic 'signal at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the proposed
commercial, entrance atAhe time when warranted.
2. Construction of a continuous right turn lane in "the southbound direction alongthe
property 'frontage. This lane, might be used as a future, basic lane when Martinsburg. Pike
is .widened.
p g
3. Install nw avernent Markin son Martinsburg Pike to properly direct traffic at the new
traffic signal.
�, .. _
� -
_ �.
- t .:.; _
-
_v
d
o�Ili{�I ...........
1 0-1
,m
a:
�- (Elc
Ills; �. �'�,�►
:�I (15105
W
-
tN� \ \Ro ?d ro 00
011
1 I�
O
pW_ «
1— D AJ
38( 142 _J4
- D 44(214) ♦ R
r* y 3 in
r 45(106) x V
_ rDf�, 15411%11
m � r
1 y D �.
I B .
► c i 6''
911981 �
r _
« 131361 �0:
Kopewell.Road , i, O
r t
i
•
X672 a •o e4r ��. •u -
GQda� NJ\
a
N.
m
-
a
a
O
_
C .
v
ROE,
O
C
5°
f�
Q
A
o
• �I
LU
e,
a
Type of ° f .
• "
AM Peak,Hour
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
Queue
LOS
Delay
Queue_:
Intersection
Control,
(sec)
(feet)
EB
(sec)'
(feet),
EB
RT'
East -West. Hopewell Road (Route 672)
Unsi nalized
North- South: 1 -81 SB ramps
9
WB
LT
A
6:5
11
A
5':5
WB,..
Thru
SB''
UR/T
C
19.2
49
D
- 28.8'
84
EB`
Thru;
East West: H' Road
opewell' (Route 672).
EB
LT
A
I. 1
2,
Q
1;1
2 -
North-,South: 1 -81 NB ramps
Unsi nalized
g
WB
RT
,.
WB
Thru
NB
L/R>T
B
112
19
B
1;3,:9
42
EB
UR
E
66:9
3361
98.7
688
West: Hopewell Road, (Route 672)
NB
LT
C
25.3
'136
C
34.2
185 -
1
North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 1'1,)
Signalized
NB
Thru
G
32.9
186 "'
E -
74:0
'772
.'
SB,
RT
SIB
'Thru
A
03
0
A
WB
UR
E
71,.1
203_'
F
•'152.0
334
NB.
RT'
-
West: Brucetown Road (Route 672)
North- South: Martinsburg Pike {US' 11)
Signalized
NB,
Thru
A
0.2
0
A°
0 3
25
SB :
LT
C
20.7
28
C'
28.3 ' -
°.48
SB', -.
Thru,
D
35.8
296 r
D,
`52.8•
440
WB
UTI
8
12:1
2
D
'28.4
10
f
West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671)
East: Woodside Road (Route 671)
Unsignalized
EB • ..
L/T /R
B'
10:8
8
B
12:8
11;
North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11)
NB
UT /R,
A
7.8
1
A
8;2«
7 -
SB'
L/T %R._,
A'
7:6'
0
A
8.5'
01
EB
LT
C
27.4'
33
C 34.6
123
EB
RT
C
25.7
22
C '29.6
= 52
West Site Entrance
Signalized
NB
LT'.
C
,33.0
53'
C 33:2
1:36
North- South` _Martinsburg, Pike (US 1:1)
BNB
Thru
A
11:1"
36,
A 4.0
195
SB-
RT
A .
9.3
15;
B : ' 17.7 '
35'
-
SB;
Thru
_.. A .
7.1
131
B 14.8' ; , 175,
Qaeue.Analysis
At signalized intersection, a.queue,forms while vehicles wait'to advance. An analysis was performed to
evaluate'the back {of the queue: for the 50twand 95tH percentile of the °.queue. The 50th percentile
maximum queue is the: maximum back of queue on a typical traffic;signal cycle. The 95t6,percentile
maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does
not move for two signal cycles,; The queues associated .with °the 951h percentile maximum queue;are.'
shown in Tables 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 „�and.8'.
As traffic,volumes increase over time, the queue associated with, left turning movements will. increase as
will the queue associated with the thru movement that opposed the left- turn movement. This is
reflected' in the Design Year analysis. _
Pedestrian and Bicycle Traff'c
fy Y p Y P P.- Y project ,..
r Winchester- :Frederick County IVlPO Bike "and Pedestrian Mobility lan was reviewed. This Ian
To id'enti , an” reviousl tanned edestrian;and /or bicycle, facilities in the ro'ect area the.
Y e P depicts;
#-^ IanniY .level concepts p for bicycle, and'- edestrian facilities with none being, shown in the imrnediate;..
P.. g Y P -.
vicihit ,of'this project. None were shown: „
On -site facilities will be planned.to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movements on site,'and ,
_ - Y site.
provisions will be. made forfuture connections °to off- site,trails wh.i&ma, come to the
conclusions _
The Clearbrook Commercial Center rezoning will contribute'add'itional traffic into' intersections along
Martinsburg. Pike, and Hopewell Road,at 1 -81. The Martinsburg Pike intersections of Hopewell Road and ,.
Brucetown Road,report,a LOS'of F An the de "sign yealit2020. The;remedyto this'problem is large'in:scale
and ,cost; and is being pursued as a regionallransportation improvement by Frederick County.,,It "i's
recommended that Cle,arbrook Commercial Center participate financially in this project to eliminate- this.`
" congested area..
A new traffic signal should be: installed at'the entrance, to the site, along with:the associated'.turn lanes
and pavement markings.
arkings. With the regional improvements discussed herein, the transportation impacts
,
of this re2oning are believed to'be manageable and acceptable for this, project setting.
= 29.