Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07 Traffic Impact Analysis41 Transportation Notes on the 1 -81 Distribution Center Rezoning Background data not accurate. The applicant's TIA shows trip generation for Rutherford Industrial Park at 12,130 Average Daily Trips (ADT). However, on January 24, 2007 the Board of Supervisors rezoned that property as Rutherford Crossing with ADT of 26,652. The applicant's TIA dated May 30, 2006 reflects the old number. Required use of worst case scenario not met In traffic impact analysis the County requires that developments model the 'worst case scenario' unless they proffer to restrict their development to something less than the worst case scenario. That requirement was not met with this rezoning. The only limiting proffer on this development was to limit office development to no more than 150,000 ft'. There was no recognition of the fact that this amount of office could be developed in addition to some other use on this property. Trip generation for warehousing component was not calculated according to VDOT and County preferences. VDOT and the County repeatedly directed the applicant to calculate the trip generation for the warehousing using the ITE Trip Generation Report square footage calculation. In spite of this, the applicant used the ITE Trip Generation Report per employee calculation. 5. When calculated according to County and VDOT preferences the trip generation for the warehousing would be approximately equal to the trip generation shown for 220,000 ft of office shown in the applicant's TIA scenario B. That is actually the reason they included scenario B, however they refused to ever model a scenario reflecting the actual ability, per their proffers, to develop the 750,000 ft' of warehousing and 150,000 ft of office. 6. To accurately represent the TIA with the proffers as written, one would have to consider traffic of 1.68 times that shown for Scenario B. That same factor would need to be applied to all of the trip assignments shown on Page 14 of the applicant's "TIA, which would also impact the levels of service shown on Page 15 of the applicant's TIA. Staff can attempt to run that analysis, but there may be some time required as the software involved is still new to the staff. 0 0 2010 TRAFFIC ANALYSES PHR +A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS assignment volumes for each background development. Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route I I within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 t1i Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (=) Trp Generation Report. PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation- Tables A- 1 through A-6 are provided in the Appendix section of this report to shoNv the trip Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and _mM/PM peak hots traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Developmen" Trio Generation Summary Code lend U. Asomm, In AM Pal Hvor Cot Total lv P \I Pak Havr Ces Total ADT 5emprla Prvpu (Partial Bvak�atu) 106 398 503 3719 130 Industial Put 598.950 SF 336 ;4 409 sm Mail 49.000 SF .— 40 1T 155 = 3 391 _ 7. Total 398 Ili 511 I 293 601 9?t 7990 parbrvvk Pale eo (Fall Bailbovt) ISO in G H., Iminmial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 M .3 932 H-T Ratamuut 8,00 SF 48 44 92 33 34 87 1.017 Total 101 52 in 56 V 110 1.191 Rvtheriord9 Farm ladostrial Park (Full BuildooQ 130 Industrial Part 1400.000 SF 1.022 224 1344 —r,0 I.D 18 1,298 9.744 820 Rerail 20,000 SF 36 23 W 104 113 216 2.396 Total 1,058 247 1,306 374 1J 31 1,504 12,130 North Stephenson Tact ()MPS Property (Full Build -ovt) 110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5X74 Stephenson Village (Partial Build -oat) 210 Single - Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 uniu 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse'Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 Bo 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10.57D P" RA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the 1 -61 yistnounon Le rner Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30 2007 Page 6 •l • • . TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tr {p Generation Report PHR +A has prepared Tables 2a and 2b to summarize the trip generation associated the proposed I -81 Distribution Center for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively . Table 2a Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center A.'rra.,1 or r assumed a %ors!c t of I erpio�r per 1�a'" uu= I -- Table 2b Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center o. �_:_ lam----- f;rm Snmmnry Ahi Peak Hour P:•1 Peak Hour ADT Use Amounl to Ou[ Total lu Oot Total ffCodel-and sing (750,000 SF)) 1.50 employees 79 31 110 44 81 124 756 Total 79 31 110 44 81 124 Tfi assumed a %ors!c t of I erpio�r per 1�a'" uu= I -- Table 2b Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center o. �_:_ lam----- f;rm Snmmnry TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNiIENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the promsed 1 - 8i Disu:cution Center site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I -81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 92 and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AMRM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Traffic I nPact AnalySU Or me rat I I" ou...... . Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 9 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total in Out Total 710 Orrice 220,000 SF 310 42 352 55 270 325 t ADT 448 Total 310 42 352 55 270 32 448 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNiIENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the promsed 1 - 8i Disu:cution Center site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I -81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 92 and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AMRM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Traffic I nPact AnalySU Or me rat I I" ou...... . Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 9 0 0 Po � a N Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions P JL A Traffic Im pact Analysis ofthe 1 -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 14 ` .a • No Scale 11 Right in / Right out 1 • J 1 Ltai valued r� Ivteaection (C )c �1 t i 0 I ntersection Intersection �� LOS =B(B) ��- O tt� 81g1 (4)q SITE � BN U � L'neign9 Intense. s /7 A �y Unsignalized Intersection p B^'cnoyv CO Roaa Figure 9a u Abt Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) p Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement p Denotes two-way left turn lane Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service ' Signalized "4c.. lotersemoo' Intersection LOS —B(B) '?' Fourth Lee C v ti Ir s O $ignaG >..1 "4c.. lotersemoo' l oterxction LOS=C(C) EB- 1 l,cit NR -1Tmv '?' Fourth Lee C v ti s Improvcrve - ImerseRio s Srvh;csrt;ou LOS Intcrsccuou Ali vv EB - I Left +I Re NB -1 Ri:ht \8- 1 Rght So- 1 R iessf A Traffic Impact Analysis of the 1 -81 Distribution Center P f� Project Number: 30,2 1-0 -�� May � 3Q 2007 Page 15 '?' V r v A Traffic Impact Analysis of the 1 -81 Distribution Center P f� Project Number: 30,2 1-0 -�� May � 3Q 2007 Page 15 • Transportation Notes on the 1 -81 Distribution Center Rezoning Background data not accurate. The applicant's TIA shows trip generation for Rutherford Industrial Park at 12,130 Average Daily Trips (ADT). However, on January 24, 2007 the Board of Supervisors rezoned that property as Rutherford Crossing with ADT of 26,652. The applicant's TIA dated May 30, 2001�reflects the old number. 2. Required use of worst case scenario not met In traffic impact analysis the County requires that developments model the `worst case scenario' unless they proffer to restrict their development to something less than the worst case scenario. That requirement was not met with this rezoning. The only limiting proffer on this development was to limit office development to no more than 150,000 ft There was no recognition of the fact that this amount of office could be developed in addition to some other use on this property. 4. Trip generation for warehousing component was not calculated according to VDOT and County preferences. VDOT and the County repeatedly directed the applicant to calculate the trip generation for the warehousing using the ITE Trip Generation Report square footage calculation. In spite of this, the applicant used the ITE Trip Generation Report per employee calculation. 5. When calculated according to County and VDOT preferences the trip generation for the warehousing would be approximately equal to the trip generation shown for 220,000 ft of office shown in the applicant's TIA scenario B. That is actually the reason they included scenario B, however they refused to ever model a scenario reflecting the actual ability, per their proffers, to develop the 750,000 ft of warehousing and 150,000 ft office. 6. To accurately represent the TIA with the proffers as written, one would have to consider traffic of 1.68 times that shown for Scenario B. That same factor would need to be applied to all of the trip assignments shown on Page 14 of the applicant's TIA, which would also impact the levels of service shown on Page 15 of the applicant's TIA. Staff can attempt to run that analysis, but there may be some time required as the software involved is still new to the staff. 2010 TI2AFFIC ANALYSES PHR+A has provided analysis for two (2) altemate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Rotate 11 within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation ReDOn- PHR +A has provided Table I to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation_ Tables A- 1 through A-6 are in the Appendix section of th s report to sno-a the tip assisnment volumes for each background development- Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service - All HCS' levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background DevelapssmnB TNe C--tin. Summu. C C C Cede land U. A-hl Prat Fiona 1. Oat Tool lv P!s1 Pcak Fluor 0^t Tmai ADT Scene' des ) 596,950 SF 336 ?4 4C9 1, 398 503 3-719 130 49,OW SF 10_ 156 S9 341 —= 9 7�d.�599.950 Foist 398 113 511 '93 WI 894 ra nvt) 120,OW SF 34 87 1 932 H -T Resuunnt 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 -017 Total 102 52 )e7, 36 53 110 1.141 Bnthcrlvrd's Fa m Industrial Park (Full Build -nut) r0 L016 1288 9. 444 30 f Indussriel Pask 1 400,000 SF I 224 1246 103 113 216 2396 820 Retail 20.OW SF 36 23 60 Total 1,058 247 1,306 374 1.131 1.504 12,130 OMPS r.pert, (Full Build -opt) 863 961 5.874 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 Tnml 752 lOJ SSi 118 863 981 5,614 rract e nrtial Build -oul) 310 254 I34 399 4,290 - amiry`D GcTie - d' 429 amts 77 232 49 149 1,573 Apartment 240 units 20 103 U 100 127 62 189 3.393 weluuse'condo 390 uni. 26 12, 15C 34 123 1,064 y Housing- Deleon 266 units 29 51 BO 78 7 251 y Housing-Anoeh 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 To1-1 155 513 667 1 564 302 866 1 10570 R AA L Project Number: 14596 May 30,,7 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation Report PHR +A has prepared Tables 2a and 2b to summarize the trip generation associated the proposed I -81 Distribution Center for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2a Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary .ALM Peak Hour PNI Peak Hour Land Use Amount In In 150 warehousing (750,000 SF)' 150 employees 79 31 110 1 44 31 124 Total 1 79 31 110 44 81 124 ,4ssumed a moors :-east of I emolo per 5000 sq uire rr_e Table 2b Proposed Development: I-81 Distribution Center Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hoor PM Peal de Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Tote 0 Office 220,000 SF 310 42 352 55 270 325 TRIP DISTRIBUTION A1ND TRIP ASSIGNMENT ADT 756 ADT 2,448 The distribution of trips, shown in Fgure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed 1-31 D1sn:calnon Cente site. Figures 7a and 76 show the respective development - generated AN PM peak hour trips and ADT assi for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I -81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively.. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and Ab1/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH + A T, a(fic Impact Analysis o(the 1 -81 Distribution Cen Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 9 f . 0 0 NC k Hou Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Tragic Impact Ar alvsis o(the I -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 -{- 14 May 30, 20 Page 14 I No Sc `*/t m�( ti �� Sigw�lved Intersection LOS- 'fA)q � SITE 1� \ ]ti Signalized Intersection LOS =B(B) p Z '� (B)g ®► �6Qj O Signalized I "New erzen InterxRit ntion EB -I Left LOS- NB -17Trn Foort4 lx ��/ I Sigo26zed ImQrwemems" LOS-etioe S�nartr�doo LOS -C(C) Imrrsectioe At�nmem EB -1 Lit +1 R¢m \H -I bi Iti " 56 - 1 IFCrw a1� � IV ' Inlersediao r ^ J� "o Fa ,VM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement =Y j Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the 1 -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 30, 2 1-0 YHr" May 30, 2007 Page 16 0 - 0 III. Impact Analysis A. Site Background and History The I -81 Distribution Center property consists of 2 parcels with PIN Ws 33 -((A)) -109 & 33 -((A)) -110: The 59.077 acres of land are located as shown on the attached Figure 1 Location Map. The site lies outside the Urban Development Area of Frederick County. (See Figure 2). The site had historically been used for agriculture. Principle access is provided by U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike B. Location and Access The site has 2077' frontage on U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike" which will be the principle access to the development parcel. Figure 3 shows the location of the site with respect to area transportation planning. The site will utilize U. S. Route I 1 for this rezoned use. There will be two (2) access points for the site. A north and a south driveway with the north access to service the truck loading docks and parking /drop -off area and the south access to service predominately employee & visitor parking with truck "relief' overflow. Since the site is located within the I -81 corridor and is situated between exits 321 and 323, traffic to and from the site will be provided with options. Refer to Traffic Impact Analysis by PHR &A for existing and anticipated traffic movements. i C. Site Suitabilitv The project and general geographic area is underlain by carbonate sedimentary bedrock which results in karst terrain. Topographic mapping for the site indicates a site typical of the karst terrain with gentle slopes and reasonable level plain areas. Typical of other properties within the area, this site is generally suitable for the proposed facility. A site characterization showing important environmental features is included in Figure 4. The following chart provides an area summary: I -81 Distribution Center Site Characteristics Total Project Area Area in Flood Plain Area in Woodlands Area in Steep Slopes Area in Wetlands Lakes & Ponds 59.077 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres 0.00 Acres The property is planned for a warehouse facility with an approximate building area of 750,000 square feet and parking for 100 +/- cars, 200 trailers, and 150 loading docks. • • D. Traffic The transportation impact analysis prepared for this project shows that under the conditions provided, traffic generation from this site is acceptable and manageable considering the overall development of the U. S. Route 11/1 -81 corridor. Under the conditions imposed by this rezoning, this roadway system will continue to function at a level of service of "C" or better during the 2010 background and build -out conditions, respectively. As is stated in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the development of this site to accommodate a 750,000 +/- square foot warehouse facility does not significantly affect the existing or proposed roadway system. a ton Harris Rust & Associates nyineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. Iq 10212 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 1007 Williamsport, 21795 T 800.516.8286 6 T 301.223.4010 F 301.223.6831 • Memorandum To: Organ izationtCompany: From: VDOT Michael Glickman. P. E. Date: Mav 30, 2007 Response to March 22, 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report titled: A Traffic It, _4na_hiis of the I -81 Distrbrdion Center dated Project NametSubject: December 1, 2006. -R +A Project file Number: 14596 -1 -0 cc: Terry Short -•,ur request, PHR +A (Patton Hares Rust & Associates) has prepared this memorandum to provide cones to the March 22, 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report tided: A Tra_/Wc Impact Analvezt orlbe 89 Distribution Center dated December 1, 2006: ' :''_ OTI Comment #1: The applicant used the number of employees for the trip generation, which one employee per 5000 square feet. There is no basis for this assertion, and therefore feel that this _;cal flaw. The study should use the ITE trip rate based on square footage of the proposed facilite. PHR +A Response: PHR +A performed a trip generation study based upon three (3) comparable uses: 1) Home Depot Distribution Center ( 7 /30,000 square feel)._ 2) O r2i1L Inc. Distribution Center :0,000 square feet) and 3) Target Distribution Center 1,1.300 rW scivare feet). The results of this study (that was submitted to VDOT on April 20, 2007) revealed lower AM and Pill peak bout trip generation volumes than those shown in the December 1, 2006 --uffic studv. However, based upon discussion between VDOT /County / PHR +A /BPG (Client) at the ;p ? — :, 2007 N"DOT /Eng neers meeting in Edinburg, Virginia, a second scenario will be contemplated that assumes the worst -case Office (ITE Code 710) use of 220,000 square feet which equals /exceeds the peak hour volumes based upon 750,000 square feet of Warehousing (ITE Code 150) using the aforementioned square footage rate. _DCT Comment #2: Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why existing traffic volumes in this figure does not match the traffic counts in the appendix. PHR +A Response: The existing traffic volumes shown in the Figure 2 are greater than the traffic counts due to the balancing of traffic volumes between intersections. 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates �J Memorandum Page 2 VDOT Comment #3: Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why the Average Daily Trips (ADT's) in this future are consistently higher the 2005 AADTs, based on VDOT traffic counts. PHR +A Response: The Average Daily Trips shown in Figure 2 are based upon the 2006 PHR +A peak hour traffic counts and "k" factor. of 9.2%. PHR +A calculated "k" factor from 24 -hour tube counts. VDOT Comment #4: Referencing Table 1, Page 5, it states "Sempeles Property" and Stephenson Village" will be partial built -out by 2010. Please explain what "partial" means related to the amount of traffic to be generated during background conditions for the subject application. PHR +A Response: The full build -out of the developments of Sem+celes Proper and Stephenson «age -,vill be Year 2012 and Year 2015, respecdvely. The srudv scope of the 1=51 distribution Center is limited to Year 2010. Therefore, PHR +A has assumed the Phase 1 completion of Stephenson Village and 50% completion of the Sempeles. VDOT Comment #5: Please provide detailed information about background conditions traffic distribution. PHR +A Response: PHR +A will provide Figures showing trip assignments for each background development in the revised TIA. MOT Comment #6: The Rest Church Road /I - 81 NB Ramps lane c onfigura tion in the HCS report does not match Figure 3. Please explain. PHR +A Response: The HCS file contained an input inaccumcy_ Revising the HCS files, per the Figu e 3 lane geometry at the intersection of Rest Church Road /I -81 NB Ramps, does not result in a change to movement /approach /overall LOS. VDOT Comment #7: Please provide complete HCS Report for Background Conditions and 2010 Built - Out conditions. PHR +A Response: Complete HCS report will be provided in the revised TLA,. VDOT Comment #8: Referencing Figure 6, Page 9, the applicant has assumed 40% traffic coming from -- I -81N and another 40% form I -81S. Please explain why half of the vehicles from I -81N use exit 321 and the other half use exit 323. PHR +A Response: The proposed site is located approximately equidistant between Exit 321 and Exit 323 along the east side of I -81. For conservative purposes, PHR +A assumed vehicles from I- 81N and I -81S would utilize both exits to access the property. Engineers o Surveyors o planners o Landscape Architects 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I -81 Distribution Center (Formerly the Clearbrook Distribution Center) Located in: Frederick County. Virginia Prepared for. Benvind Property Group, Ltd.. 1500 Market Street 3000 Center Square Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Prepared by- Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landsccoe ArcSiech. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd. Suite 1007 PH RA F 301 22� 6837 Maryland 21795 L I May 30, 2007 (Revised from December 1, 2006 submission) OVERVIEW Report Summary E Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed I -81 Distribution Center (formerly submitted as the Clearbrook Distribution Center) located along the north side of Hopewell Road, west of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike), in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR +A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site - driveways along the west side of Route 11 (iviartinsburs! Pike); the northern entrance is to be "right- in/right -out" only. The project is to be built-out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed I -81 Distribution Center with respect to the surround roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the I -81 Distribution Center were obtained through the following sequence of activities: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed I -81 Distribution Center, • Distribution and assignment of the I -81 Distribution Center development- generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS +, for existing and future conditions. �� A Traffic Impact ilna[vsis of es t Distribution Center Pro Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page I • • EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) /Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road, Hopewell Road/ I -81 northbound ramps, Hopewell Road/ I -81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ Rest Church Road (Route 669), Rest Church Road/ I -81 northbound ramps and Rest Church Road/ 1 -81 southbound ramps. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 9.2 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Per the VDOT comments for the adjacent development of Clearbrook Properties, PHR +A has balanced the existing traffic volumes proportionately at all the study area intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and ANLP-N1 peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service_ All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this r—,porI. A Traffic Impact Anahsis oldie 1 -81 Distribution Center + Project Number: 14596 30, 2 1 00 7 May 30, 27 Page 2 0 0 P � d Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proje u m b e 1 Center Pro Number. r: 145)6 -I -0 May 30, 2007 Page 3 No Scale Ridgeway.. , . - .. a ' Rest Chur tee ch Rd ;' �'�o =„ Chapel Vew Cti v Awc�,�9 - - - I r'� Wool Rar_ .Cedar Hill �I Pewz9 Rd � < O Ct4afirouk' t " - ( t P -; Figure 1 Vicinity Map - I -81 Distribution Center, Frederick County, Virginia P � d Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proje u m b e 1 Center Pro Number. r: 145)6 -I -0 May 30, 2007 Page 3 E e y QJ No Scale (13 6)l68 01 8) 0 ...,�borch R oad T . (54 )1 - ; � Of a Z 78 ( 6! CIq)163 IJSpgB) 3� — -c s Dave "� 1 SITE Si[e Dry 2 c Z ;11 (- S � I �I0) 1-102e1 Road 176 J'�I Brucetown R oad h r IZ4)29= 85 (87) 1) rr f y 3 62 (47) n'ce�own koad 9(46) r6a� 54 (sz ) N (44) (67)S / IT xrr AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Haar) p +n , Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Gnpact Aealvsis ofthe Proj Distribution Center Pro Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 4 0 0 P 1 + 1L A Traffic Gnnact Analvsis oftbe 1 -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 5 2010 TRAFFIC ANALYSES PHR +A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route 11 within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) TriD Generation ReDort. PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 `other developments" trio generation. Tables A- 1 through A-6 are provided in the Appendix section of this report to show the trip assiartment volumes for each background development. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summan Code hod Use Amount In AM Put Ont Hour Tocil In P11 Peat Haar Our Taal AIDE Sempeles Pmpert. (Partial B tadout7 130 Industrial Part 598,950 SF 1 33e 73 :09 !06 396 SOi 3.719 8'0 Retail 49,000 SF 30 10' ;86 M3 39! Total 398 113 511 291 bill Snl 7.990 Amok Praperne (Fun BuBd,ol) 120 GA Heu.s ladusaid 120,000 SF 5- - Si ]0 190 932 H Restaurant 6,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1.017 Total 102 52 In 56 54 lie 1119' Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Full Brald -our) 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1.022 224 1246 270 1.019 1288 9.744 820 Retail 20,000 SF 36 23 60 104 113 216 2.386 Tnm1 1,058 247 1306 374 1.131 1 ,504 P'_,130 North Stephenson Tract OMPS Property (Full Build-cut) 110 tight Industrial 800.000 SP 752 103 853 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 655 118 863 981 5,1x4 Stephenson V!llage(Partial Build -nut) 210 Single- Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 143 399 4.290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 113 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse Condo 390 units 26 125 GO 127 62 189 3.393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 rules 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Turn] 155 513 667 564 303 866 10.570 A Tragic IrnDact Analysis of the est u r nb 6ution Center Pro Numbcc 14596 -1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 6 0 0 Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions �� Traffic Impact Analysis o(the Project N 1 Center Pro Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 7 e y C �q No Scale ( � 8j (291) (1 SS)1 gga � a (33 1) e J1 1p(4j) Rest Churc _� 208) �47)�) ch Road ♦ ( &)g/ 1 S N n ~ 2 *-. 1 ; a( a ) _7(489 ) (310368 J . I ti Site Driv 1 SITE Site Dnve 2 o- G 11 (39 )L 1 � 1 (1 �' x_1,1 Hooeu ell Road S y _ �Brucetoun Road 2j(12) ne°•� '� !• 74( 1 �46( O 8 5 1/ )137Roaa 64(62)7 (111 m (49)6 (173 )183 I1 y � AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) nT Try +n Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions �� Traffic Impact Analysis o(the Project N 1 Center Pro Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 7 0 0 No Scale lnterection NA, (9)q 1 " Signauud Intersection _s SITE B rLC..Oy7r �� �CPlpy.�� � � � S � ll Intersection O LOS =R(B) Ivterseciioo io A Sigvnr¢ntiov (cm Imers ction..AlPnm w EH - I Left + 1 Right /► 4 `-, G O ,� 6B- I Right i 3 ntersecdon _05 —C(" ER -I Left W6 -I Thry Fourth Le, Ivterseciioo io A Sigvnr¢ntiov C) Imers ction..AlPnm w EH - I Left + 1 Right L J 4 `-, Sign Improvements" Ivterseciioo io Sigvnr¢ntiov LOS =B(BI Imers ction..AlPnm w EH - I Left + 1 Right w'B - I Rieht 6B- I Right SB -1 Right / AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement 'J Denotes two-wav left turn lane Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P L---I B- �[. i A Tragic Impact Analvsis o(the 1 -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 8 0 TRIP GENERATION 0 Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation. Re port , PHR +A has prepared Tables 2a and 2b to summarize the trip generation associated the proposed I -81 Distribution Center for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively . Table 2a Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak our In Out Total ADT 150 warehousing (750,OOD SF) 1 150 employees 79 31 110 1 44 SI 124 756 Total 79 31 ll0 44 81 124 756 .assumed a worst- sl of I empio�ee per 5000 square ! Table 2b Proposed Development: I -81 Distribution Center Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Honr Out Total PM Peak In Out Hour Total ADT 710 Off 220,000 8F 310 42 352 55 270 325 2,448 Total 310 42 352 -- 270 325 2.448 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNIIEN'T The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patters for the roadway network surrounding the proposed 1 -81 Bisnbution Center site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The I -81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and ANI/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic Imnnct A nalysis of the 1 Proj Distribution Center Pro Number: 14596 -I -0 May 30, 2007 Page 9 0 0 40 10% No Scale Rest Clump Road ill _Sic D ve' j SITE srt� Dn °e m 2 7 11• 1 40% Bmcetoun Road 10% PT TP +/ Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages P T A Traffe Impact Analvsis ofthe 1-81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1-0 May 30, 2007 Page 10 • • AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) PipRA A Tragic Impact Analysis oldie jest N 1 4 96-1 -0 Project Number. 1496 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page I I P RA A Tragic Impact Analysis of the I -81 Distribution Center Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 12 9 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Traffic Impact Annlysis of the jest Di Center 1 4 Project Number 1459G1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 13 ' Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions WAVerage )Uailyrl'nps A Traffic Inpaca Analvsis of the ! -81 Distribution Cen[er Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 14 M1 4 s : c� • No Scale in / Right out ' P �-' \ Lmignalized Intersection a( �C * (414 Intersection �* 4 � Intersection �� ti LOS = 6(B) �-p 3iagnunzea Intersection p ry LOS — B(B) Z B(R) BI ftkop FourN Le, t.✓ e ery I SITE Signalved "1'ew Ivterseaiov' Interxetim EB- 1 Left LOS =C(G� w'B -I Thry FourN Le, t.✓ 1� -amp �lfo Sig valiatd Imprmcmevm" Los_ L05 = _ ion Si�,valizadov 6(B1 Ivterxum �vncm EB - I Left+ I "In wB -1 RChc \B - I Rght _ -Nl Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement 1 ti Denotes two -way left turn lane Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service IntemeQlon C gown P � d Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe est Di Center Pro Number: 14596 -I -0 May 30, 2007 Page 15 t.✓ _ -Nl Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement 1 ti Denotes two -way left turn lane Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service IntemeQlon C gown P � d Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe est Di Center Pro Number: 14596 -I -0 May 30, 2007 Page 15 No Scale in / Right out **' ♦� Signsliud lam in[cntttion LOS – B(C) 6 �C x p�(11 v LOSd(C) Itnem ".Ufevmen[� ER-I Leh - l Rqh, AB- 1 Rrvh NB -1 Rwht SH -1 RaN n 0 3� Intersection V LOS U g(, —, rve r7 SITE Figure 9b Ce/lON�� C Intersection LOS =B(B) p Z Intersecrian B(E) - I Le" LOS =C(C) \\'B- I Thro Fourth Leg � ts F Q I s O w C(D Sk "New to rersecd, Intersecrian - I Le" LOS =C(C) \\'B- I Thro Fourth Leg U V� 1� w C(D C , A:Nl Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement j Denotes two-wav left turn lane Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traftc Im p act 9nalms of the I -81 Distributio Center P 1 n Project Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 16 0 0 CONCLUSION Assuming the suggested improvements, all the study area intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both the scenarios. Based upon HCS+ analysis, the following describes the recommended roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections during each scenario: • Route l t / Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road Alignment of the intersection, traffic signalization, one (1) eastbound left -turn and one (l) eastbound right -turn lane, one (1) northbound right -tum lane, one (1) westbound right -tum lane and one (1) southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain levels of service "C" during 2010 background and build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. e Route 11 / Rest Church Road Along with the additional westbound leg, this intersection would require one (1) eastbound left-turn, lane, one (1) %westbound thin lane, one (1) northbound right -turn lane and one (1) southbound left-rum lane to maintain levels of service `C" durins 2010 back—_�ound and build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Route 11 / Site -Drive #1 : This is a new ri ght in/right out only intersection for Scenario A and Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions. • Route 11 / Site -Drive #2 : This is a new intersection. It will require a southbound right -turn lane in Scenario A and traffic signalization and a southbound right -tum lane in Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions. Pedestrian and Bike accessibility will be addressed during Site Plan time. NOTE The aforementioned improvements have vet to be funded- P � A Traffic Impact �lna[vsis orthe est Distribution Center Pro Number: 14596 -1 -0 May 30, 2007 Page 17 0 0 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)I 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 J T T 11+ 'MAverage ua uv�l nps Figure A -5 "Clearbrook Properties" Traffic Conditions 0 0 Figure A -6 "OMPS Property" Traffic Conditions Detailed Report 0 • Pagel of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or PHRA Peak 7 Date Performed 05/ Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Roll-81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 73 163 235 78 122 91 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 o 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, P 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G =.40.0 G= G= G= G= 28.0 G= G= 1 Y= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity ont&ral ela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT I TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 83 185 267 89 139 103 Lane Group Capacity, c 391 1774 1774 792 442 554 v/c Ratio, X 0.21 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.31 0.19 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 11.2 10.6 10.8 10.6 19.0 18.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detailed Report • • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay 11.5 10.6 1 10.9 10.7 19.4 1 1 18.2 Lane Group LOS g I g I g g g 1 1 g Approach Delay 10.8 10.8 18.9 Approach LOS g g g Intersection Delay 13.1 X = 0.25 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + 7 M Version 5.21 fileWCADocuments and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k17CE.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:43 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Pagel of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /1 -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 129 174 198 61 115 202 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 2.0 12.0 1 12.0 IZO 2.0 1 12.. 0 Extension of Effective Green, e 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 112.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, a 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= JG= I G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity ntrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 147 198 225 69 131 230 Lane Group Capacity, c 386 1685 1685 752 473 594 v/c Ratio, X 0.38 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 Uniform Delay, d, 13.5 11.7 11.8 11.5 17.4 18.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Detailed Report • • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay 14.1 11.7 1 11.8 11.6 17.8 1 1 18.7 Lane Group LOS g I g I g g g 1 1 g Approach Delay 12.7 11.8 18.4 Approach LOS g g g Intersection Delay 14.5 X = 0.38 Intersection LOS g Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:44 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2k17E0.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 168 165 201 156 68 85 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 2 18 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A I A Start-up Lost Time, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 �SB 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 G= G= JG= I G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity ontrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 191 188 228 177 77 97 Lane Group Capacity, c 1459 1129 589 1533 619 395 v/c Ratio, X 0.13 0.17 0.39 0.12 0.12 0.25 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 10.7 0.0 12.4 10.6 17.7 18.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 __a ___t ______ �_nt 111n ._____ cnnnnnl Detailed Report • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay 10.7 1 0.1 12.8 10.6 1 17.8 1 18.8 Lane Group LOS g A 8 8 8 8 Approach Delay 5.4 11.9 18.3 Approach LOS A 8 8 Intersection Delay 10.5 X = 0.33 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:44 PM file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2kl7F2.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • . Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak I ntersection Rest Church Rd 11 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 256 135 85 228 47 116 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 18 2 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Go 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SIB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 JG= G= G= JG= 28.0 G= JG= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 291 153 97 259 53 132 Lane Group Capacity, c 1459 1129 462 1774 619 395 v/c Ratio, X 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.15 0.09 0.33 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 11.1 0.0 11.2 10.8 17.4 19.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 F i,,.u�.m,.,.......�_....._a n..a.._1_1_.aT --- cnnilnn� Control Delay 11.2 1 0.1 11.4 10.8 1 17.5 1 19.6 Lane Group LOS I g q g 1 g g g Approach Delay 7.3 11.0 19.0 Approach LOS q g g Intersection Delay 10,9 X c = 0.26 Intersection LOS g Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp\s2k1804.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:44 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • Page 2 of 2 Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Rte. 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 134 120 71 54 134 242 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 7 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 1 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112. 0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 JG= G= JG= I G= 36.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= ly= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 152 136 81 61 152 1 275 Lane Group Capacity, c 708 633 553 799 799 1583 We Ratio, X 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.08 0.19 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.00 Uniform Delay, d 15.8 15.8 13.0 12.5 13.2 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 15.9 13.1 12.6 13.3 0.1 0,_./1111------ - - - --- - - -- ( l-a.[_- \ ♦.- ' - - " -- ` - - -, n '.. ,m 1 n. 1 n,i. -,n 11-n- Control Delay Lane Group LOS g I I g g I g g A Approach Delay 15.9 12.9 4.8 Approach LOS g g A Intersection Delay 9,9 X c = 0.17 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings\Temp\s2kl 8 16.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:44 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Go. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Rte. 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 322 54 116 231 120 143 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 7 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 1 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, a 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 35.0 IG= G= G= G= 33.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol ela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 366 61 132 263 136 163 Lane Group Capacity, c 774 693 515 733 733 1583 v/c Ratio, X 0.47 0.09 0.26 0.36 0.19 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 Uniform Delay, d 16.0 13.2 15.4 16.2 15.0 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d Z 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 13.2 15.7 16.5 15.1 0.0 Detailed Report 9 0 Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS g I I 8 8 I 8 8 A Approach Delay 16.0 16.2 6.9 Approach LOS g g A Intersection Delay 13.6 X = 0.42 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:45 FM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1828.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page I of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst JPHRA Intersection " Road /Route Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 05/30/2007 A nalysis Year Existing Conditions nalysis Time Period _ M Pe 4 5 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopeweii/Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 42 141 52 11 208 120 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 47 160 59 12 236 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 68 54 52 54 39 62 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 77 61 59 61 44 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 19 1 7 7 19 1 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 47 12 175 197 C (m) (veh /h) 1159 1321 495 477 c 0.04 0.01 0.35 0.41 95% queue length 0.13 0.03 1.58 2.00 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.2 7.8 16.2 17.8 LOS A A C C Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k1B12.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:41 PM Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Pagel of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst aly PHRA Intersection _ r-opewewrsrucerown Road /Route A g en cy/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period 05/30/2007 PM Pea A nalysis Year l Existing Conditions Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 88 264 72 41 155 120 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 100 300 81 46 176 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — 7 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 68 41 67 52 46 47 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 77 46 76 59 52 53 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 13 7 7 13 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v(veh /h) 100 46 164 199 C (m) (vehih) 1221 1151 358 369 c 0.08 0.04 0.46 0.54 95% queue length 0.27 0.12 2.32 3.07 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.2 8.3 23.3 25.6 LOS A A C D Two -Way Stop Control 0 Page 2 of I epte ch Delay I I � 23.3 I 25.6 II s1V& IIII pproach LOS C D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:46 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl830.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 A nalysis Time Period A M Peak Intersection Hopewell Rd. /1 81 NB Ramps Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA A nalysis Year Existing Conditions Major Street Eastbound Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 1 81 NB Ramps i V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 1 81 NB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West I Study Period (hrs ): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 19 76 133 68 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 21 86 0 0 151 77 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — 7 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 24 98 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 27 0 111 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 0 7 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 21 138 C (m) (veh /h) 1311 879 c 0.02 0.16 5% queue length 0.05 0.56 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.8 9.9 LOS A A Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file: / /CADocuments and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl837.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5130/2007 2:46 PM Two -Way Stop Control • . Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information PHRA Intersection nopewen MU ./ I o rva Ramps North /South Street: 181 NB Ramps PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA MPerformed d 0513012007 PM Peak A nalysis Year Existing Conditions 1 2 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 181 NB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 34 74 170 84 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 38 84 0 0 193 95 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 38 102 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 43 0 115 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 0 7 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 38 158 C (m) (veh /h) 1246 815 /c 0.03 0.19 95% queue length 0.09 0.72 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.0 10.5 LOS A B Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k133C.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +T Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:46 PM Two -Way Stop Control 0 a Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst JPHRA Intersection riopeweu K ts d.r i 81 S Ramps A gency/ Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed med lA nalysis Time Period 05/30/2007 OM Peak A nalysis Year lExisting Conditions Movement 1 ci_. //( .ln-- ..___ -_— ___J n- aa___ -1 A__J___f_L__lr ___f I- -f__ --- \ m____._\__ 11 _1 n e' ,. 1 /nn rn nn_ Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 1 81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 67 29 85 72 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 76 32 96 81 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 7 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0` Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 28 17 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 31 0 19 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N Y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration i LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 96 50 C (m) (veh /h) 1452 942 c 0.07 0.05 95% queue length 0.21 0.17 Control Delay (s /veh) 77 10.5 LOS A 8 ci_. //( .ln-- ..___ -_— ___J n- aa___ -1 A__J___f_L__lr ___f I- -f__ --- \ m____._\__ 11 _1 n e' ,. 1 /nn rn nn_ Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl841.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:47 PM Two -Way Stop Control • 0 Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection nopeweu rco.r l a i ac Ramps A gency/ Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed med A nalysis Time Period 05/30/2007 PM Peak A nalysis Year Existing Conditions 1 2 1 11 1 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: / 81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 55 24 87 121 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 62 27 98 137 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 53 35 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 60 0 39 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 98 99 C (m) (veh /h) 1475 908 v/c 0.07 0.11 95% queue length 0.21 0.37 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.6 11.1 LOS A B Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 2 of file: //CADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings\Temp\u2k I 846.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/3012007 2:47 PM Detailed Report • • Page 1 oft HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersectio Rest Church Rd / I -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 84 368 327 134 140 284 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 12.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 1 2-0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, ntrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH 1. RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 95 418 372 152 159 323 Lane Group Capacity, c 344 1729 1729 772 457 574 We Ratio, X 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.35 0.56 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.36 Uniform Delay, d 12.1 11.9 11.7 11.6 18.6 20.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 Incremental Delay, d 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 c1_.Nr.\ T_ ------ --- a __._A n__%___\A._d___l_L__1T ___I I--' - _11111111 a.___ 111 1 /11/11 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Control Delay 12.6 12.0 11.8 11.7 19.1 1 1 21.7 Lane Group LOS B B B B 8 I I C Approach Delay 12.1 11.8 20.8 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 14.8 X = 0.40 c Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/3012007 2:48 PM file:8C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1859.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 0 Page I of 3 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 148 316 489 274 132 348 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 36.0 JG= G= JG= I G= 37.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= 1Y= 6 Y= 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, ntrol ela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 168 359 556 311 150 395 Lane Group Capacity, c 226 1502 1502 670 549 689 We Ratio, X 0.74 0.24 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.57 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.44 Uniform Delay, d 20.6 15.7 16.7 17.6 15.4 18.1 Progression Factor, PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 Incremental Delay, d 12.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.2 Detailed Report • 1J Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Control Delay 33.1 15.8 16.9 18.1 15.7 19.2 Lane Group LOS C I B I B B 8 I B Approach Delay 21.3 17.3 18.2 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Delay 18.7 X c = 0.66 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 521 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2kl86B.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:49 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report Page l of 2 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT 0.0 General Information 0.0 0.0 Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak 0.0 0.0 Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps All other areas Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions 1 -81 Distribution Center 0 Volume and Timing input 0 0 0 EB 0 Lane Width WB NB SB 12.0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 2 1 1 2 N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm 1 1 Lane Group T R L T Buses Stopping, Na L 0 R Volume, V (vph) 0 216 189 281 185 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 236 3.2 98 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Phasing 24 43 2 18 Only 06 07 08 2 G= 40.0 JG= 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF G= I 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 0.88 Y= 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 I A I A A A EB I WB I NB SB A TH A Start -up Lost Time, li TH 12.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 2.0 245 12.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 210 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 268 111 Lane Group Capacity, c 2.0 1459 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 1533 3 1 3 3 3 619 395 v/c Ratio, X 3 0.17 3 Unit Extension, UE 0.14 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.43 0.28 Total Green Ratio, g/C 3.0 0.50 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 0.50 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 1.000 10.9 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 - F -- 0 - 4 -- F - SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 JG= G= I G= I G= 28.0 G= G= JG= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C= 80.0 Lane Group Cap acity, ontro Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 245 215 319 210 268 111 Lane Group Capacity, c 1459 1129 559 1533 619 395 v/c Ratio, X 0.17 0.19 0.57 0.14 0.43 0.28 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 10.9 0.0 14.0 10.7 19.9 18.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 Detailed 1Zeport 0 ® Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 1 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 Control Delay 11.0 1 0.1 15.4 10.8 1 20.4 19.1 Lane Group LOS I B A B I B C I B Approach Delay 5.9 13.6 20.0 Approach LOS A B C Intersection Delay 12.8 X = 0.51 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:49 PM file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings\Andurlelcar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k187D.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • 40 Pagel of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 308 155 331 291 156 133 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 2 18 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, a 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 G= G= G= G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 350 176 376 331 177 151 Lane Group Capacity, c 1459 1129 505 1533 619 395 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.16 0.74 0.22 0.29 0.38 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 11.4 0.0 15.9 11.2 18.8 19.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 5.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 Control Delay 11.4 0.1 21.9 11.3 19.0 1 20.1 Lane Group LOS B A C I B B I I C Approach Delay 7.6 16.9 19.5 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Delay 14.3 X C = 0.60 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:49 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurfekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2kl88F.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 11 Pagel of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 154 268 231 10 80 10 102 182 33 33 560 278 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for P edestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 10.0 G= 14.0 G= I G= 8.0 G= 38.0 1 G= IG= Y= 0 IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Ca a ity , 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 175 305 263 11 91 11 116 207 38 38 636 316 Lane Group Capacity, c 687 497 422 157 552 246 245 750 915 641 908 1231 v/c Ratio, X 0.25 0.61 0.62 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.47 0.28 0.04 0.06 0.70 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.42 0.58 0.58 0.51 0.78 Uniform Delay, d 30.3 28.9 29.0 37.6 32.9 32.3 18.8 17.0 8.2 8.5 16.8 2.8 Progression Factor, )r: 11.000 11.000 11.000 111.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 Detailed Report L_I 11 Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 2.3 1 2.9 0.2 0.1 1 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 30.5 31.2 31.9 37.8 33.1 32.4 20.2 17.2 8.2 8.5 19.2 2.9 Lane Group LOS C C C D C C C 8 A A 8 A Approach Delay 31.3 33.5 17.2 13.6 Approach LOS C C 8 8 Intersection Delay 21.2 X c = 0.61 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 file: //CADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2k18A1.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:49 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Page 1 of) HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County. VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 370 208 86 47 375 47 224 727 26 26 281 164 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 a88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 8.0 G= 15.0 G= G= 12.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 0 1 Y= 6 Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 83.0 Lane Group Capacity , Control Delay and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 420 236 98 53 426 53 255 826 30 30 319 186 Lane Group Capacity, c 580 516 782 128 641 286 569 899 1030 105 642 954 v/c Ratio, X 0.72 0.46 0.13 0.41 0.66 0.19 0.45 0.92 0.03 0.29 0.50 0.19 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.28 0.49 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.58 0.51 0.65 0.36 0.36 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 32.7 24.8 11.3 36.8 31.7 28.8 9.7 18.9 5.2 18.9 20.6 7.4 Hrogression ractor, 1 1.000 ^ 1 1.000 DF 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Detailed Report 1 9 11 Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 4.5 0.6 1 0.1 2.2 2.6 0.3 0.6 14.2 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 37.2 25.5 11.4 39.0 34.3 29.1 10.2 33.2 5.2 20.4 21.2 7.5 Lane Group LOS D C 8 D C C 8 C A C C A Approach Delay 30.2 34.2 27.1 16.4 Approach LOS C C C 8 Intersection Delay 27.2 X = 0.83 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k18B3.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 2:50 PM 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Pagel of2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISIte Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 05/30/2007 A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South [S tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 el le Volumes and Adiustments vowme lvenml 7zo I sou I oz 711 oos i / I Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 143 409 70 14 753 194 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 7 7 0 1 1 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration I L TR I L I TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lanes L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 137 64 183 64 46 74 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 155 72 207 72 52 84 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 19 7 7 19 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach 143 N 208 N Storage 0 705 1058 0 0 RT Channelized 198 0 v/c 0.20 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration i LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 143 14 208 434 C (m) (vehih) 705 1058 0 198 v/c 0.20 0.01 2.19 95% queue length 0.76 0.04 34.25 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.4 8.4 591.1 OS B A F F Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k18DC.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 521 Generated: 5/3012007 2:51 PM Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMM ARY General Information Site Information 1 is Time Period Description 1 -811 Intersection Hopewell /Brucetown Road /Route J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conddions Northbound Southbound East/West Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 248 807 86 49 396 172 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 281 917 97 55 450 195 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 111 49 173 62 55 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 126 55 196 70 62 63 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 13 7 7 13 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 281 55 195 377 C (m) (veh /h) 917 665 0 0 v/c 0.31 0.08 95% queue length 1.30 0.27 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.7 10.9 LOS B B F F Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file: / /CADocuments and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k18ELtmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:51 PM Detailed Report 0 0 Pagel of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Rt. 11 & Hopewell Intersection Rd/Brucetown Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 BK Conditions Project ID 1-81 Distribution Center - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 137 64 183 64 46 74 126 360 62 13 663 171 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 19 7 7 19 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 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) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 == .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 60 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 IG= G= IG= IG= 48.0 G= IG= JG= Y= 6 IY= Y= ly= Y= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 144 67 129 115 57 133 379 65 14 698 127 Lane Group Capacity, c 404 532 503 452 503 216 947 805 453 947 805 v/c Ratio, X 0.36 0.13 0.26 0.25 0.11 0.62 0.40 0.08 0.03 0.74 0.16 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay, d, 22.7 20.9 21.9 1 21.9 20.8 14.6 12.5 10.2 10.0 16.1 10.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.11 0.11 0.11 1 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 Detailed Report 41 ® Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 5.2 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 3.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 23.2 21.0 22.1 22.2 20.9 19.8 12.7 10.3 10.0 t19. 10.8 Lane Group LOS C C C C C B B B A B Approach Delay 22.4 21.7 14.1 17.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Delay 17.8 X c = 0.59 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/3012007 2:50 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k18C6.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt. 11 & Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 BK Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center- Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 111 49 173 62 55 56 248 807 86 49 396 172 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 13 7 7 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike/ RTOR Volumes 0 0 30 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 30 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 5 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for P edestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 32 3.2 Phasing I EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 JG= G= G= G= 52.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= 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 I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 117 52 151 123 48 261 849 80 52 417 149 Lane Group Capacity, c 339 473 425 408 436 475 1026 872 165 1026 872 v/c Ratio, X 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.30 0.11 0.55 0.83 0.09 0.32 0.41 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Uniform Delay, d 25.3 23.5 25.4 24.9 23.5 11.7 15.4 8.5 9.8 10.5 8.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Detailed Report 41 ® Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d 0.6 0.1 1 0.5 0.4 1 0.1 1.3 5.7 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 25.9 23.6 25.9 25.3 23.6 13.1 21.1 8.5 10.9 10.7 9.0 Lane Group LOS C C C C C B C A B B A Approach Delay 25.5 24.9 18.5 10.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Delay 17.8 X c = 0.67 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:50 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2kl8D8.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 0 40 Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st PHRA Intersection Hopewell Rd./ 181 NB Ram A gency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 0513012007 A nalysis Year 2010 Background An alysis Time Period M Peak P roject Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 181 NB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 22 219 176 159 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Row Rate, HFR (veh/h) 25 248 0 0 200 180 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 — — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 28 158 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR vehih) 31 0 179 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 0 16 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N Y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Ap proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 25 210 C (m) (veh /h) 1106 685 lc 0.02 0.31 95% queue length 0.07 1.30 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.3 12.6 LOS A 8 Conditions Two -Way Stop Control 0 ® Page 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2klSE6.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:51 PM Two -Way Stop Control • , Page 1 of 2 L T WO - WAY STOP CONTRO SUMM Ge neral Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Go. PHRA Date Performed 2010 Background Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection Hopewell Rd./ l81 NB Ramps J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions 1 6 1 RT Channelized Volumes Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 RT Channelized L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 39 184 0 0 219 245 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.68 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 44 209 0 0 248 278 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 — — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT C (m) (veh /h) 992 TR Upstream Signal 0 0 0.04 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 44 142 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 50 0 161 0 0 0 ercent Heavv Vehicles 12 0 12 7 0 7 . RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 44 211 C (m) (veh /h) 992 638 c 0.04 0.33 95% queue length 0.14 1.44 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.8 13.4 LOS A B Two -Way Stop Control 0 ® Page 2 of 2 file: //C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1SEA.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:52 PM Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 1 of 2 I TW - WAY ST CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 5 A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Year Movement 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 10 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 77 33 121 82 T Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 87 37 137 93 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — I — 16 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 0 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration 0 TR LT 16 0 U stream Signal_ 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 163 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 0 0 0 185 0 22 Percent Heavy Vehices 0 0 0 16 0 16 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N Y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 137 207 C (m) (veh /h) 1380 529 /c 0.10 0.39 95% queue length 0.33 1.84 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 16.5 LOS A C Two -Way Stop Control 0 ® ? ate 2 of 2 jApproach Delay ts' s /veh 1 oath LOS 1 C PP Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:52 PM file:XADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local SeWngs`,Temp \u2k18EF.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Hopewell Rd. /181 SB Ramps Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center East/West Street: Hopewell Road North/South Street: 181 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 63 28 125 138 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 71 31 142 156 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 — 12 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 160 40 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 181 0 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 12 0 12 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 a 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 142 226 C (m) (veh /h) 1430 557 c 0.10 0.41 95% queue length 0.33 1.96 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.8 16.7 LOS A C Two -Way Stop Control 0 Page 2 of 2 pproach Delay 16 (s /veh) pproach LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +Tht Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:52 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl8F3.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd / -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 84 400 333 146 140 300 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 .88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, It 2.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 2.0 1 12.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3. 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N. 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, P 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 48 Timing G= 38.0 JG= G= JG= I G= 30.0 G= JG= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol ela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 95 455 378 166 159 341 Lane Group Capacity, c 333 1685 1685 752 473 594 We Ratio, X 0.29 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.34 0.57 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 Uniform Delay, d, 12.8 12.6 12.3 12.3 17.9 19.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.4 Detaiied Report ® ?'age 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 1 0.0_ 0.0 1 0.0 10.0 1 10.0 Control Delay 13.2 112.7 1 ! 12.4 12.5 18.3 1 21.3 Lane Group LOS Approach Delay B 1 B 12.8 8 B 12.4 B C 20.3 - Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 15.0 X� = 0,41 Intersection LOS B Cooyrigh! © 2005 Universitv of Florida, All Rionts Reservetl HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:59 PM file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings\ljidurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1915.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • Page I of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1-81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 148 333 505 306 132 1356 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Tiime,11 2.0 12.0 1 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 7 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 35.0 JG= G= IG= G= 33.0 1 Y= G= G= JG= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analvsis, T = 0.25 Cycle Leng C = 8 0.0 Lane Group Capacity, ntrol ela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 168 378 574 348 150 405 Lane Group Capacity, c 231 1552 1552 693 521 653 We Ratio, X 0.73 0.24 0.37 0.50 0.29 0.62 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 Uniform Delay, d 18.6 14.2 15.1 16.2 15.7 18.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 Incremental Delay, d 11.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.8 Detailed Report a 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 10.0 10.0 ? j 10.0 1 0.0 1 QO 1 10.0 I i Control Delay 29.5 1 14.2 I 1 15.2 116.8 1 16.0 20.4 Lane Group LOS C 8 3 1 3 I e C f Approach Delay 18.9 15.8 19.2 Approach LOS 3 3 3 Intersection Delay 17.6 X = 0.67 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida. All Rionts Reserved HCS +'M Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:59 PM file: / /C:ADocuments and Settines\Anduriekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1927.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 0 Page l of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHRA R Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 NB Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH I I RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, N 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L L T T T T R R L L R R Volume, V (vph) 8 84 4 492 3 335 1 150 1 140 3 346 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 4 43 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 43 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor. PHF 0 0.88 0 0.88 0 0.88 0 0.88 0 0.88 0 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 20 2 2.0 1 1 2 2.0 Extension of Effective 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0 0.0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N N 1 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3 3.2 3 3.2 3 3.2 Phasing E EW Perm 0 02 0 03 F F 04 N NB Only O O6 0 07 0 08 Timing G G= 41.0 G G= G G= 1 1G= J JG= 37.0 G G= J JG= Y= 6 IY= Y Y= 1 1Y= I IY= 6 Y Y= 1 1Y= l ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 C Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol ela , and LOS Determination EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 9 95 5 559 3 381 1 170 1 159 3 393 Lane Group Capacity, c 3 318 1 1616 1 1616 7 721 5 519 6 651 v/c Ratio, X 0 0.30 0 0.35 0 0.24 0 0.24 0 0.31 0 0.60 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0 0.46 0 0.46 0 0.46 0 0.46 0 0.41 0 0.41 Uniform Delay, d 1 15.4 1 15.8 1 14.9 1 14.9 1 17.9 2 20.8 Progression Factor, PF 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.19 Incremental Delay, d 0 0.5 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.3 1 1.6 ­A cow;......\ &-A. 1. 1 .,. \T ..,...1 A40+__ U2n Nnn'1 Detailed Report 9 Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 1 10.0 j Control Delay 16.0 1 16.0 1 15.0 15.1 11 18.2 122.4 I Lane Group LOS B B i B B B C Approach Delay 16.0 i 15.0 21.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 17.3 X = 0.47 Intersection LOS B Copyngnt © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reservea HCS,a+ Ve^.:icn 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:09 PM file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local SettingsV' -,mp \s2k1A39.tmp 5%30/2007 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume, V (vph) 148 338 543 382 132 359 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 43 2 2 2 43 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 12.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 1 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, a 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Onty 06 07 08 Timing G= 43.0 JG= G= JG= G= 35.0 G= JG= I G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH I RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 168 384 617 434 150 408 Lane Group Capacity,c 239 1695 1695 756 491 616 v/c Ratio, X 0.70 0.23 0.36 0.57 0.31 0.66 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay, d 18.5 13.8 14.9 16.9 19.1 22.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.24 Incremental Delay, d 9.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 2.7 f -. /!''. \ 7'1,.,...m c..4.. ­A Q_++;..,.n\ A..A-101 ... \T --- Cox:....,. \To...„ \-'11,7 A A A +__ G /'2 n/7 nn7 Detailed Report 40 E Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 Control Delay 27.4 13.8 15.0 18.0 19.4 25.3 Lane Group LOS C g I B B g I C Approach Delay 18.0 16.2 23.7 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 18.6 X� = 0.69 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 573012007 3:09 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1A4A.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • Page 1 of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Roll-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1-81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timin Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 216 189 288 185 268 98 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 18 2 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0 .88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 1 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 0 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EW Perm 1 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 JG= G= JG= I G= 30.0 G= JG= JG= Y= 6 IY= Y= IY= IY= 6 Y= IY= IY= Durati of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cvcle L.enoth, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity ontro Delay, and LOS Determination EB 1 WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 245 215 327 210 305 111 Lane Group Capacity, c 1386 1129 459 1685 664 423 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.19 0.71 0.12 0.46 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.47 1.00 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 Uniform Delay, d 12.0 0.0 16.7 11.7 18.9 17.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 5.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 cl_. ,,, \T_ ------ --- a_ __A n_aa_.___\ A__] ---- t_t__A1 ___1 n_ii.____ \T------ N_'ll_1l'ln i.__ __ 111 n 11nn^ Detailed Report E 0 Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 1 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 1 1 10,0 ! 10.0 Control Delay 12.1 1 0.1 21.8 11.8 1 1 19.4 1 17.7 Lane Group LOS I B A C I B I 8 l Approach Delay 6.5 17.9 18.9 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Delay 14.5 X = 0.60 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5130 /2007 2:59 PM file: / /C:Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Tamp \s21c1938.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report Pagel of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1-81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 308 155 347 291 173 133 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 2 18 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 .88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 20 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stooping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, P 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Penn 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 40.0 JG= G= J Y= G= G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cvde Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH I RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 350 1 176 394 331 197 151 Lane Group Capacity, c 1459 1129 505 1533 619 395 We Ratio, X 0.24 0.16 0.78 0.22 0.32 0.38 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 Uniform Delay, d 11.4 0.0 16.4 11.2 19.0 19.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.1IT .11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 7.7 0.1 0.3 1 0.6 ­A CatF :.. ,.,.\ A- A...d,d,.._ \T --- 0 ,.a+:- ..-..\T..........1 -11,1 nnn �-...-. cnn/ ) An7 Detailed Report • E Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 Control Delay 11.4 0.1 24.1 11.3 19.3 20.1 Lane Group LOS B A C B B C Approach Delay 7.6 18.3 19.7 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Delay 15,1 X� = 0.62 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 2:59 FM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2kl949.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report ! 0 Page 1 of? HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 216 189 290 185 360 98 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 18 2 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A I A Start -up Lost Time, 11 1 2.0 JZ0 2.0 120 1 1 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 C 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, P 2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Onty 06 07 08 j Timing G= 43.0 G= G= G= 35 G= .0 G= G= G= Y= 6 JY= Y= IY= IY= 6 Y= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT I LT TH I RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 245 215 330 210 409 111 Lane Group Capacity, c 1394 539 462 1695 688 439 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.40 0.71 0.12 0.59 0.25 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay, d 13.4 15.2 18.6 13.0 1 1 21.9 18.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.5 5.2 0.0 1.4 0.3 L:lo. / / r`. \Tl......... o..rn .-A A...1... -101. _\T ......I C'erti„..,. \T<,....„ \..'71.1 nCD t...... C /'1 n/7nn^7 Detailed ?.encrt • Page 2 of 2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 s 0.0 t 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 j 0.0 Control Delay 13.5 15.6 23.8 1 13.1 23.3 18.9 Lane Group LOS 8 B C B I C 8 Approach Delay ! 14.5 19.6 22.3 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 19.0 X = 0.66 Intersection LOS B Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3'09 PM file://C:ADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2kl A5B.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • . Page 1 of 2 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /I -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID I - 8 1 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane Group T R L T L R Volume, V (vph) 308 155 385 291 178 133 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 24 43 2 18 2 43 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 j m Pretied (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 1 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective G reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qe 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 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, P 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 1 Timing G= 48.0 JG= G= JG= 1 Y= G= 30.0 G= JG= JG= Y= 6 1Y= Y= ly= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analvsis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 350 176 438 331 202 151 Lane Group Capacity, c 1556 602 539 1635 590 376 We Ratio, X 0.22 0.29 0.81 0.20 0.34 0.40 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.33 Uniform Delay, d 11.1 11.6 17.3 11.0 22.6 23.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.3 9.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 4 11 1 /r` \ll,.,....„ ..,..7 C'oH:....,.\ A...7. _1_1. \T .....,t AK! /In /I nn7 Initial Queue Delay, d j 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 j ! i 0.0 1 10.0 Control Delay I 111.2 11.9 1 26.5 11.0 I 22.9 23.8 Lane Group LOS g ! B C B C C Approach Delay 11.4 19.9 23.3 Approach LOS g g C Intersection Delay 17,9 X c = 0.65 Intersection LOS B Coovrign! © 2005 University of Florida. All Rlgnis Reservec HCS +TM Version 5.21 file://C:ADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1A6C.tmp Generated: 5/30/2007 3:09 PM 5/30/2007 Detailed Report ?age 2 of 2 • Detailed Report • Page 1 of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 154 268 278 10 80 10 120 185 33 33 568 278 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2-0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for edeslrians, Go 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Exd. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 10.0 G= 14.0 G= G= 8.0 G= 38.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Cap acity , 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 175 305 316 11 91 11 136 210 38 38 645 316 Lane Group Capacity, c 687 497 422 157 552 246 239 750 915 639 908 1231 v/c Ratio, X 0.25 0.61 0.75 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.57 0.28 0.04 0.06 0.71 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.42 0.58 0.58 0.51 0.78 Uniform Delay, d 30.3 28.9 30.2 37.6 32.9 32.3 19.8 17.0 8.2 8.5 16.9 2.8 • .. - . . ��� III ��� �' ��� ��� •�� III ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� cl .`,T_ ___ . f n ,.• I ♦ 1 , 1 I 1 n „' ,m , n. 1-I I I renninnn- Detailed Report 0 Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 30.5 31.2 t3 37.8 33.1 32.4 23.0 17.2 8.2 2.9 Lane Group LOS C C D C C C 8 A T0.0 A Approach Delay 33.6 33.5 18.4 Approach LOS C C 8 8 Intersection Delay 22.4 X = 0.66 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 521 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:00 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2k195A.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 9 Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 370 208 112 47 375 47 273 735 26 26 286 164 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 -0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ne 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for edestrians, G� 3.2 32 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 7.5 G= 18.5 G= G= 19.0 G= 27.0 G= G= Y= 0 IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Ca a ity , Control Delay and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 420 236 127 53 426 53 310 835 30 30 325 186 Lane Group Capacity, G 516 538 897 118 729 325 597 908 1020 101 533 818 v/c Ratio, X 0.81 0.44 0.14 0.45 0.58 0.16 0.52 0.92 0.03 0.30 0.61 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.15 0.29 0.57 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.58 0.51 0.64 0.30 0.30 0.52 Uniform Delay, d 37.0 26.1 9.2 40.4 32.3 29.4 11.2 20.3 5.8 24.2 27.0 11.9 Progression Factor, 11.000 11.000 11.000 111.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 x Detailed Report Ll 0 Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 9.7 0.6 0.1 2.7 1 1.2 0.2 0.8 14.2 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 46.7 26.6 9.3 43.1 33.5 29.6 12.1 34.5 5.8 25.9 29.0 12.1 Lane Group LOS D C A D C C 8 C A C C 8 Approach Delay 34.6 34.1 27.9 23.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Delay 29.8 X c = 0.82 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Fionda, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 521 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:00 PM file://CADocuments and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k196C.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Page i of 2 HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period AM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1-81 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing trip ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 154 268 417 10 80 10 127 186 33 33 591 278 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, I: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Min. Time for edestrians, Ga 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Exd. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 1 08 Timing G= 8.0 1 G= 5.5 G= 14.0 G= G= 5.5 G= 39.0 G= IG= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= IY= 0 Y= o" 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Ca aci , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT I LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 175 305 332 11 91 11 144 211 38 38 672 316 Lane Group Capacity, c 745 404 545 157 552 246 232 878 1029 505 770 1134 v/c Ratio, X 0.23 0.75 0.61 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.62 0.24 0.04 0.08 0.87 0.28 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.34 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.56 0.49 0.65 0.43 0.43 0.72 Uniform Delay, d 29.1 33.0 24.5 37.6 32.9 32.3 15.8 13.1 5.6 14.9 23.2 4.5 Progression Factor, 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 I , 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ,,_ a I A 7� __ cn n in nn-r Detailed Report • Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.31 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 7.9 2.0 0:2 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 10.8 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.3 40.9 26.5 37.8 33.1 32.4 20.8 13.2 5.7 15.0 34.0 4.6 Lane Group LOS C D C D C C C B A B C A Approach Delay 32.5 33.5 15.3 24.3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Delay 26.1 X� = 0.83 Intersection LOS C Copynght © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS. Version 5.21 Generated: 5130/2007 3:09 PM fileMADocuments and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1A7D.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time PM Peak Intersection Rest Church Rd /Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 370 207 119 47 375 47 386 754 26 26 287 164 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 12.0 12.O 2.0 12.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 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 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stooping, NB 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for edestrians. GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left I EB Only Thru & RT 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 4.5 G= 5.0 G= 14.0 G= G= 22.0 G= 26.5 G= G= Y= o" IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cyde Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity , Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 420 235 135 53 426 53 439 857 30 30 326 186 Lane Group Capacity, c 592 393 827 89 552 246 648 957 1038 120 523 844 v/c Ratio, X 0.71 0.60 0.16 0.60 0.77 0.22 0.68 0.90 0.03 0.25 0.62 0.22 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.21 0.52 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.61 0.54 0.66 0.29 0.29 0.53 Uniform Delay, d 1 35.1 32.1 11.2 41.9 36.5 33.2 11.2 18.5 5.4 24.2 27.4 11.1 Progression Factor, ]F 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 fil o,,l Corr;,,., \4„.1 „r1PL,,, \T n,oI AQP f,,,„ snn /onm Detailed Report • Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.27 0.19 0.11 0.18 0.32 0.11 0.25 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 3.9 2.5 0.1 10.4 6.7 0.4 2.8 10.9 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 39.1 34.6 11.3 52.3 43.1 33.6 14.0 29.4 5.5 25.3 29.8 11.2 Lane Group LOS D C B D D C B C A C C B Approach Delay 33.0 43.1 23.8 23.2 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Delay 29.2 X = 0.84 Intersection LOS C Cooyright © 2005 University of Fionda, All Rights Reserved HCS *T Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3 :10 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Anduriekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2k1A8E.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page t of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst JPHRA Intersection nupawawaluceruwn Road /Route Ag ency/ Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed med A nalysis Time Period 05/30 M Peeak ak A nalysis Year 1 2010 Buildout Conditions Movement 1 1 i Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center- Scenario A EastlWest Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road . North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South [S tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments M ajor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 126 368 62 13 666 177 P eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 oudy Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 143 418 70 14 756 201 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 153 64 183 64 46 74 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (vehih) 173 72 207 72 52 84 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 19 7 7 19 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Ap proach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 143 14 208 452 (m) (veh /h) 699 1050 0 191 lc 0.20 0.01 2.37 95% queue length 0.76 0.04 37.18 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.5 8.5 669.8 LOS B A F F Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1991.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + T M Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:01 PM Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst J PHRA Intersection nopewenlbrucerown Road /Route Agency/Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed An alysis Time Period I J PM Peak A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions 3 4 C1. 11/ . \ll. ...Y.._a_ _—A O,.0 :_._...\ A_J__1_1___ \T --- 1 ------ \__rn_1n A O ------ cNn /n nn� P roject Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A East/West Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments M ajor Street Northbound Southbound M ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (vehih) 248 812 86 49 404 188 P eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR vehih) 281 922 97 55 459 213 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 C onfiguration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 120 49 173 62 55 56 P eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 H ourly Flow Rate, HFR ( veh/h ) 136 55 196 70 62 63 ercent Heavy Vehicles 7 13 7 7 13 7 ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 19 onfiguration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Ap proach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound M ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 281 55 195 387 (m) (veh /h) 896 662 0 0 lc 0.31 0.08 95% queue length 1.35 0.27 Control Delay (s /veh) 1018 10.9 LOS B B F F C1. 11/ . \ll. ...Y.._a_ _—A O,.0 :_._...\ A_J__1_1___ \T --- 1 ------ \__rn_1n A O ------ cNn /n nn� Two -Way Stop Control • ® Page 2 oft file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19A8.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:02 PM Detailed Report • 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 0513012007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt. 11 & Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions 1 -81 Distribution Center - Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 153 64 183 64 46 74 126 368 62 13 666 177 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 19 7 7 19 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 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) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.O 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 F. 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fed / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for P edestrians, Gp 32 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 1 G= G= G J G= 15.0 G= 41.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Cap acity, Control Delay and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 161 67 172 115 57 133 387 65 14 701 1 186 Lane Group Capacity, c 345 454 429 382 429 277 766 651 587 1047 890 vic Ratio, X 0.47 0.15 0.40 0.30 0.13 0.48 0.51 0.10 0.02 0.67 0.21 Total Green Ratio, gIC 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.65 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 28.1 25.4 27.5 26.6 25.3 19.4 19.6 16.0 6.9 13.2 9.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Detailed Report lJ is Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 1.0 0.2 1 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 1 1.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.1 25.6 28.1 27.1 25.4 20.7 20.2 16.1 7.0 14.9 9.2 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C 8 A 8 A Approach Delay 28.1 26.5 19.8 13.6 Approach LOS C C B 8 Intersection Delay 19.3 X = 0.60 c Intersection LOS 8 Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3.01 PM file://C:\Docurrents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2kl9A4.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report ' • Page 1 of 2 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT 0.0 0.0' General Information 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Site Information Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection Rt. 11 & Hopewell 0 0 0 Analyst PHR +A 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Rd/Brucetown 12.0 12.0 12.0 Agency or Co. PHR +A 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N Area Type All other areas N 0 N Date Performed 0513012007 0 N N Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 1 -81 Distribution Center - 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Project ID Scenario A Suggested 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 63 Improvements NS Perm 06 07 Volume and Timing trip ut Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G =' G= 50.0 G= G= 1 G= EB Y= Y= WB NB Y= SB Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R 91 LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 120 49 173 62 55 56 248 812 86 49 404 188 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 13 7 7 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated A A A A A A A A A A A A (A) Start -up Lost Time, It 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 120 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.D 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 G reen, e Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, t 1 1. 000 .000 .000 F 1.000 0.000 F 000 .000 .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 5 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 63 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G =' G= 50.0 G= G= 1 G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 126 52 182 123 59 261 855 91 52 425 1 198 Lane Group Capacity, C 365 510 458 442 469 443 987 838 135 987 838 vlc Ratio, X 0.35 0.10 0.40 0.28 0.13 0.59 0.87 0.11 0.39 0.43 0.24 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 23.9 22.1 24.4 1 23.4 22.2 13.2 17.1 9.5 11.3 11.7 10.2 Progression Factor, PFI1.000 11.000 11.000 I 11.000 11.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 11.000 11.000 1 1.000 11.000 F. lo•//r`.\ Tl,.,....„ 0.. 4,. A Qo+ r;....\ A..A 7_ 1e 1._\ T --- tQe ++:....,. \To..... \..'1L1 (MO +__ [/41) /7!1/1'7 Detailed Report • ® Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.6 0.1 1 0.6 0.3 1 0.1 2.1 8.2 0.1 1.8 1 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 Control Delay 24.5 22.1 24.9 23.7 22.3 15.3 25.4 9.5 13.1 12.0 10.4 Lane Group LOS C C C C C B C A B B B Approach Delay 24.4 23.3 22.0 11.6 Approach LOS C C C B Intersecton Delay 19.5 X = 0.70 Intersection LOS B Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:02 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2kl9BC.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 1 oft TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 nal sis Time Period P M Peak Intersection Hopewell /Brucetown Road /Route J urisdiction Frederick County, VA A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Intersection Orientation: North -South fS tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Fio / /r`• \Tl.....,,,, o., r.. —A Corr;.,,...\ A..,l 1_1... T ,,..,.1 I A r C a....... z /�ni�nn^ I Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center- Scenario B East/West Street: Hopewetl/Brucetown Road orth/South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South fS tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Fio / /r`• \Tl.....,,,, o., r.. —A Corr;.,,...\ A..,l 1_1... T ,,..,.1 I A r C a....... z /�ni�nn^ Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center- Scenario B East/West Street: Hopewetl/Brucetown Road orth/South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South fS tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 126 391 62 13 667 179 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88. 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 143 444 70 14 757 203 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 199 64 183 64 46 74 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 226 72 207 72 52 84 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 19 7 7 19 7 P ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th. and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 143 14 208 505 C (m) (veh /h) 697 1026 0 176 c 0.21 0.01 2.87 95% queue length 0.77 0.04 45.31 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.5 8.6 897.0 LOS B A F F Fio / /r`• \Tl.....,,,, o., r.. —A Corr;.,,...\ A..,l 1_1... T ,,..,.1 I A r C a....... z /�ni�nn^ Two -Way Stop Control ® Paee 2 of 2 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AD5.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5130/2007 3:11 PM Two -Way Stop Control • . Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection I' iopewelllBrucetown Road /Route A gency/ Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed med s nal si Time Period 05/16/ M Peaak k A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Movement 1 --A O..u:... -..1 A...A. - t,J... -\T ---I n n ------ 11,111.1 11 i Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B East/West Street: Hopewell /Brucetown Road North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South [S tudy Period (hrs ): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 248 813 86 49 423 226 P eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 281 923 97 55 480 256 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 — — 7 _ — edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound _ Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 122 49 173 62 55 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 138 55 196 70 62 63 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 13 7 7 13 7 ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh /h) 281 55 195 389 C (m) (veh /h) 847 661 0 0 /c 0.33 0.08 95% queue length 1.46 0.27 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.3 10.9 LOS B B F F --A O..u:... -..1 A...A. - t,J... -\T ---I n n ------ 11,111.1 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 oft file://C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AFA.tmp 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:36 PM Detailed Report • . Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +q Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt. 11 & Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions 1 -81 Distribution Center - Project ID Scenario B Suggested Improvement Volume and Timing /n ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 199 64 183 64 46 74 126 391 62 13 667 179 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 19 7 7 19 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 .88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.O 2.0 2.0 20 20 2.0 Extension of Effective reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrans, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 12 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 JG= G= JG= G= 15.0 G= 41.0 G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT, LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 226 73 208 125 84 143 444 70 15 758 203 Lane Group Capacity, c 342 454 429 378 429 237 766 651 543 1047 890 v/c Ratio, X 0.66 0.16 0.48 0.33 0.20 0.60 0.58 0.11 0.03 0.72 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.65 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 30.0 25.5 28.2 26.9 25.8 20.8 20.5 16.1 7.5 14.0 9.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 file• / / \Tlnrnmante o„A Catt:nne \A -L, \f n,ol AOF f-- e /znnnno Detailed Report • ® Page 2 of 2 Delay Calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 4.7 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.2 4.3 1.1 0.1 0.0 1 2.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 25.7 29.1 27.4 26.0 25.1 21.6 16.2 T AB 9.4 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C 8 A Approach Delay 31.1 26.8 21.8 14.9 Approach LOS C C C 8 Intersection Delay 21.4 X c = 0.70 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:10 PM tile: / /CADocuments and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1A9F.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS +'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt. 11 8 Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions I -81 Distribution Center - Project ID Scenario B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L T R LT R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 122 49 173 62 55 56 248 813 86 49 423 226 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 7 13 7 7 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 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 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1:000 == 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR V olumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 5 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 IG= G= IG= I G= 50.0 1 G= IG= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 IY= 1Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 1 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Cap acity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 139 56 197 133 64 282 924 98 56 481 257 Lane Group Capacity, G 362 510 458 439 469 399 987 838 88 987 838 v/c Ratio, X 0.38 0.11 0.43 0.30 0.14 0.71 0.94 0.12 0.64 0.49 0.31 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 24.3 22.1 24.7 123.6 22.3 14.6 18.5 9.5 13.7 12.2 10.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 TII Onll AnAnrloL n-oI nun +m.. cnnnnn� wo -Wav Stop Control Page 1 of-') TWO -WA`! STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 2010 Build Out Conditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection Hopewell Rd. /I 81 NB Ramps Jurisdiction F rederick County, VA A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl9Cl.tmp 5/30/2007 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 181 NB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 22 219 182 159 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 25 248 0 0 , 206 180 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 — 7 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 28 174 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 31 0 197 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 0 16 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh /h) 25 228 C (m) (veh /h) 1100 688 lc 0.02 0.33 95% queue length 0.07 1.45 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.3 12.8 LOS A B file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl9Cl.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • 471- . / /('. \Tl....,.., _f. ­A n..A.,.l ot....- \T,- -I +__ Page 2 of 2 c /12n/1nn7 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:02 PM Two -Way Stop Control Page I of 2 • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 2010 Build Out Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection Hopewell Rd. / 181 NB Ramps J urisdiction Frederick County, VA A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions 2 3 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 R L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 39 184 235 245 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 44 209 0 0 267 278 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 0 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 12 0 7 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT 0 Flared Approach TR Upstream Signal N 0 0 y Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 44 151 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 50 0 171 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 0 12 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 44 221 C (m) (veh /h) 976 637 lc 0.05 0.35 95% queue length 0.14 1.55 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.9 13.6 LOS A B file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings\Temp\u2k I 9C5.tmp 5,'30 /2007 Two -Way Stop Control . Page 2 of 2 fila• / /('A F) .nm cn tc o,A QPttl ll nc\ A,. A„ I-L « \T n. I 1r 100 +-- G /'I n /'LVY7 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:03 PM Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 oft TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection Hopewell Rd. /1 81 NB Ramps urisdiction Frederick County, VA A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions 180 Percent Heavy Vehicles P roject Description 1 -81 Distribution Center- Scenario B East West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 181 NB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 [Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 (veh /h) 25 248 0 0 210 180 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 28 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 31 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 16 0 16 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 25 31 C (m) (veh /h) 1096 433 v/c 0.02 0.07 95% queue length 0.07 0.23 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.4 14.0 LOS A B file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings\Temp \u2k1AE0.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 9 • Page 2 of 2 rl, / /(`• \ — A A -A ... 1- 1— \T., 1 corn:.,,.,. \To«,.. \..'1L1 AT7n.__ 4 /2nPlnn' Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:12 PM Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 39 184 273 245 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 44 209 0 0 310 278 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 — — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 44 153 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 50 0 173 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 0 12 7 0 7 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbbund Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 44 223 C (m) (veh /h) 940 624 /c 0.05 0.36 95% queue length 0.15 1.62 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.0 13.9 LOS A B file: //C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AE3.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control . • Page 2 of 2 C.1_. Illy. \I .. _ _ __A 0 . _\ A _A _1_1 .\T _1 0 _ \T _\ Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:12 PM Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection nopewen Rd.1 ; a 1 3B Ramps Agency/Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period M Peak A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19CB.tmp 5/30/2007 1 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A East/West Street: Hopewell Road North /South Street: 181 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 77 33 127 82 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 87 37 144 93 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 16 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 163 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.68 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 185 0 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 16 0 16 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N y Storage 0 2 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 144 207 C (m) (veh /h) 1380 516 c 0.10 0.40 95% queue length 0.35 1.91 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 17.0 LOS A C file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19CB.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control file://C:\Documents and Settines\Andurlekar \Local Settines \Temn \u2kl9CF.tmn Page 2 of 2 5/30/2007 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:03 PM I Wu -vvay 3wp wuirur rage 1 ui TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Hopewell Rd. /181 SB Ramps Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions 6 IProiect Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B I 0 Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 77 33 129 82 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 87 37 146 93 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 16 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 163 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 0 0 0 185 0 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 16 0 16 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N Y Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 146 207 C (m) (veh /h) 1380 498 !c 0.11 0.42 95% queue length 0.35 2.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 17.3 LOS A C i file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AE6.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control 0 0 Page 2 of 2 filed / /C• \T�nrntmentc nnA RettinvpAAnrinrlakar \T ncnl ,CettinaeATemn \n7k1 A P6 tmn ;i'io1')nO7 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 521 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:12 PM Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY A nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Volumes !j1 Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 V olume (veh /h) L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 0.88 63 28 179 138 0.88 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.68 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 71 31 203 156 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 – – 12 – – Median Type Undivided RT Channelized Storage 0 0.53 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 4 7 8 160 10 40 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 181 0 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 - 1 – 0 0 12 0 12 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N v/c Y 0.14 Storage 0 0.53 1 95% queue length RT Channelized 0.49 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration i LOS I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh /h) 203 226 C (m) (veh /h) 1430 428 v/c 0.14 0.53 95% queue length 0.49 3.00 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 22.4 LOS A C file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AE9.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 �pp ch Delay 22.4 pproach LOS c Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved - HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:12 PM filr.• //C \Tlncnm Pnfs and CPttinuc \Anrhrrlalrar \T nrnl QPff1n OC \TOmn \n7dr1 AFQ tmn lwo -way Jtop Uontrol page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Site Dr# 1 /Route 11 Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick Count - V, VA Date Performed 1 Analysis Year 2010 Build Out onditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak 6 East/West Street: Site Drivewa # 1 North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South 7tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 495 836 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 562 0 0 950 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 7 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 25 7 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh /h) 5 C m veh /h 282 Vic 0.02 95% queue length 0.05 Control Delay (s /veh) 18.0 LOS C pproach Delay 18.0 file: /, /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19D4.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:03 PM file / /('•\nnrmnantc nnrl .Cettinas \Ant] nrlelrnr \T.nrnl Cettinoc \TPmn \n7k1 QTld tmn S /2N ?007 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 • • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection ISite Dr# 1 /Route 11 Agency/Co. PHRA urisdiction Frederick Count , VA Date Performed Southbound Analysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions nal sis Time Period PM Peak 4 5 Project Description t -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drivewa # 1 North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 971 583 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1103 0 0 662 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 7 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 13 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 25 7 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh /h) 13 C (m) (veh /h) 421 c 0.03 95% queue length 0.10 Control Delay (s /veh) 13,8 L LOS B Approach Delay 13.8 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k19D9.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:04 PM file' //( ' \TlnrnmPnts And Rattinoc \An/1nr1P11AY \i nasal Qnttinac \Tam \n7k1 Ono tmn 4;/ '10/7007 Two - Way Jtop Uontrot Yage 1 of 2 • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Site Dr # 1 /Route 11 Agency/Co. I PHRA J urisdiction J Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10511612007 Analysis Year 1 2010 Build Out Conditions nal sis Time Period JAM Peak 5 6 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center- Scenario 'B East/West Street: Site Drivewa # 1 North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 514 0 62 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 584 0 0 0 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 – 7 – – Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 1 0 1 F Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 3 7 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh /h) 6 C (m) (veh /h) 1035 v/c 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.5 LOS A Approach Delay 8.5 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AEC.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +T Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:13 PM film //f \Tlnrnm ante anA CPttin nc \An 1,1a1,, \T nral Qai++n nc \Tomas \n71r1 ATWI f-- G/1!10007 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 • 0 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Info ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Site Dr # 1 1Route 11 Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 0511612007 A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak 5 6 Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B East/West Street: Site Driveway # 1 North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs ): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 1119 602 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1271 0 0 684 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 7 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 40 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 45 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 7 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 45 C (m) (veh /h) 449 /c 0.10 95% queue length 0.33 Control Delay (s /veh) 13,9 LOS g Approach Delay 13.9 r -- I file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1AEF.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • Page 2 of 2 (s /veh) pproach LOS I -- I I B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:13 PM Fla / /(` \TlnrnmAnte onA CaHinrzc \dnAnrlAt, \T n,I CP}}lnnc \Tam++ \n7b1 ART; tmn cnn nm Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Site Dr # 21Route 11 Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 0513012007 A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions Analysis T ime Period AM Peak L Project Description 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Driveway # 2 North /South Street: Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period (hrs): 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 24 473 801 40 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 27 537 0 0 910 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 — 7 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 22 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 25 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 0 25 7 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh /h) 27 30 C (m) (veh /h) 635 248 Vic 0.04 0.12 95% queue length 0.13 0.41 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.9 21.5 LOS B C Approach Delay 21.5 fil e://C: \Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19DE.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control . • Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:04 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \Andurlekar \Local Settings \Tema \u2kl9DE.tmn 5/30/2007 two -way Stop uontroi rage t or z • TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHRA Intersection Site Dr # 21Route 11 Agency/Co. PHRA J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 0513012007 A nalysis Year 2010 Build Out Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak R L V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume (veh /h) 13 914 R Volume (veh /h) 573 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 14 1038 0 0 651 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 — — 7 — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T Percent Grade ( %) T R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 57 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 64 0 13 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 0 25 7 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 Len th, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 14 77 C (m) (veh /h) 817 324 /c 0.02 0.24 95% queue length 0.05 0.91 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.5 21.0 LOS A C Approach Delay 21.0 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \u2k19E2.tmp 5/30/2007 Two -Way Stop Control • • Page 2 of 2 Copyright O 20D5 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:04 PM fi1P //( U)ncnmPntc and .CPttino.q\AnfirriPkar \T,ncnI .Cettinurs \TPrnn \n2k19F. ?. tmn 5/9000/17 Detailed Report 1 0.0 1 Page t of ! 1 1 HCS + DETAILED REPORT 1 1 General Information 0.0 Ped /Bike/ RTOR Volumes 0 0 Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 0511612007 Time Period AM Peak 0 0 0 Intersection Rt 11 & Site -Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B 0 Volume and Timing Input 12.0 12.0 12.0 EB WB NB Parking / Grade / Parking SB 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR 0 0 L T 0 0 T R Volume, V (vph) 30 3.2 6 EB Only 02 03 93 484 06 07 817 155 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 G= 3 I G= 57.0 G= G= 3 3 Y= Y= 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 Y= 0.88 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay nd LOS Determination 1 0.88 0.90 WB 1 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A LT A RT LT TH I A A TH RT A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 106 538 2.0 928 176 20 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2 0 184 1168 X2. 2.0 1168 1568 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 0.58 0.46 3 0.79 0.11 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 0.63 0.63 3.0 0.63 1.00 3.0 3.0 Filtering /MeteringI 1.000 9.5 8.5 1.000 12.2 0.0 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 1 0.0 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.0 1 1 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike/ RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N 1 N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 Prm 06 07 08 Timing G= 21.0 JG= G= G= I G= 57.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay nd LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 41 106 538 928 176 Lane Group Capacity, c 404 184 1168 1168 1568 v/c Ratio, X 0.10 0.58 0.46 0.79 0.11 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 Uniform Delay, d 27.1 9.5 8.5 12.2 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1 11.000 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 11.000 1 1 11.000 10.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.34 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 4.4 0.3 3.9 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 1 10-0 0.0 1 1 0.0 0.0 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1AC1.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • 1 • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay 27.2 1 13.9 1 8.8 1 16.1 1 0.0 Lane Group LOS C B I A B A Approach Delay 27,2 9.7 13.5 Approach LOS C A B Intersection Delay 12,4 X c = 0.61 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.21 Generated: 5130/2007 3:10 PM file //( \TlnnnmP.ntc and CPttinac \AndI1r1P1lAr \T nral . \TPmn \c71r1 Arl fmn 61'1600(17 Detailed Report 0 Page 1 of L HCS +`" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 05/16/2007 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Rt 11 & Site -Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project ID 1 -81 Distribution Center - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR L T T R Volume, V (vph) 189 40 17 930 614 28 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 1 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 IG= G= IG= I G= 53.0 G= G= I G= Y= 6 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity Control Delay nd LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 260 19 1033 698 32 Lane Group Capacity, c 481 291 1086 1086 1568 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.07 0.95 0.64 0.02 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.00 Uniform Delay, d 27.6 7.9 17.3 12.2 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.22 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 1.2 0.1 16.9 1.3 1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar\Local Settings \Temp \s2k1AD2.tmp 5/30/2007 Detailed Report • • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay 28.9 1 8.0 34.2 1 13.5 1 0.0 Lane Group LOS C A I C 8 A Approach Delay 28.9 33.7 13.0 Approach LOS C C 8 Intersection Delay 25.7 X = 0.82 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.21 file: / /C: \Documents and Settin2s\Andurlekar \Loca1 Settines \Tema \s2k1AD2.tmn Generated: 5/30/2007 3:11 PM 5/30/2007 f'Ietaueu >ceporf • rage .� of Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.45 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.7 0.1 1 0.7 0.4 0.1 5.7 15.6 0.1 114.2 0.4 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.9 22.2 25.3 24.0 22.4 20.3 34.1 9.6 28.0 12.6 10.9 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C A C 8 8 Approach Delay 24.7 23.5 29.3 13.1 Approach LOS C C C 8 Intersection Delay 23.4 X = 0.75 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ Version 5.21 Generated: 5/30/2007 3:10 PM file://CA\Documents and Settings\Andurlekar \Local Settings \Temp \s2k1AB0.tmp 5/30/2007 • 11 Imemaction: E -W'. RESTCHURCH Weather DRY Fil Name N -S'. 1 -81 RAMP Coum B 11P I nput By 11P Locmica VA Count Datc 52PU06 15 Minute EB'. REST CHURCH WB: RESI' CHURCH NB: 1 -81 RAMP SB: 15 Min. pen cal N,S, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left I1Lm Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left Th. Right Total E& W Begining 7'A0 14 33 U 47 U 49 IS 67 21 0 19 40 U U U 0 154 7:00 7:15 16 38 U 54 U 57 IS 75 26 U 21 47 U U U U 176 7:15 7:30 18 41 U 59 U 63 21 84 33 0 23 56 0 U U 0 199 7:3U 7 45 22 40 U 62 U 60 17 77 34 U 21 55 U U U 0 194 7:45 8'A0 17 44 U 61 U 55 22 77 29 U 26 55 U U 0 U 193 8:00 8.15 19 37 U 56 U 49 17 66 21 0 21 42 U 0 U 0 164 8:15 8:30 15 34 0 49 U 44 12 56 23 0 24 47 U 0 U U 152 8:30 8:45 16 31 0 47 U 41 14 55 24 0 19 43 U 0 U 0 145 8:45 A.M.Total 137 298 0 435 U 418 139 557 211 0 174 385 0 0 U U 1377 A.M. Total 16'.00 28 22 0 50 U 35 17 52 20 0 27 47 U U U 0 149 16:00 16:15 33 22 U 55 U 35 14 49 19 0 32 51 0 U U 0 155 16:15 16:30 30 21 U 51 U 37 18 55 23 U 26 49 0 0 U 0 155 16:30 16:45 34 30 U 64 0 40 15 55 22 U 30 52 0 U 0 U 171 1645 171)0 35 27 0 62 0 45 16 61 28 U 32 60 U U U 0 183 17:00 17:15 30 28 U 58 U 40 12 52 21 U 35 56 0 U U 0 166 17:15 17:30 25 22 U 47 U 34 8 42 18 U 31 49 0 0 U U 138 1730 1745 21 18 U 39 0 29 IU 39 17 U 26 43 0 U 0 U 121 17:45 P.M, Total 236 190 U 426 0 - 295 IN 405 168 U 239 407 U 0 0 U 1238 P.M. Total I Hour EB: RFSTCHURCH WB: REST CHURCH NB: I -8t RAMP SR: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left 'I loo Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Th. Right Total E& W Begining 7:00 70 152 U 222 0 229 74 303 114 0 84 198 U U U 0 723 7:00 7:15 73 163 U 236 U 235 78 313 122 0 91 213 U 0 U U 762 7:15 7:30 76 162 U 238 0 227 77 304 117 0 91 208 U U 0 U 750 7:30 7:45 73 155 U 228 U 2U8 68 276 107 0 92 199 U U U 0 703 7:45 8:00 67 146 U 213 0 189 65 254 97 U 90 187 U 0 U 0 654 8:00 16.00 125 95 U 220 U 147 64 211 84 0 115 199 0 U U 0 630 16:00 16:15 132 100 U 232 U 157 63 220 92 0 120 212 0 U 0 U 664 16:15 16:30 129 106 U 235 U 162 61 223 94 0 123 217 U U 0 0 675 16:30 16',45 124 107 U 231 U 159 51 210 89 0 128 217 0 U 0 U 658 16:45 17.00 III 95 U 206 U 148 46 1'94 84 U 124 208 0 U U U 608 17:00 I Hour E13: RES'1'CHURCH WB', REST CHURCH NB: 1 -81 RAMP SB: 1 Hour Period NS, Period Begining Left '1 "hm Right Total Left Thou Right Total Left Thm Right "Total Left Thou Right 'Coral E & W Begining 7.15 73 163 U 236 U 235 76 313 122 U 91 213 U U U U 762 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.96 A.M. Peak 16:30 129 IU6 U 235 U 162 61 223 94 U 123 217 0 0 U U 675 1630 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.92 PHI = 0.91 PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.92 P.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: REST CHURCH Weather DRY Pil Name N -S'. I -81 RAMP Coun[ B lIP Input By 11P Location VA Count Date 5/32006 15 Minute EB: REST CHURCH WB'. REST CHURCH NB'. SB'. 1 -BI RAMP 15 Mitt. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thou Right 'total Left Th. Right Total Lcft Thru Right Total Left Mot Right Total E &W Begining 7:00 0 23 29 52 43 30 0 73 U U U U 7 U 17 24 149 7 D 7:15 U 26 34 60 48 29 0 77 0 U U U 12 0 19 31 168 7:15 7:30 U 33 40 73 45 33 U 78 U U U U 9 0 21 30 181 730 7:45 U 27 44 71 44 34 U 78 U U U U II 0 20 31 180 7:45 8:00 0 29 42 71 46 35 U 81 U U U U 14 U 23 37 189 8:00 8:15 0 34 39 73 36 31 U 67 0 0 0 U 16 U 21 37 177 8:15 8:30 0 36 44 80 32 27 U 59 0 U 0 U 12 0 18 30 169 8:30 8:45 0 34 37 71 29 28 0 57 U U U U 14 0 19 33 161 8:45 A.M. Total 0 242 309 551 323 247 0 570 U U U 0 95 U 158 253 1374 A.M.Total 16:00 0 44 30 74 14 56 U 70 ll 0 0 U 9 U 24 33 177 16,00 16:15 0 41 33 74 14 58 0 72 U U U 0 7 0 20 27 173 16:15 16:30 0 42 31 73 17 63 1) 8o U U 0 U 9 0 26 35 188 1630 16:45 U 49 34 83 23 69 U 92 U 0 U U 8 0 29 37 212 16:45 17:00 0 51 38 89 21 54 U 75 U 0 U U 11 U 34 45 209 17:00 17:15 0 44 32 76 24 42 U 66 U 0 U U 6 0 27 33 175 17'.15 17:30 0 35 26 61 20 31 U 51 U 0 0 U 7 0 21 28 140 1730 17:45 0 32 27 59 18 27 U 45 0 0 U U 5 U 22 27. 131 1745 P.M. Total 0 338 25) 589 151 400 ll 551 U U U 0 62 U 203 265 1405 P.M.7'otal I Hour EB: REST CHURCH WB: REST CHURCH NB SB: 1 -81 RAMP 1 Hour Period N,S, 1'eoi nd Begining Lcft Th. Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thou Right Total Left That Right Total E &W Begining 7:00 0 109 147 256 180 126 U 306 0 U U 0 39 U 77 116 678 700 7:15 0 115 160 275 183 131 0 314 U U 0 l) 46 0 83 129 718 715 7:30 0 123 I69 288 171 133 U 304 U U 0 U 50 0 85 135 727 7:30 7:45 U 126 169 295 158 127 U 285 0 0 0 0 53 0 82 135 715 7:45 8'00 0 133 162 295 143 121 0 264 0 U U 0 56 U 81 137 696 8:00 16:00 0 176 128 304 68 246 U 314 0 0 U U 33 U 99 132 750 16:00 - 16:15 0 183 136 319 75 244 U 319 U 0 0 0 35 0 109 144 782 16:15 16:30 U 186 135 321 85 228 U 313 0 U U 0 34 0 116 150 784 16:30 16:45 U 179 130 30 88 196 U 284 U U 0 U 32 0 111 143 736 16:45 17:00 U 162 123 285 83 154 0 237 U 0 0 U 29 0 104 L33 655 l7'DO 1 Hour EB: REST CHURCH WB: REST CHURCH NB: SB: 1 -81 RAMP I Hour Period N,S, Pcdod Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Th. Right Total Lcft Thru Right 'total Left 'Phru Right Total E& W Begining 7:39 U 123 165 288 171 133 0 304 U U U U 50 0 85 135 727 7:30 A.M. Pcak PHF = 0.99 PHF = 0.94 PHP = PHF = 0.91 0.96 A.M. Peak 1630 0 186 135 321 85 228 U 313 U 0 U U 34 U 116 150 784 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.85 PHF = PHF = 0.83 0.92 N.M. Peak 0 Im ersection'. E -W: REST CHURCH Weather RAIN Fil Narrre� N -S: RO U'1'E 11 Count B 11P I nput By HP Location VA Count Date 5/82006 15 Minute EB'. REST CHURCH WB: NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 15 Mi, Period I N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thor Right 'Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thnt Right Total ES, N' Begining 7:00 8 U It 19 0 U U U 6 10 0 16 U 29 35 64 99 7:00 7215 10 U II 21 U 0 U U 8 9 U 17 U 33 40 73 111 7:15 7'.30 14 U 13 27 U 0 U 0 9 13 U 22 0 39 47 86 135 7:30 7 45 15 0 14 29 U 0 U 0 12 15 U 27 0 35 44 79 135 7:45 800 15 0 11 26 0 0 U It 14 15 U 29 U 32 41 73 128 8100 8:15 13 U 13 26 0 U U U 15 11 U 26 U 28 39 67 119 8:15 830 14 U 14 28 0 U 0 U 12 12 U 24 U 19 32 51 103 8:30 845 16 U 12 28 U U 0 U 9 II 0 20 U 22 33 55 103 8:45 A.M. Total 105 U 99 204 U - U 0 U 85 96 U 181 U 237 311 548 933 A.M.Total 16:00 56 0 7 63 U 0 U 0 14 45 U 59 0 23 19 42 164 16:00 1615 64 0 11 75 0 U 0 0 12 49 0 61 U 24 23 47 IS'S 16:15 16:30 77 0 14 91 0 U U 0 17 54 0 71 U 27 22 49 211 16:30 16:45 85 U 12 97 U U 0 0 21 59 0 80 0 31 26 57 234 16:45 17 U 88 U 15 103 U U U U 22 63 U 85 0 29 21 50 238 17:00 17:15 72 0 l3 85 0 0 U 0 15 55 U 70 U 33 23 56 211 17:15 17:30 67 U 16 83 U U U 0 16 47 U 63 U 26 19 45 191 17:30 17:45 60 0 12 72 0 0 0 0 12 44 0 56 B 21 21 42 17D 1735 P.M. Total 569 U t00 669 0 U U 0 129 416 0 545 0 214 174 388 1602 P.M, Total I Hour EB: REST CHURCH WEI NB: ROUTE I1 SB: ROUTE I I 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Repining Left Thou Right Total Left Thou Right Total Left Thro Right 'Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 47 U 49 96 0 0 U 0 35 47 0 82 0 136 166 302 480 7. 00 7:15 54 0 49 103 0 0 U 0 43 52 U 95 U 139 172 311 509 7:15 7.30 57 U 51 HIS U U U U 50 54 U 104 U 134 171 305 517 7:30 7 45 57 0 52 109 U 0 U 0 53 53 U 106 0 114 156 270 485 7:45 8:00 58 U 50 108 U U 0 U 50 49 0 99 0 101 145 246 453 8100 16:00 282 0 44 326 0 U U U 64 207 U 271 0 105 90 195 792 16:00 16:15 314 U 52 366 U 0 U U 72 225 0 297 U 111 92 203 866 16:15 16:3U 322 U 54 376 U 0 0 U 75 231 0 306 0 IN 92 212 894 1630 16:45 312 0 56 368 U U 0 U 74 224 0 298 U 119 89 208 874 1645 I7 :00 287 0 56 343 U 0 0 U 65 209 0 274 U 109 84 193 810 17:00 I Huur Era: RESTCHURCH W'B: NB: ROU "!E I I SB: ROU] "E J 1 I Hour Period I N,S, Period Begining Left Thou Right "Total Left Tom Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left That Right Total E &W Begioing 7:30 57 0 51 108 0 U 0 0 50 54 0 104 0 134 171 365 517 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.93 PHF = PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.89 0.96 A.M. Peak 1630 322 U 54 376 U U 0 U 75 231 U 306 0 120 92 212 894 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.91 PHF = PHF = O90 PHF = 0.93 0.94 P.M. Peak lJ 1�1 Intersection: E- W: HOPEWELL RD WeatLI Fil Name I -81 RAMP Count 6, J1P I nput By 11P Location CLEAR BROOKNA Coast Date 5/42006 15 Minute EB: HOPEWELL RD WB: HOPEWELL RD NB: 1 -81 RAMP SIT: 15 Min. Period N,S, Pctiad Begining Left '1 "h. Right Total Left Onto, Right Total Left '1'hru Right Total Left Th. Right 'Total E& W Begining 7:00 5 8 U 13 U 9 6 15 _ U 10 12 U U U U 40 7 7:15 4 12 U 16 0 13 8 21 4 U 13 17 U U U U 54 7'15 7:30 4 11 0 15 0 12 8 20 3 U 12 15 0 U 0 0 50 7:30 745 3 12 U 15 0 15 9 24 4 U 16 20 U 0 0 0 59 7:45 8:00 5 13 U 18 0 17 12 29 4 U IS 22 U 0 U 0 69 500 8:15 6 12 U 18 0 19 8 27 6 0 17 23 U 0 U 0 68 8:15 8:30 4 14 0 18 0 14 6 2U 8 U 16 24 U U U U 62 8:30 8:45 4 15 0 19 0 17 8 25 6 U 18 24 U 0 U 0 68 8:45 A.M. Total 35 97 0 132 0 116 65 181 37 U - 120 157 0 U U U 470 A.M. Total 16:00 4 16 0 20 0 33 IS 51 8 0 24 32 D 0 U U 103 16:00 16:15 5 16 U 21 0 31 16 47 7 U 24 31 0 U 0 U 99 16:15 16:30 7 14 U 21 0 34 16 50 11 U 29 40 U U 0 U 111 1630 16:45 11 13 U 24 0 33 15 48 12 U 25 37 0 0 U U 109 16:45 17:00 9 12 U 21 0 34 12 46 12 U 24 36 0 0 0 U 103 17. 00 17:15 10 9 0 19 0 29 IU 39 15 U 23 38 0 0 0 0 96 17:15 17:30 9 7 U 16 0 23 9 32 14 U 19 33 0 U U U 81 1730 1745 8 8 U 16 U 25 6 31 12 U 17 29 0 0 U U 76 17:45 P.M. Total 63 95 U 158 0 242 102 344 91 0 185 276 0 U U U 778 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: HOPEWELL RD WIT: HOPEWELL RD NB: 1 -81 RAMP SB: I Hour Period N.S, Period Begining Left Th. Right Total Left 'Dou Right Total Left Thru Right IDtal Left Th. Right 'Total E & W Begining 7:00 16 43 0 59 U 49 31 SU 13 0 51 64 0 0 0 U 203 7 U 7:15 16 48 0 64 0 57 37 94 15 0 59 74 U 0 U U 232 7:15 7:30 18 48 U 66 U 63 37 IUU 17 0 63 80 U 0 U U 246 7:30 7:45 18 51 U 69 0 65 35 100 22 U 67 89 0 0 0 0 258 7.45 8:00 19 54 U 73 0 67 34 101 24 U 69 93 U U D U 267 &00 16:00 27 59 U 86 U 131 65 196 38 U 102 140 U U U U 422 16:CU 16:15 32 55 U 87 U 132 59 191 42 U 102 144 U U 0 U 422 16:15 16:30 37 48 U 95 0 130 53 183 50 U 101 151 U U U 0 419 16:30 16:45 39 41 U 80 U 119 46 165 53 U 91 144 U 0 U 0 389 16:45 17:UU 36 36 U 72 0 111 37 148 53 U 83 136 0 0 U 0 356 1 17:00 I Hour EB: HOPEWELL RD WB: HOPEWELL RD NB: 1 -81 RAMP SIT : I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining left Th. Right Total Left Toro Right Total Left "Ph. Right Total Left Th. Right Total E & W Begining 8:00 19 54 0 73 U 67 34 101 24 U 69 93 U U U U 267 8:00 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.87 PHF = 097 PHF = 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:00 27 59 U 86 0 131 65 196 38 0 IU2 140 U 0 0 0 422 16: UU Y.M. Peak PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.95 P.M. Peak • Intersection: E -W: HOI'EWELLRD Wcathcr Dr Fil Name N -S: 1- 81-RAMP Coum By 11P I nput By LP Location CLEAR BRO OK.VA Count Date 5/52006 15 Minute EB: HOPEWELLRD WB: HOPEWELL RD NB: SB: 1 -81 -RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Th. Right Total Left Toro Rigk Total Left Thm Right Total Left Th. Right Total E & W Begining 7:OU D 9 6 15 12 5 U 17 0 0 U U 3 U 3 6 38 7:00 7:15 U 8 4 12 to 6 U 16 0 U U U 5 0 4 9 37 7:15 7:30 O 10 7 17 9 6 U 15 U 0 U U 4 U 2 6 38 7:30 7:45 U 14 6 20 14 9 D 23 0 0 U 0 6 U 4 10 53 745 8:00 D 13 8 '_I 14 8 ll 22 0 0 U 0 6 U 3 9 52 8:00 8:15 U 12 9 21 11 12 U 23 0 0 U 0 6 U 6 12 56 8:15 8:30 U 14 6 20 12 14 0 26 0 U U 0 4 D 4 8 54 5:30 8:45 U 12 7 19 l0 10 U 20 U U U 0 7 0 4 II 50 845 A.M. Tom) U 92 53 145 92 70 U 162 0 0 U 0 41 0 30 71 378 A.M. Tom) 1600 U 11 5 16 16 19 U 35 U 0 U 0 14 U 6 20 71 1600 16:15 U 9 3 12 15 22 U 37 0 U U 0 12 U 5 17 66 16 15 16:31) O 13 6 19 13 25 0 38 U U D 0 15 0 8 23 80 1630 16:45 O 14 6 20 IS 25 U 43 U U U 0 17 U 6 23 86 16 17:00 U 16 5 21 __ 27 U 49 0 0 0 U 12 U IU 22 92 1700 17:15 0 12 7 19 18 21 U 39 U U 0 U 9 U 11 20 78 17:15 17:30 U 11 4 15 14 17 U 31 U 0 0 0 II U 9 20 66 1730 17:45 0 12 4 16 12 14 U 26 U 0 0 U 7 0 5 12 54 17:45 P.M. 1 "oral U 98 40 138 128 170 U 298 U U U U 97 U 60 157 593 P.M. Total I Hour F, B: HOPEWELL RD WB: HOPEWELL RD NB: S9: 1 -81 -RAMP I Hour Proud N,S, Period Begining Left 1'hm Right Total Left Th. Right Total Left Tore Right 'Total Left Th. Right ') "otal E &W Begining 7:00 0 41 23 64 45 26 U 71 0 U U 0 19 U 13 31 166 7:00 7:15 0 45 25 70 47 29 U 76 ll 0 0 U 21 U 13 34 180 715 7:30 U 49 30 79 48 35 0 83 0 U U U 22 0 15 37 199 7:30 7:45 U 53 29 S2 51 43 U 94 U U U U __ U 17 39 215 7:45 8:00 U 51 30 81 47 44 U 91 0 U U U 23 0 17 40 212 800 1600 0 47 20 67 62 91 U 153 U 0 0 0 58 U 25 83 303 16:00 16:15 U 52 20 72 68 99 U 167 U 0 U U 56 U 29 85 324 16:15 16:30 O 55 24 79 71 98 0 169 U U 0 U 53 0 35 88 336 1630 16:45 0 53 22 75 72 90 0 162 U 0 U U 49 0 36 85 322 1645 17: UU U 51 20 71 66 79 0 145 U U U U 39 0 35 74 290 17:00 1 Hpur Eli HOPEWELL RD WB: HOPEWELLRD NB: SB: 1 -81 -RAMP I Hour Period N,S, Penod Begining Left Thou Right Total Left Thm Right 'Total I eft Orru Right Total Left Thm Right Total E & W Begining 7:45 0 53 29 82 51 43 U 94 0 0 0 U 22 0 17 39 215 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.98 PHI: = 0.90 PHF = PHF = 0.81 0.96 A.M. Peak 16:30 U 55 24 79 71 98 0 169 U 0 U 0 53 U 35 88 336 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.86 PHF = PHF = 0.96 0.91 P.M. Peak hoenectiom E -W': Ho c well Road /Bereetowe R oad Weather Dr Fil Name N -S I I Routrr Count B SD I nput By SD Locati on be Cleaook, VA Count Dale 8/292005 15 Minute FB'. Hopewell Road WS'. Butemwn Road NB: Route 11 SB: Route 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Penod Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thre Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thru Right 'Total E & W Begining 7:00 23 18 17 58 22 13 19 54 12 41 16 _69 5 59 38 102 283 7:00 7:15 16 15 22 53 14 8 16 39 17 39 15 71 1 53 27 81 243 7:15 7:30 16 II 8 35 6 11 14 31 5 30 9 44 3 55 31 89 199 7:30 7:45 13 10 5 28 12 7 13 32 8 31 12 51 2 41 24 67 178 7:45 8:00 1t 8 4 23 l5 8 18 41 13 29 17 59 6 42 32 80 203 8:00 8:15 9 12 10 31 9 5 II 25 11 26 13 50 6 33 25 64 170 8:15 8:30 14 9 22 45 7 11 6 24 12 29 9 50 4 40 15 59 178 890 8:45 10 7 IS 35 5 8 3 16 15 34 12 61 5 37 17 59 171 8.45 9:00 U 0 U U U U U U U 0 0 U 0 0 U 0 U 9.00 9:15 U U U U U 0 U U 0 0 0 U 0 U U 0 U 9.15 9:30 U 0 U 0 U U U U U U U 0 U U U 0 0 930 9:45 U 0 U 0 0 U 0 0 0 U 0 0 U 0 0 U U 9:45 A.PYL I to) 112 90 106 308 90 71 too 261 93 159 W3 455 32 360 209 601 1625 AN, Total 16:00 18 11 5 34 12 9 13 34 17 58 16 91 6 32 12 50 209 16:00 16:15 17 11 12 4U 14 10 17 41 21 61 14 96 8 39 21 68 245 16:15 16:30 14 8 12 34 14 II 8 33 19 76 17 11 1 9 34 37 80 259 16:30 16:45 10 6 16 32 8 11 9 28 26 69 19 114 14 37 33 84 258 16'45 17:00 13 8 13 34 16 14 13 43 22 58 22 102 l0 45 29 84 263 17:00 17:15 11 7 9 27 10 9 IU 29 25 53 26 104 8 36 30 74 234 17'.15 17:30 14 8 14 36 8 7 6 21 19 57 21 97 8 32 23 63 217 17:30 17:45 13 8 IU 31 7 5 5 17 22 52 23 97 l0 35 26 71 216 17:45 18:00 0 0 U U 0 0 U U 0 0 U 0 U 0 U U 0 1 S 18: 15 U 0 0 0 0 U U U U U 0 U U 0 U 0 U 18:15 18:30 0 U U U U U 0 U 0 U U U U 0 U 0 0 18:30 18:45 0 U U U U 0 U U 0 0 U U U 0 0 U U 18:45 P.M. Total Ito 67 91 268 89 76 81 246 171 484 158 813 73 290 211 574 1901 PA. Total I Hour EB: Hopewell Road WB: Brucetowo Road NB: Route I SB'. Route 11 1 Hour Period N.S, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total E & W Begining 7:oi fib 54 52 174 54 39 62 155 42 141 52 235 11 208 120 339 903 700 7:15 56 44 39 139 47 34 61 142 43 129 53 225 12 191 114 317 823 7:15 7:30 49 41 27 117 42 31 56 129 37 116 51 204 17 171 112 300 750 730 7:45 47 39 41 127 43 31 48 122 44 115 51 210 18 156 96 270 729 7:45 8 00 44 36 54 134 36 32 38 1116 51 118 51 220 21 152 89 262 2 8:00 8:15 33 28 50 III 21 24 20 65 38 89 34 161 15 110 57 182 519 8:15 8:30 24 16 40 8o 12 19 9 40 27 63 21 111 9 77 32 118 349 8:30 8:45 10 7 18 35 5 8 3 16 15 34 12 61 5 37 17 59 171 8:45 9:00 U U U U U 0 U U U U U U 0 U U 0 U 900 16:00 59 36 45 140 48 41 47 136 83 264 66 413 37 142 103 282 971 16:00 16:15 54 33 53 140 52 46 47 145 88 264 72 424 41 155 120 316 1025 16:15 16:30 48 29 50 127 48 45 40 133 92 256 84 432 41 152 129 322 1014 16:30 1645 48 29 52 129 42 41 38 121 92 237 88 417 40 150 115 305 972 16:45 1700 51 31 46 128 41 35 34 110 88 220 92 400 36 148 log 292 930 17:00 17:15 38 23 33 94 25 21 21 67 66 162 70 298 26 103 79 208 667 17:15 17:30 27 16 24 67 15 12 11 38 41 109 44 194 18 67 49 134 433 17.30 17:45 13 8 to 31 7 5 5 17 22 52 23 97 IU 35 26 71 216 17:45 18:00 0 U 0 U 0 0 0 0 U U U 0 U U U 0 U 18:00 1 Hour EB: Hopewell Read WB: Brucetown Read NB: Route I I SB: Route I I 1 Hnur Period N, B, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left '1'hru Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 68 54 52 174 54 39 62 155 42 141 52 235 11 208 120 339 903 700 A.M. Peak PHF = 075 PHF = 0.72 PHF = 0,83 PHF = 0.83 U.80 A.M. Peak 16:15 54 33 53 140 52 4647 145 88 264 72 424 41 155 120 316 1025 16:15 P.M, Peak PHF = 0 .88 PHF = 0.84 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.94 0,97 P.M. Peak 0 0 E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The 1 -81 Distribution Center site exists within the designated SWSA of Frederick County (see Figure 5). The FCSA has confirmed that they will provide water and sewer service to the site. A newly constructed 6 -inch sanitary forcemain has been installed along the easterly side of Route 11. An on -site sanitary pumping station will be constructed for direct connection to the forcemain. There are no known limiting factors for the conveyance of sewage and sewage treatment from this property. Capacity and daily usage will be addressed at the time of site plan submission. Potable water and fire protection will be supplied via the 12 -inch water line located along the easterly side of Route 11. The impact of the additional use created by this rezoning is acceptable and manageable. Figure 6 shows the locations of utility infrastructure planned in this phase of development. I� I 1 NIF GJ � N 1 ' II 1 p0NP I '� I WB II� � I 1 Z � I I 17 I 11 \ I I I INI I o I . I I II3 I I I \ 1 I 1 1 \ II III � I I W 1 I I I I I <£ Noyp ¢ N I I I I i I I ^I I I I II h� 1 I I I II I 3 I I , I I �3 t F Ts'irvRCrivE eu ErT N — ; gD 5. LEE E BRAGG I '�'►. — — 2 �' 2 z 53 9/367 8 1 t I 11 6 I i R LE D ' I w i GHP S pRN I I DI CENTER i_ RED FR CO U NTY, U IJTY, VIRGINIA Dnte,10 /24/06 Job Noa n 07 -06 -0072 ac -.. r�a� �y Nunber � S Dr- SITE SEWER AND WATER LAYOUT C e P QE Cndd file no.1 FI @ure 6 _. _ _ - Y _ SITESENERMmNA _ Sccktei 1 =300 _ 1 . F. Site Drainage Figure 7 shows the natural drainage pattern that exists on this site. The lack of concentration of the drainage allows the designer to utilize low impact type stormwater management techniques. Design criteria will protect the natural swale areas to the maximum extent possible. Disturbance will be primarily by right angle road or driveway crossings. Adequate channel, inlet, and culvert calculations will be provided during the design phase of the project to ensure direct runoff is contained within the channel and post development velocities protect the existing ditches along Route 11. 0 0 G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Approximate designated dumpster locations are shown on Figure 8. During the design process, appropriately screened dumpster locations will be determined. Contractual arrangements will be made with a Waste Management Service to properly dispose of the solid waste. The following table provides an estimate of increase in tonnage presented by this project at build -out. 0 0 I -81 Distribution Center Rezoning Solid Waste Generation Summary Frederick County, Virginia Unit Tyne Amount Unit Unit Value Total uantit #/S Ft Warehouse 739,000 Sq Ft 0.01 7,390 Office 11,000 Sq Ft 0.05 550 Total Waste ( #'s) /day = 7,940 Estimated Solid Waste = 3.97 (tons) /day 0 0 H. Historic Sites and Structures A search for historical structures on the subject property was conducted through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). A maps only archives search utilizing the DHR cultural inventory for archaeological sites and architectural structures revealed one potential historical structure, identified as File No. 034 -0926 (Nathaniel Branson House), on the subject site. This property was then evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based upon the criteria established for evaluation of the property for its potential eligibility for NRHP listing, the property was evaluated for its historic and architectural significance. Based upon the NRHP criteria and the information collected from the physical inspection and documented research on the property, the Nathaniel Branson House property is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. The property is NOT: a. associated with an important event in history b. associated with a person significant in history c. reflective of a distinctive character of building type, period or method of construction d. associated with a works of a master or has high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity, or yield important information to prehistory or history Therefore, this property is not recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 0 0 I. Impact on Community Facilities The Frederick County Development Impact Model (DIM) has not been run for this project as per E -mail with Ms. Susan Eddy on October 27, 2006. Proffers have been offered which will mitigate the effects of impacts on the county. Monetary contributions for fire and rescue are included in the Proffer Statement.