The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-05 Traffic Impact AnalysisA Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development P Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Wakeland Manor, Inc. 300 Craig Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Lmdsccpe N chitects 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 February 16, 2005 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (11'E) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Wakeland Properties development. Table 2 Wakeland Properties Trip Generation Summary Code AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 820 Retail 80,000 SF 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 Total 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Wakeland Properties development. For Scenarios C and #2, PHR +A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figures 6a and 6b, respectively, to assign the Wakeland Properties development trips throughout the study area. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding development generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Wakeland Properties development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background volumes (Figures 4a and 4b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 11 Scenario#1: Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 12 Scenario#2: Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 13 No Scale tll N ss74? 1k. X32(169) 121(112) Site-Driveway SITE 0 it 1 t1 (52)11 ,a P y Site- Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) mow. vera�e•Daily Trips r P Figure 7a PHIA Scenario #1: Trip Assignments A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 14 No Scale 0 Site- Driveway tsa I Site-Dnveway I e 0 In O; SITE Drive X21(112) x 32(169) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) e VATair q Average l)ally$I I ps P r Figure 7b Scenario#2: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 15 No Scale ma 1"5874' aN o •32(169) x21(112) t f Site- Driveway n M c 0 (149)1 1 201)15 7 A SITE Site- Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) "fAverage`Datly Fnps 4 r P A Figure 8a P Scenario#1: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 16 No Scale ut tfi CC N W O :5874" u N N OJ'r,. mow J LL (201)124.' (14)66 (135)73 ni S.98(26) 4a. 49(13) t 98(26) *1 1 fluster Drive r Mn n 0 .d c Site Driveway r 1 c 0 dam. N 1' Site- Driveway SITE Justes Drive S.21(112) E r 32(169) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Avc Ti ps, P r Figure 8b P H RA Scenario #2: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 17 No Scale P PHA New Intersection" 9' Leg NB 1 Right BB 1 Left G SITE Signalized Intersection LOS B(B) Site- Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement r Figure 9a Scenario #1: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 18 No Scale New Intersection" 3" Leg NB •1 Right SB 1 Left .0 d�. x 0 o- -0 Signalized: Intel'seCtion Los=B(c) "Assumed Improvements" Realignment of Papermil Road Justes Drive as J° leg NB -1 Left, 1 Right SB I Lett, 1 Right Dnve Justes Drive ay AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement -P r Figure 9b Scenario #2: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P H IH C A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 19 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Located in: Frederick County, Virginia P Prepared for: Wakeland Manor, Inc. 300 Craig Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Lmdsccpe Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 February 16, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Wakeland Properties development Located south of the intersection of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) /Papermill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of 80,000 square feet (7.26 acres 0.25 FAR) of retail development with access to be provided via a single site driveway located along the east side of Route 522. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Wakeland Properties development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. In order to address all possible future roadway network configurations for 2010 background and build -out conditions, PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative configurations. The following provides a description of each scenario analyzed in this study: Scenario #1 assumes the existing configuration of the Route 522 Papermill Road intersection will remain unchanged. Scenario #2 assumes Papermill Road will be realigned to intersect with Route 522 opposite Justes Drive (a proposed roadway), just south of the Wakeland Properties site. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 1 Vicinity Map Wakeland Properties Development A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07 3 3 0 -2 -0 February [6, 2005 Page 2 Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Wakeland Properties development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment of background traffic including growth rates and other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the Wakeland Properties development, Distribution and assignment of the Wakeland Properties development generated trips onto the completed study area road network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 522 /Papermill Road based upon the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Freedom Manor, by PHR +A, dated July 09, 2004. A conservative annual growth rate of five percent (5 was applied to the counts in order to present 2005 existing traffic conditions. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was estimated along Route 522 links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 8.0% as determined from published 2003 VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 522 /Papermill Road. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 3 No Scalc SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average 'Daily ,Trips -PHI�I r Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 4 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS B(B) Site- Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) _pHRA r Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2-0 February 16, 2005 Page 5 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 520 Elementary School 640 stud. 110 76 186 2 5 6 826 522 Middle School 850 stud. 223 168 391 66 61 128 1,377 Total 332 244 577 68 66 134 2,203 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single-Family Detached 120 units 23 70 93 80 47 126 1,200 Total 23 70 93 80 47 126 1,200 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to address all possible future roadway network configurations for 2010 background and build -out conditions, PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative configurations. The following provides a description of each scenario analyzed in this study: Scenario #1 assumes the existing configuration of the Route 522 /Papermill Road intersection will remain unchanged. Scenario #2 assumes Papermill Road will be realigned to intersect with Route 522 opposite Justes Drive (a proposed roadway), just south of the Wakeland Properties site. Based upon the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Freedom Manor, by PHR +A, dated July 09, 2004, PHR +A applied a growth rate of five percent (5 per year through Year 2010 to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure 2. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has provided Table la and Table lb to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figures 4a and 4b show the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 522/Papermill Road for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 5a and 5b show the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. Table la Background Developments #1: Freedom Manor Trip Generation Summary Table lb Background Developments #2: #11 Elementary School and Admiral Byrd Middle School Trip Generation Summary A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 6 No Scale eo J F Nra to I 4• 0 LJ o (14913 4011-1 •u J Site Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Da�lp Tnps,. P r Figure 4a Scenario #1: 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 7 No Scale (149)107 (14)66 kW (135)73M e '98(26) 4•••• 49(13) kr 98(26) l it (hetes Drive w vn -r, in en ni 0 rn Site Driveway SITE Justes Drive AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ;`;:,.Averagea)aily Tr "ips,=;; -P r Figure 4b Scenario#2: 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 8 No Scale 0 )11 )11 Signalized Intersection LOS B(B) Site Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) -PaR+A r Figure 5a Scenario#1: 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 9 No Scale Signalized "Assumed Improvements" Intersection Realignment of Papermill Road LOS=B(C) Justes Drive as 4th leg NB -1 Left, 1 Right SB -1 Left, 1 Right U U jilt c(c) Justes Drive (C)C< �t 1 522 Site -Drive ay SITE Justes Drive AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) PHIA r Figure 5b Scenario#2: 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 10 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7` Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Wakeland Properties development. Table 2 Wakeland Properties Trip Generation Summary Code AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 820 Retail 80,000 SF 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 Total 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel pattems for the roadway network surrounding the Wakeland Properties development. For Scenarios #1 and #2, PHR +A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figures 6a and 6b, respectively, to assign the Wakeland Properties development trips throughout the study area. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding development generated AM /PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Wakeland Properties development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background volumes (Figures 4a and 4b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 February 16, 2005 Page 11 Scenario#1: Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number :07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 12 Scenario#2: Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07 3 3 0 -2 -0 February 16,2005 Page 13 No Scale 5874''z 522 u1 4..32(169) ra 21(112) r Site-Dnveway I L.' AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average tray Trips -PH RA r Figure 7a Scenario #1: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 14 No Scale a 5874'; (52)17 ■,/l ®y he— t (tastes Drive rn Site Driveway SITE Justes Drive AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average,Daily Trips';. r P Figure 7b Scenario#2: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 15 No Scale 5874; 1k X32(169) X21(112) Site- Dmeway ag (091lot 201)15 7 a SITE 0 11 Site- Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average. Daily Trips P to r Figure 8a Scenario#1: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 16 No Scale (201)124 .1' (14)66 (135)731 L.98(26) 49(13) r 98(26) I (Justes Drive 7 4M en M t N tn M to N W teb O 5874< 0 b rn 522 x32(169) Site- DrrveWaY o c tn(3 I 0 v Site- Driveway SITE Justes Drive AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips _PHRA r Figure 8b P Scenario #2: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 17 No Scale -PH 0 UaslgnaRred Intersection 111 SITE Intersection" 3" Leg NII 1 Right SR• I Len PtC* Site Driveway ttr 0 A 0 111 Signalized Intersection LOS B(B) Site Driveway SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement rF igure 9a Scenario #1: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 18 No Scale 0 0 b 66 P Signalized Intersection LOS =R(C) "Assumed Improvements" Realignment of Papermill Road Justrs Drive as .l leg NB 1 Lett. 1 Right SR 1 Left, 1 Right (C)C m e 5)2 U Tastes lathe ati Unsignalized Intersection 111 Justes Drive e Intersection" 3s Leg NB 1 Right SR 1 Left B(C ve Site -Drive Site- Driveway SITE y AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement PH RA r Figure 9b Scenario #2: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 19 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Wakeland Properties development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions assuming either the Scenario #1 or Scenario #2 roadway conditions. PH to A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16,2005 Page 20 APPENDIX A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330 -2 -0 February 16, 2005 Page 21 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TWSC At an unsignalized two -way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left- turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when 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. Level of Service Criteria for ,'MSC ,Intersections Average Total Delay Level' of Service (sec /veh) A 510 B >10 and 515 C >15 and 5 25, D >25and535. E >35' and 5550 F t >50 UNSIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop- controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach. the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when 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. Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service (sec /veh) A <10 B >10 and C >15 and <_25 D >25 and <35 E >35 arid <50 F >50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v /c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G /C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an `optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay /level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay Level of Service. per Vehicle (sec) A 5 10.0 B >10.0 and 5_20.0 C >20.0 and 535.0' D >35.0 and 555.0 E >55.0 and 580.0 F >80.0' LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A B C D E F Level of Service 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. Level of Service 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 for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level Of Service 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 in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. Level of Service 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, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service 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. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, 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 cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 84 41 293 245 288 121 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0. 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 1 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Gip 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 120 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time fo pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 420 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Leng h, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 131 308 258 303 127 Lane group capacity, c 727 493 1481 1481 1583 v/c ratio, X 0.18 0.62 0.17 0.20 0.08 Total green ratio, g/C 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.47 1.00 Uniform delay, d 16.3 18.1 13.9 14.2 0.0 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 16.4 20.6 14.0 14.2 0.0 Lane group LOS 8 C B B A Approach delay 16.4 17.6 10.0 Approach LOS 8 B 8 Intersection delay 14.5 X 0.41 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000 Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Roserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project I D Wakeland Properties Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 117 95 183 487 525 191 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G, 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 42.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Leng h, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Contro Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 223 193 513 553 201 Lane group capacity, c 719 348 1481 1481 1583 v/c ratio, X 0.31 0.55 0.35 0.37 0.13 Total green ratio, g/C 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.47 1.00 Uniform delay, d 17.3 17.3 153 15.5 0.0 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 17.5 19.2 15.4 15.7 0.0 Lane group LOS B B B B A Approach delay 17.5 16.5 11.5 Approach LOS B 8 B Intersection delay 14.4 X 0.44 Intersection LOS B nC52000TM Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 HCS2000W DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario#1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 107 140 430 413 508 154 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G, 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB On y NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Contro Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 453 435 535 162 Lane group capacity, c 561 570 1763 1058 1143 v/c ratio, X 0.46 0.79 0.25 0.51 0.14 Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.72 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Uniform delay, d 23.7 13.4 10.3 24.1 3.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.6 7.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 24.3 21.1 10.4 24.5 3.9 Lane group LOS C C B C A Approach delay 24.3 15.8 19.7 Approach LOS C B B Intersection delay 18.5 X 0.65 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 Copyright 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.1 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario #1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 149 149 271 656 702 244 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up lost time, 1 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB On y NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 32.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 314 285 691 739 257 Lane group capacity, c 527 516 1833 1128 1143 v/c ratio, X 0.60 0.55 0.38 0.66 0.22 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.36 0.72 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Uniform delay, d 26.2 12.0 10.3 24.4 4.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.23 0.11 Incremental delay, d 1.8 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 28.1 13.3 10.4 25.8 4.2 Lane group LOS C B 8 C A Approach delay 28.1 11.2 20.2 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 17.4 X 0.70 Intersection LOS 8 /ICS2000 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright 200 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Anal Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario #2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group LTR LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 107 66 73 98 49 98 381 315 133 133 375 154 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2 2 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) AA A A A AA A A A A A Start -up lost time, 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determine on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 259 258 401 332 140 140 395 162 Lane group capacity, c 434 445 631 1763 879 343 1058 528 0.60 0.58 0.64 0.19 0.16 0.41 0.37 0.31 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc v/c ratio, X Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 25.0 24.8 12.1 9.9 9.8 23.1 22.8 223 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.19 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 2.2 1.9 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 27.2 26.7 14.2 10.0 9.8 23.9 23.1 22.6 Lane group LOS C C B A A C C C Approach delay 27.2 26.7 11.9 23.1 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection delay 19.4 X 0.67 Intersection LOS 8 I/C52000 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Anal Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario#2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group LTR LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 149 14 135 26 13 26 257 630 27 27 675 244 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2 2 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) AA A A A AA A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective seen, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade 1 Parking N 0 N N 0 A I N 0 NN 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 314 68 271 663 28 28 711 257 Lane group capacity, c 470 486 506 1763 879 249 1058 528 0.67 0.14 0.54 0.38 0.03 0.11 0.67 0.49 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc v/c ratio, X Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 25.7 21.0 12.7 11.2 9.0 20.8 25.8 23.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.11 Incremental delay, d 3.6 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.7 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 29.4 21.1 13.8 11.4 9.1 21.0 27.5 24.6 Lane group LOS C C B B A C C C Approach delay 29.4 21.1 12.0 26.5 Approach LOS C C 8 C Intersection delay 20.8 X 0.72 Intersection LOS C IICS2000 Copyright O 2 00 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario #1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 107 157 440 434 541 154 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB On y NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 320 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Leng h, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determina on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 278 463 457 569 162 Lane group capacity, c 522 579 1833 1128 1143 v/c ratio, X 0.53 0.80 0.25 0.50 0.14 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.36 0.72 Uniform delay, d, 25.6 12.6 9.4 22.8 3.9 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 1.1 7.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 26.7 20.4 9.4 23.1 3.9 Lane group LOS C C A C A Approach delay 26.7 15.0 18.9 Approach LOS C B B Intersection delay 18.1 X 0.68 Intersection LOS 8 ICS2000TM Copyright 200 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Suildout Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario #1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 149 201 327 768 806 244 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 14 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 a0 Extension of effective green, e 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB On y NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 29.0 G= G= G= G= 15.0 G= 36.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Leng h, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determina 'on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 369 344 808 848 257 Lane group capacity, c 542 421 1798 1269 1231 v/c ratio, X 0.68 0.82 0.45 0.67 0.21 Total green ratio, g/C 0.32 0.57 0.57 0.40 0.78 Uniform delay, d 26.5 16.0 11.3 22.1 2.7 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.25 0.36 0.11 0.24 0.11 Incremental delay, d 3.5 11.9 0.2 1.4 0.1 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 30.0 27.9 11.5 23.5 27 Lane group LOS C C B C A Approach delay 30.0 16.4 18.7 Approach LOS C 8 B Intersection delay 19.3 X 0.78 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright 200 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Papermil/ Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Wakeland Properties Scenario #2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L TR LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 124 66 73 98 49 98 381 348 133 133 396 165 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2 2 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) AA A A A AA A A A,4 A Start-up lost time, 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 L000 1.000 L000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 120 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 NN 0 NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 320 G= G= G= G= 18.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determina on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 277 258 401 366 140 140 417 174 Lane group capacity, c 452 477 582 1692 844 332 1058 528 v/c ratio, X 0.61 0.54 0.69 0.22 0.17 0.42 0.39 0.33 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 23.9 23.1 13.3 11.1 10.8 23.3 23.0 22.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.20 0.14 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 2.5 1.3 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.4 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 26.4 24.4 16.8 11.1 10.8 24.1 23.3 228 Lane group LOS C C B B 8 C C C Approach delay 26.4 24.4 13.6 23.3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection delay 19.8 X 0.67 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 HCS2000W DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/14/05 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Papermill Road /Route 522 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID wake /and Properties Scenario #2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group LTR LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 201 14 135 26 13 26 257 733 27 27 787 300 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2 2 14 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) AA A A A AA A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 20 20 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade i Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 320 G= G= G= G= 18.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determina 'on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 369 68 271 772 28 28 828 316 Lane group capacity, c 492 513 437 1692 844 223 1058 528 v/c ratio, X 0.75 0.13 0.62 0.46 0.03 0.13 0.78 0.60 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 25.5 19.6 16.3 13.0 10.0 20.9 27.1 25.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.31 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.19 Incremental delay, d 6.3 0.1 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 3.9 1.9 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 31.8 19.7 19.0 13.1 10.0 21.1 31.0 26.9 Lane group LOS C 8 B B A C C C Approach delay 31.8 19.7 14.6 29.6 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection delay 23.6 X 0.82 Intersection LOS C HCS2000 Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.1e TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency /Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/15/2005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Site Dirveway /Route 522 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Wakeland Properties Scenario #1 East/West Street: Site Dirveway North /South Street: Route 522 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 843 33 50 647 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 887 34 52 681 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 21 0 32 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 22 0 33 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 2 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 52 55 C (m) (vph) 750 878 v/c 0.07 0.06 95% queue length 0.22 0.20 Control Delay 10.2 13.4 LOS B B Approach Delay 13.4 Approach LOS B Rights Reserved Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.Id TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Site Dirveway /Route 522 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 2/15/2005 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Wakeland Properties Scenario #1 East/West Street: Site Dirveway North /South Street: Route 522 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 926 104 156 851 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 974 109 164 895 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 112 0 169 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 117 0 177 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 2 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 164 294 C (m) (vph) 652 661 v/c 0.25 0.44 95% queue length 0.99 2.29 Control Delay 12.4 20.7 LOS B C Approach Delay 20.7 Approach LOS C Rights Reserved Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4Jd TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency /Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/15 /2005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Site Dirveway /Route 522 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Wakeland Properties Scenario #2 East/West Street: Site Dirveway North /South Street: Route 522 Intersection Orientation: North South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 520 50 33 662 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 547 52 34 696 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 32 0 21 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 2 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 34 55 C (m) (vph) 988 832 v/c 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.11 0.21 Control Delay 8.8 11.7 LOS A 8 Approach Delay 11.7 Approach LOS 8 Rights Reserved Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Version 4.Id TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency /Co. PHR +A Date Performed 2/15/2005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Site Dirveway /Route 522 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Wakeland Properties Scenario #2 East/West Street: Site Dirveway North /South Street: Route 522 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 805 156 104 946 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 847 164 109 995 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 169 0 112 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 177 0 117 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 2 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vph) 109 294 C (m) (vph) 694 525 v/c 0.16 0.56 95 %queue length 0.55 3.41 Control Delay 11.2 23.1 LOS B C Approach Delay 23.1 Approach LOS C Rights Reserved Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Copyright B 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Intersection: E -W: Papermill Road Weather Dry File Name JJP I put By LDG N -S: Rt. 522 Count By 6292004 Leesbure, Va Count Date Location 15 Minute Period Begining EB: Papennill Road Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total NB: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total SB: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total N,S, 0 W 15 Min. Period Begining 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 16 17 33 20 14 34 22 12 34 20 11 31 21 10 31 17 6 23 12 7 19 6 5 11 10 4 14 8 6 14 7 7 14 9 8 17 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 49 03 66 46 12 77 44 21 70 58 28 69 62 31 63 69 32 60 76 36 54 80 34 48 62 10 56 66 22 51 48 99 49 52 01 0 49 26 75 0 54 30 84 0 65 31 96 0 67 33 100 0 72 29 101 0 70 22 92 0 66 20 86 0 62 23 85 0 65 22 87 0 61 21 82 0 59 19 78 0 62 24 86 211 230 251 259 263 247 241 230 211 218 191 204 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 A.M. Total 168 0 107 275 0 0 0 0 717 712 0 1429 0 752 300 1052 2756 A.M. Total 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 10 19 29 17 17 34 21 22 43 26 27 53 29 24 53 30 21 5 I 26 18 44 28 16 44 27 17 44 26 21 47 22 14 36 19 15 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 94 25 29 93 22 34 101 35 33 117 55 46 124 70 43 122 70 42 101 43 38 96 34 41 95 36 38 92 30 37 93 30 31 90 21 0 81 14 95 0 92 27 19 0 01 34 35 0 17 40 57 0 36 42 78 0 31 49 80 0 16 51 67 0 02 42 44 0 08 40 48 0 04 41 45 0 98 37 35 0 96 33 29 249 275 313 365 401 401 354 322 328 322 301 284 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 P.M.Total 281 0 231 512 0 0 0 0 453 1218 0 1671 0 1282 450 1732 3915 P.M. Total 1 Hour Period Begining 00: Papenaill Road Left Thru Right Total WB: Left Thru Right Total NB: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total SB: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total N,S, 13 W 1 Hour Period Begining 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 78 0 54 132 83 0 47 130 80 0 39 119 70 0 34 104 56 0 28 84 45 0 22 67 36 0 22 58 31 0 22 53 34 0 25 59 0 267 197 464 282 210 492 279 233 512 262 265 527 246 287 533 225 287 512 218 284 502 209 256 465 204 228 432 0 235 120 355 0 258 123 381 0 274 115 389 0 275 104 379 0 270 94 364 0 263 87 350 0 254 86 340 0 247 85 332 0 247 86 333 951 1003 1020 1010 981 929 900 850 824 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 74 85 159 93 90 183 106 94 200 111 90 201 113 79 192 111 72 183 107 72 179 103 68 171 94 67 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 405 537 47 435 582 66 464 630 74 464 638 74 443 617 69 414 583 59 384 543 54 376 530 47 370 517 0 391 15 506 0 446 43 589 0 485 65 650 0 500 82 682 0 485 84 669 0 457 82 639 0 430 74 604 0 412 60 572 0 406 51 557 202 354 480 521 478 405 326 273 235 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 1 Hour Period Begining 130: Papenaill Road Left Thru Right Total WB: Left 'Flw Right 'Dotal NB: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total 813: Route 522 Left Thru Right Total N,S, E W 1 Hour Period Begining 7:30 A.M. Peak 80 0 39 119 PHF 0.88 0 0 0 0 PHI; #DIV /0! 279 233 0 512 PDF 0.97 0 274 115 339 PHF 0.96 1020 0.97 7:30 A.M. Peak 16:45 P.M. Peak 111 0 90 201 PHF 0.95 0 0 0 0 PHF #DIV /0! 174 464 0 638 PHF 0.94 0 500 182 632 PHF 0.95 1521 0.95 16:45 P.M. Peak