Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-17 Traffic Impact Analysis
Executive Summary This Traffic Impact Study was prepared to support the rezoning request for the land owned by the Henry J. Carbaugh -1 rust, and is located south of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to development that will create 46.9 acres of light manufacturing and 46.9 acres of warehousing uses. The total area of the proposed project area is 107.21 acres. The subject property is located south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. More specifically the site is west of Route 11, east of Shady Elm Road, and north of Springdale Road. Access to the site will be through a new entrance onto Renaissance Drive. Development traffic will be directed east on Renaissance Drive towards Route 11 for access to Route 37 and 1-81. During the scoping for this project it was brought to the attention of the VDOT staff that the ITE trip generation method was found to overestimate the traffic associated with light manufacturing and warehousing land uses. Some ITE data for these land uses dates to the 1960s and does not reflect efficiencies gained with current technologies and automation systems. The old data also does not account for the increased capacity of modern day trucks. The Proposed Trip Generation rates presented in this report were offered to VDOT as a more appropriate trip generation rates for this project. VDOT asked that the 2018 Build and 2026 Design Year analyses be performed using the Proposed Trip Generation and ITE Trip Generation rates. These are included in this report and are identified with labeling of either "Proposed" or "ITE trip generation rates. While the traffic that is forecasted to result from this development can be accommodated on the existing roadway network, the completion of Renaissance Drive will bring with it benefits beyond those recognized by this project by providing traffic relief to other local roadways in the region, including Route 11 on the north side of Route 37. The recommended roadway improvements are: • 20 feet of right of way should be dedicated along the northern property line towards the Renaissance Drive project, totaling approximately one acre. Note: the remainder of the needed right of way for Renaissance Drive and the Shady Elm Road intersection improvements was proffered with the rezoning of the Venture 1 property. • An 80' wide permanent grading/slope easement should be dedicated along the aforementioned right of way line extending 600 ft. west from the CSX right of way, totaling approximately 1.1 acres. • 40' of additional right of way should be dedicated for future roadway improvement along the western property line adjacent to Shady Elm Road, totaling approximately 2.7 acres. • Participation financially in the development of Renaissance Drive. With these improvements proffered by this developer combined with the improvements planned and proffered by other developers in the vicinity, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. Table of Contents ExecutiveSummar`j.....................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose..................................................................................................................... 4 ................................ StudyObjectives.......................................................................................................................................4 BackgroundInformation...............................................................................................................................4 Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place...........................................................................4 Transportation Improvements Planned....................................................................................................4 DevelopmentDescription............................................................................................................................. 4 SiteLocation..............................................................................................................................................4 Description of the Parcel........................................................................................................................... 5 General Terrain Features..........................................................................................................................5 Location within Jurisdiction and Region................................................................................................... 5 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations......................................................................................................6 CurrentZoning................... ,........................................................................................................................... StudyArea Description................................................................................................................................. 7 StudyArea................................................................................................................................................. 7 Proposed and Existing Uses.......................................................................................................................... 8 ExistingUse...............................................................................................................................................8 ProposedUses & Access........................................................................................................................... 8 NearbyUses..............................................................................................................................................9 ExistingRoadways.....................................................................................................................................9 Future Transportation Improvements......................................................................................................9 2016 Existing Traffic Conditions..................................................................................................................10 DataCollection........................................................................................................................................10 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................11 2018 Background (No-Build) Traffic Conditions.........................................................................................16 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................16 Methodsof Forecasting Trips.....................................................................................................................19 Proposed Method for Trip Generation and Trip Distribution.....................................................................20 Trip Generation — Proposed Method...................................................................................................... 20 Trip Distribution — Proposed Method.....................................................................................................20 2018 Build-Out Conditions — Proposed Method.........................................................................................24 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................24 2024 Design Year Conditions — Proposed Method..................................................................................... 30 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................30 ITE Trip Generation and Distribution..........................................................................................................36 TripGeneration — ITE Method................................................................................................................ 36 TripDistribution......................................................................................................................................36 2018 Build -out Conditions with ITE Rates...................................................................................................39 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................39 Design Year (2024) with ITE Rates..............................................................................................................46 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................47 Recommended Roadway Improvements....................................................................................................52 QueueAnalysis............................................................................................................................................53 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic.....................................................................................................................54 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................55 Appendices Appendix A Pre -Scope of Work Meeting Form Appendix B Traffic Count Data Appendix C Synchro LOS and Queue Reports Appendix D Cost Estimate Appendix E Generalized Development Plan Appendix F Traffic Signal Timing Plan Introduction Purpose This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request for the land located south of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA that is owned by the Henry J. Carbaugh Trust. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to development that will create 46.9 acres of light manufacturing and 46.9 acres of warehousing uses. The total area of the proposed rezoning is 107.21 acres, which includes the entire parcel. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are to identify: 1. Impacts on traffic operations that may result from the project. 2. Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Background Information Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place For the purposes of this study Renaissance Drive is assumed to completed from its current terminus to Shady Elm Road prior to the build out year of this proposed project. Transportation Improvements Planned A review of the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has one planned construction project near this proposed rezoning, the extension of Renaissance Drive, UPC 91847. Schedule information for the project is not provided in the VDOT online database. According to the Frederick County 2016-2017 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2016-2017 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Carbaugh property. These are: Improve Valley Pike (Route 11) to establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System from the southern limits of the City of Winchester to 0.4 miles south of intersection of the Route 37 EB ramps. It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before 2018, the build out year for this rezoning project. The extension of Renaissance Drive from 0.24 miles west of Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is assumed that this improvement will be in place before 2018. Development Description Site Location The subject property is located south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. More specifically the site is west of Route 11, east of Shady Elm Road, and north of Springdale Road. Figure 1 shows the location of the property and its surrounding land uses. Access to the site will be through a new entrance onto Renaissance Drive. Figure 1 Project Location Map (n.t.s.) Description of the Parcel The subject property for which this rezoning is requested encompasses 107.21 acres with frontage along Shady Elm Road and future frontage along Renaissance Drive. The terrain is gently rolling and the land is currently farmed. The property lies within the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. General Terrain Features The site and its surrounding areas have gently rolling terrain with gentle slopes draining to the east. The CSX railroad runs north -south on the east side of the property and runoff collects along the railroad until it reaches a stone culvert near the south end of the property where drainage flows under the railroad and ultimately to Opequon Creek. Shady Elm Road runs north -south along the western side of the property and the future Renaissance Drive will run east -west along the north side of the property. Location within Jurisdiction and Region The subject property is in the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County, VA. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan -- Kernstown Plan, identifies the future land use on the site to be industrial. Surrounding properties are designated as industrial to the north, business to the east and rural/agricultural to the south and west. Figure 2 shows the Future Land Use Plan near the rezoning area. Figure 2 Future Land Use map (n.t.s.) Curre at Zoning The current zoning on the property is RA (Rural Agriculture) and the property is being used for agricultural purposes. The current land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties are: Table I Surrounding zoning and land use North �M1 Light Industrial __ �� a ricultural East CSX railroad w/ RA beyond South_ _ _RA, large lot residential _agricultural _ _housing West RA, large lot residential Housing and agricultural The current zoning map is shown in figure 3. LOCATION / I - / Zdt1111J 4 y Y 1 � t �aa71'xs. i ,j F t... , � f �t � 'i�� d, s�'- � `-�...• � � �-�.'.—ti... ..._.-,_... M RNi tAab 9k l � / "A' J / r<'Ywt xt F / Figure 3 Existing Zoning Map (n.t.s.) Study area Description Study Area For the purposes of this Traffic Impact Study the study extends from Route 37 on the north to Springdale Road on the south, and from Valley Pike on the east to Shady Elm Road on the west. There are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the site that are not being studied. Figure 4 shows the locations of the intersections that have been studied and the existing roadways near the site. Figure 4 Location of Study Intersections Proposed and Existing Uses Existing Use The property is currently used for agricultural purposes. Proposed Uses & Access The proposed uses for the property are light manufacturing and warehousing (ITE land uses 110 and 150) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service and warehouse facilities. A plan of the proposed development at an engineering scale is included in Appendix E of this report, Access to the property will be through a proposed commercial entrance on Renaissance Drive. This will be the only access to the site for normal traffic. A connection to Shady Elm Road is also proposed and will be used for site access until Renaissance Drive is open to traffic. After the opening of Renaissance Drive the Shady Elm access will be closed to normal traffic and reserved for emergency and maintenance access. Nearby Uses The existing land uses near the proposed site are: • North —agricultural land that is zoned Light Industrial. • West — agricultural land and large lot residential that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • South — agricultural land and large lot residential that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • East - CSX railroad and a mixture of Rural/Agricultural and commercial entities beyond CSX. Existing Roadways Figure 4 shows the location of the existing roadways near the subject property. The typical section attributes for these roadways is as follows: Table 2 Existing Roadway Attributes Shady Elm Road 2 Renaissance Drive 2 Route 11- Valley Pike 2 NB and 2 513 thru lanes w/ left and right turn lanes at Route 37 EB ramps and commercial entrances. Narrows to one thru lane with left and right turn lanes at Renaissance Drive Route 37 EB Ramps 3 EB, 1 WB 11 Gravel, variable width 12 Curb & Gutter 12 Curb & Gutter in some sections. Gravel shoulders with variable width in some sections Major Collector Major Collector Major Arterial 12-18 Gravel, variable width n/a The intersection of Route 11 and the eastbound ramp for Route 37 is signalized. A traffic signal was constructed at the intersection of Route 11 and Renaissance Drive when phase 1 of Renaissance Drive was constructed. Since that time the signal has been "bagged" and is not in service. For the purpose of this study it is assumed that the signal will be placed into service by VDOT in the project buildout year of 2018. Future Transportation Improvemernts The subject property is in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Staunton District, and Edinburg Residency area of responsibility. A review of the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has one planned construction project near this proposed rezoning, the extension of Renaissance Drive, UPC 91847. Schedule information for the project is not provided in the VDOT online database. According to the Frederick County 2016-2017 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2016-2017 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Carbaugh property. These are: • Improve Valley Pike (Route 11) to establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System from the southern limits of the City of Winchester to 0.4 miles south of intersection of the Route 37 EB ramps. It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build out year of 2018. The extension of Renaissance Drive from 0.24 miles west of Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build out year of 2018. 201.6 :Existing Traffic Conditions Data Collection To analyze the existing traffic conditions, peak hour turning movement counts were performed in late August and early September following the opening of Frederick County Public Schools. Count data at the following locations was collected using a video recording device that was later reviewed and tabulated: • The intersection of Shady Elm Road where Renaissance Drive will connect (vol. on Shady Elm Rd. only). • The intersection of Route 11 and Renaissance Drive. • The intersection of Route 11 and the Route 37 EB ramps. The intersection count data was classified into cars and heavy vehicles thus providing a percentage of heavy vehicles in the traffic. A minimal number of pedestrian movements (5) were also counted in the intersection of Route 11 and Route 37 EB ramps. Some construction was underway north of the Route 11— Route 37 EB ramp intersection at the time of the count. After waiting over 4 weeks for the work area to clear, it became apparent the work area was going to remain in place from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM each week day for the foreseeable future. Based on visual observations it was determined that the work area did not affect the flow of traffic in the intersection and the count proceeded. In addition to the intersection counts, 24 hour tube counts were also performed on Route 11 between Renaissance Drive and Route 37 EB ramps. Count data was collected independently for the northbound and southbound directions over a two-week period, but due to equipment problems only one week of data was reported as having a high quality. Data from Tuesday through Thursday is used in this reporting. This data is summarized in table 3 below and the count reports are included in Appendix B of this report. Table 3 Summary of Tube Count Data for Route 11 For the purposes of this report a 'K factor' of 0.086 was computed based on the PM peak hour volumes from the tube counts. Since the VDOT Traffic Volume reports only include a 'k' Factor for Route 11, this computed 'k' factor was applied to all other study locations to compute the AADT for those roadways. A count of the vehicles that did not clear the queue at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 37 EB ramps was also performed in the peak AM and PM hours. The data was collected to core accurately model the actual conditions during saturated flows, although in almost every cycle the queue cleared, there was a minimal number of vehicles that did not clear the signal queue on every cycle. Visual observations indicate that inattentive drivers using their phones was the cause of most vehicles not clearing the queue. This data is also included in Appendix B. Analysis The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The location of the intersections studied is shown in figure 4, and the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in figure 5. For the AM peak hour, the existing lane geometry, levels of service, and delays are shown in figure 6 and the resulting 95th percentile queues are shown in figure 7. For the PM peak hour, the existing lane geometry, levels of service, and delays are shown in figure 8 and the resulting 95th percentile queues are shown in figure 9. The modeling results (levels of service and delays) are shown in tabular form in Tables 3 through 6. Route 11 is a major north -south corridor that parallels 1-81 through Frederick County. In the study area, patrons are attracted to local restaurants, shops, and a large theater. Two intersections that are not being studied were modeled to evaluate the impact of traffic in the NB Route 11 queue that could block these intersections. These intersections are at Kernstown Commons Blvd (150' wide) and Kavanaugh Drive (95' wide). While there are other commercial and residential entrances within the study area on Route 11, these two each have a break in the raised median and therefore require additional consideration. Through visual observations during the PM peak hour it was determined that drivers on Route 11 have no reservation about blocking the intersection with Kavanaugh Drive. Under existing conditions, the NB Route 11 queue does not extend to the intersection with Kernstown Commons Blvd, so it was not possible to evaluate driver's willingness to also block that intersection. However, for modeling purposes, it was assumed that if drivers are willing to block one intersection, they are willing to at least partially block another. In this case it was assumed that 2 vehicles will partially block the intersection with Kernstown Commons Blvd south. The model was coded to reflect this situation. +-1 j in �� N m 51 (70) * 34 (40) f' i ► — r 17 (22) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps ' Commons Blvd 110(114) * ► 10 (29) ._b. 196(171) 00 m M ry M Legend: AM Peak H7ak HR) • Figure 5 Existing Year 2016 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes H h 1 o � �Y o r, m 11 a 4 (11) 1(0) f 0 (6) i Renaissance Dr 0 Volvo Dealer 0 Entrance • 3 (3) • I - 0(i) 0(1) -► 0 (2) j n v � rel ri M / ry M ry H ul Q Q a a M O W a v y v v a v v o M _ M v M N N 22.0 (C) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer + 21.9 (C) Entrance +. + ► - 23.2 (C) 19.2 (C) —_► - 0 (150) + Q Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons Blvd A 30.9 (C) +.. 20.9 (C) Entrance 3 (200) 28.4 (C) - -, u m Rte 37 fB Romps V N N Commons Blvd r Q a) N N 111 Legend: Delay in sec. LOS N ry M ry H ul Q Q a a M O W a + 12.5 (B) M v M 0 Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer 0 Entrance A 19.2(C) + ♦ ► 19.2 (C) —_► - 0 (150) + Q a -i 00 Figure 6 AM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 AM Lane Geometry, Lane Delay and LOS Figure 7AM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 AM Queue Length (ft) ry H ul N 00 ry a M v M Ln m y W a) L' v * - 0 (150) + !_► — 20 (300) Volvo Dealer Entrance 3 (200) ' Kernstown Rte 37 fB Romps t iy4 Commons Blvd 95 (165) N + A ♦ I. ► � I 21 (175) o o 0 Ln ID cr h o Legend: Legend: 951h Percentile Clue e (Available Storage) Figure 7AM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 AM Queue Length (ft) ry H ul 00 ry a o M v M 3 (35) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance 3 (200) ' . I • i ► N o o N � O o j N H H 4 Q � b a` v 17.4 (C) a) (U Y O WC N Q1 Ln 0,4 N s° t- - 23.8 (C) • 25.1 (D) • ► 15.4 (C) -j► 23.5 (C) M + v M 00 29.1 (C) — Kernstown r -► i Commons Blvd 125 (165) ._._j �. ♦ ♦ ► Renaissance Dr tom; "' Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps �„t � Commons Blvd 3 (200) 28.7 (C) - = _ �D * ♦ ..► 19.2(8)—._► Legend: 95th Percentile Que a (Available Storage) f O Lnm 6.8 (A) .- _ u U m m CJ GI N o 00 N e -i Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) j N H H 4 Q � b a` 17.4 (C) a) (U Y O @ Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer eEntrance • 25.1 (D) • ► 15.4 (C) -j► 31 (300) M Q M 00 Figure 8 PM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 PM Lane Geometry, Lane Delay and LOS Figure 9 PM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 PM Queue Length (ft) N H H N u'1 M a` a) (U Y O - 0 (150) I a i y ► H 31 (300) M M � — Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps -► i Commons Blvd 125 (165) ._._j �. ♦ ♦ ► Renaissance Dr "' I 8 (175)Ln Entrance 3 (200) S �D Ln Legend: 95th Percentile Que a (Available Storage) Figure 9 PM Peak Hour Existing Year 2016 PM Queue Length (ft) ti H h Y O 0000 N H M M � — 8 (35) r � -► i Renaissance Dr "' Volvo Dealer Entrance 3 (200) • I • ► O Lnm N 6 CJ Table 4 Level of Service and Delays at Route 11 and Route 37 FR Rmmne Route 11, Route 37 EB Ramps, and Kernstown Commons Blvd Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound Southbound Level of service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT AM Peak Hour C C C C C C C B 1A.9) C C Eastbound 2016 (241) 30.9 20.9 28.4 23.2 21.9 22.0 272 19.7 526,3 23.0 LT C (292) C (22-4) C (215) C (23:4) Existing C B A C C C C B B B C 2018 (191) 24.7 15.9 6.4 27.9 20.3 20.3 20.1 19.7 17.2 14.6 21.8 2016 B (14.6) C (22.0) B (19.7) C (20.9) No Build 0.0 14.0 B C C B C C B B B A B C 2018 (19 5) 30.0 24.0 11.9 25.3 24.9 12.2 14.9 17.3 4.9 12.7 21.6 A C (22.8) C (20.6) B (16.4) C (20.9) Build -out 2018 C C B C C B B B A B C 2024 (194) 29.6 23.4 12.8 24.7 24.3 11.6 15.6 18.0 5.1 13.2 20.9 C (22.5) 8 (19.9) B (17.1) C (20.3) j Design Yr B PM Peak Hour B B C B A C C C C C B C C C2 24.4 2016 (23.2) 28.7 19.2 6.8 29.1 23.5 23.8 29.9 20.8(18.5)27.5 C (24.4) 2 B(13.3) C (202) C (24.6) C (23.3) C (24,0) Existing Build -out C B A C C A C C B 8 C A 2018 B 27.1 18.5 6.7 29.0 22.6 9.5 21.5 20.6 18.1 14.4 22.1 9.9 No Build (2l) 3) B (19.3) B (18.3) C (20-8) C (20.7) C (31.6) C (25.0) C C A C C C C B B g C 2018 (22 6) 33.7 23.4 7.9 33.8 27.6 28.1 25.0 18.71(15.9)12.8 24.9 D C (23.4) C (29.1) C (21.2) C (23.0) Build -out q A D C A C C B C B B B C 2024 C (22.6) 36.1 24.6 8.5 34.7 28.8 14.7 25.5 18.5 15.7 12.7 25.5 C (24.6) C (23.9) C(21.3) C (23.4) Design Yr Table 5 Level of Service and Delays at Route 11 and RPnalKanra nrit- Route 11, Renaissance Drive, and Volvo Dealer Ent. Level of service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Scenario overall ll LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT I LT I TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour C A B A A 2016 21.7 0.0 14.0 8.3 C(21.7) B(14,0) Existing C A B A A 2018 19.2 0.0 12.5 8.1 C (19.2) B (12.5) No Build B C B C B B A A B 8 2018 (14.8) 29.5 14.0 24.4 10.0 13.5 9.3 9.9 14.3 13.6 C (27 9) C (24.4) B(13.3) B (13.9) Build -out C B C B B A A B B 2024 (15.1) 33.5 14.6 25.0 10.0 13.8 9.2 9.9 14.3 13.2 C (31.6) C (25.0) 8(13.5) B (13.8) Design Yr PM Peak Hour D C C q A 2016 25.1 15.3 17.4 8,5) (84)- - Existing C(19.2) B(12.5) - C C C A A 201824.2 15.3 16.4 8.5 8.4 - - 14 Build C (19.7) C (16.4) C B C B C B C C A 2018 (23 9) 31.3 14.8 33.4 16.8 25.6 16.1 27.4 23.7 2.4 C (29.6) C (33.4) C (25.2) B (19.6) Build -out C B C B C B C C A 2024 (24 6) 32.9 15.8 35.0 17.1 26.1 16.1 28.5 242 2.3 C (31.1) C (35.0) C(25.8) C (20.1) Desi n Yr Table 6 Level of Service and Delays at Renaissance Drive and Site Entrance Renaissance Drive and Site Entrance Scenario Overall LOS Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Eastbound Westbound Northeast Northwest Northwest -bound Northeast -bound LT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour 2016 LT TH RT LT TH RT Existing 2016 Existing 2018 No Build 2018 Build -out (79) A 79 c 16.6 A 8.8 - - - - - A (9.2) 2024(7 Design Yr 9) A B 10.9 B - - - 8(10.2) PM Peak Hour I 2016 Existing A 8.6 2018 A 73 No Build A (8.8) A (3.3) 2024 2018 2) A 7.5 6 11.1 B 10.2 Build -out (9 - - - B(10.2) 2024 Design Yr A (9.2) A - - - 'IT B 10.9 PM Peak Hour B - - - B(102) Table 7 Level of Service and Delays at Renaissance Drive and Shady Elm Road Shady Elm Road and Renaissance Drive Overall Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Scenario LOS Southeast -bound Northwest -bound Northeast -bound Southwest -bound IT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour 2016 Existing 2018 No Build 2018 Build -out (1 7) A 8.9 A 8.6 A 73 A (8.8) A (3.3) 2024 A 8.9 A 8.6 A 7.3 Design Yr (16) A (8.8) PM Peak Hour 2016 Existing 2018 No Build 2018 Build -out (1.3 A 9.0 A 8.4 A 7.3 A (8.7) 2024 2) A 9.0 A 8.4 A 73 Design Yr ( A (8.7) 2018 Background (No -Bi d) Traffic roliditions Background traffic conditions are those that are expected to occur without the proposed rezoning. These traffic conditions were established by increasing the existing 2016 traffic volume by 1.0% per year to the build -out year of 2018. The growth factor of 1.0% was determined by VDOT Staunton District Planning staff and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. The 2018 Background AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10. The lane geometry, AM peak hour delay and level of service are shown in Figure 11 and the 95th percentile queue for the AM peak hour is shown in figure 12. The lane geometry, PM peak hour delay and level of service are shown in Figure 13 and the 95th percentile queue for the PM peak hour is shown in figure 14. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 7. Analysis The traffic modeling shows that traffic continues to operate smoothly with acceptable levels of service under the no -build conditions. N 'Zr N CX, � 00 52 (71) 35 (41) y... r 17 (22) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps: Commons Blvd kf 112(116) 10 (30) 200 (174) �, n h � � a0 m Legend; AM Peak Hr, (PM P a HR), Figure 10 No -Build Year 2018 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes M, Lrl y d N ZZ rnLn y .._ 4 (11) 41 .r 1 (0) V 0 (6) Renaissance Dr 0 Volvo Dealer • ® Entrance 3 (3) 0(i) —+ 0 (2) ry Ln H H Y Q � M �y 06 CL CL v OJ � l.1 m d 12.5 (B) �..� i O1 00 N........ • 20.3 (C) Renaissance Dr �— 20.3 (C) Entrance • 19.2 (C) 27.9 (C) 19.2 (C) _-1► i *0j { Kernstown Rte 37 E8 Ramps Commons Blvd 24.7 (C) * f 15.9(6) ----► Entrance I-► 6.4 (A) • ► v � O Oi n Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) e (Available Storage) H H Y Q � M �y 06 CL CL v M d 12.5 (B) �..� i � ai v LL N • Renaissance Dr `' Volvo Dealer A H Entrance • 19.2 (C) 4.I A : ► 19.2 (C) _-1► i Q 0 00 Figure 11 AM Peak Hour No -Build 1018 Lane Geometry, Delay (sec) and LOS H H H 00 H N CL CL v M d � O O � ai v LL N • 0 (150) i '` ► 27 (300) 0 Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps Commons Blvd 102 (165) — • Entrance �_► 25 (175) • ► v � �c o Legend: 951h Percentile Que e (Available Storage) Figure 12 AM Peak Hour No -Build 2018 95th Percentile Queue (ft) H 00 H N CL CL v � O O • 0 (35) 0 Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer 0 Entrance • 0 (200) • ► i a Ln o o O � W ,y 5 9.5 (A) 22.6(C) 29.0(C) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps Commons Blvd 27.1(C) 18.5 (B) - ► j 6.7 (A) 1-i o ao Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) Figure 13 PM Peak Hour No -Build 2018 Lane Geometry, Delay (sec), and LOS a Ln m � ami ko d Ln * 0 (150) 34 (300) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps 'i Commons Blvd ? 3' 107 (165) * .-► - i 33 (175)LM W ® c3 S T e-1 a 0 Legend: 951h Percentile Que a (Available Storage) Figure 14 PM Peak Hour No -Build 2018 95th Percentile Queue (ft) w a natio Q v v 0 ao . 16.4 (C) .-J + L. 0 Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer 8 Entrance 24.2 (C) — • 15.3 (C)► i I Q U1 00 Figure 13 PM Peak Hour No -Build 2018 Lane Geometry, Delay (sec), and LOS a Ln m � ami ko d Ln * 0 (150) 34 (300) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps 'i Commons Blvd ? 3' 107 (165) * .-► - i 33 (175)LM W ® c3 S T e-1 a 0 Legend: 951h Percentile Que a (Available Storage) Figure 14 PM Peak Hour No -Build 2018 95th Percentile Queue (ft) w J natio 5 0 0 6 (35) 0 Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer 0 Entrance ' 3 (200) • • P. I Ln� N a n Methods of Forecasting Trips During the scoping for this project it was brought to the attention of the VDOT staff that the ITE trip generation method was found to overestimate the traffic associated with light manufacturing and warehousing land uses. A report was prepared by Stowe Engineering that analyzes three locations where traffic counts were performed to compare the actual trip rates for warehouses and light industrial land uses with those published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The report was undertaken as part of the traffic study scoping for the development of the Carbaugh Business Center, a 107.4 -acre parcel in Frederick County, VA and is included in Appendix A as a part of the scoping document for this project. There is a strong indication that the trip generation rates published by ITE overestimate the trips that will result for warehouse and light manufacturing land uses. Some ITE data for these land uses dates to the 1960s and does not reflect efficiencies gained with current technologies and automation systems. The old data also does not account for the increased capacity of modern day trucks. Warehouse and light manufacturing facilities have evolved rapidly in recent years and have significantly improved the management of transporting their products. This must be accounted for in the planning of modern facilities. While the data and findings presented in this report may not be representative of these same land uses in other areas, it does represent local conditions as is demonstrated in the Stowe Engineering Report. The trip generation rates presented in table 8 were presented to VDOT as more appropriate trip generation rates for this project. VDOT asked that the 2018 Build and 2026 Design Year analyses be performed using both scenarios. Subsequent sections of this report first present the more appropriate trip generation rates identified as "Proposed", followed by the ITE trip generation rates. A summary of these rates is presented in table 8. Trips for both scenarios were distributed according to the distribution agreed upon in the project scoping and discussed later in this report. Tahle R Prnnnserd and ITF Trin Ganarntinn Rntae Proposed Trip ITE Land Use Time Period Gen. Rate per Trip Gen. ITE % Increase Rate per Acre Acre 110 Light Manufacturing �Y� ADT i 20.5 AM Peak 4.1 47.8 7.5 1336.2% +�j82.9% PM Peak — 4.4 _. 6.1 _ 38.6% — 150 Warehousing ADT 23.6 _ AM Peak4.7 54.9 8.61 f 132.6% 83.0% i PM Peak , 5.7 X7.8 i 36.8% Proposed Method for Trip Generation and Trip Distribution Trip Geieration - Proposed Method The developer of this project has performed traffic analyses at three locations where they have developed similar projects to determine the appropriateness of the ITE trip generation rates for the light manufacturing and warehousing land uses. Through these studies, it has been found that the ITE trip generation rates greatly overestimate the amount of traffic that is associated with these uses. A copy of the analyses performed resulting in this determination is included in the appendix C of this report. The trip generation rates provided on the following page are proposed as an alternative to the ITE trip generation rates. These proposed rates are consistent with actual traffic counts taken at similar nearby facilities where modern warehousing and production methods are in use as well as late model trucks. Eight percent of the new traffic associated with the development is assumed to be heavy trucks based on information presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook data for industrial parks. There were no pass -by trip reductions applied to the forecasted traffic volumes. Trip Wstribution - Proposed Method Trips generated by the development using the proposed trip generation rates were assigned to the roadway.network based on proximity to logical transportation corridors, access to 1-81, and commuter patterns. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 15-A and the assignment of the new AM and PM peak hour trips are shown in figure 15-13. Trip Generation Summary Alternative: Full Build Out with Proposed Trip Generation Rates Phase: Project: Carbaugh Business Center Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total ✓ 159 33 192 ✓ 158 62 220 Open Date: 7/7/2016 Analysis Date: 7/7/2016 Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total ✓ 45 161 206 ✓ 93 174 267 317 Weekday Average Daily Trips ITE Land Use * Enter Exit Total 110 Light Industrial Use ✓ 481 480 961 46.9 Acres 0 0 0 150 Warehousing Use ✓ 554 553 1107 46.9 Acres 95 412 138 335 473 Unadjusted Volume 1035 1033 2068 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 Pass -By Trips 0 0 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 1035 1033 2068 Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total ✓ 159 33 192 ✓ 158 62 220 Open Date: 7/7/2016 Analysis Date: 7/7/2016 Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total ✓ 45 161 206 ✓ 93 174 267 317 95 412 138 335 473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 317 95 412 138 335 473 * Custom rate used for selected time period. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC P. 1 Xernsf6wn 'a. ". 4 ti. :rk 44 ti Project Location' u „J ' ' n 4 N N 0 N Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons Blvd 63 (28) 01 o 0 7 L N 317 (139) Renaissance Dr i v u ip C W _v Figure 16.8 New Trips - Proposed Method Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR),� U% Y N � v Ln 00 N 1 I • R - issance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance 86 (302) ' : * r I 10 (34) -- • v N M W b Q t h Renaissance Dr ♦ -s 2018 Bufld-Out Conditions - Proposed Method The 2018 build -out condition combines the background traffic for the year 2018, and the new trips that are forecasted to result from the development of this property. This is the "Proposed Build Condition" which is forecasted to occur in the year 2018. The Proposed Build Condition anticipates the completion of Renaissance Drive from its current terminus to Shady Elm Road and the activation of the traffic signal at Renaissance Drive and Route 11. The entrance to the development will connect to Renaissance Drive west of the CSX crossing. It is assumed that Renaissance Drive will cross the CSX with a bridge over the railroad. Analysis The 2018 Build Condition AM and PM peak hour turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 16. The lane geometry, AM peak hour delays, and level of service are shown in Figure 17. The AM peak hour 95t' percentile queue length is shown in figure 18. The lane geometry, PM peak hour delays, and level of service are shown in Figure 19. The PM peak hour 95t'' percentile queue length is shown in figure 20. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 3 through 6. 317(139) Renaissance Dr i 5(s) 5 (5) m ♦ m v a'i O � c LU IF �n M 01 111 y r H , cL d N cn r1l Ln m ti , 4 'vui° a > 52 (71) 1 I I • - 1(0) 35 (41) �( ► 0 (6) — 17 (22) Volvo Dealer -- i � Entrance Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps J Commons 0(i) • 112 (116) i 10 (36) V 10 (30) -.....► � 263 (202) - --: m V o m � r- m � m 317(139) Renaissance Dr i 5(s) 5 (5) m ♦ m v a'i O � c LU IF �n Figure 17 &u, om Cry and ;wnes of Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), E . w a a Ln i 5 (5) ► i 5 (5) Renaissance Dr 01 111 y d N r1l Ln m ti , 4 rry (11) 1 I I • - 1(0) j 0 (6) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer -- � Entrance 89 (305) -- ' ' ♦ ' 0(i) ► 10 (36) V � a m V o Figure 17 &u, om Cry and ;wnes of Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), E . w a a Ln i 5 (5) ► i 5 (5) Renaissance Dr >.v Q) ID w -4 r,4 ------ 12.2 (B) 24.9 (C) 25.3 (C) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps Commons j 30.0 (C) 47 A A -I. 24.0(C) -P. 11.9 (B) 7.9 (A) Renaissance Or 00 !'grfre 187Build-Out YrMSA.M, Peak H"Our LuneCeometty, 00uy(scc) and 8.6 (A) 8.9 (A) Renaissance Or 24.4 (C) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance 29.5 (C) Fp' 14.0 (B) o f1i a; !'grfre 187Build-Out YrMSA.M, Peak H"Our LuneCeometty, 00uy(scc) and 8.6 (A) 8.9 (A) Renaissance Or til N Ln m Q - N � N M b LL y 0 (150) ' ► __ 27 (300) V Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons 103 (165) -4 . ♦ ♦ A- 62(175) o 0 • Ln �o v `r 0 0 n 18 (575) Renaissance Or 0 (150) n M v M c O c w O d 00 N i ' _ _ v Ln O j a r, 4-*-- 10 (35) Renaissance Or t# Volvo Dealer Entrance AL 99 (200) O O Ln O N W Cr W Lr7 � N � O ► 0 (225) 0 Renaissance Or O ut O Figt;r, -79 Build -Out Yr 2 61& AM Pc a'- dour 95th Per-ce>at fe ;Queeue fftj - Ptcloused Method . U1 y Q- 00 U 28.1 (C) 27.5 (C) 33.8 (C) Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps eCommons Blvd 33.7 (C) --i A A 23.4 (C) 7.9 (A) Lti o6 vi -C3 Cr 8.4 (A) +9.0 (A) 0 Renaissance Dr A I - Figure 19 3uild-Ou t Yr 2.0 1 ., " ��!w' k Hour Lane Geem-etry, Debt' (-,aer) and Le yei of Service - 1'roposed Pvle,h, (yj 7.5 (A) Renaissance Dr -C3 Cr 8.4 (A) +9.0 (A) 0 Renaissance Dr A I - Figure 19 3uild-Ou t Yr 2.0 1 ., " ��!w' k Hour Lane Geem-etry, Debt' (-,aer) and Le yei of Service - 1'roposed Pvle,h, (yj 8 (575) Renaissance Dr ---------- 0(150) i vi Ln tD to ry 00 Ln 0(150) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer 33 (300) Entrance 309 (200) Kernstown 37 EB Romps Commons 131 (165) A A A S7(175) Ln CD Ln rn r1i 8 (575) Renaissance Dr ---------- 0(150) i vi Ln tD to N 0 0.0(225) r. 0 Renaissance Dr Figure 200 Buhl Yr 2018 Pr Peok 95th i—r-i-er. tile Queue (ft) - Prc-posed Iviethod ry 00 --0(35) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance 309 (200) • CD N 0 0.0(225) r. 0 Renaissance Dr Figure 200 Buhl Yr 2018 Pr Peok 95th i—r-i-er. tile Queue (ft) - Prc-posed Iviethod 2024 Design Yezu' Conditions - Proposed Method The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case is the year 2024. Analysis The 2024 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 21. The lane geometry, AM peak hour delay and LOS are shown in Figure 22 and the AM peak hour 95th percentile queue length is shown in figure 23. The lane geometry, PM peak hour delay and LOS are shown in Figure 24 and the PM peak hour 95th percentile queue length is shown in figure 25. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 3 through 6. Rte 37 f8 Ramps 119 (123)--T 11 (31) — ► 275 (213) 55 (76) 37 (43) S_.._.-... 18 (24) t: Kernstown Commons 00 LnLno n m O m 00 a ti M N 5 (5) 317 (139) Renoisson-- or a- ► S(5) ► 5 (5) - - u 0 e v in Figure LI L)e,. I ,ak Hour 7 a `'c Volumes - Proposed Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), N SIE 4 Ln n m o0 4 (11) 1 (0) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance 89(30S) ♦ �" • r► I j 0 (1) --► 10 (36) - m ♦14 ,o . N m tt ~ �. -_0 — M1 LI U1 lr} L1 Lo Ln 5 (5) 1 --_ 5 (5) ® Renaissance Dr • ► trv5 Ln I O H H O1 N d 7.9 (A) .i N y �._.__- 11.6 (B) I, .4 ... 24.3 (C) 24.7 (C) N M • Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons Blvd 29.6 (C) A 23.4 (C) ► v6 00 12.8 (B) ( LD 0 �* vi o6 H e i H Ul e5, t•� Ci! _ - Lone Geometry, AM POO ?'i` ur Delov (se and Leve gi Service eF OPOSM iWe?.?'ta_� J NtyI 7.9 (A) Renaissance Dr G. N N M --• 8.6 (A) rn 5H 8.9 (A) .�-I Ql v6 00 ( �* 6 C W W h e5, t•� Ci! _ - Lone Geometry, AM POO ?'i` ur Delov (se and Leve gi Service eF OPOSM iWe?.?'ta_� J NtyI W Q O m m Q G. N N M --• 8.6 (A) rn 5H 8.9 (A) .�-I Ql ( �* 25.0 (C) • Renaissance Dr ' Volvo Dealer Entrance ♦ 33.5 (C) _.., A ► 14.6 (B) �► S m Q O 00C5 Cfi H N al e5, t•� Ci! _ - Lone Geometry, AM POO ?'i` ur Delov (se and Leve gi Service eF OPOSM iWe?.?'ta_� J NtyI W Q O r 8.6 (A) + ► 8.9 (A) 0 Renaissance Dr ♦ ► I e5, t•� Ci! _ - Lone Geometry, AM POO ?'i` ur Delov (se and Leve gi Service eF OPOSM iWe?.?'ta_� J 1 �1 u U1 � W � � r` m a v N � � N n, * 0 (150) Volvo Dealer Entrance i i : ► 110 (200) 29 (300) t l * ► i 0 0 In Xernstown 37 E RRamps , : Commons 108 (165) A_, ♦ ♦ ► 64 (175) � 0 0 v v rn o 18(57S) Renaissance Dr ► 0 (150) ;n � en pp c a c v h a E `w N (3 N In O � + ► 0 (225) i Renaissance Or 0 0 F rut e 23 Desiq,g Ye';? .. t, . _ r� .`tl- ; 5th P..sr f.eP!ct ' QejF i€: i f: - °"rr7.1 .,°;gd C:ctt %i"ion u -7 00 W � � -- 10 (35) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance 110 (200) t l * ► i 0 0 In W � 0 a E `w N (3 N In O � + ► 0 (225) i Renaissance Or 0 0 F rut e 23 Desiq,g Ye';? .. t, . _ r� .`tl- ; 5th P..sr f.eP!ct ' QejF i€: i f: - °"rr7.1 .,°;gd C:ctt %i"ion Figure 244 Oesign Year., -1-024 Geornetry, PfV Peak Hour Delay ffec) "n d level o,;- Service - Pfr3posed Conditions 7.5 (A) 41 y rn Ln r, 9.0(A) Ll1 Qj Lfi 14.7 (B) 00 28.8 (C) C; 34.7 (C) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Kernstown 37EBRamps A Commons 36.1 (D) 15.8 (B) 24.6 (C) 8.5 (A) Ln oo Ln rld 11 11 Figure 244 Oesign Year., -1-024 Geornetry, PfV Peak Hour Delay ffec) "n d level o,;- Service - Pfr3posed Conditions 7.5 (A) Renaissance Dr rn 8.4 (A) 9.0(A) Ll1 Qj Renaissance Dr M 4 00 C; 35,0 (C) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance A Figure 244 Oesign Year., -1-024 Geornetry, PfV Peak Hour Delay ffec) "n d level o,;- Service - Pfr3posed Conditions ja ig CL rn 8.4 (A) 9.0(A) Ll1 Qj Renaissance Dr M 4 00 35,0 (C) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance A 32.9 (C) 15.8 (B) Figure 244 Oesign Year., -1-024 Geornetry, PfV Peak Hour Delay ffec) "n d level o,;- Service - Pfr3posed Conditions 13 rn 8.4 (A) 9.0(A) Renaissance Dr Figure 244 Oesign Year., -1-024 Geornetry, PfV Peak Hour Delay ffec) "n d level o,;- Service - Pfr3posed Conditions 12(57S) Renaissance Dr}}qq�� V� _ r 0 (150) i M M �-- O h M c 0 i c w v j H H - d W � O v v � T h � y ri a N N ii 1a j f--_-- 0 (150) .4 Renaissance Dr ' Volvo Dealer 49 (300) Entrance to ! Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons 161 (165) i a * f I � 70 (175) I I M N CD^ 12(57S) Renaissance Dr}}qq�� V� _ r 0 (150) i M M �-- O h M c 0 i c w v j - d W � O v ri 4,,— 0 (35) Renaissance Dr d Volvo Dealer Entrance • 348 (200) ! z C) a W O W u"i O N � N � 0 � • '_' #� + 0 (225) ® Renaissance Dr ♦ i C7 tl) ti 6 Figure 25 Design Kean 202",.4'eo, �4;}err 95 h Percentile Queue i :J - Proposed nyletfho€i ITE Trap Generation. and Distribution Trip Generation - ITE Methed The ITF Method of trio generation for the project uses was developed using Trip Gen 2014 software based on the 9`h edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The peak traffic volumes on the adjacent streets for the AM and PM periods were used for forecasting the new traffic. Land uses and trips generated using the ITE rates are summarized in table on the following page. Eight percent of the new traffic associated with the development is assumed to be heavy trucks based on information presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook data for industrial parks. There were no pass -by trip reductions applied to the forecasted traffic volumes. Trip Distribution Trips generated by the development were distributed on the roadway network based on proximity to logical transportation corridors, access to 1-81, and commuter patterns. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 15-A and the assignment of the new peak hour trips are shown in figure 26. Trip Generation Summary Alternative: Full Build Out using ITE Trip Generation method Phase: Project: Carbaugh Business Center Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Weekday Average Daily Trips ITE Land Use * Enter Exit Total 110 Light Industrial Use 1122 1121 2243 46.9 Acres Adjacent Street Traffic _ Enter 150 Warehousing Use 1289 1288 2577 46.9 Acres 60 352 64 225 Unadjusted Volume 2411 2409 4820 Internal Capture Trips 0 583 173 Pass -By Trips 192 462 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 2411 2409 4820 Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent * Custom rate used for selected time period. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC P. 1 Open Date: Analysis Date: 7/7/2016 7/7/2016 Weekday AM Peak Hour of Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Adjacent Street Traffic _ Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 292 60 352 64 225 289 291 113 404 128 237 365 583 173 756 192 462 654 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583 173 756 192 462 654 * Custom rate used for selected time period. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC P. 1 Va- m n 00 6 b Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons Blvd ♦ . 117 (38) ♦ N Ql _ m p N i Ln 583(191) Renaissance Dr F� N ♦ C � o m c r` W H C1 Figure 26 New Trip Assignments based on ITE Trip Generation Method Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), Cr W A O t H Renaissance Dr rr M ti N n Y n a LA m A Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance • f 156 (416) • ( + 17 (46) '► m Figure 26 New Trip Assignments based on ITE Trip Generation Method Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), Cr W A O t H Renaissance Dr rr 2018 Build -out Conditions with ITE Rates The 2018 build -out conditions combine the background traffic for the year 2018, and the new traffic that is forecasted to result from the development of this property. This is commonly referred to as the "Build Condition" which is forecasted to occur in the year 2018. The Build Condition takes into account the completion of Renaissance Drive from its current terminus to Shady Elm Road and the activation of the traffic signal at Renaissance Drive and Route 11. The entrance to the development will connect to Renaissance Drive west of the CSX crossing. It is assumed that Renaissance Drive will cross the CSX with a bridge over the railroad. It is also assumed that the signal at the intersection of Valley Pike and Renaissance Drive will be activated. Analysis The 2018 Build Condition AM and PM peak hour turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 27. The lane geometry, AM peak hour delays, and level of service are shown in Figure 28. The AM peak hour 95th percentile queue length is shown in figure 29. The lane geometry, PM peak hour delays, and level of service are shown in Figure 30. The PM peak hour 95`h percentile queue length is shown in figure 31. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 10 through 13. H N ulk Y R V LM � n 'y Lr' v ry Ln 00 0 R v Rte 37 EB Ramps 112 (116) - 10 (30) --• ► 317 (212) 52 (71) -- 35 (41) V 17 (22) Kernstown Commons 1-1 cn al R H N m Figure 27 Build Condition 2018 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), � �CSaiTLa U ifl Y 5 (5) R .-+ n - 583 (191) V W Renaissance Dr N00 Ln � j ? 4 (11) S(5) - ► 1 1 (0) 5 (5) N 0 (6) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer w Entrance • 159 (419) A -b- ►0(1) Figure 27 Build Condition 2018 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR), 1 W= Lf) Ln In b O M -G to Ln i 5 (5) `► +--- 5 (5) 0 Renoi-Son fe Dr r R � �CSaiTLa U ifl Y R .-+ n V W N00 Ln � j ? 4 (11) f--- 1 (0) i► i -- 0 (6) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance • 159 (419) A -b- ►0(1) 0(i) 17 (48) Ln Lf7 N 1 W= Lf) Ln In b O M -G to Ln i 5 (5) `► +--- 5 (5) 0 Renoi-Son fe Dr r R • 8.8 (A) Renaissance Or G 6 C W _ N N N N Y o m u a a v v m -Y CL � o y N * 13.6 (B) • 31.7 (C) 26.6 (C) Renaissance Or • + Volvo Dealer r 34.2 (C) 30.5 (C) • ► 17.9 (B) —1► m Kernstown 37 EB Ramps D al r-1 Commons 33.5 (C) f A ♦ ► 21.8 (C) — - i 10.7(6)— v m m • m oo r� r N 1 rl N • 8.8 (A) Renaissance Or G 6 C W _ N N Y o m u a a o y • 31.7 (C) Renaissance Or Volvo Dealer Entrance 30.5 (C) • ► 17.9 (B) —1► m y 00 W D al r-1 O1 � N � a w a $ a m � 8.6 (A) 8.9 (A) Renaissance Or ♦ ► Figure 28 AM Peak Hour Build Condition 2018 Lane Geometry, Delay and LOS Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) "1 M W O N 0) rn O to ti 10 (35) Renaissance Dr,ti, Volvo Dealer Entrance 137 (200) 4- • ► � o N O ti ro O m Figure 29 AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Condition 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Legend: 95th Percentile queue (Available Storage) z E w a � a N o N t o � � + -► - 0 (225) i Renaissance Dr 0 N 0 h H 50 (575) Renaissance Dr 0 (150) + n `n err m w 00 � c 0 c w O(ISO) -► 28 (300) Kernstown Rte 37 ES Romps Commons 106 (165) _ ...._ 4- ♦ L.► I 71 (175) Ln � v rn H O "1 M W O N 0) rn O to ti 10 (35) Renaissance Dr,ti, Volvo Dealer Entrance 137 (200) 4- • ► � o N O ti ro O m Figure 29 AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Condition 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Legend: 95th Percentile queue (Available Storage) z E w a � a N o N t o � � + -► - 0 (225) i Renaissance Dr 0 N 0 i 50 (575) Renaissance Dr 0 (150) + n `n err m w 00 � c 0 c w "1 M W O N 0) rn O to ti 10 (35) Renaissance Dr,ti, Volvo Dealer Entrance 137 (200) 4- • ► � o N O ti ro O m Figure 29 AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Condition 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Legend: 95th Percentile queue (Available Storage) z E w a � a N o N t o � � + -► - 0 (225) i Renaissance Dr 0 N 0 r N N N y rn Ln Y a C ?— 14.8 (8) 29.0 (C) -_: V + ► 35.1 (D) _ Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps Commons I 38.2 (D) .__,s �., A • 24.7 (C) -- 26.4 (C) M N oo ,n c-4 cI --- 7-6 (A) Renaissance Dr - i - m m ♦ Ln r4 G O t W N © m a lD N f' + 4-- 37.9 (D) Renaissance Or * Volvo Dealer Entrance 46.3 (D) ? r► I 14.4(13) �► d od 6 Figure 250 PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Condition Lane Geometry, Delay and LOS Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) E Q � .c 8.4 (A) 9.0 (A) Renaissance Dr f a v LO , y v v L ao y > *_ 0 (150) ► 32 (300) Kernstown 37 EB Ramps Commons 126 (165) -__.._. F * �► 33 (175) Ln er U:) m o m --- 12 (575) Renaissance Dr ri ► 0 (150) rrs o � c b G W W1 Figure 261 PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) o c N O � 5 v � i-- 0 (35) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance A _ 443 (200) - 0 0 L N N O C W � a N i i ► 0 (225) Renaissance Dr I I 0 c7 Table 9 Level of Service and Delays at Route 11 and Route 37 EB Ramps - ITE Trip Generation Method Route 11, Route 37 EB Ramps, and Kernstown Commons Blvd Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT B C B B C C B C C B C B B B C (16.7) 2018 C (33.5) (21.8) (10.7) (34.2) (26.6) (13.6) (27.3) (16.8) (14.7) (12.3) (24.7) C Build -out (22.3) C (21.3) C (23.7) C (20.2) C (23.9) Design Yr (38 4) (18.3) D C B C C C C B B B C C (25.9) 2024 Design Yr C (35.8) (22.1) (11.4) (34.2) (27.0) (27.0) (28.2) (17.0) (14.8) (12.3) (25.2) Build -out (33.5) (23.0) C (22.5) C (28.6) C (20.6) C (24.4) PM Peak Hour (19.2) (39.6) D CC D (37.9) D C B C B B B C D 2018 C (38.2) (24.7) (26.4) (35.1) (29.0) (14.8) (29.2) (18.4) (15.9) (21.4) (28.0) (16.9) Build -out (25- 9) C (23.4) C (29.1) C (21.2) C (23.0) D (42.3) C (27.7) C (32.8) DC B C C C C C C C D 2024 C (41.4) (28.9) (12.1) (29.3) (29.3) (30.0) (31.1) (26.9) (21.7) (20.6) 1 (35.9) Design Yr (30.3) C (28.5) C (29.6) C (28.6) C (33.6) Table 10 Level of Service and Delays at Route 11 and Renaissance Drive - ITE Trip Generation Method Route 11, Renaissance Drive, and Volvo Dealer Ent. Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Scenario LOS LT I TH RT LT I TH I RT I LT I TH I RT I LT I TH I RT AM Peak Hour 2018 C C B C B B B C B D Build -out (31.9) (30.5) (17.9) (31.7) (19.8) (29.6) (16.7) (20.0) (17.0) (47.2) C (29.3) C (31.7) B (28.4) C (34.2) 2024 C D B C B C B B B C Design Yr (38 4) (18.3) (31.4) (19.3) (26.8) (15.3) (19.5) (15.6) (35.0) (27-3) D (36.5) C (31.4) C (25.9) C (26.4) PM Peak Hour 2018 C D B D D C B B D A Build -out (33.5) (46.3) (14.4) (37.9) (36.7) (28.5) (16.9) (19.2) (39.6) (2.7) D (43.0) D (37.9) C (28.8) C (30.3) 2024 C DB D C C B B D C (49.0) (16.6) (42.3) (21.4) (28.0) (16.9) (19.6) (36.6) (20.9) Design Yr (34.9) D (45.7) D (42.3) C (27.7) C (32.8) Table 11 Level of Service and Delays at Renaissance Drive and Site Entrance - ITE Trip Generation Method Renaissance Drive and Site Entrance PM Peak Hour Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) AB overall Overall LOS Eastbound B j Scenario B LT I TH I RT Westbound Northeast Northwest t LOSEastbound LT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT B (11.4) AM Peak Hour I A Build -out A A E A A 2018 A (8.8) A A (39.8) (9.18) Build -out (8.9) Build -out B (10.0) A (8 8) A (3.3) A E A A 2024 A (1.2) (8.8) A (8]]q (39.8) (9.1) 2024 Design Yr (8.9) F B (10.0) PM Peak Hour Table 12 Level of Service and Delays at Renaissance Drive and Shady Elm Rd - ITE Trip Generation Method Shady Elm Road and Renaissance Drive AB Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound B j 2018 B LT I TH I RT (7.6) LT TH RT (12.2) (11.4) !I Build -out (10.1) (8.4) B (11.4) (7.3) A Build -out AB A A (8.7) B A 2024 B (7.6) A A (12.2) (11.4) Design Yr (10.1) Build -out B (11.4) Table 12 Level of Service and Delays at Renaissance Drive and Shady Elm Rd - ITE Trip Generation Method Shady Elm Road and Renaissance Drive Level of Service per Movement by Approach (delay in sec/veh) Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT I TH I RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT A AM Peak Hour (9.0) (8.4) A (7.3) A Build -out (1.3) A A (8.7) 2018 A (8.9) A A (8.6) (7.3) Build -out (1.7) A (8 8) A (3.3) (73) A A (1.2) A (8]]q A 2024 A (8.9) Design Yr (1.6) A (8.8) PM Peak Hour Design Year (2024) with ITE Rates The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case is the year 2024. A A A 2018 A (9.0) (8.4) (7.3) Build -out (1.3) A (8.7) A A A 2024 A ) (73) Design Yr (1.2) A (8]]q Design Year (2024) with ITE Rates The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case is the year 2024. Analysis The 2024 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 32. The lane geometry, AM peak hour delay and LOS are shown in Figure 33 and the AM peak hour 951h percentile queue length is shown in figure 34. The lane geometry, PM peak hour delay and LOS are shown in Figure 35 and the PM peak hour 951h percentile queue length is shown in figure 36. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 10 through 13. Figure 27 Design Year 2024 Peak Hour Volumes Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR)� � � a m oU ii`,° >° O ry 00 O Q Ln 583 (191) 0 (6) LI y 55 (76) Entrance 159 (419) ---' f ... 37 (43) 0(i) ► 17 (48) i 18 (24) 5 (5) _ N �0 `* Kernstown 37 EB Ramps Commons 119(123) a �t1 c * ► 11 (31) --=--i 329 (223) a m a0 r v m m LnN awl r; r4 � Figure 27 Design Year 2024 Peak Hour Volumes Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR)� � � a m oU ii`,° >° 4 (11) 5 (5) 1 (0) 583 (191) 0 (6) Renaissance Or Entrance 159 (419) ---' ♦ ► 0(i) 17 (48) m 5 (5) _ N �0 `* I • v u1 U rm-. N a �t1 c Figure 27 Design Year 2024 Peak Hour Volumes Legend: AM Peak Hr, (PM Peak HR)� W a _ b C lf1 Ln V1 t© UI j 5 (5) 0 Renaissance Dr ♦ ► •� ri1 Ln u1 O to � � a m oU ii`,° >° 4 (11) 1 (0) �- i ► 0 (6) Renaissance Dr Volvo Dealer Entrance 159 (419) ---' ♦ ► 0(i) 17 (48) m _ I • 111 CT H W a _ b C lf1 Ln V1 t© UI j 5 (5) 0 Renaissance Dr ♦ ► •� ri1 Ln u1 O to ti N UJ y a a r'! �? LL N * 27.0 (C) ..-- 27.0 (C) 34.2 (C) " Kernstown Rte 3i EB Ramps Commons Blvd 35.8 (D) .- • ♦ _.► 22.1 (C) ._. ► �, j 11.4 (B)— u m m N O 00 0o ti 4 N e-4 r4 N N j. 8.8 (A) _ U fYl m Q Renaissance Dr O lO u1 — f en fP1 u m of �-;._.... c a 31.4 (C) e W u H N N j. _ U fYl m Q O lO u1 ri en fP1 �-;._.... 31.4 (C) • Renaissance Dr ' Volvo Dealer Entrance r 38.4 (D) --� . I • 18.3 (B) -�► [6 lu1 m V7 `� r�-i N Figure 28 AM Peak Hour 2024 Design year Lane Geometry, Delay and LOS Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) C W Q O s r c - - 8.6 (A) + ' 8.9 (A) i Renaissance Dr a ► 50 (575) Renaissance Dr 0(150) Ln fn Ij I , 29 A 4Peryk Hour 2024 Design Year 95'hg,', .1 -, ,,, ,-V' Legend: 951h Percentile Queue (Available Storage) 00 a a rW rN 11 (35) Renaissance Or W'' Volvo Dealer Entrance A 165 (200) A 0 ft C) A 0(22S) Renaissance Dr Ln QJ 0(150) 30(300) V Kernstown Rte 37 EB Ramps Commons 140 (165) 72 (175) Ln v c7 50 (575) Renaissance Dr 0(150) Ln fn Ij I , 29 A 4Peryk Hour 2024 Design Year 95'hg,', .1 -, ,,, ,-V' Legend: 951h Percentile Queue (Available Storage) 00 a a rW rN 11 (35) Renaissance Or W'' Volvo Dealer Entrance A 165 (200) A 0 ft C) A 0(22S) Renaissance Dr Ln ry H v _ aa) t° 30 0 (C) f 29.3 (C) 29.3 (C) Kernstown Commons I i v u v � m n ri ri M N N LA O M N ! t ' i' Rte 37 EB Romps 41.4 (D) _ ...__.., 28.9 (C) -----► 12.1 (B) N ^Y f- 7.6 (A) Renaissance Or I — ► ♦ N �} U � � G O C W v H N ^Y W J u o m a 4 416 t6 of N M rl J �} 42.3 (D) Renaissance Dr M` Volvo Dealer Entrance • 49.0 (D) ♦ ► 16.6 (B)► � o m r ao l0 Figure 30 PM Peak Hour 2024 Design Year Lane Geometry, Delay and LOS Legend: Delay in sec., (LOS) it `u Q O M V1 • — 8.4 (A) Renaissance Or 12 (575) Renaissance Dr 0(150) Ln -0) en .T Ln to 0(150) 0 (35) • 34 (300) Renaissance Dr t 41, i Volvo Dealer Kernstown Rte 37 EB Romps • Commons Blvd 134 (165) 39 (175) V Ln S U:) S 14 to 12 (575) Renaissance Dr 0(150) Ln -0) en --- Ng- F , f � ' , z.uK hcu. .. O?z." Oov;gi- ' --,,�r.95fh ilercentfle Queue Length fft,) Legend: 95th Percentile Queue (Available Storage) CU 2 VI Ln 0 0(225) Renaissance Dr CL to 0 (35) Renaissance Dr t 41, i Volvo Dealer Entrance 467 (200) • --- Ng- F , f � ' , z.uK hcu. .. O?z." Oov;gi- ' --,,�r.95fh ilercentfle Queue Length fft,) Legend: 95th Percentile Queue (Available Storage) CU 2 VI Ln 0 0(225) Renaissance Dr Recommended Roadway Improve ls nts The speedy completion of Renaissance Drive is a necessary component of this project. The completion of Renaissance Drive will bring with it benefits beyond those recognized by this project by providing traffic relief to other local roadways in the region, including Route 11 on the north side of Route 37. Additionally, planning for future roadway improvements, as depicted in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, is necessary. Since the studied intersections operate at an acceptable level of service, the focus for roadway improvements has directed towards the roadways surrounding the site. The recommended roadway improvements are: • 20 feet of right of way should be dedicated along the northern property line towards the Renaissance Drive project, totaling approximately one acre. Note: the remainder of the needed right of way for Renaissance Drive and the Shady Elm Road intersection improvements was proffered with the rezoning of the Venture 1 property. • An 80' wide permanent grading/slope easement should be dedicated along the aforementioned right of way line from the CSX right of way, 600 ft. to the west, totaling approximately 1.1 acres. • 40' of additional right of way should be dedicated for future roadway improvement along the western property line adjacent to Shady Elm Road, totaling approximately 2.7 acres. • Financial participation in the development of Renaissance Drive. With these improvements proffered by this developer, combined with the improvements planned and proffered by other developers in the vicinity, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. Queue Analysis At signalized intersection and stop signs a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed to evaluate the back of the queue for the 50th and 95th percentile of the queue. The 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical traffic signal cycle and has a probability of happening 50% of the time. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does not move for two signal cycles and has the probability of happening 5% of the time. The queues associated with the 50th and 95th percentile maximum queues using the Proposed Trip Generation method are shown in Table 14. The same queues for the ITE Trip Generation method are shown in Table 15. Table 13 50th and 95th Percentile Queue Lengths — Proposed ea, 214 50U-i and 95th .,er e€t 'Je Queue Length - ITE E Trip Generat ods AAethod Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic To identify any previously planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities in the project area, the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map was reviewed. There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities planned in this area. However, in discussions with the County Transportation Planner it was learned that a multi -use trail was proffered/is planned along Shady Elm Road on the Venture 1 property. It was felt that this trail should be extended south on this property as well. Therefore the developer is proposing to construct a 10' wide multi -use trail along the east side of Shady Elm Road for the length of its frontage on said road. Conclusions This Traffic Impact Study was prepared to support the rezoning request for the land owned by the Henry J. Carbaugh Trust, and is located south of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. T he rezoning, if approved, will lead to development that will create 46.9 acres of light manufacturing and 46.9 acres of warehousing uses. The total area of the proposed project area is 107.21 acres. The subject property is located south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. More specifically the site is west of Route 11, east of Shady Elm Road, and north of Springdale Road. Access to the site will be through a new entrance onto Renaissance Drive. Development traffic will be directed east on Renaissance Drive towards Route 11 for access to Route 37 and 1-81. During the scoping for this project it was brought to the attention of the VDOT staff that the ITE trip generation method was found to overestimate the traffic associated with light manufacturing and warehousing land uses. Some ITE data for these land uses dates to the 1960s and does not reflect efficiencies gained with current technologies and automation systems. The old data also does not account for the increased capacity of modern day trucks. The Proposed Trip Generation rates presented in this report were offered to VDOT as a more appropriate trip generation rates for this project. VDOT asked that the 2018 Build and 2026 Design Year analyses be performed using the Proposed Trip Generation and ITE Trip Generation rates. These are included in this report and are identified with labeling of either "Proposed" or "ITE trip generation rates. While the traffic that is forecasted to result from this development can be accommodated on the existing roadway network, the completion of Renaissance Drive will bring with it benefits beyond those recognized by this project by providing traffic relief to other local roadways in the region, including Route 11 on the north side of Route 37. The recommended roadway improvements are: • 20 feet of right of way should be dedicated along the northern property line towards the Renaissance Drive project, totaling approximately one acre. Note: the remainder of the needed right of way for Renaissance Drive and the Shady Elm Road intersection improvements was proffered with the rezoning of the Venture 1 property. • An 80' wide permanent grading/slope easement should be dedicated along the aforementioned right of way line extending 600 ft. west from the CSX right of way, totaling approximately 1.1 acres. • 40' of additional right of way should be dedicated for future roadway improvement along the western property line adjacent to Shady Elm Road, totaling approximately 2.7 acres. • Participation financially in the development of Renaissance Drive. With these improvements proffered by this developer combined with the improvements planned and proffered by other developers in the vicinity, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting.