Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021-06 Willow Run - BackfileCOMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-9519 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 www.deq.virginia.gov July 27, 2005 RE: Joint Permit Application Number 04-2618 Jubal Early Drive Extension, Frederick County, Virginia Notification of Public Notice Dear Mr. Shickle: Robert G. Burnley Director R. Bradley Chewning. P.E. Valley Regional Director The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received an application for a Virginia Water Protection (VWP) individual permit for the above -referenced project. Attached is a copy of the Public Notice for the proposed permit action for your review pursuant to Section 62.1- 44.15:01 of the Code of Virginia. Notice of the proposed action will also be published in a newspaper circulated in the vicinity of the project site. The publication will establish a 30- calendar day public comment period for this proposal. If you wish to comment on this proposed action, please respond to me at the letterhead address. If no response is received within the 30-day public comment period, DEQ will assume that you have no objections to the proposed action. If you have any questions, please contact me at (540) 574-7802 or ncjob@deq.virginia.gov. Sincerely, 401zjC. Job VWP Regional Engineer Attachment: Public Notice �-.�,�ky.nv_ I I --- `4- �ee Wit LUI CO v,a� 'Te z --� Z 1- O G c: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT MARSHALL PROPERTY 964 CEDAR CREEK GRADE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS, LTD. PROJECT NO.8153 FOR GREENWAY ENGINEERING November 12, 2003 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT MARSHALL PROPERTY 964 CEDAR CREEK GRADE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 8153 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Objectives 2 2.3 Limitations 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Location 4 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeology 4 4.0 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT WORK 6 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 7 5.1 Records Review 7 5.2 Regulatory Summary 8 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 9 6.1 On -Site Features 9 6.2 Nearby Properties 13 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 15 7.1 Title Information 15 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review 15 7.3 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review 16 7.4 City Directory Review 16 7.5 Local Sources 16 7.6 FOIA Requests 17 8.0 OTHER SERVICES 18 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineerinc, to perform an ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the approximate 120-acre tract at 964 Cedar Creek Grade in Frederick County, Virginia, otherwise known as the Marshall Property. The ESA was performed to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property. No soil, water, air, or other chemical sampling, testing or contaminant screening was conducted, requested or proposed during this phase of the ESA. To summarize, available historical documents, regulatory records and conversations with persons having knowledge of the property revealed no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally -suspect. A reconnaissance of the site did not reveal the presence of. buried petroleum tanks; petroleum pipelines; surface or ground water contamination; distressed vegetation; environmental wells or remedial activities; grave sites; asbestos waste; suspicious leachate or seeps; mining activities; or, similar environmentally deleterious features. Nearby properties consist of a mixture of residential and agricultural sites. Based on the regulatory records and field research, there is no perceived threat of environmental impact to the subject associated with nearby properties. No industrial/manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, autobody shops or similar environmentally sensitive businesses or operations were observed in close proximity. Our investigation did reveal the presence of environmental concerns identified as follows: chemical and petroleum storage; petroleum stained soil; open and/or leaking petroleum containers; and, an open cistern. While we have noted several recognized environmental concerns, it is our opinion that these conditions are not likely to impact on the function i quality of the property or its development potential. Nevertheless, we recommend that areas of stained soil be removed from the site and disposed of properly. Likewise, all of the petroleum containers, batteries, and various chemicals observed should be removed and properly disposed of prior to development. The open cistern and any wells that will not remain in use should undergo proper closure procedures. Finally, suspect asbestos containing material was observed within many of the site structures. ECS recommends that an asbestos survey be performed prior to demolition of these buildings. This Executive Summary is an integral part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. ECS, Ltd. recommends that the report be read in its entirety. ECS Project No. 8153 — 2 — November 12, 2003 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Scope of Work Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineering to perform a Phase I ESA on a 120-acre agricultural tract located at 964 Cedar Creek Grade in Frederick County, Virginia. This irregular -shaped tract, otherwise known as the Marshall Property, is found abutting the north side of Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) and extending north to Abrams Creek. The environmental assessment was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E-1527-00. The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site, hereafter referred to as "subject", "site", "property" or "tract". 2.2 Obiectives The objectives of the ESA were to: • evaluate the probability of impact of the surface water, groundwater and/or soils within the property boundaries through a review of regulatory information and a reconnaissance of the subject and vicinity; • evaluate historical conditions to identify previous usage that could impact on the environmental condition of the site; • determine, if contamination is believed to have occurred, the potential on -site and off - site source material(s), location(s) and activities; and, • provide an evaluation of the potential for environmental impact at the site and a list of specific conclusions and recommendations addressing any concerns noted. 2.3 Limitations The ESA involved a reconnaissance of the site and contiguous properties and a review of regulatory and historical information in general accordance with the ASTM standard. No non -scope considerations or additional issues, such as asbestos surveys, radon testing or soil and groundwater analysis were investigated, unless otherwise described in Section 8.0 of this report. The conclusions and/or recommendations presented. within this report are based upon a reasonable level of investigation within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a site in this particular geographic and geologic setting. The intent of this assessment is to identify the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site; however, no environmental site assessment can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site. The findings of this ESA are not intended to serve as an audit for health and safety or regulatory compliance issues pertaining to improvements or activities at the site. ECS, Ltd. is not liable ECS Project No. 8153 — 3 — November 12, 2003 for the discovery or elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents or injury. All observations, conclusions and/or recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. It was not the purpose of this study to determine the actual presence, degree or extent of contamination, if any, at this site. This could require additional exploratory work, including sampling and laboratory analysis. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report. ASTM E-1527-00 defines a "recognized environmental condition" as: "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." This report is provided for the exclusive use of Greenway Engineering and its partners, assigns or clients involved with the acquisition and development of the subject. This ESA is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties. The use of this report by any undesignated third party or parties will be at such party's sole risk and ECS, Ltd. disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance. 1 1 1 1 ECS Project No. 8153 — 4 — November 12, 2003 is 3.1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Site Location The site is composed of two adjoining irregular -shaped parcels of land totaling approximately 120 acres. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53-A-91 and 63-A-2A. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The site is bound to the north by Abrams Creek with the Winchester and Western Railroad line and the Morlyn Hills at Meadow Branch residential community currently under development beyond; to the east by mixed residential and forested land; to the south by Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) with residential parcels beyond; and to the west by agricultural tracts. 3.2 Phvsical Setting and Hvdrogeology The Marshall Property is approximately 120+/- acres situated north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1-1). The terrain of the subject is generally made up of a single valley running north/south, flanked by gently sloping hillsides along the outer edges. Once surface drainage reaches the central portion of the property, it generally travels from southwest to northeast, exhibiting drainage patterns which tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek in the north and northeastern portions of the property. Based on regional topographic patterns and field observations, it 10 appears that only limited areas to the southwest and northeast of the site extending about 1/10 mile exhibit drainage patterns which flow across or onto the subject. The majority of upland areas do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Excluding the north and northeastern sections of the site near Abrams Creek, the property is not prone to flood events. Evidence of springs, creeks, ponds, wetlands or similar surface water bodies on the remainder of the premises were noted and are outlined in detail within a Wetlands Delineation prepared by ECS. According to the soil survey (USDA-SCS, 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia), the near surface profile is characterized primarily by very deep, well -drained to moderately well drained, silty clay loam soils of the Frederick, Poplimento Series. There are several limitations associated with these soils including rapid surface runoff, high shrink swell potential from the clayey subsoil, low strength, moderate to low permeability, and high rock content. These limitations do not pose a direct concern to the environmental integrity of the subject. The site is located within the. Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. According to the Geologic Map of .,Frederick County, Virginia (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1966; Bulletin #80), the property is transected by a north/south trending thrust fault in the eastern central portion of the property. The upper plate of the fault (east of the fault line) is underlain by interbedded dolostone, limestone, and dolomite shale of the Ellbrook formation. The remainder of the property is underlain by the Conococheague limestone/dolomite. Exposures of limestone outcrop and ledges were observed throughout 1 1 1 1 1 1 IP 1 ECS Project No. 8153 — 5 — November 12, 2003 the site. Depth to rock can be extremely variable due to the pinnacled nature of weathering that can occur over these parent materials. Ledges or vertical sills of resistant rock can be encountered at or near the surface with deep zones of residual soil between. Karst features such as sinkholes and collapsed solution cavities are problematic to this geologic terrain. The occurrence of karst is directly linked to rock structure and lithology, overburden thickness and also to surface and subsurface hydrologic influences. Enhanced sinkhole development near entrenched streams can be attributed to higher ground water gradient andflow. Sinkholes are not always apparent at the ground surface. Frequently, they are collapsed and filled with soft sediment. According to the publication "Sinkholes and Karst -Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (USGS, 1994; Map #MF-2262), there is one sinkhole within the boundaries of the property. In addition, neighboring properties to the west have plotted sinkholes within their bounds. ECS directly observed one large sinkhole on the subject in the west central portion of the site. An upland hill to the west drops off severely along an arc shape leading to the bottom of the sinkhole. The sinkhole bottom was found to contain no signs of wetlands, soft soils, and was covered with vegetation. This land feature showed no apparent signs of recent settlement or collapse. Nor was there evidence of environmentally damaging uses in these sinkhole areas such as dumping or storage of manure or chemicals. The previously mentioned publication did not indicate the presence of additional clusters of sinkholes or springs in the vicinity. The hydrogeologic framework consists of an upper unconfined water table and a lower rock aquifer. Water -table conditions are associated with fractures and solution cavities in the limestone and dolomite beds. Sinkholes sometimes provide rapid recharge to the shallow aquifer, allowing pollutants to enter without the filtering action that occurs through the overburden in most other aquifer systems. Ground water recharge occurs primarily along outcrop areas of the bedrock in uplands between streams. Water table movement is usually topographically influenced, moving from higher to lower elevations, although changes in the rock profile and urban influences can distort these patterns. The drinking water aquifer is located at greater depth (typically 100-300 feet) within the fractured bedrock. No registered municipal wells were noted on -site. A residential well and septic drain field are present in the eastern portion of the subject and service a trailer home in which Mr. Kenneth Marshall currently resides. The septic system drains north of the trailer towards Abrams Creek and the drinking water well is located to the south between the trailer and a large bank barn. Additionally, an irrigation well is present in the eastern central portion of the property adjacent to row crop fields. Reportedly there have been no problems with water quality from either of these wells. ECS also visited the Environmental Health Department for further information on local ground water quality. Based on our review of their files, there were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources near the site. I m m m m m m m m ' m m 1 1 1 1 1 it [.1 I 1 1 ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —6- 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK ECS was not provided with, nor are we aware of; previous environmental, engineering or similar studies on the subject at the time this report was completed. ECS did; however, perform a Wetlands Delineation and an Archeological Study of the subject concurrent with this ESA. Additionally, ECS has performed environmental studies on properties in the surrounding vicinity. These investigations have not revealed environmentally related issues that would be perceived as a threat to the subject. 1 ECS Project No. 8153 — 7 — November 12, 2003 • 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 1 5.1 Records Review Public records were reviewed to identify evidence of past or present activities on or near the site which may have resulted in soil, surface water and/or ground water contamination or the generation, use, storage or disposal of hazardous waste, chemical or petroleum products/materials. This information was obtained from EnviroData. The EnviroData report is based on ,an ASTM standard radius search centered on the geographic coordinates of the site and includes the following databases: • Superfund National Priority List (NPL): The "Superfund" NPL List is a compilation of properties considered by the EPA as being either uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites that require priority consideration for remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program. These sites are considered to pose a significant risk of stigmatizing surrounding properties and potentially impacting property values. • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA/CERCLIS) LIST: CERCLIS sites are those that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance pursuant to the 1980 CERCLA Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a formal State Superfund Program, therefore, the federal CERCLIS database is considered to be the equivalent of a State Hazardous Waste Sites List. • Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA-TS, -LG and -SG): RCRA regulations apply to facilities that the EPA designates as storing, transporting, generating, treating or disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities include large quantity generators and small quantity generators. Non -compliant RCRA sites, RCRA Administrative 1.ction Tracking System (RAATS) and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) sites are also monitored under this program. The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) list contains information about TSD facilities that have performed remediation due to a release of hazardous waste or due to a violation of RCRA. • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): contains information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LPSTs/LUSTs): contains summary information pertaining to reported leaking underground storage tanks. The information contained in this database is a combination of LUST lists maintained at the State Department of Environmental Quality Offices. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —8— Above Ground/Underground Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs): a comprehensive list of all registered active and inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Solid Waste Facilities (SWLF): Under Subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA establishes technical standards for the operation of solid waste management facilities (transfer stations and landfills). • No Further Remediation Action Planned Sites (NFRAP): also known as the CERCLIS archive, contains information pertaining to sites that have been removed from the CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Superfund action or NPL consideration. The Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) lists properties that are either undergoing or have completed voluntary remediation overseen by the VDEQ. • The VDEQ maintains a pollution response or PREP database to track surface spills of oil and hazardous substances. The listings identified as "unmapped sites" are not plotted due to inadequate address and geocoding information. ECS reviewed and field -checked the list of "unmapped sites" to verify their location and possible impact to the subject. 5.2 Rel4ulatory Summary There are no regulatory listings that apply to the property under consideration. A review of the unmapped sites did not identify properties or facilities in the vicinity that might pose an environmental concern to the subject. A copy of the regulatory database report is included as Appendix II. ECS Project No. 8153 — 9 — November 12, 2003 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 On -Site Features Robert Greenlaw (ECS, Ltd.) conducted the field reconnaissance on September 30 and October 7, 2003. Weather at these times was sunny and generally warm. The reconnaissance was performed to search for evidence of. hazardous waste/material, chemical and/or petroleum storage, leak or spill; stressed vegetation or soil discoloration; drinking water/environmental monitoring wells; environmental remediation activities; storage drums; industrial or commercial refuse; herbicide or pesticide containers; farm waste; septic systems; above -ground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage tanks (USTs); pipelines; asbestos containing material (ACM); industrial/manufacturing or similar environmentally - sensitive operations or conditions; rail spurs; ruins; landfills or illicit dumping; air emissions/waste water discharges; leachate or seeps; surface or ground water contamination; and/or PCB -containing articles. Photographs of the site are included in Appendix IV (*Note: Due to technical difficulties the wrong dates are printed on the attached photographs. The following narrative describes the property: The Marshall property comprises approximately 120 acres and is located between Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) and Abrams Creek. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53-A-91 and 63-A- 2A. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The site is bound to the north by Abrams Creek with the Winchester and Western Railroad line and a residential community "Meadow Branch" beyond; to the east by mixed residential and forested land; to the south by Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) with residential parcels beyond; and to the west by agricultural tracts. The subject is generally divided into five different areas of land use: wooded areas, pasture land, row cropping, wetland areas, and an area which contains the site structures including barns, a trailer home, and sheds. Atop the western ?hills and their flanks is a largely wooded portion of the property. No stumps or signs of logging were observed; however, wooded areas were noticeably less dense than neighboring forested land despite a lack in obvious differences in average tree age, species, or height. Reportedly several historic civil war gun positions were located in this area of the site. Near the eastern perimeter of this forested area is a large sinkhole. This feature is round with a steep slope leading to the top of the adjacent ridge along its western half. The eastern side of the sinkhole has a much more subdued slope where it ties into the lower portion of the overall hillside. The sinkhole bottom was heavily vegetated and appeared relatively stable. No signs of recent settlement or collapse were observed. The central portion of the site is utilized for pasture. The landscape here is composed of rolling hills with numerous scattered rock outcroppings. Some trees are present here but are few in number and generally are found near to the delineated wetlands boundary or in areas largely composed of near surface rock. Cattle were observed grazing here during our time ECS Project No. 8153 — 10 — November 12, 2003 on -site. Electric fencing separates pasture areas from the majority of the surrounding locations. Additionally the electric fencing separates individual fields so as to allow for management of the cattle. Both PVC and iron pipes were exposed at various points across these fields and are presumably a part of the irrigation system. An irrigation well was noted in the eastern central portion of the site. It was not determined whether or not the entire network of pipes is currently in use and/or interconnected. Row crops consisting of fruits, vegetables, and flowers were observed in the southeast and eastern central portions of the subject. Rows were rounded top linear mounds covered with plastic and/or weed fabric. No signs of excessive chemical use or hazardous materials storage were noted here. In the far north and northeastern portions of the property are wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. No noxious odors or petroleum sheens were observed. Overall these wetlands appeared healthy and largely undamaged. Just to the west/northwest of the row crops is an area which contains all of the noted site structures. Improvements to the subject include a historic bank barn, a trailer home, two greenhouses, an abandoned tenant house, and several other wooden and metal barns and sheds. The bank barn had a rock foundation, wooden walls, and a standing seam metal roof. The lower story has an earthen floor and is used for storage. Lawn equipment, plant containers, jars of food, old 12 Volt batteries, and a variety of agricultural chemicals were observed here. A 2.5-gallon gasoline container was observed in the area of the lawn equipment. This container was closed and appeared to be stored properly. Chemicals appeared in relatively good order. No stained soil or noxious odors were detected. A semi - buried pile of eight to ten 12-Volt batteries was present in the southeastern corner of this level. Several of the batteries had been broken or were visually noted to have leaked onto the surrounding bare ground. The upper floor of the bank barn contains large commercial grade refrigerators and freezers for storage of produce grown at the site. Numerous baskets and boxes were stored on this level of the barn. Additionally the southwestern corner of this floor is used as a machinery shop. Various tools, parts, and hardware were stored here. Some associated lubricants and solvents were found in this shop area as well. No leakage or environmentally hazardous practices or materials were observed. The upper level of the barn had large doors on tracks. These doors were open at the time of our reconnaissance. Portable air conditioning units were also observed inside the barn. Two greenhouses were located just south of the large bank barn. These buildings appear to be heated by liquid propane, which is stored outside of these structures in pressurized steel tanks. One of the greenhouses is notably smaller than the other. The smaller did not contain plants at the time of our reconnaissance. Several buckets were upside down on racks inside of this structure and chemical residue was observed on the floor. Numerous buckets and other containers were present outside of this building next to a garden hose. Several n ECS Project No. 8153— November 12, 2003 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 containers held water and a scrub brush was hanging off of one of them. The larger greenhouse was open but had a sign which instructed not to enter the structure due to chemical usage. Tomato plants filled this structure and chemical residues were noted on the floor and slight chemical odors were detected in close proximity to the building. No signs of distressed vegetation, stained soil, or chemical residue were noted surrounding the outside of these structures. To the west of these greenhouses were two barns which contained round hay bails. These barns had wooden frames with metal roofs and siding. Tattered plastic -enclosed fiberglass insulation was present within the barn ceilings. Three other storage structures were present to the north of the hay barns. The nearest of these is an elongated wooden structure with a metal roof. The eastern half of this building has an open front and contains scrap lumber and some trash cans. This structure was dilapidated and appeared structurally unsound. The western half of this structure had a sagging front wall made of wood siding. This area contained abundant quantities of old fruit boxes. This entire structure was observed to have ripped insulation hanging from the ceiling. The remaining two barn/shed structures are located next to one another, west of the trailer home and north of the elongated shed structure mentioned above. The easternmost is a three - sided wood frame barn with a dirt floor and metal roof and siding. This building was observed to contain two tractors in addition to eleven metal drums of engine oil and hydraulic oil. Quantities within these drums varied but most had a substantial volume within. Several of these drums were open, one of which had pooled oil atop its lid with a hand pump lain across it. Stained soil surrounded the largest collection of these drums in the northeastern corner of the shed. On the eastern end of this building was a small side room which contained numerous buckets and small containers of petroleum products such as motor oil, grease, other lubricants, and gasoline. These containers were strewn about so widely that ECS was unable to view the condition of the flooring and/or soils beneath. It was apparent that at least minor spillage/leakage had occurred from many of these containers. Due to its apparent structural instability this side room was not entered by ECS. The adjacent western structure is a wooden fully enclosed barn. This building was in poor condition but was entered by ECS. A mixture of old furniture, equipment, metal drums, refrigerators and freezers, and numerous types of chemicals including fertilizers and pesticides were stored here. No obvious signs of leakage from drums or chemical containers were noted in this area. In addition to the large concentrations of drums mentioned in the previous paragraphs, there were numerous metal and plastic drums observed scattered around the barns and storage sheds. Most of these drums were either sealed or empty. Several were rusted and their former or current contents could not be identified. No stained soil, distressed vegetation, or apparent leakage was observed nor were noxious odors detected around these containers. Amidst the on site structures are two ASTs. One 500-gallon diesel fuel AST is located between the trailer home and the metal barn west of the trailer. This AST had a locked hand ECS Project No. 8153 — 12 — November 12, 2003 crank dispenser attached to it. The tank had some minor rust on its surface; however this did not compromise the integrity of the tank. No stained soils, distressed vegetation, or petroleum odors were noted surrounding this tank. Additionally, our research has found no leaks or spills to have been reported in connection with this AST. The second larger AST was mounted onto a cart and was visibly rusty. Reportedly, this tank has never held petroleum; rather it has been used for water storage and transportation exclusively. An open box truck containing various chemicals was noted in the vicinity of the diesel AST at the time of our visit. This vehicle held ammonia, and a variety of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. No leakage was apparent; however, odors were detected in the open air around the vehicle. Various pieces of equipment were observed surrounding the on -site structures, most notably including several sprayers, vehicles, and a small combine. The majority of this equipment appeared to have been out of use for some time and was overgrown with vines and other vegetation. No signs of chemical or petroleum leakage were noted nor was there apparent distress to surrounding grounds or vegetation. A small two-story house is located to the northwest of, and is found sitting apart from, the remainder of the on -site structures. This house appears to have formerly been used as a tenant house but is now in poor condition and has since been abandoned. This home has a kitchen and bedroom downstairs containing some broken furniture, appliances, mattresses, and books. The upstairs loft was not accessed due to the decrepit condition of the staircase. A metal drum labeled "Glyodin solution" and a wooden trunk could be seen through a hole in the metal roof from the ground. Glyodin is a common fungicide. A trailer home is present to the northeast of other buildings on -site. Reportedly this trailer was put at this location sometime in the early 1970's after the original home at this location burned down. ECS was not able to access the interior of this structure. This home is serviced by oil heat, well and septic systems, as well as liquid propane for kitchen appliances. The septic system drains north of the trailer towards Abrams Creek and the drinking water well is located to the south between the trailer and the large bank barn. Reportedly there have been no problems with drinking water quality from this well. The heating oil tank is located on the east side of the trailer and was covered with honeysuckle at the time of our visit. No evidence of stained soil or distressed vegetation was noted surrounding this tank. An open cistern is present just east of the trailer. This opening is approximately 2.5 feet in diameter and is surrounded by a concrete apron. This cistern has been abandoned and has been partially filled with rocks and other debris. Access to the site is gained via a dirt road off of the north side of Cedar Creek Grade. This dirt roadway runs along the eastern property border before turning and extending west towards the trailer home. This path loops around in between many of the sheds and barns before connecting back to the dirt pathway. Adjacent to the pathway loop through the barn area was a large pile of manure. According to Mr. Marshall this pile of material was ECS Project No. 8153 — 13 — November 12, 2003 0 - composed of degrading poultry -liter -based cattle feed. Two chicken houses were formerly located in the near vicinity of this pile. Along the eastern border of the site is a utility easement. Overhead electric lines and a gas pipeline run adjacent to the roadway extending across Abrams Creek. Overhead electric lines also transect the central portion of the property in a roughly cast/west direction. Several transformers were observed in association with these electric lines. No PCB labeling was observed on these transformers, however, they appeared to be in good condition and no leakage, distressed vegetation, or stained soil was observed. No other remarkable or unusual features or uses of the site were apparent. Based on our observations, the following conditions or materials were not observed on -site: buried • USTs, vent lines, fill ports or similar surface projections of tanks; • hazwaste transportation, storage or disposal; • cemeteries or grave sites; • distressed vegetation; • chemical stains on soil; • ground water or surface water contamination; • oil or chemical pipelines and related bulk storage facilities; • surface impoundments or holding ponds for liquid waste; • monitoring wells, injection wells or remediation systems; • asbestos waste; • incinerators, recycling or waste treatment processes; • junk or scrap yards; • industrial or manufacturing activities; • motor vehicle repairs or maintenance operations; • air emissions, leachate, seeps, or waste -water discharge requiring special permitting or consideration; • livestock burial areas; • pesticide or herbicide misuse or over application; • oil/natural gas or mineral exploration and mining; • evidence of discharges, leachate migration, or run-off of potential contaminants from an off -site source onto the subject; or, ' • high voltage power lines or electrical transmission towers where electromagnetic fields might pose a concern. r6.2 Nearbv Properties ' A reconnaissance was made of contiguous and nearby properties by viewing from public streets or accessible vantages without trespass. Based on regional topography, it appears that only limited areas to the southwest and northeast of the site extending a maximum of a tenth 'mile exhibit drainage patterns which flow across or onto the subject. The majority of upland • areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —14— eventually tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Unless otherwise noted, no opportunistic dumping, drums, ASTs, USTs, monitoring wells, remediation systems or other environmentally suspicious conditions or activities were observed on adjacent properties. The site is located within a setting composed of a mixture of farmland, and residential properties. Farms containing associated houses and barns border the site to the west and south. Homes on these largely agricultural tracts are reported to have well and septic systems. No evidence of leachate or effluent seepage was observed coming from these properties. It was revealed in a previous ESA that a diesel fuel AST and a heating oil AST are present on the neighboring White Property, east of the site. ECS did not find evidence of any releases or spills in association with these tanks. Newer homes, town homes, and current residential developments to the east of the site and to the north across Abrams Creek have or are currently converting what was previously farm land into mostly residential properties in these locations. No visible signs of hazardous materials, petroleum storage, or environmentally harmful substances were witnessed in these areas of development. These sites do not appear to have an adverse effect on the environmental integrity of the subject. In summary, our review of abutting and nearby properties did not identify evidence of recognized or suspect environmental conditions, operations or activities that would be expected to have a detrimental impact on the subject. ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 -15- Title Information 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Chain -of -title information was obtained from a limited review of land records at the Circuit Clerks Office of Frederick County. The subject is composed of two separate parcels. The larger parcel (Tax Map #53-A-91) contains approximately 112 acres. The second parcel (Tax Map #63-A-2A) is roughly 7 acres and makes up the southern pan handle portion of the site. The following narrative describing the chain -of -title was developed from the deed records reviewed: Records of ownership for the land currently within the bounds of Tax Map Parcel #53-A-91 were traced back to 1929, at which time the subject was purchased from Harry W. Butler and his wife by F.J. Marshall and Ann Marshall, his wife. In April of 1948 Mr. and Mrs. Marshall deeded the property to their two sons Francis J. Marshall, Jr. and Clyde Lee Marshall. No changes in ownership took place until the death of Francis J. Marshall, Jr. in January of 1995, at which point his one-half interest was conveyed to his son Kenneth F. Marshall. On February 2, 1995, both Kenneth and Clyde Marshall's equal shares of the property were consolidated to form Pembroke Cove Properties, LLC. The entire 112-acre parcel of land is currently under the ownership of Pembroke Cove Properties, LLC. Legal documents pertaining to the ownership of the second parcel (Tax Map Parcel 63-A- 2A) were viewed dating back as far as 1935. In July of 1935 the referenced property with additional acreage was purchased by Stewart Bell from within his own family. Mr. Bell held the property until his death in 1948, at which time the parcel was willed to Lanier Gray. Lanier Gray, et. ux., sold the 147.8-acre parcel, which included the roughly 7-acre parcel in question, to Carroll E. Campbell and his wife, Rosemary B. Campbell, by deed dated June 4, 1958. Carroll Campbell died on October 18 of that same year and Rosemary Campbell retained the property through the expressed right to survivorship in their deed. Rosemary was remarried years later to John H. Eadie. In November of 1981 John and Rosemary Eadie sold the property to Kenneth Marshall and his wife, Mary Marshall. Following their separation in 1997 Kenneth Marshall took over sole ownership of the property. ' Based on our limited review of land records, no environmental liens or encumbrances against the property were noted. Our deed research should not, however, be construed as accurate for the purposes of establishing clear title to the property. 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review ' Due to the rural history of the site and its surroundings, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are not available for the property. � I ECS Project No. 8153 —16 — November 12, 2003 7.3 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs dated June 8, 1950 and March 23, 1976 were reviewed at the USDA- NRCS office in Stephens City, VA. U.S. Route 37, presently located approximately a half mile west of the site, was not present in 1950. Air orchard is visible in the southwest and western portions of the site. Reportedly a portion of the site was used for growing apples up until around 1960. A smaller orchard can be seen on the adjacent White property. The large sinkhole located in the western central portion of the site was visible. Also, the former manor home, which reportedly burned down around 1970, could be seen in place of the current trailer home. All of the other barns and sheds in addition to the former wooden shed west of the hay barns appeared to be present. Surrounding property was much less developed than it is currently. Orchards were observed on several of the surrounding properties. No isigns indicating that the property was under environmental stress were observed. By 1976, vegetation had become much denser on the neighboring White property and in western portions of the subject. Orchards were not apparent on -site at this time. U.S. Route 37 was noted to have been under construction. The manor house was replaced by the trailer home. Residential development had increased in the area. Many of the nearby orchards had been taken out of production and were becoming overgrown. The house and barns on the White property appeared unchanged from the 1950 photograph. No signs of distressed vegetation, chemical and/or petroleum storage were observed within these photographs. A March 24, 1997 USGS aerial photograph, obtained online and included within Appendix I as Figure 2, revealed the site and its surroundings to be very similar to their current state. There are several additional homes present on the White property and residential development has expanded onto adjacent property. In conclusion, no environmental concerns regarding the subject or its surroundings were noted during aerial photographic research. 7.4 City Directory Review Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the site, city directories were not reviewed as part of our investigation. 7.5 Local Sources ECS spoke with Mr. Kenneth Marshall, owner of the subject, during our reconnaissance. Mr. Marshall appeared quite knowledgeable of the site and local history. He recalled that his grandfather purchased the property around 1930 and it has remained in agriculture use since that time. Mr. Marshall had no recollection of leaks from the ASTs onsite. Further, he was not aware of any USTs being present. When asked about the large collection of metal drums, • he explained that the shed containing opened drums and stained soil was often used as a work area for vehicles and equipment. He stated that many of these drums contained waste oil and r, L ECS Project No. 8153 - 17 - November 12, 2003 is - other fluids. Mr. Marshall recalls that there was an orchard on the property until the early i1960's. He stated there were no chemical mixing sites related to the former orchard. He also explained that the former manor home was a pre -Civil War structure that burned in 1968. The trailer was put up sometime in the early 1970's. The large bank barn reportedly is also a ipre -Civil War structure. On October 13 and 21, 2003 ECS spoke with Alexander White at the neighboring White farm. Mr. White has lived on the farm for approximately 45 years. Currently he runs Elemaitch, Inc., an investment/farm management company that oversees the farm. Mr. White stated that all of the fuel storage on the White farm is kept in aboveground tanks and that no releases or .leaks had occurred. Mr. White stated that he has never known Mr. Marshall to participate in environmentally damaging practices. He was unaware of any dumping at the Marshall property. Kell local resident for over 45 ears confirmed that the Marshall property has Y Robinson,� Y P P Y always been used for raising beef cattle and row cropping. He was not aware of UST's on the Marshall property and did not recall environmentally suspect practices. During our visit to the Environmental Health Department we spoke with Mr. Steven Lee. Mr. Lee has been with the Health Department since 1971. Since that time he has been involved with well and septic permitting, etc. and has had direct knowledge of many of the local farms. Mr. Lee stated that he was unaware of any UST's or other potential environmental concerns at the subject. 7.6 FOIA Requests Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were made in person to the following County and State agencies for information concerning environmental incidents on or near the subject. • Frederick County Environmental Health Department • Frederick County Fire & Rescue Services. A letter dated September 23, 2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire Marshall stated "Our records do not indicate any underground storage tanks or hazardous materials incidents for this property." The Health Department provided records of construction permits for a potable well and irrigation well onsite. There were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources on or near the site. 1 1 ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —18- 8.0 OTHER SERVICES ASTM guidelines identify non -scope issues that are beyond the scope of this practice. Some of these non -scope issues include; asbestos -containing material (ACM) inspection, radon survey, lead -based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, soil and ground water sampling and testing and regulatory compliance audits. None of these non -scope issues were requested, proposed, or included in our scope of work. ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —19- 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ECS Ltd. has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-00. This assessment was performed on an approximately 120-acre tract of agricultural land located north of Cedar Creek Grade (State Route 622) in Frederick County, Virginia. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed the following environmental concerns: • Full, opened, spilled, and/or leaking drums: numerous drums, most of which appear to contain petroleum products are scattered about the site. These containers should be removed from the site and their contents be properly disposed of prior to development. • Stained soil: Stained soil surrounds several of the aforementioned drums. Contaminated soil should be excavated and removed from the site in an environmentally proper manner. • Storage of chemicals: Agricultural chemicals should be stored according to manufacturer's recommendations or be removed from the site and properly disposed of, as necessary. • Potential Asbestos Containing Material: Given the age of the on -site structures an asbestos survey should be performed prior to demolition of these buildings. In closing, we emphasize that these conditions are not expected to impact on the function-i quality or proposed development of the property. However, planners should consider these issues as the project progresses further. I ECS Project No. 8153 November 12, 2003 —20- 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM, 2000. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. ASTM E 1527-00. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. USGS, 1983. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map. Winchester, Virginia. USGS, 1994 Sinkholes and Karst -Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (Map #MF-2262) APPENDIX I FIGURES 41 Q j -W TL � A' P S-T E T� �, y A, 16 I V,* x V A ry t 621, J 6�4 I ij 7 1 1 -1. WIN OJL K4 I Marshall Property Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. FIGURE 1 964 Cedar Creek Grade 166 Windy Hill Lane Site Vicinity Map Winchester, VA 22602 Frederick County, Virginia 540-667-3750 ECS Project No. 8153 1 APPENDIX II REGULATORY RECORDS M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1 EnviroData Information Search Results Summary Sheet Customer: Subject Property: Address: ECS, Ltd. 245 Acre Parcel Merrimans Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Report Date: 09/09/03 ReportNo. E101038 Standard: ASTIM Phase I Federal Databases Searched Database ---------------- File Date Agency -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search Radius Mapped -------- Unmapped Total ---------------- NPL 07/01/03 US EPA 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 Superfund Sites CERCLIS 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 CERCLIS NFRAP 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 1 1 RCRIS TSD 09/30/02 US EPA 1.25 Mile 0 0 RCRA TSD Facilities RCRIS 09/30/02 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 I RCRA Generators/Transporters ERNS 08/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Emergency Response Notification System Sub Total Federal Records 0 3 - I State Databases Searched Database ---------------- File Date ---------------- Agency ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search Radius Mapped -------- Unmapped -------- Total ------- SOLID WASTE 12/10/02 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Solid Waste Sites UST 05/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 12 12 Underground Storage Tanks LUST SITES 06/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 6 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks VRP 02/21/01 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program PREP NOTICES 03/23/00 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Pollution Complaints Sub Total State Records 0 18 18 Glossary: ASTM• American Society of Testing and Materials CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System NPL: National Priorities List LUST/LAST: Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Underground Storage Tanks PC Notice: Pollution Complaints registered with the state reflecting releases of hazardous material to the ground or water RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Generators and TSD (treatment, storage, and disposal) Facilities VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program Unmappable: A site which cannot be geocoded (i.e., located by longitude and latitude) because of inadequate government address information. Limitations: The scope of this report is defined by the ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527. The Client proceeds at its own risk in relying on the use of Government data in whole or in part for any transaction. EnviroData assumes no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of Govemment information; information provided by others; or for errors resulting from data conversion or enhancement. EnviroData's obligation regarding such data products is solely limited to providing portions of existing Govemment data as of the date of each update received. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EnviroData products are intended for the specified use of the Client and shall not be used for other purposes. EnviroData has relied upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Client on the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, the Client assumes responsibility for payment of any and all fees associated with the preparation and delivery of the products and services requested. Misr M IM MIMIM o ECS, Ltd. a sEnv EDI File No: E101038C 1.25 Mile Search Radius AroD a a Subject Site: 245 Acre Parcel September 9,2003 Legend_ *SLIbjeCt Site rrop"T'Y" No Facilities Rail Features Primary Roads Rail Features Secondary Roads Po/weerlineess 1fl I El�Y Other Trails Pipelines lr - Water Features Miscellaneous CED°A aT- S u �t EW y S O OtQ7 '-NfJE._ .-ORO NCO-E._ EnviroData, Inc. Is Record of LUST/LAST Incidents Unmapped Sites Report Date: 09/09/03 Report No. E101038 Page No. LZ - 1 Zip Code Complaint #/ Date Description Recorded Waterbody Responsible Party 93-2177 04/30/93 Not Specified Olin Hott RELEASE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES/SOLVENTS/PCB CONTAMIN release of industrial wastes/solvents/PCB contaminate from AST at Olin Hott property STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96-1081 / / Not Specified Not Specified VDOT-GAIN_S_B_ORO SITE LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 2-015846 _ 98-5096 / / Not Specified Not Specified L. J. WRIGHT OIL CO. LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: -- 98-5116 / / Not Specified Not Specified H.C. GABLER, INC. LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96-4828 / / Not Specified Not Specified FREDERICK COUNTY BUS SHOP RT. 2, BOX 6 LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: _ 22601 01-6069 10/06/00 Not Specified Not Specified FORMER ARA/SMITH'S RTE 6 BOX IOB STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id_ 1 r� 1 r 1 LUST, LAST, AST, and UST incidents indicate leaks or suspected leaks of above or below ground storage tanks which have been reported to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Cnviro ata, Inc. Report Date: 09/09/03 Virgi. ` nia USTFacfid' M. (Unmapped>Fadlitks =- With:Detailed.Tank`Information) Report No. L101038 Page No. uz- 1 Facility Id. Facility Location Listed Year Tank Id. Status Product Capacity Installed Material 6-000211 SHENANDOAH PLANT # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel P.O. BOX 2040 Age: 49 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 3 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 10000 Unknown Steel Age: # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel Age: 49 6-000802 ARA/SMITHS (WINCHESTER) # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 10000 Unknown Steel ROUTE 6; BOX IOB Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-001293 WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY # R1 REMOVED FROM HEATING OIL 10000 03/08/79 Cathodic Protected RT. 6; BOX 152AA Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-003867 SHOCKEY BROTHERS INC # Rl REMOVED FROM DIESEL 15000 10/02/73 Steel P.O. BOX 2530 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-006183 PAYNE WELL DRILLING INC # RI REMOVED FROM DIESEL 1000 04/23/70 Steel RT. 8; BOX 668 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 500 04/23/70 Steel Age: 6-010559 ALBAN TRACTOR COMPANY, INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: 6-015350 W W CARLISLE ESTATE # 1 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 1000 04/22/66 Steel RT. 6; BOX 113 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 550 04/22/66 Steel Age: 37 Enviro ata, Inc. Report Date: 09/09/03 Virginia UST FaGlIltleS (IJnmappetl. Facilities = W><0 Detailed Tank Informat><on) Report No. E 101038 . , Page No. UZ - 2 Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status Product Listed Year Capacity Installed Material 6-016653 GREENWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE & # Rl REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 550 05/08/76 Steel P.O. BOX 3023 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6 018727 FRANKLIN MADIGAN # 1 ----------------- CLOSEDIN ---- GASOLINE kn -- 0 Unknown - Steel _ _ _________ ------- - - - - RT. 5; BOX 339 Age:. ------------ WINCHESTER VA 22601 — - 20517 FAMILY MARKET --------- # 1 --------- CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE -- 8000 05/07/81 Steel HC-2; BOX 170 Age: 22 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 4000 05/07/81 Steel Age: 22 6-024180 CITY YARD # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 1000 04/01/91 Steel WINCHESTER VA 22601 Age: 12 - 24324 ROYAL CROWN COLA # R1 REMOVED FROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 Steel BOX 2300 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # r2 REMOVEDFROM GASOHOL 5000 01/01/76 Steel Age: # R3 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: # R4 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: # R5 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 2000 01/01/80 Steel Age: IEnviroData, Inc. 10 Zip Code EPA ID r 22601 VAD070360219 r No Further Action Report Date: 09/09/03 CERCLIS - ,�M (Unmapped Saes) x'- ;;.: ReportNo. E101038 Page No. CZA - I Site Information: Name and Address Event and Description WINCHESTER LAMP PLANT GEN ELEC Id Number: 0304171 RT 3 BOX 310 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Assessment Activity Completed Scheduled DS -- DISCOVERY 09/17/90 EnviM7 4r ACta, Report Date: 09/09/03 RCRIS Facifitkglnon . TSD) Report No. E101038 (Unmapped Sites) ,.F Page No. RZ - I Gen. Trans - Map Ref. 9 EPA ID Class porter Name/Address RCRA Outstanding Violations Codes VAD000762310 D SUNOCO SERVICE STATION RD 6 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action VAD988223897 B GRAND AUTO RT 7 BOX 118 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action EnviroData Generator Codes: A - Largc QLK111fily CIC11C111101' D - Verified non -generator -- Sla(c Regm,.Icd 13 - Small Quantity Generator i., -'ri-aii.voite, or i inni-Lintis Material C - Conditionally Excilipi Small Q1111111ity Generator Violations Codes: I - Bankrupt 2 - (ieneralor 3 - Transpoi(er -1 - TSD Glolindwalel 5 -,rs[) cios,c/i,ost (,iostitc 6 - TSD Financial Re,plilcillenk 7 - (icnerator - Land Rcsil icijoils 8 - Tsr) Land Remliclions ') - Conective Action Compliance 10 - TSD 0111cr Rquilcillenis formal 1"ofolcellicill 2\1 Icellicill EnviroData, Inc. Virginia Database Sources Database Description NPL The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sitesidentified for priority remedial action under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the EPA in order to become an NPL site. For specific questions concerning and NPL site, go to the EPA web page at at www.epa.gov. RCRA -TSD The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a com- pilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities, which treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRIS-TSD site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. CERCLIS The CERCLIS List is a compilation by the EPA of the sites, which the agency has investigated or is currently investigating of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund Act). For specific questions concerning a CERCLIS site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov LUST The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of leaking underground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a LUST incident, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. SWLF The Virginia of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of the solid waste facilities in the state. For specific questions concerning a sold waste site, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. UST The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of registered under- ground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a UST facility, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. ERNS The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to collect infor- mation on reported release of oil and hazardous substances. The database contains information from spill or reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. For specific questions concerning an ERNS incident, go to the EPA web page at www.epa:gov. RCRA - The EPA's Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program identifies and tracks hazardous non TSD waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities, which generate less than 1000 kg/month of non -acutely hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRA-Non TSD facility, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. PREP The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a database used to collect and track information on reported surface releases of oil and hazardous substances. For specific questions concerning a PREP incident, go to the DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. 1 APPENDIX III STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 1 10 1 1 F_hA 1 1 Il ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. 1.0 CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was incorporated in 1987 to meet the growing needs of our clients as a multi -service engineering firm. The managing principals of ECS, Ltd. average over 20 years of experience in their respective fields. Our staff of over 425 people includes registered professional engineers, environmental geologists, hydrogeologists, certified engineering technicians and support personnel. ECS, Ltd. places great emphasis on the individual qualifications and experience of its technical staff. Our geotechnical and environmental engineers hold Masters or Doctorate degrees in engineering and are well - versed in the subsurface conditions typically found in the Mid -Atlantic region. Our senior environmental personnel have performed a variety of environmentally -related services for major corporations on projects in over 20 states and four countries. ECS, Ltd. engineering technicians are certified by such recognized organizations as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), the American Welding Society (AWS), and the Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI). In addition, we have developed and implemented our own in-house training, certification and QA/QC programs. ECS, Ltd. emphasizes quality and responsive service to our clients in solving problems and providing innovative engineering and scientific analysis. With our corporate office in Chantilly, Virginia, we maintain branch offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, Research Triangle Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, Greenville/ Spartanburg, South Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. We focus our activities on the specific concerns of the Mid -Atlantic development area. By combining the talents from all four offices, we can offer highly qualified personnel to staff each of our projects. Our multi -phase services structure -- including geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing and inspection, and environmental services and engineering -- results in better long-term understanding of individual projects and clients, and allows us to respond quickly to potentially critical situations. ECS, Ltd. has applied this approach on many of the larger projects in this region, including work for such firms as Trammell Crow Company, Prentiss Properties, Homart Development Company, The Oliver Carr Company, and Friendswood Development. ECS, Ltd, is certified by the Washington Area Council of 16 Laboratories (WACEL), and the Cement and Concrete._ .- Laboraton- (CCRL), in the area of Construction Westin 7 ;r:�.c 1 1 1 F M 1 F 1 1 2.0 FIELDS OF COMPETENCE 40 1 T1 : ugh the close working relationship of its operational departments and specialized sub -contractors, ECS, Ltd. has the total capability to evaluate a given site or operation and to develop the most practical approach to environmental site assessments, site contamination studies, ground water and soil remediation, permitting, and design of environmental control systems. Our primary focus has been to continually develop practical and cost-effective solutions in a timely and responsive manner to changing environmental problems. One of the major reasons for our past success in the environmental consulting marketplace has been our ability to "customize" and combine specific services from different disciplines to individual client and project needs. Also of importance to our clients is our knowledge of the environmental regulatory agencies and our record of success working with them in our clients' interest. The environmental services available from ECS, Ltd. include: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: • Real estate transactions/environmental site assessments (Phases I, II, and III) • Environmental impact studies and risk assessments • Wetland delineation and mitigation investigations • Radon investigations • Environmental facility audits and assessments • Third -party reviews ASBESTOS ASSESSMENTS: • Asbestos surveys • Sample collection and analysis • Preparation of plans and specifications UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT: • Monitoring of tank removals • Site investigations and assessments • Contaminant plume evaluations • Long- and short-term environmental site monitoring • Development of corrective actions plans (CAP's) • Regulatory permitting • Ground water recovery system design I 1 1 M 1 � I � I II U I HYDROGEOLOGiCAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES: • Development and implementation of evaluation plans • Design and implementation of ground -,t-ate including drilling and well installation • Ground water modeling • Aquifer testing (pumping tests; slug tests and bail • Contaminant plume investigations • Electromagnetic and resistivity surveys • Design of ground water recovery and treatment syste:r,s • Seismic refraction and ground -probing radar sti.idics ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING: • Design and implementation of site remediation measures • Preparation of closure plans and other hazardous faciiit-. per_ Litt__= • Design of new landfill and lagoon facilities • Design of pumping and treatment systems for contaminated water • Design of water/waste water treatment systems • Permitting and regulatory negotiation I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES B.' CKGROU: Within the environmental field, ECS, Ltd. has concentrated on providing sei-.-ices to the regional development and financial community, including commercial, residential, institutional and industrial clients and lenders. By concentrating on this service sector, we are able to better understand the requirements of each group and provide services more specifically tailored to individual needs. For most commercial, residential and institutional developers, the most common services performed, to date, have been Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. In this area, our work includes a thorough evaluation of the physical conditions of the property using visual overviews supported by aerial photographs, an historical search of appropriate information for past historic and regulated uses, and interviews with current or previous tenants to determine previous site activities. Depending upon the results of the Phase I investigation, follow-up Phase II studies, if necessary, are provided and structured as site -specific conditions dictate and can include soil -test borings, monitoring well installations and chemical analyses of soil, ground water and surface water. ECS, Ltd. also provides hydrogeological and geophysical investigations for the municipal, commercial, industrial, development, and financial sectors. These investigations can be sub -divided into two fields: ground ' water resources studies, and contaminant/delineation ground water monitoring investigations. Ground water resource investigations primarily concentrate on developing and/or protecting our valuable ground water resources. These types of investigations are commonly requested by municipalities, industries, and developers in need of water for potable, irrigation, or industrial use, particularly in those areas where commercial water supplies are either unavailable, difficult to attain, or economicallv unfeasible. Existing published data, other consultant ' reports, and pertinent scientific literature are reviewed and are supplemented by a full-scale field investigation consisting of geological and/or geophysical surveys. The synthesized information is then used to ' more cost-effectively site future water supply wells and/or enhance old established well fields. Contaminant delineation and ground water monitoring investigations primarily concentrate on determining the magnitude and extent of ground water and soil contamination. Test borings are drilled, ground water monitoring wells are installed, and the subsurface soils and • ground water are sampled and chemically analyzed to determine the -5- types and concentrations of the various contaminant(s) that are potentially present. The number of borings and monitoring yells :s dependent on the estimated extent and nature of the contaminants :n question. Through hydraulic testing and measurements, the direction and rate of ground water flow, and hence; contaminant migration and dispersion, can be calculated. Geophysical techniques are often user: -c supplement the environmental sampling and analyses as a :Weans of more effectively locating a contaminant plume. Such n-pes of hydrogeological investigations are necessan7, for determining the potential impacts from leaking underground storage tanks (UST's), old and ne,.,.- landfills, surface impoundments, hazardous spills of hazardou. chemical materials and wastes, etc. Finally, ECS, Ltd. can comprehensively assess industrial processes -e determine wastewater flows and loads, develop permitting and treatment strategies, perform treatabilin- studies and design wastev,-ater -rcatier_t systems. 3.2 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS AOKI Corporation Birtcher-Butcher Partnership Boston Properties Buvermo Properties Cafferry Development Carey Winston Company Cambridge Companies Centennial Development CenterMark Properties Citistate, Inc. CSX Realty Cushman and Wakefield Danac Corporation Development Resources, Inc. Dome Real Estate The Donohoe Company The Evans Company Evergreen Development Federal Real Estate Investment Trust Friendswood Development Gilbane Properties Greenbaum & Rose Homestead Village J&B Enterprises The JBG Companies KLNB Management Services Lincoln Property Company The Henry A. Long Company Manekin Corporation The Staniev Martin Companies Mason Hirst Companies Metropolitan Partnership. Ltd. Mobil Land Development National Dev. Mid -Atlantic Office Space Management. Inc. Osprey Investment Company Pencc-Freidel Development Prentiss Properties. Ltd. Prudential Realty Group The Radnor Corporation Reston Town Center Associates. Inc. The Michael T. Rose Companies B.F. Saul Company Savage -Fogarty Realtv Sequoia Building Corporation The Shapiro Companies Simpson Development Company The Staubach Company The Svatos Company The Taubman Company Trammell Crow Company Turner Harwood Ventures Union Pacific Realty Corporation William H. Dolben & Son. inc. Winchester Commercial The vorid Bank Banks and Financial Institutions -6- American Security Bank :imresco Institutional. Inc. Crestar Bank Eastern American Bank Equitable Real Estate Investment Mgmt Financial Conservators. Inc. First Union Bank Bank of America Perpetual Bank Potomac Capital Investment Corporation Principal Capital Management, LLC Riggs National Bank Resolution Trust Corporation Security Trust Company, N.A. 3.3 SPECIFICATIONS AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Resumes of key personnel are attached. -7- GARNETT B. WILLIAMS, C.P.G. Senior Environmental Geologist 0 I EDUCATION B.S., Geology, James Madison Universitv, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1983 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40 Hours, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(2) OSHA Hazardous Materials and Incident Commander (16 hours) BOCA CPCCI 1A Exam - National Certification Program for Construction Code Inspectors Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Managing _-Isbestes n Buildings Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Inspecting 3uiidins for Asbestos -Containing Material r CONTINUING EDUCATION National Water Well Association (NWWA)-Theory & Practice Of Ground Water Monitoring & Sampling NWWA-Treatment Technology For Contaminated Ground Water NWWA-Environmental Site Assessments Virginia Association Of Professional Soil Scientists (VAPSS)-Nontidal Wetlands Ficid Study Government Institutes -Wetlands & Real Estate Development National Wetlands Training Institute -Plant Identification Best Management Practices And Wetlands Cook College, Understanding Soil Conditions of Wetlands NGWA, Principles of Ground Water Hydrology. rPROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE/NWWA). EXPERIENCE ' 1989 to Present: Project Environmental Geologist, Engineering Consulting Sen-rices, Ltd., Chantilly, Virginia. Responsible for coordination and preparation of Phase I/Phase II environmental site assessments; facility audits; geotechnical engineering reports; environmental site characterization studies; coordination and implementation of corrective action plans and contaminant remediation efforts; wetlands delineation -I- studies and associated environmental permitting. Duties also include surveying with conventional transit/EDM and GPS instrumentation. 1985 to 1989: Engineering Geologist, Bengston, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, Inc., Centreville, Virginia. Assistant to the Geotechnical Engineering Group. Duties included: preparation of preliminary and final geotechnical reports; coordination of subsurface drilling and seismic refraction surveys; sanitary drainfield evaluations and infiltration testing; and, Virginia Uniform Building Code (structural and wood framing) inspections for commercial and residential structures under Fairfax County BOCA contract. 1983 to 1985: Exploration Geologist, North American Exploration, Inc., Kaysville, . Utah. Responsible for collecting and logging rock and stream sediment samples for targeted anomalous areas in precious and base metals exploration. Performed preliminary field investigations of above areas by various geophysical methods using proton precession magnetometer, gravitometer, reflection seismography, and rock outcrop mapping techniques. Representative sampling of recent key assignments and experience: • Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs), environmental safety and liability audits of tenant operations and building facilities for an assortment of commercial/industrial/residential properties involving confidential financial institutions. These studies have included acquisition and foreclosure of properties in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Connecticut. Properties included warehouses, strip retail facilities, commercial offices, railvards, industrial facilities and undeveloped tracts. • Site characterization, monitoring and remediation of fuel/solvent spills for a prominent railroad company. Sites included railyard fueling/maintenance facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Projects involved: Phase I historical evaluation of events to define areas of potential contamination; installation of monitoring and recovery wells; installation and operation of remediation systems .(free product and dissolved phase); and, development of groundwater sampling and monitoring programs. • Engineering and environmental support of omnibus contract to US Army for design, testing and evaluation of a prototypical small arms range facility to reduce lead contamination to surrounding environment. Designed and provided oversight of range construction. Prepared and executed a sampling plan to evaluate the effectiveness of soil fixation technologies in reducing lead leachate from impact berm and migration of lead via surface waters. • Sampling, analysis and geochemical modeling of lead in soil at a private shooting ' range. Data was used to complete a risk characterization to develop cleanup costs for a proposed single family subdivision. '• Wetland delineations, functional assessments and permitting of commercial properties in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. • Phase I environmental services at a renovated tobacco warehouse project. Work included lead -based paint survey, PCB analysis of transformers, asbestos 16 inspection, UST site characterization and a tenant and mechanical facilities audit. -2- PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHITE PROPERTY MERRIMANS LANE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS, LTD. PROJECT NO.8137-B FOR GREENWAY ENGINEERING October 24, 2003 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHITE PROPERTY MERRIMANS LANE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 8137-B TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Objectives 2 2.3 Limitations 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Location 4 3.2 Physical Setting and Hydrogeology 4 4.0 PREVIOUS AND CURRENT WORK 6 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW 7 5.1 Records Review 7 5.2 Regulatory Summary 8 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 9 6.1 On -Site Features 9 6.2 Nearby Properties 10 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 12 7.1 Title Information 12 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review 12 7.3 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review 12 7.4 City Directory Review 13 7.5 Local Sources 13 7.6 FOIA Requests 13 8.0 OTHER SERVICES 15 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 16 1 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineering to perform an ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of all or portions of several adjoining parcels comprising approximately 175 acres, known as the White Property. The site is located east of U.S. Route 37 and southeast of Merrimans Lane (State Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia. To summarize, available historical documents, regulatory records and conversations with persons having knowledge of the property revealed no evidence of current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as environmentally -suspect. Further, a reconnaissance of the site did not reveal the presence of: buried petroleum tanks; petroleum pipelines; storage, leaks or spills of hazardous substances, chemicals or petroleum products; surface or ground water contamination; distressed vegetation or stained soil; chemical smells or emissions; environmental wells or remedial activities; grave sites; asbestos waste; suspicious leachate or seeps; mining activities; or, similar environmentally deleterious features or conditions. Nearby properties consist of a mixture of residential and agricultural sites. No industrial/manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, auto body shops or similar environmentally sensitive businesses or operations were observed in close proximity. Based on the regulatory records and field research, there is no perceived threat of environmental impact to the subject associated with nearby properties. In conclusion, the Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject or neighboring properties. Consequently, no further environmental investigation is recommended. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2 of this report. This Executive Summary is an integral part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. ECS, Ltd. recommends that the report be read in its entirety. i 1 r I� I 1 ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 —2- 2.1 Scope of Work 2.0 INTRODUCTION Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was contracted by Greenway Engineering to perform a Phase I ESA of all or portions of several adjoining parcels comprising approximately 175 acres, otherwise known as the White Property. The subject site is located east of U.S. Route 37 and southeast of Merrimans Lane (State Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia. The environmental assessment was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E-1527-00. The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site, hereafter referred to as "subject", "site", "property" or "tract". 2.2 Obiectives The objectives of the ESA were to: • evaluate the probability of impact of the surface water, groundwater and/or soils within the property boundaries through a review of regulatory information and a reconnaissance of the subject and vicinity; • evaluate historical conditions to identify previous usage that could impact on the environmental condition of the site; • determine, if contamination is believed to have occurred, the potential on -site and off - site source material(s), location(s) and activities; and, • provide an evaluation of the potential for environmental impact at the site and a list of specific conclusions and recommendations addressing any concerns noted. 2.3 Limitations The ESA involved a reconnaissance of the- site and contiguous properties and a review of regulatory and historical information in general accordance with the ASTM standard. No non -scope considerations or additional issues, such as asbestos surveys, radon testing or wetland delineation were investigated, unless otherwise described in Section 8.0 of this report. The conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report are based upon a reasonable level of investigation within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a'site in this particular geographic and geologic setting. The intent of this assessment is to identify the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site; however, no environmental site assessment can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site. The • findings of this ESA are not intended to serve as an audit for health and safety or regulatory compliance issues pertaining to improvements or activities at the site. ECS, Ltd. is not liable ECS Project No. 8137-B — 3 — October 24, 2003 for the discovery or elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents or inj ury. All observations, conclusions and/or recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. It was not the purpose of this study to determine the actual presence, degree or extent of contamination, if any, at this site. This could require additional exploratory work, including sampling and laboratory analysis. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and/or recommendations presented within this report. ASTM E-1527-00 defines a "recognized environmental condition" as: "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." This report is provided for the exclusive use of Greenway Engineering and its partners, be assigns or clients involved with the acquisition and development of the subject. This ESA is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties. The use of this report by any undesignated third party or parties will be at such party's sole risk and ECS, Ltd. disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance. I I I ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 —4- 3.1 Site Location 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is composed of several adjoining irregular -shaped parcels of land totaling approximately 175 acres. More specifically, the subject is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53-3-A and 53-A-92A in their entirety and portions of parcels 53-A-90 and 53-A-92. The site is presently zoned for agricultural and residential use. The property is bound to the north by Abrams Creek and the remaining portion of the White property not covered by this ESA. The Winchester and Western Railroad line and a residential community currently under development are located further to the north. To the east and south lies agricultural property. Route 37 is situated to the west with well spaced dwellings, a golf course, and agricultural land beyond. 3.2 Phvsical Settinz and Hydmeolo The White Property is approximately 175+/- acres situated southeast of Merrimans Lane (Route 621) in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1-1). The terrain of the subject consists of gently sloping hills with relatively level valleys, generally oriented southwest to northeast. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Based on regional topographic patterns and field observations, it appears that areas to the south of the property for approximately one third mile drain through the property towards Abrams Creek. Additionally, upland areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Excluding the northeastern section of the site near Abrams Creek, the property is not prone to flood events, nor was there any evidence of springs, creeks, ponds, wetlands or similar surface water bodies on the remainder of the premises. According to the soil survey (USDA-SCS, 1987. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia), the near surface profile is characterized primarily by very deep, well -drained to moderately well drained, silty clay loam soils of the Frederick and Poplimento Series. There are several limitations associated with these soils including rapid surface runoff, high shrink swell potential from the clayey subsoil, low strength, moderate to low permeability, and high rock content within many areas of the site. These limitations do not pose a direct concern to the environmental integrity of the subject. The site is located within the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. According to the Geologic Map of Frederick County, Virginia (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1966; Bulletin #80), the property is underlain by the Conococheague limestone/dolomite. Exposures of limestone outcrop and ledges were observed throughout the site. Depth to rock can be extremely variable due to the pinnacled nature of weathering that can occur over these parent materials. Ledges or vertical sills of resistant rock can be encountered at or near the surface with deep zones of residual soil between. ECS Project No. 8137-B — 5 — October 24, 2003 Karst features such as sinkholes and collapsed solution cavities are problematic to this geologic terrain. The occurrence of karst is directly linked to rock structure and lithology, overburden thickness and also to surface and subsurface hydrologic influences. Enhanced sinkhole development near entrenched streams can be attributed to higher ground water gradient and flow. Sinkholes are not always apparent at the ground surface. Frequently, they are collapsed and filled with soft sediment. According to the publication "Sinkholes and Karst Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle,' Virginia and West Virginia" (USGS, 1994; Map #MF-2262), there are three 1 sinkholes within the boundaries of the property. In addition, neighboring properties to the south and west each have one plotted sinkhole. ECS directly observed the locations of these plotted sinkholes and found no apparent signs of recent settlement or collapse. Nor was there evidence of environmentally damaging uses in these sink hole areas such as dumping or storage of manure or chemicals. ECS spoke with Alexander White (property owner) concerning the mapped sinkholes. He stated that this classification was false and that these areas have never exhibited any characteristics of sinkhole development in his lifetime. The hydrogeologic framework consists of an upper unconfined water table and a lower rock aquifer. Water -table conditions are associated with fractures and solution cavities in the limestone and dolomite beds. Sinkholes sometimes provide rapid recharge to the shallow aquifer, allowing pollutants to enter without the filtering action that occurs through the overburden in most other aquifer systems. Ground water recharge occurs primarily along outcrop areas of the bedrock in uplands between streams. Water table movement is usually topographically influenced, moving from higher to lower elevations, although changes in the i rock profile and urban influences can distort these patterns. The drinking water aquifer is located at greater depth (typically 100-300 feet) within the fractured bedrock. The limestone has a very low primary porosity and most subsurface flow occurs along bedding planes enlarged by fracturing and weathering. Ground water movement is strongly influenced by these fractures and other irregularities in the rock mass. I I 1 1 1� r 1 ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 4.0 PREVIOUS WORK ECS was not provided with previous environmental, engineering or similar studies on the subject at the time this report was completed. ECS did however; recently complete a wetland delineation and Phase I -A Archeological Assessment of the subject. The results of those studies are provided under separate cover. During the field delineation, we did not witness evidence of environmentally damaging practices taking place or observe indications of environmental impact by liquid petroleum, hazardous materials, or other foreign sources. ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 —7- 5.1 Records Review 5.0 REGULATORY REVIEW Public records were reviewed to identify evidence of past or present activities on or near the site which may have resulted in soil, surface water and/or ground water contamination or the generation, use, storage or disposal of hazardous waste, chemical or petroleum products/materials. This information was obtained from EnviroData. The EnviroData report is based on an ASTM standard radius searchcentered on the geographic coordinates of the site and includes the following databases: Superfund National Priority List (NPL): The "Superfund" NPL List is a compilation of properties considered by the EPA as being either uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites that require priority consideration for remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program. These sites are considered to pose a significant risk of stigmatizing surrounding properties and potentially impacting property values. • State Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA/CERCLIS) LIST: CERCLIS sites are those that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance pursuant to the 1980 CERCLA Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a formal State Superfund Program, therefore, the federal CERCLIS database is considered to be the equivalent of a State Hazardous Waste Sites List. Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA-TS, -LG and -SG): RCRA regulations apply to facilities that the EPA designates as storing, transporting, generating, treating or disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities include large quantity generators and small quantity generators. Non -compliant RCRA sites, RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) sites are also monitored under this program. The RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) list contains information about TSD facilities that have performed remediation due to a release of hazardous waste or due to a violation of RCRA. Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): contains information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LPSTs/LUSTs): contains summary information pertaining to reported leaking underground storage tanks. The information contained in this database is a combination of LUST lists maintained at the State Department of Environmental Quality Offices. ECS Project No. 8137-B — 8 — October 24, 2003 • Above Ground/Underground Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs): a i comprehensive list of all registered active and inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. • Solid Waste Facilities (SWLF): Under Subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA establishes technical standards for the operation of solid waste management i facilities (transfer stations and landfills). • No Further Remediation Action Planned Sites (NFRAP): also known as the CERCLIS archive, contains information pertaining to sites that have been removed from the CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Superfund action or NPL consideration. The Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) lists properties that are either undergoing or have completed voluntary remediation overseen by the VDEQ. • The VDEQ maintains a pollution response or PREP database to track surface spills of oil and hazardous substances. The listings identified as "unmapped sites" are not plotted due to inadequate address and geocoding information. ECS reviewed and field -checked the list of "unmapped sites" to j verify their location and possible impact to the subject. 5.2 Regulatory Summary There are no regulatory listings that apply to the property under consideration. A review of the unmapped sites did not identify properties or facilities in the vicinity that might pose an environmental concern to the subject. A copy of the regulatory database report is included as Appendix H of this report. i I ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 6.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 6.1 On -Site Features Robert Greenlaw (ECS, Ltd.) conducted the field reconnaissance on September 10 and 17, 2003. Weather at these times was partly cloudy and generally warm. The reconnaissance was performed to search for evidence of: hazardous waste/material, chemical and/or petroleum storage, leak or spill; stressed vegetation or soil discoloration; drinking water/environmental monitoring wells; environmental remediation activities; storage drums; industrial or commercial refuse; herbicide or pesticide containers; farm waste; septic systems; above -ground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage tanks (USTs); pipelines; asbestos containing material (ACM); industrial/manufacturing or similar ' environmentally - sensitive operations or conditions; rail spurs; ruins; landfills or illicit dumping; air emissions/waste water discharges; leachate or seeps; surface or ground water contamination; and/or PCB -containing articles. Photographs of the site are included in Appendix IV. The following narrative describes the property: The portion of the White property under consideration comprises approximately 175 acres and is located to the southeast of Merrimans Lane (U.S. Route 621). The subject more specifically is composed of parcels identified as Frederick County Tax Map numbers 53-3-A and 53-A-92A in their entirety and portions of parcels 53-A-90 and 53-A-92. The site is presently zoned for residential and agricultural uses. The tract is bound to the north by the remainder of the partial tracts included with this ESA and Abrams Creek, with the Winchester and Western Railroad line beyond; to the east and south by agricultural land; and to the west by Merrimans Lane and U.S. Route 37, with residential properties, agricultural land, and a relatively new golf course beyond. The majority of the subject is unimproved, consisting of a mixture of dense woods and open pasture which are dispersed over a series of hills and valleys that are oriented roughly southwest/northeast. In the central portion of the property is an approximately 1.5--acre parcel currently owned by Elemaitch, Inc. This parcel is improved by a large two-story wooden -frame house with an asphalt shingle roof. To the east of the house is a wooden horse barn. The house was built in 1982 and utilizes a combination of wood burning and electric baseboards for heat. ECS did not gain access to the house during our reconnaissance. Due its age, asbestos containing materials could be present within this structure. According to Mr. Alexander White, current resident of the house and owner of Elemaitch Inc., petroleum products, non -household chemicals, and hazardous materials are not stored or generated within the on -site structures. Access to the site can be gained via two different routes off of Merrimans Lane. The northern most entrance onto the White Property crosses over the railroad tracks and travels through the area of family homes and barns in the northwestern section of the site that is not included in this ESA. Orchard Lane, located just east of U.S. Route 37 travels across the property leading to two large home sites. The land associated with these homes is ECS Project No. 8137-B — 10 — October 24, 2003 • surrounded on all sides by the subject property. Before reaching these two homes, Orchard Lane forks to the east and travels to the house and barn mentioned in the previous paragraph. As previously stated the site contains a mixture of dense woods and pasture land. Limestone outcrops were abundant over the site and areas where they comprised the majority of surface material were generally covered with trees and dense underbrush. Overall, more level areas of land in the north, central, and western portions of the property tended to be used for pasture whereas lands having a greater slope, generally in the south, southwest, and eastern portions of the site were predominantly forested and contained large quantities of exposed rock. Livestock including cattle, sheep, and horses were observed grazing during our reconnaissance. Electric fences act as boundaries between separate grazing areas. Many of the forested areas are also fenced off from livestock traffic; however, a small number of sheep were seen in the far eastern upslope forested areas during our reconnaissance. No evidence of row crops or orchards was observed within the site bounds. The site appeared very neat and clean. One small area of dumping was noted in the northeastern region of the site. This area contains minor quantities of scrap metal, wood, and fencing material that appear aged. This dump site does not appear to have been used in many years and is not thought to present a significant threat to the environmental integrity of the site. No additional signs of dumping or even minor surface debris were evidenced during the • remainder of our time on -site. Overhead electric lines transect the property in several areas. These electric lines are not high voltage power lines and do not pose any threat in association with electromagnetic fields. Several transformers were observed in association with these electric lines. No PCB labeling was observed on these transformers. Regardless, the transformers appeared to be in good condition and no leakage, distressed vegetation, or stained soil was witnessed in the areas of these devices. No other remarkable or unusual features or uses of the site were apparent. Based on our observations, the following conditions or materials were not observed on -site: • USTs, vent lines, fill ports or similar surface projections of buried tanks; • containers for hazardous or chemical substances; • hazwaste transportation, storage or disposal; • cemeteries or grave sites; • chemical/petroleum smells, foul odors or distressed vegetation; • chemical stains on soil or other surfaces; • distressed vegetation; • ground water or surface water contamination; • oil or chemical pipelines and related bulk storage facilities; • surface impoundments or holding ponds for liquid waste; • monitoring wells, injection wells or remediation systems; • • asbestos waste; I ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 —11— I ri 1 1 U N I 1 1 1 1 1 • incinerators, recycling or waste treatment processes; • junk or scrap yards; • industrial or manufacturing activities; • motor vehicle repairs or maintenance operations; • air emissions, leachate, seeps, or waste -water discharge requiring special permitting or consideration; • livestock burial areas or manure pits; • pesticide or herbicide misuse or over application; • oil/natural gas or mineral exploration and mining; • evidence of discharges, leachate migration, or run-off of potential contaminants from an off -site source onto the subject; or, • high voltage power lines or electrical transmission towers where electromagnetic fields might pose a concern. 6.2 Nearby Properties A reconnaissance was made of contiguous and nearby properties by viewing from public streets or accessible vantages without trespass. Based on regional topography, it appears that areas to the south of the property for approximately one third mile drain through the property towards Abrams Creek. Additionally, upland areas of the subject do not appear to receive drainage from surrounding properties. Overall, the subject is gently sloped from southwest to northeast, and exhibits drainage patterns which eventually tie into wetlands and open waters associated with Abrams Creek. Unless otherwise noted, no opportunistic dumping, drums, ASTs, USTs, monitoring wells, remediation systems or other environmentally suspicious conditions or activities were observed on adjacent properties. The site is located within a setting composed of a mixture of farmland, and residential properties. Farms containing associated houses and barns border the site to the east and south. Recent developments across Merri_mans Lane, Abrams Creek, and U.S. Route 37 have converted what was previously farm land into mostly residential properties in these locations. Building of homes in these locations has not yet been completed. Additionally a golf course was established to the northwest of the site across Route 37. No visible signs of hazardous materials, petroleum storage, or environmentally harmful substances were witnessed in these areas of development. These sites do not appear to have an adverse effect on the environmental integrity of the subject. The remaining portion of the White property, which borders the northern portion of the subject contains three White family homes and various barns and out buildings. One of these homes reportedly is heated by an oil furnace and has an associated heating oil AST. According to both Willis White and Sandy White, all petroleum tanks holding fuel for farm equipment, etc. are currently aboveground. There are no reports of any releases of petroleum on this property. Additionally, no evidence of the former presence of USTs on this property was found. There are septic systems and wells located in this area. This portion of the White property drains to the northwest, north, and northeast towards Abrams Creek and does not appear to have influence over waters on the subject. I ECS Project No. 8137-B — 12 — October 24, 2003 i • There is a cluster of two residential sites, which are several acres in size each that are separate from, yet are surrounded by the subject property. These sites are located along the top of a prominent ndgelme that extends across the White property. No heating oil tanks were observed around either of these homes. Due to the rural nature of the area these homes are presumed to be serviced by well and septic systems. No evidence of leachate or seepage, was observed coming from these properties. Additionally, no strange or noxious odors were ,J detected within the vicinity of these homes. In summary, our review of abutting and nearby properties did not identify evidence of recognized or suspect environmental conditions, operations or activities that would be expected to have a detrimental impact on the subject. jo i ECS Project No. 8137-B October 24, 2003 —13- Title Information 7.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Chain -of -title information was obtained from a limited review of land records at the Circuit Court Clerks Office of Frederick County. The following chain -of -title was developed from the deed records reviewed: With the exception of the 1.44-acre parcel in the central portion of the property, which is owned by Elemaich, Incorporated, The property is presently owned by two limited liability corporations, Willow Grove L.L.C. and 740 L.L.C., both of which are owned through shares held by the various members of the White family. These L.L.C.s were established in 1996 and 1998, respectively, by Charles Ridgely White and his wife Eleanor S. White. The subject in its entirety has been under the ownership and supervision of the White family since 1948, at which time the farm was purchased by C. Ridgely and Eleanor White from William D. Taylor. William Taylor owned the property for 10 years dating back to 1938. Prior to 1938 the farm was owned by the Baker family. Based on our limited review of land records, no environmental liens or encumbrances against the property were noted. Our deed research should not, however, be construed as accurate rfor the purposes of establishing clear title to the property. 7.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review Due to the rural history of the site and its surroundings, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are not available for the property. 7.3 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs having coverage of the site taken on June 8, 1950 and March 23, 1976 were reviewed at the USDA-NRCS office in Stephens City, Va. Photographs having coverage of the site in other series years housed at the USDA-NRCS office were unable to be located because they are no longer properly indexed. U.S. Route 37 was not present in 1950. Also Merrimans Lane followed a slightly straighter path than it does today. A noticeably lesser quantity of trees can be noted in the southern and eastern parts of the property. Areas of dense vegetation in the southwestern corner of the site were open field at this time. Also, the main house and 3 to 4 out buildings/barns were observed just north of the site. Surrounding property was significantly less developed than the current condition. Orchards were observed to the northwest and southeast of the property. No signs indicating that the property was under environmental stress were observed. By 1976, vegetation had become denser in the southwest, south, and eastern portions of the property. U.S. Route 37 was noted to have been under construction at this time, and the re- routing of Merrimans lane to its current shape had been completed. Orchard Lane was r ECS Project No. 8137-B — 14 — October 24, 2003 present at this time but appeared to be unpaved. The house and horse barn in the central portion of the site were not present. The large residential tracts located within the interior of the southwestern section of the property had been split off from the White family farm and were observed to contain large homes. Orchards previously bordering the site to the northwest and southeast were becoming overgrown. The house and barns on the remainder of the White property to the north appeared unchanged from the 1950 photograph. ■ No signs of distressed vegetation, chemical and/or petroleum storage were observed within these photographs. There are no suspicious disturbances such as dumps evident in the photographs examined. A March 24, 1997 USGS aerial photograph, obtained online and included within Appendix I as Figure 2, revealed the site and its surroundings to be very similar to their current state. By this time forested land in the southwest, southern, and eastern portions of the site has continued to flourish, continuing to increase in density and size. There are several additional homes present on the White property to the north. The house in the central portion of the site had been built and surrounding development to the northwest and northeast has begun. In conclusion, no environmental concerns regarding the subject or its surroundings were noted during aerial photographic research. 7.4 City Directory Review Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the site, city directories were not reviewed as part of our investigation. 7.5 Local Sources ECS spoke with Mr. Alexander White a.k.a. Sandy), resident of the subject, president of p ( Y) Elemaitch, Inc., and shareholder in Willow Grove LLC, on October 13 and 21, 2003. Mr. White has lived on the farm for approximately 45 years during which time it has remained in his family's ownership. Currently he runs Elemaitch, Inc., an investment/farm management company that oversees the White family farm; his home is located in the central portion of the site. In his management of the farm, Mr. White stated that he rarely, if ever, uses chemicals. He identified for us an old dump site, in the northeastern portion of the property, which has been out of use for over 30 years. This dump site contains mostly scrap metal and wood debris, as well as old fencing material and a few glass bottles. Mr. White did not recall any other environmentally -remarkable conditions or concerns associated with prior agricultural uses of the farm. To his knowledge, orchards have not been present within the subject bounds for over a hundred years. Mr. White stated that all of the fuel storage on the farm was kept in aboveground tanks on portions of the property not included in this assessment and that no petroleum releases or leaks had occurred. We also interviewed Mr. Kelly Robinson, a local resident for over 45 years. Mr. Robinson spent much of his childhood on the White property and has been friends with the family his I ECS Project No. 8137-B — 15 — October 24, 2003 entire life. To his knowledge the property has always been used for raising beef cattle. Mr. Robinson stated that the White family has always acted as good environmental stewards to their land by fencing off forested areas, preventing erosion, helping to maintain good water quality, and using agricultural chemicals only when deemed necessary. He was unaware of any UST's on the site and stated that to his recollection there was only a single aboveground fuel tank for farm equipment. ECS spoke with Mr. Kenneth Marshall, owner and operator of the adjacent farm property to the east, during a concurrent environmental assessment of his property. Mr. Marshall stated that he has never observed any environmentally damaging practices on the White property. To his knowledge, the subject has never been used for orchards or developed in any way. Mr. Willis White, resident of the White farm and shareholder in Willow Grove, LLC, was interviewed on October 13, 2003. He stated that the land was purchased by his parents in 1948 and that he has resided there since his birth in 1954. To the best of his recollection, Mr. White stated that the farm has always been used for raising livestock and that very few chemicals have ever been used or stored on the property. Fuel storage at the site is limited to an aboveground tank located in the vicinity of the barns in the northern section of the property and that to his knowledge there had never been any leaks or spills. Mr. White currently uses a well for drinking water purposes and has not found any problems related to the local ground water supply. 7.6 FOIA Requests Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were made in person to the following County and State agencies for information concerning environmental incidents on or near the subject. • Frederick County Environmental Health Department • Frederick County Fire & Rescue Services FIOA requests were made by ECS on September 9, 2003. A letter dated September 23, 2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire Marshall with the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, stated that "Our records do not indicate any hazardous material spills, however, underground storage tanks may be present from installations prior to the creation of this department." ECS did not find evidence which would support the likelihood of underground storage tanks or hazardous materials storage on site. No registered municipal wells were noted on -site. One residential well and septic drain field are present in the central portion of the subject and service the house currently owned by Elemaitch Inc.. The northwestern portion of the White property, which is not covered in this assessment contains several well and septic systems which service the family homes located in this area. These septic systems drain in the direction of Abrams Creek and do not appear to influence the subject. Reportedly there have been no problems with drinking water quality from these wells. ECS Project No. 8137-B — 16 — October 24, 2003 Recently, the Frederick County Environmental Health Department responded to our request for environmentally sensitive findings. Their records indicate the presence of septic drain fields in connection with the White family homes, located just north of the site boundary. There were no reports or records of widespread or localized ground water contamination due to agricultural or industrial sources near the site. No other findings were reported. ECS Project No. 8137-B — 17 — October 24, 2003 8.0 OTHER SERVICES ASTM guidelines identify non -scope issues that are beyond the scope. of this practice. Some of these non -scope issues include; asbestos -containing material (ACM) inspection, radon survey, lead -based paint testing, lead in drinking water testing, soil and ground water sampling and testing and regulatory compliance audits. None of these non -scope issues were requested, proposed, or included in our scope of work. 1 1 1 I I'D I �r F1 i I � I � I � I ECS Project No. 8137-B — 18 — October 24, 2003 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ECS, Ltd. has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-00. This assessment was performed on an approximately 175-acre section of agricultural land located southeast of Merrimans Lane and east of U.S. Route 37, in Frederick County, Virginia. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report. To conclude, this assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property under consideration. Therefore, no further environmental investigation is recommended. r� r I ECS Project No. 8137-B — 19 — October 24, 2003 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM, 2000. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. ASTM E 1527-00. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. USES, 1983. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map. Winchester, Virginia. USGS, 1994' Sinkholes and Karst -Related Features of the Shenandoah Valley In The Winchester 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia" (Map #MF-2262) APPENDIX I FIGURES t N j r ' a , ` ., �� l FBI \} �r. .• � .; ' rr \IT s. •'`II .I f jar ��.._: i - �, �,,,—.1+ fr,�•.�;L^.i;F'!� r +'.f f-, : •.,r j r t - i I � t ^,y ` ✓✓ i' , .�'` e s��'�,/J . � j/ y�? �% � J:, F J • I � �+ r I r� Y 1'1 i �'�'.'II \ +rr I ��''1C�kyr` 1 �'': � • !I I ' , f �, ,1 I J� ; '��I'+ '�'•�`F' r' � I __ F^ ,�r''l.• � �t� t ���1 ' fL� + 4 + '1 r 1 .'J�� � � i f,._4.1 Ill I 1 r II � ff l tit •J' 1`• �; i'', ,^•, �'.-A � �+� .: /fir 'vaS' ' `Li ,', � '+T`� '� f r %J+✓ t_ Jit . t 1'I ¢ s' I .l +1 ' - +I CS}'1.^ i �, ` . t' F r ( • 1 i 1 � �� � '� 1 1 / I .✓ I -�y� �' r: r I � : j' ' r - i f 1, ;: j4 r r ; • , � � r r'7+' }� ,,`4.J •�'�i ��r ``' f � 11 v � ' P''.•: � i � �" 1. I r / � I; _ r; r% '� - J I � 4� '; ".✓ ••, I 's r� / 1 'ir',�fh+ , ,�'r'�;' •rJ. ;'i� � { - • i'' , 11,, ;-'� ? r? '� r.�' ,�� I ', , '-1 y � _ _— .'� 1� - i�'� i` i.r ���'� � I++ tl /:I,+ri- /Jr++�1'/i r.,�•V��n ��� J � Iri ^'`' j f � 'jl� �r I J Z �'\ fJ['•I-�,'.`+,r - -i'',.- � t •�Ci;'' �,�• � ;,:'+Jf ,! f �' t,. I�`','••••}Ill,:r,� �'' r :1,.' ��,' �' ''•I '.r ,fr,zJt �-`•+� `'� _��\ _. _ f I�;.�r� �. �. I �'�'f%r - !�i'' � j�rr ''a••� I�rJf �;i +'' _ � 1'�'' � ��J � �ti �' �' -r'_ •'� I i ., � , ' _ ,•F' 1 - - ►.+• !. IJ �+;�:' v f •f' • ! :'� f; r' + _ ' , .f? I { ,. \t ' y(fi ti` '' I' ; .. '\.� r :Y r� I ,�� r I r ��'' I% 1 + �+''I 1 I', {r• �`-�: i r i tt ' JI �-.--- {' � 1� 'r}rt�'r 1 t - �-•• f ___ i'r!..� - ../'�.,��:`�• `, � I'• ;,� 'Va J�l�� � - '^; / {{rr"\,� 1rl',,�,�.,'`\''`i I ,1'J'`, t �' � it I`-`•', '- ',..,"/ i i ,}r Sri �., ^• i ,('' _ i! ;✓.1 f 'rV�f%, 1rr�' , f l- �J ,+ Sf✓ YJiJr - ,SF+f}.Jj , ft?„� i' j�ir�r;il /'rV '\ry\` % �.;..•✓'�� , it 1, • I ' !' 1 �'+ J( 6 �' ', `F .4\, •- •7}�7 f�'�� -�� ' % r Lf,�ri�+y�'r r' f I I, ✓' -� ,' i ,I• �,�!' .�:�. �•� ! � I I � � ',J 1f �J- 4 / r.. � j 1111•�IJr'll•V��_�jL�1J=::^ ',� ,'', � '�;:; �S' 1 � F�( r \ '.� 5�;;` ��r_', f �^� r J II '� - I'r. , '^ _ ''! !�[.., 1.. l' i �l.t 5. f' `•"-' 1•t, _-•�L � +.1 �'JI � f � 1-.- `'�� ... �.J `, ''; ;1.r' �• t �'�••• „� f +j�r}�. ; f r,� �+! `'1 �' .l r r r 'i 'f-:; "�J-`•` t .: # r I - _ ', ,5. r''_•'-`., `•� i " t '1 �! J �•` � ;` ��� Pry' `r MJJ ,' J : •t,' � ,• i f �. 1� �, I 'I i i j � Ir 1I' r:...v' 1.' :h � . i' ill. f. _ _ ,�.,• r'� 1''`� t�l+`+�r.`.� ..,._i•� ; _ �.+ � t • r� + l �,� � + !' ,' �' 4 ! ,t I� ; 1 .✓� � .• ` t � ' }' I� J' / I I - f t l' ' I .�Y`y`�yl� I i I �t1 �,�},{ 1 "f(J�ti+_. l \'•'�`•v p ly , Y ' 1 1 - • ,{f �, ii I., 1 ,j V S GS."�fA �LD'sman , r'`, I • f` ! I f• 4+ I I '� •I - `'t'Iyf) f 1'� ' Fa ��`,;q"j ry i � � r'1�'1 IIIqI /' y `,' I �' I r.., J/; J...: i f'1 rl t �' a _ f.;,.. ;:►," liv + ; rrr51i� �1. yF�'��f�f �� ! jl' fJ'✓, 7� flli,' I +•(� c�' J�'l �• �, � � • 1 +l�'! I -'' `' -- I+�� ��,/ 4 I ' � 41 �' ''''` ~� M,'r t ', "'fl I' _. r / I'. l t _..__ -�_•' �h �1 � � 1 '1,,1',- .. ! i. { �_._•.^.� 1 .. Is � !� 1^� �', ' � f? � 7h: '.! �nr,r,,, i`.wlGS*^.+k White Property Merrimans Lane (Rt. 621) Frederick County, Virginia Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-667-3750 FIGURE I Site Vicinity Map ECS Project No. 8137-B Y 0/tr��et A :t lurp''4i'14 . ` F i {• _ 16 77 ~ }{ 'j I tipAL y It Jj� I maw �� `c.< ka g,Ft 1 <f�t� y�'"�' F aa•� !� .�. 'yam k��,� � � �''M `>t� � e ah;?, � �, ,_f'�•1` yn �a :�, ° r � -� }� 1..� isry �`y� .. � APPENDIX H REGULATORY RECORDS EnviroData Information Search Results Summary Sheet r Customer: Subject Property: Address: ECS, Ltd. 245 Acre Parcel Merrimans Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Report Date: 09/09/03 ReportNo. E101038 Standard: ASTM Phase I Federal Databases Searched Database___ File Date Agency Search Radius Mapped Unmapped Total NPL 07/01/03 US EPA 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 Superfund Sites CERCLIS 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 CERCLIS NFRAP 07/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 1 1 RCRIS TSD 09/30/02 US EPA 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 RCRA TSD Facilities RCRIS 09/30/02 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 2 2 RCRA Generators/Transporters ERNS 08/01/03 US EPA 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Emergency Response Notification System Sub Total Federal Records 0 3 3 State Databases Searched Database File Date Agency _ _ Search Radius Mapped Unmapped Total SOLID WASTE 12/10/02 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Solid Waste Sites 'UST 05/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 12 12 Underground Storage Tanks LUST SITES 06/01/03 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 6 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks VRP 02/21/01 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1.25 Mile 0 0 0 Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program PREP NOTICES 03/23/00 VA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 0.75 Mile 0 0 0 Pollution Complaints Sub Total State Records 0 18 18 Glossary: ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System NPL: National Priorities List LUSTILAST: Registered Incidents of Leaks or Releases from Above or Underground Storage Tanks PC Notice: Pollution Complaints registered with the state reflecting releases of hazardous material to the ground or water RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Generators and TSD (treatment, storage, and disposal) Facilities VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program 'Jnmappable: A site which cannot be geocoded (i.e., located by longitude and latitude) because of inadequate government address information. Limitations: The scope of this report is defined by the ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E 1527. The Client proceeds at its own risk in relying on the use of Government data in whole or in part for any transaction. EnviroData assumes no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of Government information; information provided by others; or for errors resulting from data conversion or enhancement. EnviroData's obligation regarding such data products is solely limited to providing portions of existing Government data as of the date of each update received. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EnviroData products are intended for the specified use of the Client and shall not be used for other purposes. EnviroData has relied upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Client on the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, the Client assumes responsibility for payment of any and all fees associated with the preparation and delivery of the products and services requested. WE ECS, Ltd. EDI File No: E101038C 1.25 Mile Search Radius EnviroD t a 01 Subject Site: 245 Acre Parcel September 9,2003 Legend J � y Subject Site oPTY v STA n to ° P No Facilities w fly J G° P 64 Rail Features Nti �Fl Primary Roads Rail Features Secondary Roads Poweerrlineess Other Trails Pipelines •,♦ � 1 �. FO o Water Features Miscellaneous Hoe C JIG CEO N EY Ix W E S O O(Q',) .-Nf7E._ e I port Date: EnviroData, Inc. Re09/09/03 ReportNo. E101038 Page No. LZ - I Unmapped bit Complaint #/ Date Zip Code Description Recorded Waterbody Responsible Party 93-2177 04/30/93 Not Specified Olin Hort RELEASE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES/SOLVENTS/PCB CONTAMIN release of industrial wastes/solvents/PCB contaminate from AST at Olin Hott property STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96-1081 / / Not Specified Not Specified VDOT-GAINSBORO SITE LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 2-015846 98-5096 / / Not Specified Not Specified L. J. WRIGHT OIL CO. LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 98-5116 / / Not Specified Not Specified H.C. GABLER, INC. LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 96-4828 / / Not Specified Not Specified FREDERICK COUNTY BUS SHOP RT. 2, BOX 6 LUST STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: 22601 01-6069 10106100 Not Specified Not Specified FORMER ARAISMITH'S RTE 6 BOX 10B STATUS: CLOSED Facility Id: i I I*. - LUST, LAST, AST, and UST incidents indicate leaks or suspected leaks of above or below ground storage tanks which have been reported to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality EnviroDCIne. ,.;;7,.+ Imm- Alm }a�C�lltlV`S ;� r� a i"tMr Report Date: 09/09/03 F N'3 1 j�1 fZ'i �,e�'ff'�kb Va ReportNo. E101038 r tp n x Page No. UZ - 1 .{. �. Sr,}t i.�-.7...,�'1., Listed Year Facility Id. Facility Location Tank Id. Status Product Capacity Installed Material 6-000211 SHENANDOAH PLANT # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel P.O. BOX 2040 Age: 49 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 3 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 10000 Unknown Steel Age: # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE HEATING OIL 20000 01/23/55 Steel Age: 49 6-000802 ARA/SMITHS (WINCHESTER) # I CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 10000 Unknown Steel ROUTE 6; BOX IOB Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-001293 WINCHESTER BUILDING SUPPLY # R1 REMOVED FROM HEATING OIL 10000 03/08/79 Cathodic Protected RT. 6; BOX 152AA Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-003867 SHOCKEY BROTHERS INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 15000 10/02/73 Steel P.O. BOX 2530 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-006183 PAYNE WELL DRILLING INC # RI REMOVED FROM DIESEL 1000 04/23/70 Steel RT. 8; BOX 668 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 500 04/23/70 Steel Age: 6-010559 ALBAN TRACTOR COMPANY, INC # R1 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 # R2 REMOVED FROM DIESEL 500 05/02/74 Steel Age: 6-015350 W W CARLISLE ESTATE # I CLOSED IN GASOLINE 1000 04/22/66 Steel RT. 6; BOX 113 Age: 37 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 550 04/22/66 Steel Age: 37 � � 4 i� s7M tr Phs �s€i°►* EnviroDa�- Facility Id. Facility Location Report Date:09/09/03 £, ReportNo. E101038 File ��anliformtion)`3 Page No. UZ - 2 Tank Id. Status Product Listed Year Capacity Installed Material 6-016653 GREENWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE & # R1 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 550 05/08/76 Steel P.O. BOX 3023 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-018727 FRANKLIN MADIGAN # 1 CLOSED IN GASOLINE 0 Unknown Steel RT. 5; BOX 339 Age: WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-020517 FAMILY MARKET # I CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 8000 05/07/81 Steel HC-2; BOX 170 Age: 22 WINCHESTER VA 22601 # 2 CURRENTLY IN USE GASOLINE 4000 05/07/81 Steel Age: 22 6-024180 CITY YARD # 1 CURRENTLY IN USE DIESEL 1000 04/01/91 Steel Age: 12 WINCHESTER VA 22601 6-024324 ROYAL CROWN COLA # RI REMOVED FROM GASOHOL BOX 2300 - WINCHESTER VA 22601 # Ri REMOVED FROM GASOHOL # R3 REMOVED FROM DIESEL # R4 REMOVED FROM DIESEL # R5 REMOVED FROM GASOLINE 5000 01/01/76 Steel Age: 5000 01/01/76 Steel Age: 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: 4000 01/01/80 Steel Age: 2000 01/01/80 Steel Age: IEnviroData, Inc. Report Date: 09/09/03 ReportNo. E101038 Page No. CZA - 1 • Site Information: Name and Address MZip Code EPA ID # Event and Description 22601 VAD070360219 WINCHESTER LAMP PLANT GEN ELEC Id Number: 0304171 RT3 BOX 310 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Assessment Activitv Completed Scheduled DS — DISCOVERY 09/17/90 r" I I I I I I I I m m m m m m ar. s� �. s �. ram. �■�. �. �. Enviro�a, Inc.r?il�f �Y s� 1' �i �?ar, } Report D09/09/03 5� ?�� tfr{1RC :aGll �t �S?}I1QI1 Report No. E101038 Page No. RZ- 1 Gen. Trans - Map Ref: # EPA ID Class porter Name/Address RCRA Outstanding Violations Codes VAD000762310 D SUNOCO SERVICE STATION RD 6 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action VAD988223897 B GRAND AUTO RT 7 BOX 118 WINCHESTER VA 22601 Handler is not subject to corrective action EnviroData Generator Codes: Violations Codes: A - Large Quantity Generator D - Verified non -generator -- State Regulated I - Bankrupt 5 -.TSD Closurc/Post Closure 9 - Corrective Action Compliance B - Small Quantity Generator F - Transporter of Hazardous Material 2 - Generator 6 - TSD Financial Requirements 10 - TSD Other Requirements C - Conditionally Exempt Small 3 - Transporter 7 - Generator - Land Restrictions I I - Formal Bnibrcement Agreement Quantity Generator 4 - TSD Groundwater 8 - TSD Land Restrictions EnviroData,Inc. Virginia Database Sources Database Description - The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous •NPL waste sitesidentified for priority remedial action under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the EPA in order to become an NPL site. For specific questions concerning and NPL site, go to the EPA web page at at www.epa.gov. RCRA -TSD The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a com- pilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities, which treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous i waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRIS-TSD site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. CERCLIS The CERCLIS List is a compilation by the EPA of the sites, which the agency has investigated or is currently investigating of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund Act). For specific questions concerning a CERCLIS site, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov LUST The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of leaking underground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a LUST incident, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. SWLF The Virginia of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an inventory of the solid waste facilities in the state. For specific questions concerning a sold waste site, go to the Virginia DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. fie UST m intains an invento of re istered under - The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a inventory g ground storage tanks. For specific questions concerning a UST facility, go to the Virginia DEQ iweb page at www.deq.state.va.us. Response Notification System is database to collect infor- ■ ERNS The Emergency (ERNS) a national used mation on reported release of oil and hazardous substances. The database contains information from spill or reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. For specific questions concerning an ERNS incident, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. RCRA - The EPA's Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program identifies and tracks hazardous r non TSD waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities, which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities, which generate less than 1000 kg/month of non -acutely hazardous waste. For specific questions concerning an RCRA-Non TSD facility, go to the EPA web page at www.epa.gov. CORRACTS LIST - Lists of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRIS facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) that have been notified by the EPA to undertake corrective action under RCRA. PREP The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a database used to collect and track information on reported surface releases of oil and hazardous substances. For specific questions concerning a PREP incident, go to the DEQ web page at www.deq.state.va.us. APPENDIX III STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD. 1.0 CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS, Ltd.) was incorporated in 1987 to meet the growing needs of our clients as a multi -service engineering firm. The managing principals of ECS, Ltd. average over 20 years of experience in their respective fields. Our staff of over 425 people includes registered professional engineers, environmental geologists, hydrogeologists, certified engineering technicians and support personnel. ECS, Ltd. places great emphasis on the individual qualifications and experience of its. technical staff: Our geotechnical and environmental engineers hold Masters or Doctorate degrees in engineering and are well - versed in the subsurface conditions typically found in the Mid -Atlantic region. Our senior environmental personnel have performed a variety of environmentally -related services for major corporations on projects in over 20 states and four countries. ECS, Ltd. engineering technicians are certified by such recognized organizations as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories (WACEL), the American Welding Society (AWS), and the Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI). In addition, we have developed and implemented our own in-house training, certification and QA/QC programs. ECS, Ltd. emphasizes quality and responsive service to our clients in solving problems and providing innovative engineering and scientific analysis. With our corporate office in Chantilly, Virginia, we maintain branch offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, Research Triangle Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, Greenville/Spartanburg, South Carolina, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. We focus our activities on the specific concerns of the Mid -Atlantic development area. By combining the talents from all four offices, we can offer highly qualified personnel to staff each of our projects. ' Our multi -phase services structure -- including geotechnical engineering, construction materials testing and inspection, and environmental services and engineering -- results in better long-term understanding of individual projects and clients, and allows us to respond quickly to potentially critical situations. ECS, Ltd. has .applied this approach on many of -the larger projects in this region, including work for such firms as Trammell Crow Company, Prentiss Properties, Homart Development Company, The Oliver Carr Company, and Friendswood Development. - 1 - I ECS, Ltd. is certified by the Washington Area Council of Engineering iLaboratories (WACEL), and the Cement and Concrete Reference ■• Laboratory (CCRL), in the area, of Construction Testing Services. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� f I li i 2.0 FIELDS OF COMPETENCE Through the close working relationship of its operational departments and specialized sub -contractors, ECS, Ltd. has the total capability to evaluate a given site or operation and to develop the most practical approach to environmental site assessments, site contamination studies, ground water and soil remediation, . permitting, and design of environmental control systems. Our primary focus has been to continually develop practical and cost-effective solutions in a timely and responsive manner to changing environmental problems. iOne of the major reasons for our past success in the environmental consulting marketplace has been our ability to "customize" and combine specific services from different disciplines to individual client and project i needs. Also of importance to our clients is our knowledge of the environmental regulatory agencies and our record of success working with them in our clients' interest. The environmental services available from ECS, Ltd. include: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: • Real estate transactions/environmental site assessments (Phases I, io II, and III) • Environmental impact studies and risk assessments • Wetland delineation and mitigation investigations i0 Radon investigations • Environmental facility audits and assessments i Third -party reviews ASBESTOS ASSESSMENTS: • Asbestos surveys • Sample collection and analysis • Preparation of plans and specifications UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT: • Monitoring of tank removals • Site investigations and assessments • Contaminant plume evaluations • Long- and short-term environmental site monitoring Development of corrective actions plans (CAP's) • Regulatory permitting • Ground water recovery system design -3- r HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES: • Development and implementation of ground water resource and evaluation plans • Design and implementation of ground water monitoring networks, including drilling and well installation • Ground water modeling • Aquifer testing (pumping tests, slug tests and bail -down tests) • Contaminant plume investigations Electromagnetic and resistivity surveys • Design of ground water recovery and treatment systems • Seismic refraction and ground -probing radar studies ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING: • Design and implementation of site remediatio n measures Preparation of closure plans and other hazardous facility permitting i• Design of new landfill and lagoon facilities • Design of pumping and treatment systems for contaminated ground water Design of water/waste water treatment systems • Permitting and regulatory negotiation 1 1 1 1 I 1� 1 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 3.1 BACKGROUND Within the environmental field, ECS, Ltd. has concentrated on providing services to the regional development and financial community, including commercial, residential, institutional and industrial clients and lenders. By concentrating on this service sector, we are able to better understand the requirements of each group and provide services more specifically tailored to individual needs. For most commercial, residential and institutional developers, the most common services performed, to date, have been Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. In this area, our work includes a thorough evaluation of the physical conditions of the property using visual overviews supported by aerial photographs, ian historical search of appropriate information for past historic and regulated uses, and interviews with current or previous tenants to determine previous site activities. Depending upon the results of the Phase I investigation, follow-up Phase II studies, if necessary, are provided and structured as site -specific conditions dictate and can include soil -test borings, monitoring well installations and chemical analyses of soil, ground water and surface water. ECS, Ltd. also provides hydrogeological and geophysical investigations for the municipal, commercial, industrial, development, and financial sectors. These investigations can be sub -divided into two fields: ground water resources studies, and contaminant/ delineation ground water monitoring investigations. Ground water resource investigations primarily concentrate on developing and/or protecting our valuable i ground water resources. These types of investigations are commonly requested by municipalities, industries, and developers in need of water for potable, irrigation, or industrial use, particularly in those areas where commercial water supplies are either unavailable, difficult to attain, or economically unfeasible. Existing published data, other consultant reports, and pertinent scientific literature are reviewed and are supplemented . by a full-scale field investigation consisting of geological and/or geophysical surveys. The synthesized information is then used to imore cost-effectively site future water supply wells and/or enhance old established well fields. Contaminant delineation and ground water monitoring investigations primarily concentrate on determining the magnitude and extent of ground water and soil contamination. Test borings are drilled, ground water monitoring wells are installed, and the subsurface soils and • ground water are sampled and chemically analyzed to determine the -5- GARNETT B. WILLIAMS, C.P.G. a.- Senior Environmental Geologist EDUCATION B.S., Geology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1983 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40 Hours, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(2) OSHA Hazardous Materials and Incident Commander (16 hours) BOCA CPCCI lA Exam - National Certification Program for Construction Code Inspectors Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Managing Asbestos in Buildings Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University - Inspecting Buildings for Asbestos -Containing Material CONTINUING EDUCATION National Water Well Association (NWWA)-Theory & Practice Of Ground Water Monitoring & Sampling NWWA-Treatment Technology For Contaminated Ground Water NWWA-Environmental Site Assessments Virginia Association Of Professional Soil Scientists (VAPSS)-Nontidal Wetlands Field Study Government Institutes -Wetlands & Real Estate Development National Wetlands Training Institute -Plant Identification Best Management Practices And Wetlands Cook College, Understanding Soil Conditions of Wetlands NGWA, Principles of Ground Water Hydrology. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE/NWWA). EXPERIENCE 1989 to Present: Project Environmental Geologist, Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd., Chantilly, Virginia. Responsible for coordination and preparation of Phase I/Phase II environmental site assessments; facility audits; geotechnical engineering reports; environmental site characterization studies; coordination and implementation of corrective action plans and contaminant remediation efforts; wetlands delineation -1- 1 istudies and associated environmental permitting. Duties also include surveying with Lh conventional transit/EDM and GPS instrumentation. 1985 to 1989: Engineering Geologist, Bengston, DeBell, Elkin and Titus, Inc., i Centreville, Virginia. Assistant to the Geotechnical Engineering Group. Duties included: preparation of preliminary and final geotechnical reports; coordination of subsurface drilling and seismic refraction surveys; sanitary drainfield evaluations and infiltration testing; and, Virginia Uniform Building Code (structural and wood framing) inspections for commercial and residential structures under Fairfax County BOCA icontract. ■ 1983 to 1985: Exploration Geologist, North American Exploration, Inc., Kaysville, Utah. Responsible for collecting and logging rock and stream sediment samples for targeted anomalous areas in precious and base metals exploration. Performed preliminary field investigations of above areas by various geophysical methods using proton precession magnetometer, gravitometer, reflection seismography, and rock Ioutcrop mapping techniques. Representative sampling of recent key assignments and experience: • Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs), environmental safety and liability audits of tenant operations and building facilities for an assortment of commercial/industrial/residential properties involving confidential financial institutions. These studies have included acquisition and foreclosure of properties in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Connecticut. Properties included warehouses,. strip retail facilities, commercial offices, railyards, industrial facilities and undeveloped tracts. • Site characterization, monitoring and remediation of fuel/solvent spills for a prominent railroad company. Sites included railyard fueling/maintenance facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Projects involved: Phase I historical evaluation of events to define areas of potential contamination; installation of monitoring and recovery wells; installation and operation of remediation systems. (free product and dissolved phase); and, development of groundwater sampling and monitoring programs. • Engineering and environmental support of omnibus contract to US Army for design, testing and evaluation of a prototypical small arms range facility to reduce lead contamination to surrounding environment. Designed and provided oversight of range construction. Prepared and executed a sampling plan to evaluate the effectiveness of soil fixation technologies in reducing lead leachate from impact berm and migration of lead via surface waters. • Sampling, analysis and' geochemical modeling of lead in soil at a private shooting range. Data was used to complete a risk characterization to develop cleanup costs for a proposed single family subdivision. Wetland delineations, functional assessments and permitting of commercial properties in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. . Phase I environmental services at a renovated tobacco warehouse project. Work • included lead -based paint survey, PCB analysis of transformers, asbestos inspection, UST site characterization and a tenant and mechanical facilities audit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District ENorthern Virginia Field Office 18139 Triangle Plaza, Suite 213 Dumfries, VA 22026 kiect Number: 04-R2242 '1. Participant: Greenway Engineering Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 3. Project Location: Waterway: Abrams Creek 2. Authorized Agent: Engineering Consulting Services Ltd. Attn: Mr. John Magistro 166 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 September 27, 2004 Vhe project is located on a parcel adjacent to Jubal Early Drive and Abrams Creek in Winchester, Frederick County, irginia. Project Description: he project consists of the confirmation of a wetland delineation. The project is called City of Winchester property. Findings A site inspection has verified that waters and/or wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act '(33 U.S.C. 1344) exist at the location stated above. The delineation, described by letter, report and plans by Engineering Consulting Services Ltd. dated June 3, 2004, is in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and 33 CFR 328.3 (a). Your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of this determination may be Wound at 33 CFR Part 331 or http://usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg. This confirmation is valid for five years From the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. I� � I � I � I � I Corps Contact: Mr. Ron Stouffer at 703-221-6967(o) 703-221-6575 (f) 13 REVISED DEC 90 14:BrUce F. Williams Chief, Northern Virginia Regulatory Section � I L Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 8/12/03 ' Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va 'S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? _ ❑ Yes ®No Transect ID: 'Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M1 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) ' Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Acorus ca/amus H OBL Sparganium spp. H OBL 'Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Eupatorium perfoliatum H FACW+ subcordatum H OBL 'Alisma H FACW Impatiens capensis T ypha angustifolia H OBL I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% ydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. Water Marks: ® Yes_ ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ® Yes ❑ No tHYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0-6 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No ' Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches ® Yes [:]No ' Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): '❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other tWetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. Page 1 of 18 F Communit ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 1 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Massanetta loam Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonatic, mesic Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Fluvaquentic Hapludolls Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-18 A/B 10YR 2/1 MUCK Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ® Sulfidic Odor ® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of.Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. I Page 2 of 18 ' � I L Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) uiA 04- 4- IAIo+tnnrl nnlinna+inn Manual nr 19R7 Cnrns Wetland Delineation Manual) roject/Site: v Marshall Property Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick lnvestigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Woodland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 1V12 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For "strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species `Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Graminae H NI Gleditsia triacanthos T UPL Ailanthus altissima T NI Plantanus occidentalis T FACW- Lonicera japonica V FAC- Berberis thunbergii S FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: °o of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 ydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 h.: ❑Yes ®No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Page 3 of 18 Community ID: Upland Woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 2 SOILS ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description__ Mottle Depth inches Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM 2-13 B 7.5YR 4/4 CLAY LOAM I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles: Rock below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. � I � I IPage 4 of 18 U Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) IProject/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County:. Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: 1V13 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Acorus calamus H OBL Peltandra virginica H OBL Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Mimulus alatus H OBL Eupatorium perfoliatum H FACW+ ' Alisma subcordatum H OBL Impatiens capensis H FACW 'Cyperus esculentus H FACW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC: 100% 00 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No . Along toe of slope Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0-2 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ® Yes ❑ No Channels <12 n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches ❑ Yes ® No . Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. ti Page 5of18 Community ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 3 jPl1Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Massanetta loam 'Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonatic, mesic Fluvaquentic Hapludolls ' Profile Description Mottle Depth ' inches 0-2 ' 2-10 10-16 � I a nx co or (Munsell Horizon moist A 10YR 3/1 B 2.5Y3/1 C 10YR5/8 Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type?, ® Yes ❑ No co ors (Munsell Mottle abundance moist) size and contrast 10YR5/1 1 15% Texture, concretions, structure, etc. MUCK CLAY LOAM SILTY CLAY Drawing of soil profile (match description) ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles t❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ® Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks 'Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination ' H dro h is vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Y P Yt Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ' Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No ' Rationale/Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. � I 11 i I Page 6 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual 'Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick ' Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Pasture ' Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Plot ID: M4 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Solanum carolinense H UPL ' Prunella vulgaris H FACU+ Ti-ifolium repens H FACU- Setaria glauca H FAC Cirsium vulgare H FACU- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 20% ydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑Yes ®No Sediment Deposits: .❑ Yes ®No Is it the growing season? ®Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ' Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: El Yes ®No Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. I Page 7 of 18 Communit ID: U land Pasture �Transect ID: Plot ID: 4 SOILS ��,�,�,a«,..,�oP�.., .�en�k>oo,�,a�, Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Fa�oe.ma,o�.�o�,,.maoaa�e, �.e, ore Field observations confirm mapped type? ®Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Descri tion Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, _ Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-5 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM 5-12 B 2.5y4/3 CLAY LOAM 12-18 C 10YR5/4 10YR5/8 30% SILTY CLAY „.o�, ,�„a�k,,�a,aPo„ Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) oMa „,. ❑ Histosol ❑Matrix Chroma <_ 2 with mottles o,. ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils o� oo. ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime El Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils oa, o�. so„�, ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑Other (explain in remarks o� m,i�H oiy Hydric soils present? ❑Yes No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Wetland Determination ❑Y. axe Hydrophytic vegetation present? El Yes ®No ❑r. �xo Wetland hydrology present? ❑Yes ®No ❑.n �. ro Hydric soils present? ❑Yes No Is the sampling point within a wetland? [I Yes No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 'Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick. Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va ' S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: ' Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M5 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Acer saccharinum T FACW Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW Bidens frondosa H FACW Cyperus esculentus H FACW Alisma subcordatum H OBL Impatiens capensis H FACW Acores calamus H OBL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: ' 100% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ' HYDROLOGY Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: Yes ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0-1 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ® Yes ❑ No Channels <12n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: 15 inches I El Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: 16 inches Check all that apply & explain below: ❑ Stream, lake or gage data Other (explain): ❑ Aerial photographs Other '❑ Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Wetland hydrology parameters have been met. 16 1 IPage 9 of 18 � I Community ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 5 Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained ' Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ 'Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle color colors Texture, 'Matrix Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc. ' 0-8 A 10YR 3/2 SILTY CLAY 8-18 B 10YR3/1 10YR4/2 10% CLAY ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ' ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 with mottles ' Wetland Determination Drawing of soil profile (match description) ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface.Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List I —I Other (explain in remarks) _ Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: Al of the wetland criteria have been met. ' Page 10 of 18 �L Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Xn►n c+�+o Wotlanrt nprnpation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) - ■vl VLM W. Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 'Project/Site: Applicantlowner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va ' S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? 0- Yes ® No Transect ID: ' Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No* Plot ID: M6 Explanation of atypical or problem area: (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) 'VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant -Species *Stratum Indicator . Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW ' Dactylis glomerata H FACU Cyperus esculentus H FACW ' Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW _ ' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 75% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ' HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No. ' Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain) t Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 n: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑Yes ®No ' Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil:. > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): braided channeling ' ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ' ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. I Page 11 of 18 Community ID: Upland Field Transect ID• Plot ID: 6 1 ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained ' Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ 'Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle 'Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc ' 0-16 A/B 10YR5/4 10YR5/6 10% CLAY LOAM 1 ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 4 with mottles. ' Wetland Determination Drawing of soil profile (match description) ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: The wetland hydrology and h dric soils criteria have not been met. 1 ' Page 12 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) mutt 04. * . \A/n+l�nrl r)nlinnnfinn Manual nr IQR7 Cnrns Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Scrub Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: M7 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Daucus carota H UPL Rubus allegheniensis SH FACU- Phytolacca Americana H FACU+ Rosa multiflora SH FACU Trifolium repens H FACU- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0% Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No. ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: [:]Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other. Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Page 13 of 18 Communit ID: Upland Scrub Field Transect ID: Plot ID:7 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick- Drainage Class Well Drained Poplimento, very rocky Field observations confirm mapped type? ®Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Descri tion Mottle Depth inches Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-4 A/B 10YR3/3 SILTY CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other ex lain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Refusal at 4 inches due to rock Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. L!� I Page 14 of 18 It Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) . WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Marshall Property Date: 10/07/03 'Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va t. SIT/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Scrub Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (Sink -hole) ' Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: M8 (For `strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) 'VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Rubus allegheniensis H FACU- ' Dipsacus sylvestris H NI Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW 'Rosa multiora SH FACU Cirsium vulgare H FACU- Solanum carolinense H UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 0 of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 20% ydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes E. No Rationale for decision/Remarks: less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. ' HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on ' Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: [:]Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches ' Check all that apply & explain below: ❑ Stream, lake or gage data Other (explain): ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. I Page 15 of 18 Community ID: Upland Scrub Field (Sink -hole) Transect ID: Plot ID: 8 ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Fred erick-Popl i mento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ 'Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle color colors 'Matrix Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast 0-8 A 10YR4/4 8-15 B 5YR4/6 10YR4/4 30% . Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Texture, concretions, structure, etc. SILTY CLAY LOAM SILTY CLAY LOAM Drawing of soil profile (match description) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface .Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ' ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No 'Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 6 with mottles. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No ' Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. _ ' Page 16 of 18 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Xnrn c+�+o wn+tanrl nonnonfinn Manual or 1987 Corns Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12103 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: wl Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Cyperus esculentus H FACW Polygonum pensylvanicum H FACW Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU Solanum carolinense H UPL Phleum pretense H FACU Rumex crispus H FACU ' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 33.3 IN Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No I Channels <12 n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑Yes ®No Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other ' Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Community ID: Upland Field Transect ID: Plot ID: 1 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-2 A 10YR 4/4 SILT LOAM 2-10 B 10YR 5/4 SILT LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma S 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Gravel below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. Project/Site: White Properties 'S/T/R: ' 1 '% Date: 8/12/03 � Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick ate,.. .F����e Investigator(s): J Fiorello ' State: Va �.. El No Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ❑ No o E��we�ia�., Community ID:PEM Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? El Yes ®No ,������am. o.e, �xo Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? El Yes ®No i Plot ID: W2 '. Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V =vine) s Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Sambucus Canadensis S FACW- Cyperus escu/entus H FACW Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW Asclepias incarnafa 'p H OBL Marrubium vulgare H UPL �x HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC: 80 x ❑ho Hydrophytic vegetation present? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY �,,,... ❑ra. �H Water Marks: ❑Yes ®No �m.��aPo.��. o.., No Sediment Deposits: Yes ®No ��eo �s.ea,o,. �.� o.o Is it the growing season? ®Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: El Yes ®No Drainage Patterns: ®Yes ❑ No o0 ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑Yes ®No No Channels <12n.: ®Yes ❑ No He��a�. ❑.., FAC Neutral: Yes ®No Water -stained Leaves: �„-.��,e��a.ee.. �Ho ❑ Yes ®No ���o,..a„a�.,.�o��. >E�.�.e. Depth to free water in pit: > 6 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 6 inches Check all that apply &explain below: Other (explain): Hummocks, some standing water in areas (1 inch). ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. unit ID: PEM Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID: 2 J;LMapUnitName (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No 'Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle 'inches Depth Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-3 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM ' 3-13 B 2.5Y 4/2 2.5/N Few and distinct CLAY Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ' ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ® Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ® Reducing Conditions ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks ' Hydric soils present? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 with mottles. Gravel below 13 inches. Wetland Determination ' Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ' Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. ' t Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicantlowner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W3 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Daucus carota H UPL Solanum carolinense H UPL Trifolium repens H FACU- Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FAC U Plantogo lanceolata H UPL Cyperus esculentus H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ®No Is it the growing season? ®Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ®No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches ❑ Yes Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i It Communit ID: Upland Field Transect ID: Plot ID: 3 SOILS ap Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Descri tion ' Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth, (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile 'inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-2 A 10YR 4/2 SILT LOAM ' 2-10 B 2.5YR 5/3 CLAY LOAM ' Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ' ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No ' Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Gravel below 10 inches. Wetland Determination ' Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No ' Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. It i Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick ' Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PEM/OW Wetland 'Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W4 I Explanation of atypical or problem area: ' VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator pensylvanicum H FACW 'Polygonum Carex spp. H FAC Polygonum lapathifolium H FACW+ ' Cyperus H FACW esculentus Echinochloa crusgalli H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 83.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No ' on ground/surface cracking Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No Other (explain) '❑ Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12h.: ® Yes ❑ No ' Depth to free water in pit: > 12 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: [:]Yes ®No Depth to saturated soil: > 12 inches 'Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Hummocks. ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. r unitID: PEM/OW Wetland TransectID: Plot ID: 4 L Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained loam, very rocky Field observations confirm mapped type? ®Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile (inch s Horizon moist moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-1 A 10YR 2/2 LOAM 1-10 B 10YR 2/1 LOAM �oi„i ¢ne�Ka�i ����a�Pv� Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑�. „�e. ❑ Histosol ❑Matrix Chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑s�ifiaKoao� High Organic s.,�a��a,r or�,a���i, ❑ Sulfidic Odor ®High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ o. ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions El Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles. Rock below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ®Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ®Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ®Yes ❑ No ..oro Is the sampling point within a wetland? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: All of the wetland criteria have been met. Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State:.. Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Field Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W5 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For "strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species "Stratum Indicator Festuca pratensis H FAC U- Solanum carolinense H UPL Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU Plantogo lanceolata H UPL Cyperus escu/entus H FACW Juncus tenuis H FAC- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 16.7 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. 1 Community ID: Upland Field Transect ID: Plot ID: 5 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento loam, very rocky Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Depth inches Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-1 A 10YR 2/2 LOAM 1-10 B 10YR 2/1 LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon . ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles. Rock below 10 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: The wetland vegetation and hydrology criteria have not been met. I� � I I I I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: IDo normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Upland Scrub the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W6 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Daucus carota H UPL Gleditsia triacanthos S UPL Rosa multiflora S FACU Elaeagnus commutata S NI Rubus allegheniensis S FACU- Lonicera japonica V FAC- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. IhIYDROLOGY Water Marks: -]Yes No Sediment Deposits: ❑Yes No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Uland Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 6 ,�,oPo„=P�a,a,Feae,��P�o,e�,Feaoee,.a,o�..�o.,,mm.00�,HI.,�.a,o�oo=�0�9a,s,�a.so,.oAo�oo�madoadogv�o..oY.pronitID: t Name (Series and Phase): Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained tcrop complex Field observations confirm mapped type? ®Yes ❑Noaxomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs Profile Description Mottle Depth inches Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-5 A/B 10YR 4/3 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑Matrix Chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor El High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime El organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix El Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? El Yes ®No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 5 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? El Yes ®No Wetland hydrology present? El Yes ®No Hydric soils present? ❑Yes ®No Is the sampling point within a wetland? ❑Yes ®No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick nvestigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:PFO/PSS Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: ` 7 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species- *Stratum Indicator Plantanus occidentalis T FACW- Vernonia noveboracensis H FACW+ Liriodendron tulipifera T FACU Eupatorium perfoliatum H FACW+ Salix nigra T FACW+ Alisma subcordatum H OBL Viburnum dentatum S FAC Impatiens capensis H FACW Sambucus canadensis S FACW- Typha angustifolia H OBL Rosa multiflora S FACU Sparganium spp. H OBL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 83.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ® Yes El No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Along toe of slope Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0-6 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 h.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ® Yes ❑ No Depth to free water in pit: 0 inches Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: Hydrology parameters have been met. Community ID: PFO/PSS Wetland Transect ID: Plot ID:7 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Massanetta loam Taxonomy (subgroup) Fine -loam, carbonatic, mesic Drainage Class Moderately Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Fluvaquentic Hapludolls Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth inches Horizon (Munsell moist (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-18 A/B 10YR 2/1 MUCK Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ® Sulfidic Odor ® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 1 without mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: All.of the wetland criteria have been met. I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Woodland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W8 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Juglans nigra T FACU Graminae H NI Gleditsia triacanthos T UPL Ailanthus altissima T NI Plantanus occidentalis T FACW- Lonicera japonica V FAC- Berberis thunbergii S FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 14.3 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil:. > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. Community ID: Upland Woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 8 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Frederick-Poplimento Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ®Yes ❑ No ' Taxonomy (subgroup) clayey, mixed mesic Typic Paleudults/ Fine, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs ' Profile Descri tion Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, 'Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM ' CLAY LOAM 2-13 B 7.5YR 4/4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks ' Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No . Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 13 inches. ' Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No ' Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. L Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12103 Applicantlowner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Scrub Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W9 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Elaeagnus commutate S NI Daucus carota H UPL Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU Oenothera biennis H FACU- Phytolacca amerlcana H FACU+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: El ® No Sediment Deposits: ElYes ® No Is it the growing season? ®Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12ii.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Channel shown on maps does not exist. No defined ❑ Stream, lake or gage data bed and bank. ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. i Community ID: Upland Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 9 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic 'Taxonomy Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Matrix color colors Texture, Depth (Munsell (Munsell Mottle abundance concretions, Drawing of soil profile Horizon moist) moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 'inches 0-6 A 10YR 5/6 SILT LOAM 1 1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ' ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks ' Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 6 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No 'Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. � I Project/Site: White Properties Date: 8/12/03 Applicant/owner: Greenway Engineering County: Frederick Investigator(s): J Fiorello State: Va S/T/R: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Upland Scrub Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect.ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: W10 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum Indicator Ailanthus altissima T N Pinus virginiana T UPL Elaeagnus commutate S NI Rosa multiflora S FACU Phytolacca americana H FACU+ Daucus carota H UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 0.0 Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Less than 50% dominance of hydrophytic plant species. YDROLOGY Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ' ❑ Other (explain) Depth of inundation: 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: > 18 inches Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. L!� � I Community ID: Upland Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 10 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Carbo silt loam Drainage Class Well Drained Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) very -fine, mixed, mesic Typic Ha ludalfs Profile Description Mottle Depth inches Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-2 A 10YR 3/3 SILT LOAM 2-13 B 7.5YR 4/4 CLAY LOAM Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Chroma of 2 or greater without mottles. Rock below 13 inches. Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Hydric soils present? ❑ Yes ® No Is the sampling oint within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale/Remarks: None of the wetland criteria have been met. � I Wetland Data Sheet C1 Project/Site: City of Winchester Property Investigator: Magistro (ECS) Date: May 2004 County: Frederick State: Virginia ' Plant Community Name / # Wet Woods #1 Vegetation Indicator ' Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash tree FACW ' Salix nigra black willow shrub FACW+ Lindera benzoin spicebush shrub FACW+ Juncus effuses soft rush herb FACW+ ' Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge herb FACW Typha latifolia broad leaf cattail herb OBL Scirpus cyperinus wool grass herb FACW+ Vernonia noveboracensis New York ironweed herb FACW+ Percent dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC Is hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? YES 100 % Rationale: Greater than 50% dominance by hydrophytes Soils Series/phase Masanetta loam (based on Frederick County Soil Survey) Is soil on hydric soil list? No ' Is the soil: Mottled? No Gleyed? No Matrix color: 1 OYR 2/1 Mottle Color n/a Other hydric soil indicators: saturated to surface ' Is the hydric soil criterion met? YES Rationale: Low chroma, saturated soils Hydrology Is ground surface inundated? Yes (up to 2 inches in places) Is soil saturated? Yes Other evidence of surface inundation or saturation. evidence of ponding Is wetland hydrology criterion met? YES ' Rationale: Field indicators present ' Is this plot a wetland? YES Rationale: All three parameters satisfied i Wetland Data Sheet C2 Project/Site: City of Winchester Property ! Investigator: Magistro (ECS) Date: May 2004 County: Frederick State: Virginia ! Plant Community Name / # Wet Woods #2 Vegetation Indicator ! Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash tree FACW Linera benzoin spicebush shrub FACW+ ! Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle vine FAC- Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy vine FAC ! Iris versioclor yellow iris herb OBL Percent dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100% Is hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? YES Rationale: Greater than 50% dominance by hydrophytes Soils Series/phase Masanetta loam (based on Frederick County Soil Survey) Is soil on hydric soil list? No Is the soil: Mottled? No Gleyed? No Matrix color: 1 OYR 511 Mottle Color n/a ! Other hydric soil indicators: none Is the hydric soil criterion met? YES Rationale: Low chroma, saturated soils ! Hydrology Is ground surface inundated? Yes (up to 2 inches in places) ! Is soil saturated? yes Other evidence of surface inundation or saturation. drainage patterns, saturated soils Is wetland hydrology criterion met? YES Rationale: Field indicators present Is this plot a wetland? YES ! Rationale: All three parameters satisfied i • .7 • A Revised Phased Traffic hnpact Analysis of Willow Run Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Miller and Smith Greystone Properties 8401 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PH]R+-A 00 Mainsburff Avenue, Suite 54Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.3671 F 304.264.3671 June 22, 2006 (Revised from the July 2005 submission) VIAR 6 200 • OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this "revised" traffic study (from July 2005 submission) for Miller and Smith and Greystone Properties to present the impacts associated with the proposed Willow Run development located northeast of the Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622)/Route 37 interchange in Frederick County, Virginia. The purpose of this report is to amend the Phase 1 and Phase 2 analyses using the revised land use and future roadway network. Phase 1 includes 260 single family -detached units and 339 single family -attached units that will be built -out by Year 2009. Phase 2 (full build -out) consists of 425 single family -detached units, 490 single family -attached units; 416 apartment units, 108 elderly housing -attached units, 150,000 square feet of office and 225,000 square feet of retail, which will be built -out by Year 2012. In order to accommodate the future traffic volumes, PHR+A assumed the following infrastructure improvements with respect to each Phase. Phase 1 includes: 1) Completion of Jubal Early Drive Extended from the existing Jubal Early Drive, through the Willow; Run development, to a point east of Merriman Lane; 2) Completion of Willow Run Drive from the Jubal Early Drive Extended to a point north of Cedar Creek Grade, 3) Completion of Birch Mont • Drive from the Jubal Early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade, 4) Completion of the Meadow Branch Avenue Extended to Route 50 and 5) Realignment of Merrimans Lane north of Breckinridge Lane. Phase 2 assumes the improvements described under Phase 1 as well as the following infrastructure improvements: 1) Completion of the Jubal Early Drive Extended to Route 37, 2) Completion of a diamond interchange at the intersection of Merriman Lane/Route 37 and 3) Realignment of Menimans Lane north of the new Merriman Lane/Route 37 interchange. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of Willow Run with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Willow Run development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for Willow Run, • Distribution and assignment of Willow Run generated trips onto the completed study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway • capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A 1 June 22, 200 Page PH1 • • • No Scale -14 ,f Yti Y - 56 No ,—Irthwe, ern F rl1tGf1Q3t��f\=' ,.'�Tr 14a h,a 11 ? T �t� _�{y 522 ~^ SITE = :� 17 ^ti ; pr r.• � �1`F ?,:-,. '`f � - k'�\r' y J'k iF ��I O/�- 37 -dar Creek.. 1'L7 �-•. i } fi ... 7 �4 �ti� � J i � r�i r� ..\�'-��T.Y�:f: P.- TIF,)T/ \ Figure 1 Vicinity Map A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A June 22, 2 Pagee 2 PH 2 r� u • L_J EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622)/Memmans Lane (Route 621), Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps, Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, US Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps, US Route 50/Menimans Lane, Merrimans LaneBreckinridge Lane, Jubal Early Drive/Handley Avenue and Jubal Early DriveNalley Avenue. Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along the Cedar Creek Grade west of Harvest Drive. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an assumed "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHR1� A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 3 � 0 • 0 %. 194(288) 4�439(12" (206)542-..P Route 50 (433)899 �y �o .1i�M 4-461(1086) ke-228(603) (416)1064�.► � Routc 50 (388)537� / ` a L 24(63) 4NUM39(M) 1 r'S9(91) (14)2l �3 0 Oze `h «-27(147) t 43(69) 59)108m-*� Route 622 (56)47' % d 37 ute 50 GO& ,� N q i/ 41274(1067) t 0"''133(159) (44)31 r I (560f 60--* o (45)89 m, r RC 53)441 ray v \��_mt e 621) No Scale 01 0 _ 60(364 (%(8�z,7 �� 234( 65j — ��b~�ei 51(98) C (35)51 ? +-- 275(855) 622 (603)704 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 4 PH 4 t G4 Signalized " Intersection LOS = C(C) `(B)A Unsignalaed Intersection * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 5 • • PHASE I TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (2009) Phase 1 is analyzed assuming the anticipated future roadway network that includes the following: 1) Completion of the Jubal Early Drive Extended from the existing Jubal Early Drive, through the Willow Run development, to a point east of Merrimans Lane; 2) Completion of Willow Run Drive from the Jubal Early Drive Extended to a point north of Cedar Creek Grade, 3) Completion of Birch Mont Drive from the Jubal Early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade, 4) Completion of the Meadow Branch Avenue Extended to Route 50 and 5) Realignment of Merrimans Lane north of Breckinridge Lane. 2009 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized A Tra is Impact Analysis of the WWW ProperLX, by PHR+A, dated December 5, 2002 to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments% Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trp Generation Report and the aforementioned traffic study, Tables la and lb are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2009 "other developments". Table la Background Development: WWW Property Trip Generation Summary ITT Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out I Total In Out 1 Total Code 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 229 2241 813 Discount Superstore 135,000 SF 127 122 248 252 262 514 6030 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 42 27 68 120 130 251 2758 Total 519 179 697 406 587 993 11,028 Total Internal 34 34 68 83 83 165 1,898 Total Pass -by 25 22 47 56 59 115 1318 Total "New Trips" 1 459 122 582 1 268 445 713 1 7812 A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 6 • • • Table lb Background Development: Valley Health Systems and Degrange Properties TriD Generation Summary ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In I Out Total Code Valley Health Systems Property 150 Warehousing (Distribution Center) 5 acres 63 25 88 26 48 73 383 710 Office 50,000 SF 95 13 108 23 112 135 782 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 229 2241 620 Nursing Home 24,000 SF 6 3 9 5 5 10 146 252 Elderly Housing - Attach V 80 units 3 4 6 5 3 9 278 Sub -total 517 75 592 93 363 456 3831 Degrauge Property 312 Business Hotel 50 rooms 17 12 29 19 12 31 364 760 Research & Development Park 5 acres 70 13 84 9 68 77 398 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 43 27 70 121 131 252 2795 912 Drive-in Bank 2,400 SF 17 13 30 55 55 110 694 932 H-T Restaurant 7,600 SF 46 42 88 51 32 83 966 Sub -total 192 108 300 254 298 552 5218 Total 709 182 892 347 661 1,008 9,049 Total Internal 33 33 67 80 80 160 1,415 Total Pass -by 19 8 28 28 38 66 583 Total "New Trips" 657 141 797 240 543 783 7050 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments shown in Tables 1 a and lb, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2009 as determined in file aforementioned WWW Property traffic study. Figure 4 shows the 2009 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2009 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHR1� A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 7 • q �b No Scale �...1035( t 291(7 (1173)1529--1 fl, Route 50 (693)738--16 1 � q L 248(367) 4� 783(1714 (708)911..P Route 5 (751)119 Q� a o ~ M� 4(23) Brec1 9(I14) n~ I � hndboe Lh r� 5 4� 37 ^� a �n ^a 1 i SO(]63) 75(116) () }�(65)68 I (4)IS �11 b G(� 621 1 / (23)4 -..P pr y by b�nj (0)0 —% J �S N�N� %.57(55) 4--573(1463) SO ■170(203) 895�, (315)125� Creek N� n 4.34(188) e—55(88) (75)138u.j Route 622 , (71)6001,_, — 114 Vree � 21 kI hr`dge Lh 1 � / c O O � J •, N o �r 68(57) 1 � y t2o(22) `D Handle: Ave 1 ✓uba] u� q� ^h1 Dr Ear] - 1 'I-oti1 Extehde ,� ��hq~ 1 df �463 9I6%68 0 Q � le�ar �II�'?-�2 fir► r�29� a 1 ff� d " 1 l� bb 4� 622 ^4 r� �� IS7(254( 100) 621 r`I 9) 0 0)S 8 29 (292)I2 _ _ %=,494(845) 4 �hcQ O 4�71(147) Route 622oo ryb' bh�N�h1 �6i t` (4S)6S��1 35 ro� (781)899 Cedar G C'rade AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) O New Intersection 10 -1 F Figure 4 Phase 1: 2009 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 8 PH 8 • • • Signalized Intersection (� LOS = C(C) `— f� �► Route SO (C)C� Ln Signalized "Suggested Intersection LOS = B(B) %— A(B) 4- Improvement" Signalization Route 622 M1514 C G G B(C) Route 622 B Signalized Intersection m LOS = C(C) "Suggested Improvement" Signalization >B(C)* +B)Bf AS Unsignalized T Intersection Q V?%4 A( Route 62222 Unsignalized c. Intersection Signalized Intersection LOS = C(D) / Signalized (C)Cr./ Intersection 20—j LOS = B(C) -00* 40NO l/ t «Si (011 nalized InteUnsigsect on ��`k��"��'e L n 621 Cedar C1e e1` 622 4 \ *(B)A4Route 622 *�UUnsiiggnalized .. Id Attbal D'� Ext nab d 1 a� r �r0 Q t rchar �1 �r �j Q 4— C(D) 4— N; Route 1 o _/ U nsignalized Intersection + 7 pve No Scale 1 %bar ydr �f � C(D) rrdJC `,► 4S ` G�rignalized �y G1 Intersection LOS = C(C) Signalized Intersection \ LOS = B(C) n� "1 416 Grade Unsignalized Denotes Free -Flow Lane Intersection * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Q Denotes new intersections —1 HNIj 1 Figure 5 Phase 1: 2009 Background LOS PHR�n A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 9 • C7 • PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7"' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the trip generation associated with the Phase 1 Willow Run development. Table 2 Proposed Development: Willow Run Phase 1 Trin Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount Code AM Peak Hour P11I Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total 210 Single Family Detached 260 units 230 Single Family Attached 339 units 48 23 144 114 191 137 160 110 94 54 253 164 2,600 2,949 Total 71 257 1 329 269 148 417 5,549 PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Phase 1 Willow Run trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective Phase 1 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and A_nT assignments. PHASE 12009 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 1 Willow Run assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2009 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2009 Phase 1 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows Phase 1 2009 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective Phase 1 2009 build -out lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Pl-,R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 10 • • Residential -4- • I -it Figure 6 Phase 1: Trip Distribution Percentages R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 200 Page 1I PH � 0 r -I L _I • No Scale a Q` r �..13(7) t i)4Route 5( -% 1 %..52(30) 4— 13(7) U. ��Rout( (67)18�► r� r 1 1,�ec'(�ntidgeLn IN (13)4 —.► `Route 622, ■-T T01 Tf PHR1� 37 a 621 m J w ar ■ I6�%► `� (1)73 4r! 621 �e L� i F �'ay6di ?J Y I tz 4, M a 1 fDElan( *0l46(17g Jubal Ave Dr g Farly Xteaded SITE 0ro� df (6�IJ3��► r�13C11) 622 Grade %.13(7) 4■ 39 22 Route n 1 T 14(54) (67)19 c 0` � 1(43) 1)j4 woo(30)s Oft"4(13) : ` (13 • ()�13 T�Ar Dr l Earl *"ft2l(81) (44)77 14(S4) (S2)9Q ✓ (:4)77 ��21(gl Cedar Creel i� y Grade AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips O New Intersection A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 12 r1 U • q o 4- �� ;_ / No Scale 1047 ) 1� l� ( 159G A•— 291(770) 1 (I 187)1532 �"�► r- Route 50 / (693)738—% . 1%=,57(5S) cn 4mm"1573(1463) Route SO em"184 25 _ :I (56)40� �...299(397) (143)383�"1i 4mm796(1721) O�nJ 1 (708)811 (818)1217 ' p r! 4(23) Bje 19014) �,1 � cknll�ge o _k9, L Now 31(80) 4"m-63(171) 01 jmo 75016) (7g))7 7�1 1 �� (4)1S 1 ^ .wry ` •i I f�47(195) T81(103) (89)141 rio. Route 622 �(71)60' z •• 2 J-1 Tl . A t w�Tj Na � J �1 / (6j)71 621 9e Ltr �'ar f6dl J flJ G 7 N r20(22) 1 CD Handley 0(0) (0)Oi� (0)0 r�46(175) J11 w Ave Dr ar! w Extend i o SITE a f4G 4-/��h��qL �ar�d t vm� .` ; ��0� , :. ,` 77(465) 01 O r y II8 23 V60), A �f'' hard ill��► J ��310 9� 37 416(.1144) l 1S7(10p) 622 .#* (8250) 4�► (163)213 ) �%� W _1 8(29� Cedar Creek ..........._....:. (299)175i C,rade i b h� p �1 Abal Ear! Y �2l Dr Extd. (81) (94)77 1q(S4) (52)90 Wft% �r %'-65(1 " �507(852) " �...■110(169) * 72(11 1 ���. � 4S)6S�� cc �xJ (S�1 eC ereek (57)] 14 .,%� S Route 622 (745)570 .y PD AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily O New Intersection -E ul1L V Figure 8 Phase 1: 2009 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PR+AH A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 13 • No F—MONEFE11WA Q Denotes new intersections * Denotes critical unsianalized movement AM Peak Hour(Pvi Peak Hour) —1 ff \_l 1 Figure 9a Phase 1: 2009 Build -out LOS (Proffered Improvements) R+A 14 A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 14H4 0 �J • —1 ff N-L1 1 Figure 9b Phase 1: 2009 Build -out LOS (w/ Suggested Regional Improvements) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PH R+A 15 June 22, 20 Page 15 • • • PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (2012) Phase 2 (full build -out) is analyzed assuming the anticipated future roadway network improvements described in Phase 1 as well as the following infrastructure improvements: 1) Completion of the Jubal Early Drive Extended to Route 37, 2) Completion of a diamond interchange at the intersection of Merrimans Lane/Route 37 and 3) Realignment of Merrimans Lane north of the new Merrimans Lane/Route 37 interchange. 2012 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized A Traffic Impact Analysis of the WWW Property, by PHR+A, dated December 5, 2002 to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments:. Based upon the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report and the aforementioned traffic study, Tables 3a and 3b are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2012 "other developments". Table 3a Background Development: WWW Property Trin Generation Summary ITE AM Peak Hour PI1I Peak Hour Land Use Amount ADT In I Out Total In I Oui- 1 Total Code 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 229 2241 813 Discount Superstore 135,000 SF 127 122 248 252 262 514 6030 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 42 27 68 120 130 251 2758 Total 519 179 697 406 587 993 11,028 Total Internal 34 34 68 83 83 165 1,898 Total Pass -by 25 22 47 56 59 115 1318 Total "New Trips" 459 122 582 1 268 445 713 7812 PHIt1� A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 16 0 • Table 3b Background Development: Valley Health Systems and Degrange Properties Trip Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Code Vallev Health Srstenis Property 150 Warehousing (Distribution Center) 5 acres 63 25 88 26 48 73 383 710 Office 50,000 SF 95 13 108 23 112 135 782 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 229 2241 620 Nursing Home 24,000 SF 6 3 9 5 5 10 146 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 80 units 3 4 6 5 3 9 278 Sub -total 517 75 591 93 363 456 3831 Degrange Property 312 Business Hotel 50 rooms 17 12 29 19 12 31 364 760 Research & Development Park 5 acres 70 13 84 9 68 77 398 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 43 27 70 121 131 252 2795 912 Drive-in Bank 2,400 SF 17 13 30 55 55 110 694 932 H-T Restaurant 7,600 SF 46 42 88 51 32 83 966 Sub -total 192 108 300 254 298 552 5218 Total 709 182 892 347 661 1,008 9,049 Total Internal 33 33 67 80 80 160 1,415 Total Pass -by 19 8 28 28 38 66 583 Total "New Trips"I 657 141 797 1 240 543 783 7050 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments shown in Tables 3a and 3b, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of J% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2012 as determined in the aforementioned WWW Property traffic study. Figure 10 shows the 2012 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figures 11a and 11b show the corresponding 2012 background lane geometry and AA11PM peak hour levels of service. HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PR+AH A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 17 • • 0 ^b � S(� 7) 13rec22(131) ��rygb J 4=1127(1817) �343(908) (1074)1655--► Route 50 / (954)934'-% 0 � c bo L 0(0) 145(357) �22)2p1 � (7)4mnwP Roy 215�.r F� o b` 4y — 8(73) MW� , 1 5(189) *w-87(134 (21)3I�%� (75)78 (4)1$ : o �aQ q q a� O tom' a 31(198) 0 _ T3(20) (7. 37)160Route 622 (59)581 _ Tl T1 A 37 H 1� C�eck Gtaae (749)920 %. 66(64) 4­634(1695) 191(217) (65)46� (1032)10320—'* (182)56'�� 621 s�,•'F� rjr 287(425; 4� 833(1771 Route n q No Scale 621 (20)1 orb (0)0 J 3� u,n O y 2 �291 ) (37�j L *61,89(S38p � b )r far y�r �s93i4i Miry^ ~271) ( 0 lf� rd (22)�28`�A �1346(539) qp 1Q "~ a� (72)118 (384)630 187 q Z;s 75(145) % .532(910) 4�306(1112) 4m■22(87) Cedar Creek Route 622 �6'9Y:-,r2 �7'"'' Grade AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips Ei O New Intersection Round -about -1JHV Figure 10 Phase 2: 2012 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volum( A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+APH June 22, 200618 Page 18 r1 LA E No Scale 4• B(B) Z� Signalized �• % Intersection LOS = B(B) �B1B Route 50 Signalized Intersection "A LOS = B(B) al ec loge Ln U M)g t •� 4�`��6, J � mar 6d/ d Round -about 3 r LOS = A(A) r Round -about far ubal %%% E arlyDf ,, EXtd SITE 4 �rydr ; o i.` o r� tsar �4 tea, A / 37 Le Cedliaek de 622 Q Denotes new intersections * Denotes critical unsignalized movement Tl TIA . AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) —1 tf \�J 1 Figure 11 a Phase 2: 2012 Background LOS (Proffered Improvements) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A 19 June 22, 2006 Page 19H9 • C] 0 711tized Unsig Intersn Signalized Signalized CV Intersection Intersection 4— LOS = D(C) q� 1— LOS = C(D) ♦-- C(D) C(C) 4— � Route 50 T No Scale �_� � Route 50 Signalized k-)C..y Intersection +�► �� C) LOS =qC) �— '�► J1 t t 621 )6 —, Unsignalized ' Intersection Signalized Intersection grock,A(B�x r LOS = C(C) n17d6'e Ln � v G� realized v Q ��I - .`:� C(D) —� Signalized Intersection LOS = C(D) 10tl �4) ror�C� Intersection Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Q Denotes new intersections -1JHl Figure llb Phase 2: 2012 Background LOS (w/ Suggested Regional Improvement,, 06 R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 20 Pagee 20H0 • • 0 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7`" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Geizeratioiz Report. Table 4 was prepared to summarize the trip generation associated with Phase 2 (complete build -out) of the Willow Run development. Table 4 Proposed Development: Willow Run Phase 2 Trip Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Code 210 Single Family Detached 425 units 77 230 307 248 146 394 4,250 220 Apartment 416 units 42 166 208 160 86 246 2,496 230 Single Family Attached 490 units 31 153 184 148 73 221 4,263 252 Elderly Housing - Attached 108 4 5 9 7 5 12 376 710 Office 150,000 SF 228 31 259 42 205 247 1823 820 Retail 225,000 SF 155 99 255 513 556 1069 11504 Total 537 684 1,221 11119 1,071 2,190 24,712 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 12 to assign the Phase 2 Willow Run trips (Table 4) throughout the study area. Figure 13 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2012 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Willow Run assigned trips (Figure 13) were then added to the 2012 background volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2012 build -out conditions. Figure 14 shows 2012 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figures 15a and 15b show the corresponding 2012 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHR1� A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 21 • 0 Q Round -about Residential Retail n Figure 12 Phase 2: Trip Distribution Percentages PHr�n A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 22 � 0 • ,I I A=28(15) 37 W...p • 28(15) ar ,..%� Route 50 —.4 No Scale - v�Z �" 31(113) 621 �� j�62 a1 � 621 ♦ J e —1117 m N Dr EkEarly i' e l! 4tled SITE � 4„ 1 1 O~charo df '10, �4 622 at Creek Gta& r M S �� Q ry1 b �56jj5 �► � � 35(Gl) '' •..... :'' )147 (2� Jabal F Dr Far,1 ly 4` 65(1g7) (131)173 *'50(141) (176)75 �� �■ 4■46(84) io i- 1 Cedar Creek 1 ��J,po (92}tl ••r► Grade I � AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 O New Intersection U Round -about PHf_�+_A 23 A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 20 Page 23 • 11 • ti S(27) Ereek22(131) N �tntld e Lane _ N1 o ^� % .287(425) 4�833(1779) ohm (�1155( 1823) ' r343(908) (749)920...p Route 50 (655)1292�.j a�r� No Scale (1074)1655-NM1 Route 50 ((82)942 --% 1 � f� b� o � b .� �• M q �� e-p '` 0(0) �lo` f..308( �165113 9S~ rg w`'i %..,316(748) (mm181(533) Route 3 )107--y Q Rou � (8)7.l 66(64) r6� ♦-634(1695) r?, 2IPD r221(330) 2 y (65)46' 621 (1032)1032"N=+ (182)56,m% s rim (0)0 "ti 621 sr�o J J BrCC 1pnd c, y � U o 61� (gg6�11 1� N N �2 (3�) 6)37S �✓� � ub DrExtepdcd 41, ^gyp rye (233�89(538) A4` Olc'�argjy. �8lJS ��3 (S391) >°J t 1 - M q 37 r %. 46(84j ��y •� h� ,,� J` �� j 381(1 E73 J �� 192(138) `.27(73) 156103�%► : . (4S 2)118a� i r� 3�(71q) �85(205) 622 g1617� ^'87(134 Cedar Creek (' •.. (3S9)201 i 3l* Grade ......... ^ � a }� _ f Dt� l d (y *ftft 210(S. 4) " �n - (453)374 'f*_ 50(141) (176)75= �� 75(145) %.m 532(910) ♦ 4-352(1196) — 4,..77(118 �o�� ,_ 751 Cedar Creek 35)13) (66)131..P Route 622 �i�$ (8r6�8._► Grade (803)616...� 622 N o AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) �a7 `Average Daily 0 New Intersection O Round -about '1 ff \J V Figure 14: 2012 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 06 R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 24 Pagee 24H4 C: • iJ $(C) No Scale wo, Signalized Intersection � iJ LOS = B(C) ICIB Route 50 Signalized Intersection rO ► LOS = B(C) d �� 4 � withoutreek tldv C (C n j-(B)A Round -about oeL .. )B� n /�J _Route 37 1 Round -about LOS = A(A) :` J Round -about a�ey �1D LOS =A(B) 621 Ave J17ba1 Ea�lyDrExt d q� � �,� $($) without Round -about e try' ✓4 �... 5 �, a � > �a bar (C)$�Signalized Intersection 4 OI. t LOS=B(C�G� o � 4 If Signalized Intersection 37 .� t LOS—B(C) B(C) 2` Cteek �i► CeCX14t 622 Juba Earl Y Dr Ex td. A(A) Unsignalized Intersection 3. Q Denotes new intersections * Denotes critical unsignalized movement Tl T-N ^ AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) t ff \j L Figure 15a 2012 Build -out LOS (Proffered Improvements) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 25 • • • Signalized Intersection LOS = D(C) q tt� C(C) tt� Route SO � p Signalized "Suggested Intersection LOS = B(C7 ♦�� a(� Improvement" Signalization %� 4 Route 622 (qB B(C) 622 q4Route (gnalized ersection S = B(C) "Suggested Improvement" Signalization SB - I Right / _� C( '(C)B Jt Unsignalized {��" Intersection Q k� Route 622 Unsignalized q Intersection g-�� 1■ a • Signalized [� Intersection 4— LOS = C(D) 4...■ C(D) 4■ Route SO Signalized (D)C�� No Scale In LOS = B(C) U-Mom► 4— 1/ 621 9J# (C)B W* C Unsignalized * /y Intersection "Suggested Improvement" Signalized EB- 1 Right gree4,112 � Intersection NB- I Thru LOS SB 1 Right = C(C) - 37 1 hJ Unsignalized q Intersection y Unsignalized d Intersection Q 1L B}( 621 ✓116a� cedar Cteek 622 ♦— *(B)A;i 4 *� Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour(P �`�� � C(C) �C,C� �)ttd Signalized Intersection J1 LOS = C(E) w� QOrchdr df �Jt^ t�� �� C(E) r t Signalized �� ��► 3 Intersection � l j�► Los - C(E) *(B)A�C'edar Creek Grade Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection -� L= B(C) (C)a �► _,� 322 "Sugug gested Improvement" � J EB - 1 Thru C Ctr WB -IThru J Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes critical unsignalized movement VI Peak Hour) Q Denotes new intersections —1 H\Ll 1 Figure 15b 2012 Build -out LOS (w/ Suggested Regional Improvements) PHR+_A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 26 C� • • CONCLUSIONS The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Willow Run development are acceptable and manageable. For Phase 1 and Phase 2, PHR+A has provided the following conclusions as well as "suggested improvement measures" that are required to achieve levels of service "C" or better per the Frederick County minimum standards. For unsignalized intersections with levels of service "D", traffic signalization is not suggested - since traffic signalization warrants would not be satisfied. 2009 Phase 1 - As shown in Figure 9b, all existing intersections except Jubal Early DriveNalley Avenue, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 11, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps and Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2009 Phase 1 build -out conditions (Improvements are shown at the intersection of Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps since upgrades are currently underway). PHR+A has provided Figure 9a to show the "Proffered improvements". "Suggested regional improvements" are shown in Figure 9b to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2009 build -out conditions. 2012 Phase 2 - As shown in Figure 15b, all existing intersections except Jubal Early DriveNalley Avenue, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 11, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps, Cedar Creek Grade/Merrimans Lane and Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, will maintain levels of service "C" or better during Phase 2 2012 build -out conditions (Improvements are shown at the intersection of Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps since upgrades are currently underway). Each of the aforementioned intersections, except the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade/Merrimans Lane, will maintain unacceptable levels of service during background and build -out conditions. PHR+A has provided Figure I I and Figure 15a to show the "Proffered improvements" and Figure I lb and Figure 15b to show the "suggested regional improvements" for 2012 background and build -out conditions, respectively. PHIS A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run June 22, 2006 Page 27 • Willow Run Traditional Neighborhood Design Transportation Enhancements The Applicants' proffer statement has been designed to address the transportation impacts associated with the build -out of the residential and commercial land uses for the Willow Run Traditional Neighborhood Design Community, and to assist in the mitigation of several regional transportation issues that are a result of other developments and projected traffic volume increases. These proffered transportation improvements include the following: Proffered Transportation Improvement Prol4ram • Completely fund and construct the four -lane divided section of Jubal Early Drive from the current terminus in City of Winchester to the intersection serving the eastern neighborhood commercial land bays prior to issuance of the 300'h residential building permit. • Completely fund and construct the four -lane divided section of Jubal Early Drive from the eastern neighborhood commercial land bays to the first commercial center intersection prior to issuance of 450`' residential building permit. • Completely fund and construct the four -lane divided section of Jubal Early Drive from the terminus of the first commercial center intersection to the Route 37 northbound on and off ramps prior to issuance of 6001h residential building • permit. • Completely fund and construct the new Route 37/Jubal Early Drive interchange northbound and southbound on and off ramps using the existing bridge structure prior to the issuance of the 600`' residential building permit. • Completely fund and construct the realignment of approximately 1,000 feet of the two-lane section of Merriman's Lane (Route 621) to the north of Jubal Early Drive to create a "T" intersection prior to issuance of 8001h residential building permit. • Completely fund and construct a roundabout at the Route 371 southbound on and off ramps, or execute a signalization agreement with VDOT to fully fund traffic signalization at the Route 37 southbound on and off ramps. • Execute a signalization agreement with VDOT to fully fund traffic signalization at the intersection of Jubal Early Drive and Meadow Branch Avenue. • Execute a signalization agreement with VDOT to fully fund traffic signalization at the intersection of Jubal Early Drive and the Merriman's Lane north realignment at the commercial center intersection. • Execute a signalization agreement with VDOT to fully fund traffic signalization at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and Birchmont Drive. • Completely fund and construct right and left turn lanes at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and Birchmont Drive. • Allow the developer construction dollars to be utilized as matching funds unconditionally by Frederick County for additional transportation system • improvements. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run A June 22, _ 28 . Pagee 28 P • APPENDIX • • • HCS-2000 Worksheets 0 HCS2000m DETAILED REPORT eneral Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 09114104 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 542 899 439 194 250 0 613 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (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 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 4Itiltering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 60 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 N N Parking maneuvers, NM .Buses _stopping,.NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp I i 3.2 32 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.5 G= 13.7 G= G= G= 36.8 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 571 946 462 141 263 645 Lane group capacity, c 559 1638 520 239 716 641 v/c ratio, X 1.02 0.58 0.89 0.59 0.37 1.01 Total green ratio, g/C 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.41 0.41 Uniform delay, di 23.6 16.8 37.4 35.5 18.5 26.6 ogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.17 0.41 0.18 0.11 0.50 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc remental delay, d2 43.6 0.5 17.0 3.8 1 0.3 37.1 nitial queue delay, d3 Control delay 67.2 17.3 54.4 39.4 18.8 63.7 Lane group LOS E 8 D D 8 E Approach delay 36.1 50.9 50.7 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 43.4 c = 1.04 Intersection LOS D HCS2000 M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 11 Version 4.le Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information 7HCS2000T"' Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 09114104 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 206 433 1263 288 426 0 224 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 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 0I'tering/metering,I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 tial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 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 D N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses -stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G. 3.2 32 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 35.5 IY= G= G= G= 26.5 G= G= G= 1Y= Y= 5 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 217 456 1329 198 448 236 Lane group capacity, c 252 1947 1425 655 546 489 v/c ratio, X 0.86 0.23 0.93 0.30 0.82 0.48 Total green ratio, g/C 0.57 0.57 0.42 0.42 0.31 0.31 niform delay, di 20.0 9.0 23.6 16.5 27.1 23.7 ogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.39 0.11 1 0.45 0.11 0.36 0.11 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc remental delay, d2 24.8 1 0.1 11.4 1 0.3 9.7 0.8 nitial queue delay, d3 Control delay 44.8 9.1 35.0 16.8 36.7 24.4 Lane group LOS D A C 8 D C Approach delay 20.6 32.6 32.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 29.8 X� = 0.90 Intersection LOS C HCS200JM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc • • • HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9114104 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 53 260 61 234 156 60 52 312 222 187 274 70 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 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 10.0 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 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 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left I EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 8.9 1 G= 24.6 G= G= G= 7.9 G= 33.6 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 56 338 246 164 63 55 328 234 197 362 Lane group capacity, c 474 884 397 909 619 472 653 784 418 1204 v/c ratio, X 0.12 0.38 0.62 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.50 0.30 0.47 0.30 Total green ratio, g/C 0.41 0.26 0.41 0.26 0.39 0.49 0.35 0.50 0.49 0.35 Uniform delay, d, 17.5 29.0 23.3 27.4 18.1 13.1 24.1 14.0 15.2 22.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc • ;7 0 Control delay 17.6 29.2 1 26.3 27.5 18.2 13.2 24.7 14.2 16.0 22.3 Lane group LOS 8 I C C I C 8 8 I C 8 8 I C Approach delay 27.6 25.6 19.7 20.1 Approach LOS C C 8 C Intersection delay 22.7 X� = 0.55 Intersection LOS C IICS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc • • HCS2000'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9114104 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 91 363 86 365 265 364 131 373 255 158 372 150 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 1 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 9.7 G= 32.7 G= G= G= 32.6 G J G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 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 I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 96 473 384 279 383 138 393 268 166 550 Lane group capacity, c 577 1239 470 1276 570 244 668 824 234 1217 v/c ratio, X 0.17 0.38 0.82 0.22 0.67 0.57 0.59 0.33 0.71 0.45 Total green ratio, g/C 0.53 0.36 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.36 0.36 Uniform delay, di 10.8 21.2 21.7 19.8 24.1 23.0 23.3 12.2 24.6 21.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.11 10.27 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.2 10.8 1 0.1 3.1 3.0 1.4 0.2 9.6 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc C] • Control delay 11.0 21.4 1 32.5 19.9 27.2 26.1 24.6 12.4 34.2 22.2 Lane group LOS e C C 8 C C C I 8 C I C Approach delay 19.6 27.2 20.8 24.9 Approach LOS 8 C C C Intersection delay 23.7 X� = 0.74 Intersection LOS C HCS2000*'M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc HCS2000Tm DETAILED REPORT RIKeneral Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 09114104 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 1064 537 228 461 377 0 168 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 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 iltering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 tial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 8.0 M41. G= G= G= 26.0 G= G= GTimingY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.2 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1120 565 240 485 397 177 Lane group capacity, c 1555 714 272 2048 508 453 v/c ratio, X 0.72 0.79 0.88 0.24 0.78 0.39 Total green ratio, g/C 0.46 0.46 0.60 0.60 0.29 0.29 Uniform delay, di 19.9 20.9 15.9 8.4 29.4 25.7 ogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k [0.28: 0.34 0.41 [0.11 1 0.33 0.11 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc remental delay, d2 1.7 6.1 26.9 0.1 7.7 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.5 26.9 42.8 8.5 37.1 26.2 Lane group LOS C C D A D C Approach delay 23.3 19.8 33.8 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection delay 24.5 c = 0.77 Intersection LOS C HCS2000'M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • C] Version 4.1e Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc HCS2000m DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 09114104 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 416 388 603 1086 224 0 570 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 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 'Itering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 itial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 175 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. lime for pedestrians, G. 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 23.0 IY= 1 G= G= G= 27.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 438 303 635 1143 236 416 Lane group capacity, c 924 424 617 1927 558 498 v/c ratio, X 0.47 0.71 1.03 0.59 0.42 0.84 Total green ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 niform delay, di 25.9 28.0 30.2 12.1 22.9 26.9 ogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.50 10.18 1 0.11 0.37 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc remental delay, d2 0.4 5.6 43.9 0.5 0.5 11.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 26.3 33.7 74.1 12.6 23.4 38.7 Lane group LOS C C E 8 C D Approach delay 29.3 34.6 33.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 33.1 XC = 0.97 Intersection LOS C HCS2000"M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • • Version 4.1e Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Aency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 9115104 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Breckinrid e Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 40 6 274 63 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 42 6 1 288 66 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT ,Upstream Si nal 0 0 Westbound Eastbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ivnor-Street L T R L T R ume 89 0 360 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 93 0 378 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 R T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 288 471 C (m) (vph) 1553 727 lc 0.19 0.65 95% queue length 0.68 4.80 Control Delay 7.8 18.6 LOS A C Approach Delay - - 18.6 j&pproach LOS -- C -,ghts Reserved 11CS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Breckinrid e Lane INorth/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 53 11 248 25 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 55 11 261 26 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Westbound Eastbound VMinort 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 15 0 64 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 1 67 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 261 82 C (m) (vph) 1529 771 lc 0.17 0.11 95% queue length 0.62 0.36 Control Delay 7.8 10.2 LOS A B Approach Delay - 10.2 proach LOS - - B lights Reserved 11CS2000'rM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Handley Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 171 53 5 172 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 180 55 5 181 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 or Street nvement Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 iMPeak-Hour L T R L T R lume 16 0 53 0 0 0 Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 0 55 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 5 71 C (m) (vph) 1326 BOB /c 0.00 0.09 95% queue length 0.01 0.29 Control Delay 7.7 9.9 LOS A A Approach Delay - 9.9 proach LOS -- - A Wghts Reserved HCS2000'FM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr urisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Handle Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 397 57 36 384 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 417 60 37 404 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 3 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 17 0 45 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 0 47 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 37 64 C (m) (vph) 1080 560 lc 0.03 0.11 95% queue length 0.11 0.38 Control Delay 8.5 12.3 LOS A B Approach Delay - -- 12.3 proach LOS -- -- B 'Wghts Reserved /ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9114104 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 31 660 98 133 274 45 67 51 87 25 16 19 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 Arrival type, AT 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 tering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 nitial unmet demand, Qb 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 Lane width 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 42.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 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 RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 33 695 103 140 288 47 125 92 26 37 Lane group capacity, c 496 1593 732 472 2162 993 383 662 319 433 v/c ratio, X 0.07 0.44 0.14 0.30 0.13 0.05 0.33 0.14 0.08 0.09 Total green ratio, g/C 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.42 0.26 0.26 niform delay, di 13.2 16.1 13.7 7.6 6.6 6.2 27.2 16.0 25.5 25.5 rogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 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 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc remental delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 13.3 16.3 13.8 8.0 6.6 6.3 27.7 16.1 25.6 25.6 Lane group LOS B B B A A A C B C C Approach delay 15.8 7.0 22.8 25.6 Approach LOS B A C C Intersection delay 14.5 X� = 0.44 Intersection LOS B HCS2000"M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved J Version 4.1e Patton IIarris Rust & Associates, pc HCS2000'"' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9114104 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Willow Run 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 44 560 247 159 1067 43 212 28 80 159 126 43 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 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 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 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 tering/metering, I t 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ial unmet demand, Qb 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 Lane width 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 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 32 3.2 Phasing WB Only FEW -Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 JG= 38.0 G= G= G= 36.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 46 589 260 167 1123 45 252 84 167 178 Lane group capacity, c 171 1297 596 432 1843 847 396 815 340 639 v/c ratio, X 0.27 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.61 0.05 0.64 0.10 0.49 0.28 Total green ratio, g/C 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.36 0.52 0.36 0.36 niform delay, di 21.4 23.2 23.0 12.7 15.8 10.9 26.6 12.2 24.9 22.8 rogression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc cremental delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 itial queue delay, d3 Control delay 22.3 23.5 23.6 13.3 16.4 10.9 29.9 12.2 26.0 23.0 Lane group LOS C C C B B B C B C C Approach delay 23.4 15.8 25.5 24.5 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection delay 20.3 X� = 0.62 Intersection LOS C HCS200d't`' Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • • Version 4.1e Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GInformation Site Information neneral Aalyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 9115104 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 621 & Route 622 Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 87 75 27 37 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 91 78 28 38 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 3 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 59 39 24 21 53 2 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 62 1 41 25 22 55 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 1 28 128 89 C(m)(vph) 1561 1402 696 668 lc 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.13 95% queue length 0.00 0.06 0.67 0.46 Control Delay 7.3 7.6 11.3 11.2 LOS A A B B Approach Delay 11.3 11.2 proach LOS -- B B fights Reserved IICS200JM Copyright © 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 9115104 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 621 & Route 622 Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 40 47 45 19 48 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 49 47 20 50 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 3 -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 4lume L T R L T R 91 128 63 14 51 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 95 134 66 14 53 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 42 20 295 70 C (m) (vph) 1542 1491 686 590 lc 0.03 0.01 0.43 0.12 95% queue length 0.08 0.04 2.17 0.40 Control Delay 7.4 7.4 14.1 11.9 LOS A A 8 8 Approach Delay - -- 14.1 11.9 ,kporoach LOS -- -- 8 8 Wghts Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction 4 Analvsis Year Analyst PHR+ Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 9/15/0 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 622 & Harve; a Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 51 704 0 0 275 51 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 53 741 0 0 289 53 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 -- _T -- 3 — - Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 41 0 51 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 43 0 53 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 53 96 Capacity, cm (vph) 1207 584 /c ratio 0.04 0.16 Queue length (95%) 0.14 0.58 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.1 12.4 S A B Approach delay (s/veh) - 12.4 Approach LOS - - B Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc eneral Information Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction 4 Analvsis Year Analyst PHR+ Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 9/15/0 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Route 622 & Harvest Drive Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 35 603 0 0 855 98 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 36 634 0 0 900 103 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 — — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 51 0 41 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 53 0 43 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 FIT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 36 96 Capacity, cm (vph) 680 325 /c ratio 0.05 0.30 Queue length (95%) 0.17 1.21 ntrol Delay (s/veh) 10.6 20.7 S 8 C Approach delay (s/veh) -- 20.7 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ram Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 NB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume veh/h) 89 441 0 0 56 387 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 93 464 0 0 58 407 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 -- -- 3 -- -- Median type Undivided Channelized? 0 0 nes 0 1 0 0 1 1 nfiguration ji LT T R stream Si nal 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 14 0 104 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 14 0 109 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Control Delay,Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 93 123 Capacity, cm (vph) 1091 527 /c ratio 0.09 0.23 ueue length (95%) 0.28 0.90 ntrol Delay (s/veh) iLOS 8.6 13.9 A B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 13.9 Patton IIarris Rust & Associates, pc roach LOS Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ram Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 9/15/04 Analysis Year ExistingConditions n Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 NB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 45 563 0 0 115 662 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 47 592 0 0 121 696 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 - -- 3 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 i 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R stream Signal 0 0 'nor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 101 0 66 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 106 0 69 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LTR Control Delay,Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 47 175 Capacity, cm (vph) 807 267 /c ratio 0.06 0.66 ueue length (95%) 0.19 4.18 ntrol Delay (s/veh) 9.7 40.9 LOS A E Approach delay (s/veh) - -- 40.9 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc ach LOS TM • • Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc w TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ram Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 SB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 108 47 43 27 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 113 49 45 28 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 3 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT stream Si nal 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 422 1 95 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 444 1 100 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Control Delay,Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 45 545 Capacity, cm (vph) 1411 752 /c ratio 0.03 0.72 ueue length (95%) 0.10 6.34 ntrol Delay (s/veh) 7.6 21.3 LOS A C Approach delay (s/veh) -- 21.3 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc h LOS • Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 9115104 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 59 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 62 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration stream Signal 0 nor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 FIT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 72 Capacity, cm (vph) 1462 /c ratio 0.05 Queue length (95%) 0.16 ntrol Delay (s/veh) 7.6 LC A Approach delav (s/veh) - Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ram Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existinq Conditions rth/South Street: Route 37 SB idv Period (hrs): 0.25 © 0 0 Southbound • .. .Southbound Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc LOS • Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 811 1199 783 543 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, li 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 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, Ng 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 32.0 G= G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= JY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 854 1262 824 572 0 Lane group capacity, c 945 3364 1736 681 369 v/c ratio, X 0.90 0.38 0.47 0.84 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.69 0.36 0.20 0.20 Uniform delay, di 31.3 5.9 22.5 34.6 28.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.11 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 11.9 1 0.1 0.2 9.2 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 43.3 5.9 22.7 43.8 28.8 Lane group LOS D A C D C Approach delay 21.0 22.7 43.8 Approach LOS C C D Intersection delay 25.1 Xc = 0.71 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T"' Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 0 • 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 708 818 1721 645 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, Ng 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 21.0 G= 34.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 745 861 1812 679 0 Lane group capacity, c 794 3255 1845 756 410 v/c ratio, X 0.94 0.26 0.98 0.90 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.23 0.67 0.38 0.22 0.22 Uniform delay, di 33.9 6.1 27.7 34.0 27.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 10.45 1.000 1.000 10.42 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 10.49 1 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 18.6 0.0 16.8 1 13.6 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 52.5 6.1 44.5 47.6 27.2 Lane group LOS D A D D C Approach delay 27.6 44.5 47.6 Approach LOS C D D Intersection delay 38.4 Xc = 0.95 Intersection LOS D HCS2000T-"t • 6/22/2006 Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1529 291 1035 481 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 01 1 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 1 13.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 9.0 G= 33.0 G= G= G= 33.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1609 306 1089 506 Lane group capacity, c 1790 340 1782 644 v/c ratio, X 0.90 0.90 0.61 0.79 1 Total green ratio, g/C 0.37 0.10 0.52 0.37 I Uniform delay, di 26.9 40.1 15.1 25.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.42 0.42 0.20 0.33 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 6.6 25.6 1 0.6 6.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 33.5 65.7 15.7 31.8 Lane group LOS C E B C Approach delay 33.5 26.7 31.8 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 30.5 XC = 0.85 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e is • 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1173 770 1589 286 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 AlIllilliiI Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1235 811 1673 301 Lane group capacity, c 1519 907 2162 449 v/c ratio, X 0.81 0.89 0.77 0.67 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.27 0.63 0.26 Uniform delay, di 28.6 31.8 11.9 30.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.35 0.42 0.32 0.24 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 3.5 11.3 1.8 1 3.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 32.1 43.1 13.7 34.0 Lane group LOS C D 8 C Approach delay 32.1 23.3 34.0 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 26.8 XC = 0.80 Intersection LOS C HCS2000�t • • 6/22/2006 Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Pe PHR+A PHR+A Intersection Jurisdiction Breckinridge Ln &Route 621 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY • Rights Reserved !/CS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 • 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/17/06 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2009 Background Conditions 1A Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Handle Ave North/South Street: Jubal Earl Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 218 68 6 220 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 229 1 71 6 1 231 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 20 0 68 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 0 71 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 6 92 C (m) (vph) 1255 754 lc 0.00 0.12 95% queue length 0.01 0.41 Control Delay 7.9 10.4 A B ILOS pproach Delay -- -- 10.4 pproach LOS -- -- I B Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/17/06 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Handle Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 507 73 46 490 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 533 76 48 515 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 22 0 57 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 D 1 60 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 48 83 C (m) (vph) 965 469 lc 0.05 0.18 95% queue length 0.16 0.64 Control Delay 8.9 14.3 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.3 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved 1-ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 r- HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 68 1332 78 299 199 77 66 1398 283 239 350 89 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 10.0 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 17.0 G= 21.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 34.0 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 72 431 315 209 81 69 419 298 252 462 Lane group capacity, c 537 717 433 738 533 398 627 878 321 1158 v/c ratio, X 0.13 0.60 0.73 0.28 0.15 0.17 0.67 0.34 0.79 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.43 0.21 0.43 0.21 10.34 0.47 0.34 0.56 0.47 0.34 Uniform delay, di 17.1 35.7 20.8 33.2 23.0 15.2 28.2 12.0 26.6 25.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.19 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.33 0.11 6/22/2006 I Incremental delay, d2 10.1 11.4 I 16.1 10.2 10.1 10.2 1 2.7 10.2 • • 6/22/2006 0 4 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 116 463 110 466 338 1465 167 1476 325 202 475 191 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 1 0 110 0 1 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 9.7 G= 4.0 G= 15.0 G= G= 6.0 G= 25.3 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 1 Y IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 122 603 491 356 374 176 501 342 213 701 Lane group capacity,c 399 640 502 834 588 275 583 960 233 1063 v/c ratio, X 0.31 0.94 0.98 0.43 0.64 0.64 0.86 0.36 0.91 0.66 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.19 0.42 0.24 0.38 0.45 0.32 0.61 0.45 0.32 Uniform delay, di 20.5 32.1 19.6 25.9 20.5 14.9 25.7 7.7 23.8 23.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.45 0.48 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.11 0.43 0.23 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 22.4 34.4 0.4 1 2.3 5.0 12.3 0.2 36.6 1 1.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.0 54.5 54.1 26.2 22.8 19.9 38.0 7.9 60.4 25.2 Lane group LOS C D D C C 8 D A E C Approach delay 48.8 36.4 24.8 33.4 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection delay 34.9 Xc = 0.97 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TIl Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 r r TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03/17/06 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2009 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 258 0 0 299 16 Peak -Hour -Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 271 0 0 1 314 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 4 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 10 10 4 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage- 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 4 (m) (vph) 1224 467 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.03 Control Delay 7.9 12.8 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 12.8 Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved I-ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/17/06 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 385 0 0 661 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 405 0 0 695 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 23 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 24 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 24 (m)(vph) 883 231 lc 0.00 0.10 95% queue length 0.00 0.34 Control Delay 9.1 22.4 LOS A C .Approach Delay -- -- 22.4 pproach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 4 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 162 582 162 118 254 157 68 1590 220 88 389 74 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 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 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 11.000 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 171 613 171 124 267 165 72 621 232 93 409 78 Lane group capacity, c 586 996 871 304 996 871 282 1171 523 186 1171 523 v/c ratio, X 0.29 0.62 10.20 0.41 0.27 0.19 0.26 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.35 0.15 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 10.6 13.5 10.0 11.5 10.4 9.9 21.9 24.3 23.5 24.0 22.6 21.0 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.1 0.2 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 10.9 14.7 10.1 12.4 10.6 10.0 22.3 24.8 24.1 26.1 22.8 21.2 Lane group LOS B B B B B B C C C C C C Approach delay 13.2 10.8 24.4 23.1 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 18.1 X� = 0.58 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • E 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 134 380 292 297 649 100 303 1654 243 191 1717 207 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 volumes 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 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 4.0 G= 4.0 G= 32.0 G= G= 6.0 G= 3.0 G= 22.0 G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 4 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 141 400 307 313 683 105 319 688 256 201 755 218 Lane group capacity, c 186 637 871 419 717 819 335 976 749 259 858 540 v/c ratio, X 0.76 0.63 0.35 0.75 0.95 0.13 0.95 0.70 0.34 0.78 0.88 0.40 49 Total green ratio, g/C 0.40 0.36 0.56 0.50 0.40 0.52 0.39 0.28 0.48 0.31 0.24 0.34 Uniform delay, d, 28.4 24.1 11.1 15.9 26.2 11.0 22.7 29.2 14.7 31.1 32.7 122.5 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.31 0.21 0.11 0.30 0.46 0.11 0.46 0.27 0.11 0.33 0.41 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 16.4 1 2.0 0.2 7.2 22.7 0.1 36.6 1 2.3 0.3 13.8 10.5 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 44.8 26.0 11.3 23.2 48.8 11.1 59.4 31.5 14.9 44.9 43.2 23.0 Lane group LOS D C B C D B E C B D D C Approach delay 23.8 37.9 35.2 39.7 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection delay 34.9 XC = 1.09 Intersection LOS C IICS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 40 895 125 170 573 57 86 65 111 32 20 24 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 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 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 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 :o::] 0 0 10 0 [7� 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 42 942 132 179 603 60 159 117 34 46 Lane group capacity, c 404 1896 871 248 1896 871 495 523 393 565 We ratio, X 0.10 0.50 10.15 0.72 0.32 0.07 0.32 0.22 0.09 0.08 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 • Uniform delay, di 9.4 12.3 9.7 14.8 10.8 9.2 22.4 21.6 20.6 20.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 10.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1 9.9 0.1 1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 9.5 12.5 9.8 24.7 10.9 9.3 22.8 21.8 20.7 20.6 Lane group LOS A B A C B A C C C C Approach delay 12.1 13.7 22.4 20.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 94.2 XC = 0.57 Intersection LOS B HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 56 912 315 203 1463 55 271 36 102 203 1161 55 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 j 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 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 12.0 G= 31.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 29.0 G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 59 960 332 214 1540 58 323 107 214 227 Lane group capacity, c 82 1176 767 316 1631 749 407 941 336 572 v/c ratio, X 0.72 0.82 10.43 0.68 0.94 10.08 0.79 0.11 0.64 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.60 0.32 0.32 Uniform delay, di 25.7 26.9 14.9 17.8 22.4 12.7 23.2 7.7 26.0 23.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 10.28 10.36 0.11 10.25 0.46 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 26.2 4.6 0.4 1 5.7 11.6 1 0.0 10.4 0.1 4.0 1 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 51.9 31.5 15.3 23.5 34.0 12.8 33.5 7.8 30.0 24.2 Lane group LOS D C 8 C C 8 C A C C Approach delay 28.4 32.1 27.1 27.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 29.8 Xc = 0.85 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version —e :7 • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 4 .7eneral Information analyst PHR+A kgency/Co. PHR+A )ate Performed 03117106 knalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 'roject Description Willow Run Phase 1 ast/West Street: Route 622 ntersection Orientation: North -South Site Information ntersection Route 621 & Route 622 Jurisdiction \nalysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Borth/South Street: Route 621 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 111 96 34 47 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1 116 101 35 1 49 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- — 3 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 75 50 31 27 68 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 52 32 28 71 1 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 1 35 162 114 C (m)(vph) 1545 1347 605 593 lc 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.19 95% queue length 0.00 0.08 1.08 0.71 Control Delay 7.3 7.7 13.1 12.5 LOS A A B B Approach Delay 13.1 12.5 [Approach LOS =_ == B B Rights Reserved HCS2000t M Version 4.1d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 621 & Route 622 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 51 60 57 24 61 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 53 1 63 60 25 64 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — -- 3 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR 'Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 116 163 80 18 65 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 122 1 171 84 18 1 68 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 53 25 377 90 C (m)(vph) 1522 1458 601 499 /c 0.03 0.02 0.63 0.18 95% queue length 0.11 0.05 4.37 0.65 Control Delay 7.5 7.5 20.5 13.8 LOS A A C B Delay 20.5 13.8 •pproach pproach LOS =_ == C B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A 11 nci 000LIUi i I %uU- U x,, Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Date Performed 03117106 [Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour I ' Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 65 899 0 0 351 65 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 68 946 0 0 369 68 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 — 3 — -- Median type Raised curb 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) 0 0 0 52 0 65 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 54 0 1 68 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 68 122 Capacity, cm (vph) 1117 388 v/c ratio 0.06 0.31 Queue length (95%) 0.19 1.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 18.5 LOS A C pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.5 pproach LOS -- -- C 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information 1...4,..,,--, :-- 1D-4, moo n u--,--* n';- nal st PHR+A _ III LUIacuuvii ,wu« VLL U I /Q/ VUJL -11vu Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 45 781 0 0 1091 125 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 47 822 1 0 0 1 1148 131 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 3 3 — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 LT TR JUPSfiguration Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 65 0 52 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 68 0 1 54 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 47 122 Capacity, cm (vph) 539 211 v/c ratio 0.09 0.58 Queue length (95%) 0.29 3.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.3 43.1 LOS B E ,Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 43.1 pproach LOS -- -- E 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 'roject Description Willow Run Phase 1 ast/West Street: Route 622 ntersection Orientation: East-West ✓ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound vovement 1 2 L T ✓olume (veh/h) 114 563 'eak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 -lourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 120 1 592 'roportion of heavy iehicles, PHv 3 Median type :�,,T Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 18 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 18 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration I LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 120 Capacity, cm (vph) 977 v/c ratio 0.12 Queue length (95%) 0.42 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 LOS A h d la (s/veh) -- -- pproac e y 6/22/2006 Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp urisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions South Street: Route 37 NB Period (hrs): 0.25 I• I• 9 R 133 0.95 140 Q a Northbound 7 8 LTR 158 422 0.37 1.71 18.5 C 18.5 N Westbound 5 T 71 0.95 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 US 3 rI on Southbound 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 Approach LOS I _- I -- I C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 1� u • 6/22/2006 neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 57 719 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 60 756 Proportion of heavy 3 -- ;hicles, PHv ledian type T Channelized? -anes 0 1 Donfiguration LT J stream Si nal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 129 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 135 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 60 Capacity, cm (vph) 663 v/c ratio 0.09 Queue length (95%) 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.0 LOS B A roach dela-- Pp y 6/22/2006 Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Route 37 NB tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 ©�S Northbound 7 8 LTR 223 173 1.29 12.79 218.5 F 218.5 Westbound 5 T 147 0.95 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Southbound 10 1 11 1 12 Northbound 7 8 LTR 223 173 1.29 12.79 218.5 F 218.5 Westbound 5 T 147 0.95 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Southbound 10 1 11 1 12 Approach LOS I -- I -- I F HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 (Suggested Improvements) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 114 563 171 1494 18 1 0 133 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 dh Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 59.0 G= G= G= I G= 21.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 1 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 713 75 415 159 Lane group capacity, c 1122 1209 1028 377 v/c ratio, X 0.64 0.06 10.40 0.42 Amik Total green ratio, g/C 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.23 Uniform delay, di 9.2 5.6 7.3 29.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 10.3 5.6 7.5 30.1 Lane group LOS g A A C Approach delay 10.3 7.2 30.1 Approach LOS g A C Intersection delay 11.5 XC = 0.58 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 0 CJ 6/22/2006 HCS2000T. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 (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, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 57 719 147 845 129 0 84 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 1 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 59.0 G= G= G= G= 21.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 817 155 784 224 Lane group capacity, c 1168 1209 1028 396 v/c ratio, X 0.70 0.13 0.76 0.57 Total green ratio, g/C 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.23 Uniform delay, di 9.9 5.8 10.7 30.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.27 0.11 0.31 0.16 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 1.9 0.0 3.4 1.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 11.7 5.9 14.1 32.4 Lane group LOS B A B C Approach delay 11.7 12.8 32.4 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 14.6 Xc = 0.71 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 1� u 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 138 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 145 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 - Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration J stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 57 Capacity, cm (vph) 1357 v/c ratio 0.04 Queue length (95%) 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 LOS A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Route 37 SB tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 --'-TTestbound © 0 0 � a Undivided 0 � 0 Southbound � 0 •• .Southbound 6/22/2006 Approach LOS I - I -- I I F 1HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • • 6/22/2006 neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 1 78 Proportion of heavy 0 — vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 92 Capacity, cm (vph) 1423 v/c ratio 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.21 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 LOS A roach dela (s/veh) -- -- pp Y 6/22/2006 Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions South Street: Route 37 SB Period (hrs): 0.25 0 Undivided � 0 Southbound � 0 • •• •South-b-ound ach LOS *HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 6/22/2006 Am HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 (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 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LTR Volume, V (vph) 138 60 55 34 539 1 121 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 +_ 1 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 36.0 G= G= G= G= 44.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 208 94 695 Lane group capacity, c 708 557 845 v/c ratio, X 0.29 0.17 0.82 Total green ratio, g/C 0.40 0.40 0.49 Uniform delay, di 18.4 17.4 19.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 10.36 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.1 6.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 18.6 17.5 26.3 Lane group LOS B B C Approach delay 18.6 17.5 26.3 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 23.8 X c = 0.58 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 (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 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LTR Volume, V (vph) 75 71 88 188 701 4 172 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 52.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 154 291 923 Lane group capacity, c 536 436 998 v/c ratio, X 0.29 0.67 0.92 41 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.58 Uniform delay, d, 23.5 27.0 17.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 10.24 1 0.44 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 0.3 3.9 13.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 23.7 30.8 31.1 Lane group LOS C C C Approach delay 23.7 30.8 31.1 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 30.2 XC = 0.83 Intersection LOS C IICS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 r I_ HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 811 1217 796 543 1 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 1 1 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 32.0 G= G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 854 1281 838 572 0 Lane group capacity, c 945 3364 1736 681 369 v/c ratio, X 0.90 0.38 0.48 0.84 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.69 0.36 0.20 0.20 Uniform delay, di 31.3 5.9 22.6 34.6 28.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.11 L1_1 Incremental delay, d2 11.9 0.1 0.2 1 9.2 0.0 1 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 43.3 6.0 22.8 43.8 28.8 Lane group LOS D A C D C Approach delay 20.9 22.8 43.8 Approach LOS C C D Intersection delay 25.0 XC = 0.71 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 708 818 1721 645 1 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 21.0 G= 34.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 745 861 1812 679 0 Lane group capacity, c 794 3255 1845 756 410 v/c ratio, X 0.94 0.26 0.98 0.90 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.23 0.67 0.38 0.22 0.22 Uniform delay, di 33.9 6.1 27.7 34.0 27.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.45 0.11 0.49 0.42 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 18.6 0.0 116.8 13.6 0.0 6/22/2006 a Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 52.5 6.1 44.5 47.6 27.2 Lane group LOS D A D D C Approach delay 27.6 44.5 47.6 Approach LOS C D D Intersection delay 38.4 XC = 0.95 Intersection LOS D HCS2000T M Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 • HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, IN 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1532 1291 1047 1 495 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 9.0 G= 33.0 G= G= G= 33.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1613 306 1102 521 Lane group capacity, c 1790 340 1782 644 v/c ratio, X 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.81 Total green ratio, g/C 0.37 0.10 0.52 0.37 I Uniform delay, di 27.0 40.1 15.2 25.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.42 0.42 0.20 0.35 Incremental delay, d2 6.7 25.6 0.7 7.6 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 33.7 65.7 15.8 33.3 Lane group LOS C E B C Approach delay 33.7 26.7 33.3 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 30.8 XC = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1� u l� u 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1187 770 1596 340 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 11.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.7 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.3 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1249 811 1680 358 Lane group capacity, c 1465 858 2074 494 v/c ratio, X 0.85 0.95 0.81 0.72 Total green ratio, g/C 0.30 0.25 0.61 0.28 Uniform delay, di 29.6 33.0 13.6 29.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.38 0.46 0.35 10.29 Incremental delay, d2 5.1 18.8 2.5 5.2 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 34.7 51.8 16.2 34.5 Lane group LOS C D e C Approach delay 34.7 27.8 34.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 30.5 Xc = 0.84 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Breckinridge Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 68 14 16 32 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 71 14 16 1 33 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R MM Volume 19 0 4 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 16 24 C (m) (vph) 1505 859 lc 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.03 0.09 Control Delay 7.4 9.3 LOS A A AnklApproach Delay -- -- 9.3 pproach LOS -- -- A TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ft General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Breckinridge Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 51 8 17 80 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 53 8 17 1 84 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Llstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 An L T R L T R IV Volume 114 0 23 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 120 1 0 24 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 17 144 C (m) (vph) 1536 832 lc 0.01 0.17 95% queue length 0.03 0.62 Control Delay 7.4 10.2 LOS A B ,dmjApproach Delay -- -- 10.2 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection New Jubal Early & Jubal Earl Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: New Jubal Early Dr North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 116 13 0 0 4 286 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 122 13 0 0 4 1 301 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 3 -- — 3 — -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 240 0 32 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 252 0 33 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R Volume, v (vph) 122 252 33 Capacity, cm (vph) 1250 655 1077 v/c ratio 0.10 0.38 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.32 1.81 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 13.9 8.4 LOS A B A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.3 pproach LOS -- -- B 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection New Jubal Early & Jubal Earl Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: New Jubal Early Dr North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 67 7 0 0 13 579 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 70 7 1 0 0 13 1 609 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 512 0 121 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 538 0 127 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 D 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R Volume, v (vph) 70 538 127 Capacity, cm (vph) 954 768 1064 v/c ratio 0.07 0.70 0.12 Queue length (95%) 0.24 5.83 0.41 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 19.9 8.8 LOS A C A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.8 Approach LOS -- -- C 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY dh General Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/17/06 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Handley Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 334 68 6 252 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 351 71 6 1 265 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 20 0 68 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 0 71 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 6 92 C (m) (vph) 1132 648 v/c 0.01 0.14 95% queue length 0.02 0.49 Control Delay 8.2 11.5 LOS A B O.Approach Delay -- -- 11.5 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Copyright OO 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Handle Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 573 73 46 611 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 603 76 48 643 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 22 0 57 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 0 60 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 48 83 C (m) (vph) 908 418 v/c 0.05 0.20 95% queue length 0.17 0.73 Control Delay 9.2 15.7 LOS A C 4B.Approach Delay -- -- 15.7 pproach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 70 342 78 310 202 77 66 1409 325 239 353 90 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 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 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 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 17.0 G= 21.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 34.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 74 442 326 213 81 69 431 342 252 467 Lane group capacity, c 535 717 429 738 533 395 627 878 312 1158 v/c ratio, X 0.14 0.62 0.76 0.29 0.15 0.17 0.69 0.39 0.81 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.43 0.21 0.43 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.34 0.56 0.47 0.34 UUniform delay, d, 17.1 35.8 21.0 33.2 23.0 15.2 28.4 12.4 27.2 25.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.35 0.11 6/22/2006 E Incremental delay, d2 0.1 1.6 7.8 0.2 1 0.1 0.2 3.2 0.3 14.5 1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 17.2 37.5 28.8 33.4 23.1 15.4 31.6 12.7 41.7 25.5 Lane group LOS B D C C C B C B D C Approach delay 34.6 29.6 22.6 31.2 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 28.8 X c = 0.75 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 - 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, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 70 342 78 310 202 77 66 409 325 239 353 90 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 17.0 G= 21.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 34.0 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 74 360 82 326 213 81 69 431 342 252 467 Lane group capacity, c 535 738 533 464 738 533 395 627 878 312 1158 v/c ratio, X 0.14 0.49 0.15 0.70 0.29 0.15 0.17 0.69 0.39 0.81 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.43 0.21 0.34 0.43 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.34 0.56 0.47 0.34 Uniform delay, d, 17.1 34.8 23.0 20.6 33.2 23.0 15.2 28.4 12.4 27.2 25.2 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 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.35 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.5 0.1 1 4.7 0.2 1 0.1 0.2 3.2 0.3 14.5 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 17.2 35.3 23.1 25.3 33.4 23.1 15.4 31.6 12.7 41.7 25.5 Lane group LOS 8 D C C C C 8 C 8 D C Approach delay 30.8 27.8 22.6 31.2 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 27.6 XC = 0.71 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 619.%i%nn6 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 118 469 110 509 349 465 167 482 349 202 486 194 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 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 1 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 11.000 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 100 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 Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.1 G= 4.6 G= 13.3 G= G= 7.1 G= 26.9 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 124 494 116 536 367 384 176 507 367 213 664 Lane group capacity, c 424 550 469 555 740 553 302 584 1007 241 1073 v/c ratio, X 0.29 0.90 10.25 0.97 0.50 0.69 0.58 0.87 0.36 0.88 0.62 AM Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.16 0.30 0.42 0.21 0.35 0.46 0.32 0.64 0.46 0.32 Uniform delay, di 21.7 35.2 22.6 21.1 29.6 j 23.6 15.3 27.4 7.1 18.2 24.7 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 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.42 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.40 0.11 0.41 0.20 • Incremental delay, d2 0.4 17.6 0.3 29.6 0.5 1 3.8 2.9 13.2 1 0.2 29.7 1.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 22.1 52.7 22.8 50.7 30.1 27.3 18.2 40.6 7.3 47.9 25.8 Lane group LOS C D C D C C 8 D A D C Approach delay 42.8 37.9 25.2 31.2 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection delay 33.9 X = 1.00 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 0 6/9919,006 n LJ 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03117106 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 373 0 0 331 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 392 0 0 348 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 4 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 4 C (m) (vph) 1189 379 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.03 Control Delay 8.0 14.6 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.6 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 • r L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03/17/06 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 EasUWest Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 452 0 0 783 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 475 0 0 1 824 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 3 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 23 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 10 10 24 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 24 C (m) (vph) 790 175 lc 0.00 0.14 95% queue length 0.00 0.47 Control Delay 9.6 28.8 hk LOS A D pproach Delay -- -- 28.8 pproach LOS -- -- D Rights Reserved /iCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 HC52000T. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information 1111 Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 213 1595 175 118 258 1157 72 590 220 88 389 88 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 1 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 11.000 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 10.0 0.0 10.0 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 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 pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 13.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 224 626 184 124 272 165 76 621 232 93 409 93 Lane group capacity, c 581 996 871 295 996 871 282 1171 523 186 1171 523 v/c ratio, X 0.39 0.63 10.21 0.42 0.27 0.19 0.27 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.35 0.18 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 11.3 13.7 10.1 11.6 10.5 9.9 22.0 24.3 23.5 24.0 22.6 21.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.1 0.2 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 11.7 14.9 10.2 12.6 10.6 10.0 22.5 24.8 24.1 26.1 22.8 21.4 Lane group LOS B B B B B B C C C C C C Approach delay 13.4 10.9 24.4 23.1 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 18.1 XC = 0.59 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 0 E 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 163 1388 299 297 663 100 1316 654 243 191 717 261 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 volumes 0 1 0 0 1 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 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 Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 7.0 G= 30.0 G= G= 7.0 G= 4.0 G= 21.0 G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 172 408 315 313 698 105 333 688 256 201 755 275 Lane group capacity, c 191 566 842 443 698 809 373 924 792 261 776 528 v/c ratio, X 0.90 0.72 10.37 0.71 1.00 0.13 0.89 0.74 0.32 0.77 0.97 0.52 Total green ratio, g/C 0.38 0.32 0.54 0.51 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.26 0.51 0.29 0.22 0.34 Uniform delay, d, 32.4 28.8 12.8 17.0 29.0 11.9 23.7 32.1 13.9 33.4 36.7 25.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.42 0.28 0.11 0.27 0.50 0.11 0.42 0.30 0.11 0.32 0.48 0.13 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 38.7 4.5 0.3 1 5.1 34.1 0.1 22.7 3.3 1 0.2 13.1 25.7 1 0.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 71.1 33.3 13.0 22.1 63.1 12.0]A,5.4 14.1 46.6 62.4 26.3 Lane group LOS E C B C E BD B D E C Approach delay 33.4 46.8 34.0 51.7 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection delay 41.9 XC = 1.13 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 - 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 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 213 595 175 118 258 1157 72 1590 220 88 1389 88 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 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 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 1 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= I Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 224 626 184 124 272 165 76 621 232 93 409 93 Lane group capacity, c 599 996 871 295 1896 871 282 1171 523 186 1171 523 v/c ratio, X 0.37 0.63 0.21 10.42 0.14 10,19 0.27 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.35 0.18 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 11.2 13.7 10.1 11.6 9.7 9.9 22.0 24.3 23.5 24.0 22.6 21.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 60?0nnr, Incremental delay, d2 0.4 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.1 0.2 1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 11.6 14.9 10.2 12.6 9.7 10.0 22.5 24.8 24.1 26.1 22.8 21.4 Lane group LOS 8 8 8 8 A 8 C C C C C C Approach delay 13.4 10.4 24.4 23.1 Approach LOS g 8 C C Intersection delay 18.0 X� = 0.59 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e is • 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 - 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, N, 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 163 388 299 297 663 100 316 654 243 191 717 1261 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 5.0 G= 4.0 G= 27.0 G= G= 7.0 G= 4.0 G= 23.0 G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 172 408 315 313 698 105 333 688 256 201 755 275 Lane group capacity, c 303 538 836 365 1176 749 393 1054 801 305 898 575 v/c ratio, X 0.57 0.76 0.38 0.86 0.59 0.14 0.85 0.65 0.32 0.66 0.84 0.48 MF Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.30 0.53 0.46 0.34 0.48 0.43 0.30 0.51 0.33 0.26 0.37 Uniform delay, di 24.3 28.5 12.3 19.5 24.3 13.2 20.9 27.4 12.9 27.2 31.8 21.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.16 10.31 0.11 0.39 0.18 0.11 0.38 0.23 10.11 10.23 10.38 0.11 �iooi�nn� Incremental delay, dZ 2.5 1 6.2 0.3 18.0 0.8 0.1 15.8 1.5 1 0.2 5.2 1 7.2 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 26.8 34.7 12.6 37.5 25.1 13.2 36.6 28.9 13.1 32.4 39.0 22.5 Lane group LOS C C B D C B D C B C D C Approach delay 25.4 27.5 27.7 34.2 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 29.0 XC = 1.00 Intersection LOS C HCS2000'rm Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • • HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 40 895 143 184 573 1 57 150 65 163 32 20 24 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 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 Initial unmet demand, Qb 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 Lane width 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm�l 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 JG= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= I Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 42 942 151 194 603 60 226 172 34 46 Lane group capacity, c 404 1896 871 248 1896 871 469 523 334 565 v/c ratio, X 0.10 0.50 0.17 0.78 0.32 0.07 0.48 0.33 0.10 0.08 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 9.4 12.3 9.8 15.7 10.8 9.2 23.8 22.5 20.7 20.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 14.9 1 0.1 1 0.0 1 0.8 1 0.4 1 0.1 1 0.1 6/22/2006 Ll • 17, Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 9.5 12.5 9.9 30.7 10.9 9.3 24.6 22.8 20.8 20.6 Lane group LOS A B A C B A C C C C Approach delay 12.0 15.3 23.8 20.7 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 15.3 XC = 0.67 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 6/22/2006 L_ HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 56 912 383 257 1463 55 308 36 132 203 161 55 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 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 1 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 Filtering/metering, 1 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 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 12.0 G= 31.0 G= G= G= 8.5 G= 28.5 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 IY= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 59 960 403 271 1540 58 362 139 214 227 Lane group capacity, c 82 1176 775 316 1631 749 408 941 319 562 v/c ratio, X 0.72 0.82 0.52 0.86 0.94 0.08 0.89 0.15 0.67 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.60 0.32 0.32 Uniform delay, d, 25.7 26.9 15.5 21.0 22.4 12.7 24.6 7.9 26.7 24.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.28 0.36 0.13 0.39 0.46 0.11 0.41 0.11 0.24 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 26.2 4.6 0.6 20.3 11.6 0.0 20.4 0.1 5.4 1 0.5 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 51.9 31.5 16.1 41.3 34.0 12.8 45.0 8.0 32.1 24.6 Lane group LOS D C B D C B D A C C Approach delay 28.0 34.4 34.7 28.2 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 31.6 XC = 0.90 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 1� u • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03117106 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 621 & Route 622 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 111 96 34 47 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 116 101 35 49 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 75 63 31 27 71 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 66 32 28 74 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 1 35 176 117 C (m)(vph) 1545 1347 603 587 lc 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.20 95% queue length 0.00 0.08 1.21 0.74 Control Delay 7.3 7.7 13.4 12.7 LOS A A B B pproach Delay -- -- 13.4 12.7 pproach LOS -- -- B B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 4 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03117106 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 621 & Route 622 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 51 60 57 24 61 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 53 63 ji 60 25 1 64 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 116 171 80 18 79 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 122 1 180 84 18 83 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 53 25 386 105 C (m)(vph) 1522 1458 592 501 /c 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.21 95% queue length 0.11 0.05 4.75 0.78 Control Delay 7.5 7.5 21.7 14.1 LOS A A C B pproach Delay -- -- 21.7 14.1 pproach LOS -- -- C B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright OO 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information 'Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 622 & Harvest Drive Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 65 976 0 0 372 65 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 68 1027 1 0 0 391 1 68 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 3 — — 3 — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 LT TR Eonfiguration stream Signal 1 0 0 AM Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 52 0 65 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 54 0 68 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 68 122 Capacity, cm (vph) 1097 356 v/c ratio 0.06 0.34 Queue length (95%) 0.20 1.49 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 20.3 LOS A C pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.3 pproach LOS -- -- C !/CS2000� M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d r)1??l9nnr, Am TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 622 & Harvest Drive Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Year 2009 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 45 825 0 0 1172 125 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 47 868 0 0 1233 131 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv 3 3 — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 65 0 52 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 68 0 1 54 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 47 122 Capacity, cm (vph) 501 191 v/c ratio 0.09 0.64 Queue length (95%) 0.31 3.71 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.9 52.2 LOS B F ,Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 52.2 [Approach LOS -- -- F I-ICS2000M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Spine Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 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 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT TR LR Volume, V (vph) 14 964 416 21 77 52 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 40.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1030 460 136 Lane group capacity, c 1077 863 399 v/c ratio, X 0.96 0.53 0.34 Total green ratio, g/C 0.65 0.47 0.24 Uniform delay, di 13.9 15.9 27.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.14 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 17.9 0.6 0.5 6/22/2006 L� Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 31.8 16.5 27.5 Lane group LOS C g C Approach delay 31.8 16.5 27.5 Approach LOS C g C Intersection delay 27.1 Xc = 0.79 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 6/22/2006 r L✓ HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Spine Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT TR LR Volume, V (vph) 54 826 1144 81 44 30 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 1 10 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 61.0 G= G= G= G= 14.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 926 1289 78 Lane group capacity, c 1137 1312 279 v/c ratio, X 0.81 0.98 0.28 Total green ratio, g/C 0.72 0.72 0.16 Uniform delay, d, 8.2 11.5 31.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.36 0.49 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 4.7 20.7 0.5 6/22/2006 L_� Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.8 32.2 31.6 Lane group LOS g C C Approach delay 12.8 32.2 31.6 Approach LOS g C C Intersection delay 24.3 XC = 0.85 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 0 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection MUULU o« « r-wuLe 51 wa Ramp Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/20/06 Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 NB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 [Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 114 570 0 0 110 507 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 120 600 1 0 0 115 1 533 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 — — 3 — — Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 18 0 140 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 18 0 147 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 120 165 Capacity, cm (vph) 933 413 v/c ratio 0.13 0.40 Queue length (95%) 0.44 1.88 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 19.4 LOS A C Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 19.4 Approach LOS -- -- C 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 NB Ramp Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 57 745 0 0 169 852 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 60 784 1 0 0 177 896 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 — — 3I - i - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 129 0 111 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 135 0 1 116 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 60 251 Capacity, cm (vph) 646 172 v/c ratio 0.09 1.46 Queue length (95%) 0.31 15.82 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 285.6 LOS B F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 285.6 Approach LOS -- -- F 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 1 (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, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 114 570 110 1507 18 0 140 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 59.0 G= G= G= G= 21.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 720 116 428 166 Lane group capacity, c 1113 1209 1028 377 v/c ratio, X 0.65 0.10 0.42 10.44 Total green ratio, g/C 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.23 Uniform delay, di 9.3 5.7 7.3 29.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 10.6 5.7 7.6 30.3 Lane group LOS 8 A A C Approach delay 10.6 7.2 30.3 Approach LOS g A C Intersection delay 11.6 XC = 0.59 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 0 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 (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, N, 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 57 745 169 852 129 0 111 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 200 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N I N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 t-0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 -= 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 54.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 844 178 686 253 Lane group capacity, c 1126 1049 891 443 v/c ratio, X 0.75 0.17 0.77 0.57 Total green ratio, g/C 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.26 Uniform delay, d, 12.2 9.8 15.7 30.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 10.30 1 1 0.11 0.32 0.17 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 2.8 0.1 4.2 1.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 15.1 9.9 19.9 32.1 Lane group LOS g A 8 C Approach delay 15.1 17.8 32.1 Approach LOS g g C Intersection delay 18.5 X = 0.77 c Intersection LOS 8 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 SB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 141 60 81 47 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 148 1 63 85 49 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 — 3 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 542 1 121 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 570 1 1 127 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 85 698 Capacity, cm (vph) 1354 616 v/c ratio 0.06 1.13 Queue length (95%) 0.20 22.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 103.1 LOS A F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 103.1 Approach LOS -- -- F 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection RuulC OLL cc I_Xuu(C J/ JO Ramp Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/20/06 Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 SB Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 89 71 103 195 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 93 1 74 108 205 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 0 — — 3 — — 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) 0 0 0 714 4 172 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 751 4 1 181 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 108 936 Capacity, cm (vph) 1405 499 v/c ratio 0.08 1.88 Queue length (95%) 0.25 60.43 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 421.2 LOS A F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 421.2 Approach LOS -- -- F 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 (Suggested Improvements) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 141 60 81 47 542 1 121 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 37.0 G= G= G= G= 43.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 211 134 572 127 Lane group capacity, c 728 539 839 749 v/c ratio, X 0.29 0.25 0.68 0.17 Total green ratio, g/C 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.48 Uniform delay, di 17.7 17.4 18.2 13.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.2 2.3 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 17.9 17.6 20.5 13.5 Lane group LOS g 8 C 8 Approach delay 17.9 17.6 19.2 Approach LOS g g g Intersection delay 98.7 Xc = 0.50 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e L I E 6/22/2006 HCS2000M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 1 (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, N� 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 89 71 103 195 714 4 172 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 13.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 12.0 G= 25.0 G= G= G= 43.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 169 313 756 181 Lane group capacity, c 482 485 839 749 v/c ratio, X 0.35 0.65 0.90 0.24 AM Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.41 0.48 0.48 Uniform delay, d, 26.0 21.2 21.5 13.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 1 10.11 0.22 1 1 0.42 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 3.0 12.8 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 26.4 24.2 34.4 14.0 Lane group LOS C C C 8 Approach delay 26.4 24.2 30.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 28,8 XC = 0.79 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright Q:) 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 0 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection ` uijal Road Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/20/06 Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Jubal Early Drive North/South Street: Spine Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 77 90 14 21 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 81 1 94 14 22 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 — 3 — Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 25 0 52 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 26 0 54 0 0 0 Proportion of heavyi ehicles, PH v 3 0 3 0 0 0 i Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 14 80 Capacity, cm (vph) 1395 877 v/c ratio 0.01 0.09 • Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 9.5 LOS A A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.5 Approach LOS I-- -- A 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection ubal Early Dr & Spine Road Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2009 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 1 East/West Street: Jubal Early Drive North/South Street: Spine Road Intersection Orientation: East-WestIStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 44 52 54 81 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 46 54 56 85 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- — 3 — -- 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) 94 0 30 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 98 0 1 31 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 56 129 Capacity, cm (vph) 1486 744 v/c ratio 0.04 0.17 Queue length (95%) 0.12 0.62 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.9 LOS A B ,Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.9 pproach LOS -- -- B 6/22/2006 r 4 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 920 1292 833 637 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0LJ 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 23.0 G= G= G= 22.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 968 1360 877 671 0 Lane group capacity, c 1001 3045 1321 881 478 v/c ratio, X 0.97 0.45 0.66 0.76 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.29 0.62 0.27 0.26 0.26 Uniform delay, di 29.6 8.3 27.6 29.1 23.3 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 20.8 1 0.1 1.3 4.0 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 50.4 8.5 28.8 33.0 23.3 Lane group LOS D A C C C Approach delay 25.9 28.8 33.0 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 27.8 XC = 0.80 Intersection LOS C HCS2006TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • ,r u 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 749 655 1779 936 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.5 G= 36.0 G= G= G= 28.5 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 788 689 1873 985 0 Lane group capacity, c 734 2904 1850 1021 554 v/c ratio, X 1.07 0.24 1.01 1 0.96 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.30 Uniform delay, di 37.3 9.1 29.5 32.8 23.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.47 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 54.7 1 0.0 24.0 20.1 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 92.0 9.1 53.5 52.9 23.3 Lane group LOS F A D D C Approach delay 53.3 53.5 52.9 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 53.3 X� = 1.01 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 0 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1655 343 1127 557 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 AM Filtering/metering, 1 qF 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= 32.0 G= G= G= 32.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1742 361 1186 586 Lane group capacity, c 1736 416 1820 625 v/c ratio, X 1.00 0.87 0.65 0.94 Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.12 0.53 0.36 Uniform delay, di 29.0 38.8 15.0 28.0 Progression factor, PF 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 10.50 0.40 0.23 0.45 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 22.4 17.4 1 0.8 21.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 51.4 56.2 15.9 50.0 Lane group LOS D E 8 D Approach delay 51.4 25.3 50.0 Approach LOS D C D Intersection delay 40.8 XC = 0.96 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1074 908 1807 331 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= 23.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1131 956 1902 348 Lane group capacity, c 1321 961 2088 475 v/c ratio, X 0.86 0.99 0.91 0.73 Total green ratio, g/C 0.27 0.28 0.61 0.27 Uniform delay, di 29.4 30.4 14.5 28.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 1 10.39 1 10.50 10.43 1 10.29 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 5.8 27.7 6.5 1 5.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 35.2 58.1 21.0 34.0 Lane group LOS D E C C Approach delay 35.2 33.4 34.0 Approach LOS D C C Intersection delay 33.9 c = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T�M Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Breckinridge Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 74 16 18 31 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 77 16 18 32 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R NF Volume 22 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 18 28 C (m) (vph) 1495 849 v/c 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.04 0.10 Control Delay 7.4 9.4 LOS A A Delay 9.4 •Approach pproach LOS =_ _= A Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1 d 6/22/2006 r L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Breckinridge Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 52 9 20 76 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 54 9 21 80 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 131 0 27 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 137 1 0 28 0 1 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 21 165 C (m) (vph) 1533 825 lc 0.01 0.20 95% queue length 0.04 0.74 Control Delay 7.4 10.5 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 10.5 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000"M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id 6/22/2006 4 r L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Handley Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 213 83 2 171 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 224 1 87 2 180 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 -- - Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 0 73 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 6.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 0 1 76 0 1 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 2 106 C (m) (vph) 1244 759 lc 0.00 0.14 95% queue length 0.00 0.48 Control Delay 7.9 10.5 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 10.5 ,Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved FICS2000rM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 4 L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information lalyst PHR+A Intersection )ency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction ate Performed 03117106 Analysis Year ialysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Handley Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive r l_..aw c+—..ir- Qh-hi Dorinrl thre). n 95 u n�.i o.vuvi i Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 385 89 48 390 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 405 93 50 1 410 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 30 0 61 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 0 64 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 50 95 C (m) (vph) 1061 544 We 0.05 0.17 95% queue length 0.15 0.63 Control Delay 8.6 13.0 'LOS pproach Delay A B 13.0 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2006 M Version 4.1d Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d rl??l?nnr) HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early & New Jubal Early Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2012 Background Analysis Year Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 5 196 140 292 194 5 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li 1 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 44.0 G= G= G= G= 31.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LDS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 211 147 307 209 Lane group capacity, c 951 955 812 639 v/c ratio, X 0.22 0.15 0.38 0.33 Total green ratio, g/C 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 Uniform delay, d, 11.2 10.7 12.3 19.5 Progression factor, PF 1 1.000 10.11 10.11 1.000 1.000 10.11 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 11.3 10.8 12.6 19.8 Lane group LOS e 8 8 8 Approach delay 11.3 12.0 19.8 Approach LOS g 8 8 Intersection delay 13.7 X� = 0.36 Intersection LOS 8 HCSOOOTM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 0 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early & New Jubal Early Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 5 317 352 470 415 5 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 AM Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 44.0 G= G= G= G= 31.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 339 371 495 442 Lane group capacity, c 951 955 812 640 v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.39 0.61 0.69 Total green ratio, g/C 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 Uniform delay, di 12.1 12.4 14.4 22.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.26 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.3 1 1.3 3.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.4 12.6 15.8 26.1 Lane group LOS g g g C Approach delay 12.4 14.4 26.1 Approach LOS g g C Intersection delay 17.1 XC = 0.64 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e 11 • 6/22/2006 4 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2012 Background Analysis Year Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 147 1428 90 346 271 1 89 77 392 328 276 344 164 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 13.8 G= 19.0 G= G= G= 4.0 G= 4.0 G= 24.2 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 155 546 364 285 94 81 413 345 291 535 Lane group capacity, c 510 765 396 785 683 320 525 793 355 1109 v/c ratio, X 0.30 0.71 0.92 0.36 0.14 0.25 0.79 0.44 0.82 0.48 Total green ratio, g/C 0.44 0.22 0.44 0.22 0.44 0.33 0.28 0.51 0.44 0.33 Uniform delay, d, 14.6 30.5 18.2 27.9 14.4 19.9 28.0 13.3 18.7 22.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 .000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 10.36 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 3.2 26.2 0.3 1 0.1 0.4 1 7.8 0.4 14.1 1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 15.0 33.7 44.4 28.2 14.5 20.3 35.8 13.7 32.8 22.9 Lane group LOS B C D C B C D B C C Approach delay 29.5 34.4 25.2 26.4 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 28.7 XC = 0.90 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 217 593 127 539 460 538 194 468 1377 233 1467 304 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, li 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 9.9 G= 6.0 G= 19.0 G= G= 8.0 G= 22.1 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 228 758 567 484 566 204 493 397 245 812 Lane group capacity, c 400 764 518 1033 701 252 480 885 252 859 v/c ratio, X 10.57 0.99 1 1.09 10.47 10.81 0.81 1.03 10.45 10.97 0.95 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di Progression factor, PF Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.29 10.45 0.41 22.4 24.6 20.3 19.4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 0.11 0.35 0.35 • Incremental delay, d2 1.9 30.5 67.8 1 0.3 7.0 17.7 48.2 1 0.4 48.8 18.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 23.2 63.4 90.2 24.9 27.3 37.1 79.6 11.1 69.1 49.6 Lane group LOS C E F C C D I E 8 E D Approach delay 54.1 48.7 46.8 54.2 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection delay 50.6 XC = 1.12 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.]e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 - 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, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 147 428 90 346 271 89 77 392 328 276 1344 164 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 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 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 15.2 G= 22.5 G= G= G= 4.0 G= 4.0 G= 24.3 G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 155 451 95 364 285 94 81 413 345 291 362 173 Lane group capacity, c 549 878 392 470 878 706 345 948 775 413 1104 493 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.51 0.24 0.77 0.32 0.13 0.23 0.44 0.45 0.70 0.33 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.47 0.25 0.25 0.47 0.25 0.45 0.31 0.27 0.49 0.41 0.31 0.31 Uniform delay, di 13.9 29.0 26.9 16.7 27.5 14.5 22.2 27.2 14.7 19.2 23.6 23.8 Progression factor, PF 11.000 11.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 r,I??I?nnr) Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.5 0.3 7.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 5.4 0.2 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.2 29.6 27.3 24.6 27.8 14.6 22.5 27.5 15.2 24.5 23.8 24.2 Lane group LOS 8 C C C C 8 C C 8 C C C Approach delay 25.8 24.5 21.9 24.1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 24.0 XC = 0.72 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 217 593 127 539 460 1538 194 468 377 233 467 304 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 1 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 11.000 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 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 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 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left I WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 11.0 G= 17.5 G= G= 8.5 G= 17.0 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 228 624 134 567 484 566 204 493 397 245 492 241 Lane group capacity, c 323 768 343 574 1251 823 311 746 862 310 746 333 v/c ratio, X 0.71 0.81 0.39 0.99 0.39 10.69 0.66 0.66 0.46 0.79 0.66 0.72 Total green ratio, g/C 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.49 0.36 0.52 0.38 0.21 0.55 0.38 0.21 0.21 Uniform delay, d, 26.1 29.7 26.7 20.2 19.2 14.1 18.2 28.9 10.8 18.8 28.8 29.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.27 0.35 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.34 0.23 0.28 Incremental delay, d2 6.9 6.7 0.7 34.3 0.2 2.4 5.0 2.2 0.4 12.9 2.2 7.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 33.0 36.4 27.4 54.5 19.4 16.6 23.2 31.0 11.2 31.7 31.0 36.9 Lane group LOS C D C D B B C C B C C D Approach delay 34.4 30.7 22.4 32.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 29.9 X� = 0.91 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Merrimans Ln Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT TR LR Volume, V (vph) 90 201 145 0 0 53 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 45.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 307 153 56 Lane group capacity, c 1424 1756 621 v/c ratio, X 0.22 0.09 0.09 Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.39 Uniform delay, d, 12.6 11.8 17.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.7 11.8 17.5 Lane group LOS B B B Approach delay 12.7 11.8 17.5 Approach LOS B B B Intersection delay 12.9 XC = 0.16 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Merrimans Ln Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT TR LR Volume, V (vph) 61 322 357 0 0 207 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 45.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 403 376 218 Lane group capacity, c 1463 1756 621 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.21 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.39 Uniform delay, d, 13.0 12.6 19.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 11.000 Delay calibration, k 1 10.11 1 0.11 10.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 13.1 12.7 19.8 Lane group LOS B B B Approach delay 13.1 12.7 19.8 Approach LOS B B B Intersection delay 14.4 XC = 0.31 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 0 r� 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03/17/06 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 254 0 0 258 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 267 0 0 271 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 1 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 1 C (m) (vph) 1274 498 lc 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay 7.8 12.2 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 12.2 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved I-ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information 1 Site Information nalyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03117106 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2012 Background Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 240 0 0 583 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 252 0 0 613 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 20 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 21 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 21 C (m) (vph) 959 322 v/c 0.00 0.07 95% queue length 0.00 0.21 Control Delay 8.8 17.0 LOS A C pproach Delay -- -- 17.0 pproach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id HCS2000'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 118 630 187 136 254 182 79 1682 255 1101 450 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 11.000 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 1 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 j 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 pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 124 663 197 143 267 192 83 718 268 106 474 26 Lane group capacity, c 508 896 784 197 896 784 314 1405 627 204 1405 627 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.74 0.25 0.73 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.51 0.43 10.52 0.34 0.04 Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform delay, di 14.2 19.8 14.3 19.6 14.7 14.2 20.1 22.6 21.7 22.7 20.8 18.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 10.30 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 10.11 10.12 10.11 0.13 10.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 1 3.3 0.2 12.6 0.2 0.2 1 0.5 0.3 1 0.5 2.4 0.1 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.5 23.1 14.5 32.2 14.9 14.4 20.6 22.9 22.2 25.1 21.0 18.3 Lane group LOS B C B C B B C C C C C B Approach delay 20.3 18.8 22.6 21.6 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection delay 21.0 X c = 0.64 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 72 1384 338 343 683 1115 350 757 281 221 830 157 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, li 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 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 volumes 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 12.5 G= 32.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 4.5 G= 27.0 G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 76 404 356 361 719 121 368 797 296 233 874 165 Lane group capacity, c 91 573 870 338 797 917 398 1106 768 292 948 423 v/c ratio, X 0.84 0.71 0.41 1.07 0.90 0.13 0.92 0.72 0.39 0.80 0.92 0.39 Total green ratio, g/C 0.32 0.32 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.58 0.46 0.31 0.49 0.36 0.27 0.27 Uniform delay, d, 31.6 29.9 12.8 31.7 25.7 9.3 26.9 30.4 16.0 33.8 35.5 29.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.27 0.11 0.50 0.42 0.11 0.44 0.28 0.11 0.34 0.44 0.11 6/22/2006 17- Incremental delay, d2 46.0 J 3.9 0.3 68.2 13.5 1 0.1 27.2 1 2.3 0.3 14.4 14.1 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 77.5 33.8 13.1 99.9 39.2 9.4 54.1 32.7 16.4 48.1 49.5 30.4 Lane group LOS E C 8 F D A D C 8 D D C Approach delay 29.0 54.4 34.8 46.8 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection delay 41.9 XC = 1.11 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000`M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 - 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 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 118 630 187 136 254 1182 79 1682 255 101 450 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 10.0 0.0 0.0 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 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 pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 IY= G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 124 663 197 143 267 192 83 718 268 106 474 26 Lane group capacity, c v/c ratio, X 542 0.23 1707 0.39 784 0.25 318 0.45 1707 0.16 10.24 784 314 0.26 1405 0.51 627 0.43 204 0.52 1405 0.34 627 0.04 Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform delay, di 14.1 15.5 14.3 16.1 13.6 14.2 20.1 22.6 21.7 22.7 20.8 18.3 Progression factor, PF 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 rimonnr, Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 2.4 0.1 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.3 15.7 114.5 17.1 13.6 14.4 20.6 22.9 22.2 25.1 21.0 118.3 Lane group LOS g B B B B B C C C C C B Approach delay 15.3 14.7 22.6 21.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 18.7 Xc = 0.48 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e C] 10 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 72 1384 338 343 683 115 350 1757 281 221 830 157 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 11.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 50 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 13.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 4.0 G= 4.7 G= 17.5 G= G= 6.2 G= 4.0 G= 23.6 G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 76 404 356 361 719 121 368 797 243 233 874 165 Lane group capacity, c 235 747 739 409 947 655 425 1212 907 312 1036 639 v/c ratio, X 0.32 0.54 10.48 0.88 0.76 0.18 0.87 0.66 0.27 0.75 0.84 0.26 Total green ratio, g/C 0.27 0.22 0.47 0.39 0.28 0.42 0.49 0.34 0.58 0.37 0.30 0.41 Uniform delay, di 22.4 27.7 14.5 19.5 26.5 14.7 18.7 22.2 8.4 24.6 26.5 15.7 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 1.000 6/22/2006 qm Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.41 0.31 0.11 0.40 0.23 0.11 0.30 0.38 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.8 0.8 0.5 19.7 3.6 1 0.1 16.9 1 1.3 0.2 9.5 6.5 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 23.2 28.5 115.0 39.1 30.1 14.8 35.6 23.5 8.6 34.1 33.0 15.9 Lane group LOS C C B D C B D C A C C B Approach delay 22.2 31.3 24.1 31.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 27.4 XC = 0.90 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 0 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT AM General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 46 11032 56 191 634 66 55 75 124 37 24 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 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 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 13.0 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 11.000 11.000 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 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 1 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 54.0 G= G= G= G= 26.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 48 1086 59 201 667 69 137 131 39 54 Lane group capacity, c 411 2048 941 229 2048 941 457 453 353 490 v/c ratio, X 0.12 0.53 10.06 0.88 0.33 0.07 0.30 0.29 0.11 0.11 Total green ratio, g/C 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Uniform delay, di 7.7 10.6 7.5 15.2 8.9 7.5 24.9 24.8 23.5 23.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.13 0.11 10.40 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.1 1 0.3 0.0 29.7 0.1 1 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 7.9 10.8 7.5 44.9 9.0 7.6 25.3 25.2 23.6 23.6 Lane group LOS A B A D A A C C C C Approach delay 10.5 16.6 25.2 23.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 14.9 XC = 0.69 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 0 HCS2000'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 65 1032 182 1217 1695 64 107 1 41 111 235 186 64 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 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 Initial unmet demand, Qb 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 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, Ng 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 4.0 G= 14.1 G= 36.5 G= G= 8.2 G= 17.2 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 68 1086 192 228 1784 67 156 117 247 263 Lane group capacity, c 152 1311 602 504 1818 1053 210 748 276 474 v/c ratio, X 0.45 0.83 0.32 0.45 0.98 10.06 0.74 0.16 0.89 0.55 Total green ratio, g/C 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.63 0.53 0.67 0.18 0.48 0.27 0.27 Uniform delay, di 19.7 26.4 20.5 14.8 21.7 5.4 36.8 14.0 34.6 29.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 11.000 000 1.000 +0.11 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.37 10.11 0.49 0.11 0.30 10.11 0.42 0.15 Incremental delay, d2 2.1 4.6 0.3 1 0.6 16.8 1 0.0 13.3 0.1 28.8 1 1.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.8 31.0 20.8 15.4 38.6 5.4 50.1 14.1 63.4 31.4 Lane group LOS C C C 8 D A D 8 E C Approach delay 29.1 35.0 34.7 46.9 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection delay 34.5 XC = 1.00 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 619.9.19,006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: North -South Site Information ntersection Route 621 & Route 622 Jurisdiction analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions qorth/South Street: Route 621 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 129 111 29 55 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1 135 116 30 57 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — -- 3 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 87 58 27 31 78 18 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 91 61 1 28 32 82 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 1 30 180 132 C(m)(vph) 1533 1309 564 572 lc 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.23 95% queue length 0.00 0.07 1.37 0.89 Control Delay 7.3 7.8 14.3 13.2 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 14.3 13.2 pproach LOS -- -- B B Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Version 4.Id Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id i01) 11nn/- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY L 3eneral Information knalyst PHR+A kgency/Co. PHR+A )ate Performed 03117106 analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 'roject Description Willow Run Phase 2 ast/West Street: Route 622 ntersection Orientation: North -South Site Information ntersection Route 621 & Route 622 Jurisdiction analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions forth/South Street: Route 621 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 59 69 66 4 71 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 62 72 1 69 4 1 74 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — -- 3 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 134 189 73 21 75 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 6.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 141 1 198 76 22 78 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 62 4 415 104 C(m)(vph) 1508 1436 587 488 /c 0.04 0.00 0.71 0.21 95% queue length 0.13 0.01 5.72 0.80 Control Delay 7.5 7.5 24.6 14.4 LOS A A C B ' pproach Delay -- -- 24.6 14.4 pproach C B Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Version 4.1 d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d A/77/7nn1-1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A II ILGI JCUM-)I I I %Liu l6 ULG { 1 IQI V GOL VI IV J Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour � ( I Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 75 927 0 0 306 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 78 975 0 0 322 78 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 _ 3 Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 61 0 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 64 0 78 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 78 142 Capacity, cm (vph) 1159 374 ratio 0.07 0.38 4k,-Cu eue length (95%) 0.22 1.73 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 20.4 LOS A C Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.4 Approach LOS -- -- C 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY AM General Information Isite Information nal st PHR+A 11 ILUI 0UUL1UI I IIUULG ULL (X I IQI VGJL V/IVG Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Con Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 52 765 0 0 1112 145 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 54 805 1 0 0 1170 152 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 — 3I i - Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 75 0 61 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 78 0 64 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 54 142 Capacity, cm (vph) 523 204 v/c ratio 0.10 0.70 Queue length (95%) 0.34 4.39 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.7 55.3 LOS B F pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 55.3 Approach LOS -- -- F 6/22/2006 neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 4 215 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 226 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT U stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 4 Capacity, cm (vph) 1357 iv/c ratio 0.00 Queue length (95%) 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 LOS A -- pproac e ay Intersection Rt 37 NB Ramp & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions South Street: Rt 37 NB Ra Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound I 'r 1• I• I• 1• Raised curb 1 - - I Southbound I 1 © I I Northbound Southbound 11 I 11 -_-_- roach LOS 0FICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d • • 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 7 296 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 7 311 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT U stream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 15 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 15 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 7 Capacity, cm (vph) 977 v/c ratio 0.01 Queue length (95%) 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 LOS A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Rt 37 NB Ramp & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Rt 37 NB Ra tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 0 I •I I• I• I• I• Raised curb I Southbound 0 � I I I• I• I• I• I I © I I I I I • •• •Southbound I 12 6/22/2006 roach LOS 0 IICS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d C. • 6/22/2006 • General Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 131 608 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 137 1 640 Proportion of heavy 3 -- rehicles, PHv Median type �;,'T Channelized? -anes 0 1 : onfiguration LT J stream Signal 0 Wnor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 12 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 12 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 137 Capacity, cm (vph) 986 v/c ratio 0.14 Queue length (95%) 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 LOS A [Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Route 37 NB Ra tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 © 0 0 Undivided � 0 0 Southbound 1 Northbound • •. • 6/22/2006 Approach LOS -- I -- I C 0 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Pp Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 66 775 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 69 815 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT ,upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 130 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 136 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration FLTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 69 Capacity, cm (vph) 660 v/c ratio 0.10 Queue length (95%) 0.35 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 LOS B A roach delaY (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions South Street: Route 37 NB Period (hrs): 0.25 Undivided Southbound i• �• �•NEEM ©00�� 12 6/22/2006 Approach LOS -- -- I F 0HCS2006 M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 (Suggested Improvements) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 131 608 22 532 12 0 85 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 59.0 G= G= G= G= 21.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 778 23 455 102 Lane group capacity, c 1130 1209 1028 377 v/c ratio, X 0.69 0.02 0.44 0.27 Total green ratio, g/C 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.23 Uniform delay, di 9.7 5.4 7.5 28.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.11 10.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 11.5 5.4 7.8 28.6 Lane group LOS 8 A A C Approach delay 11.5 7.7 28.6 Approach LOS g A C Intersection delay 11.5 XC = 0.58 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000T'm Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 0 • 6/22/2006 HCS2000T. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (Suggested Improvements) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 66 775 87 910 130 0 15 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 1200 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 47.0 G= G= G= 27.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 885 92 747 153 Lane group capacity, c 1053 963 819 522 v/c ratio, X 0.84 0.10 0.91 0.29 Total green ratio, g/C 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.30 Uniform delay, di 15.1 10.8 19.6 24.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.38 0.11 10.43 10.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 6.2 0.0 14.4 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.3 10.9 34.0 24.5 Lane group LOS C 8 C C Approach delay 21.3 31.5 24.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 26.1 XC = 0.76 Intersection LOS C HCS200OTM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • El 6/22/2006 General Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 160 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 168 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration U stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT olume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1333 v/c ratio 0.00 Queue length (95%) 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 LOS A pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions South Street: Route 37 SB Period (hrs): 0.25 Undivided Southbound • .• •Southbound 12 6/22/2006 Approach LOS I -- I -- I I E 0 FICS2000TM Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • �i 6/22/2006 eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 ,Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 'roject Description Willow Run Phase 2 7-ast/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 87 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 91 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 21 Capacity, cm (vph) 1421 v/c ratio 0.01 Queue length (95%) 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 LOS A pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions South Street: Route 37 SB Period (hrs): 0.25 Undivided Southbound • •. •Southbound 12 6/22/2006 Approach LOS I -- I -- I I F 1-ICS2006"M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 0 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (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, N� 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 160 58 3 31 580 1 140 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 37.0 G= G= G= G= 43.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 229 36 612 147 Lane group capacity, c 731 745 839 749 v/c ratio, X 0.31 0.05 0.73 10.20 Total green ratio, g/C 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.48 Uniform delay, di 17.9 15.9 18.8 13.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 6/22/2006 C Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.0 1 3.3 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 18.2 15.9 22.1 13.7 Lane group LOS B B C B Approach delay 18.2 15.9 20.5 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 19.8 XC = 0.54 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Background Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (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, N, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 87 59 20 198 754 4 199 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 13.0 G= G= G= 37.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 75.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 154 229 798 209 Lane group capacity, c 302 460 867 774 v/c ratio, X 0.51 0.50 0.92 0.27 Total green ratio, g/C 0.17 0.37 0.49 0.49 Uniform delay, di 28.1 18.1 17.6 11.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.12 0.11 0.44 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 1.5 0.9 14.9 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 29.6 18.9 32.5 11.3 Lane group LOS C B C B Approach delay 29.6 18.9 28.1 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 26.7 X� = 0.83 Intersection LOS C /iCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e C, • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary Rt 37 SB ramp Y & ]ubal Earl Drive AM Peak Hour_2012 Background Conditions Roundabout Vehicle Movements 95% Dem Flow Deg of Aver Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Aver Mov No Turn o /bHV Satn Delay Speed (veh/h) (v/c) (sec) Service Queue Queued Rate (mph) (ft East Approach 22 L 87 1.9 0.091 9.3 LOS A 0 0.00 0.62 32.2 22 T 68 1.9 0.091 9.3 LOS A 0 0.00 0.62 32.2 Approach 155 1.9 0.091 9.3 LOS A 0.00 0.62 32.2 North Approach 42 L 167 2.4 0.149 12.6 LOS B 24 0.28 0.67 29.9 42 T 1 2.4 0.149 12.6 LOS B 24 0.28 0.67 29.9 43 R 8 12.5 0.148 6.9 LOS A 24 0.28 0.51 33.1 Approach 176 2.8 0.149 12.4 LOS B 24 0.28 0.66 30.1 West Approach 12 T 111 1.8 0.117 7.5 LOS A 19 0.37 0.56 30.0 13 R 9 10.0 0.118 8.4 LOS A 19 0.37 0.61 29.5 Approach 121 2.5 0.117 7.6 LOS A 19 0.37 0.56 29.9 All Vehicles 452 2.4 0.149 10.0 LOS B 24 0.21 0.62 30.7 2 akCCiik ._..+ & associates aaTraff i c aaSIDRA T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\b12_AM SB ramps & Jubal Early Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:12:39 PM • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary 0Rt 37 SB ramp & 7ubal Early Drive PM Peak Hour_2012 Background Conditions Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Dem Flow Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Mov No Turn (veh/h) %HV Satn Delay Service Queue Queued Rate Speed (v/c) (sec) (mph) East Approach 22 L 131 2.0 0.238 7.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.57 33.2 22 T 275 2.0 0.238 7.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.57 33.2 Approach 405 2.0 0.238 7.9 LOS A 0.00 0.57 33.2 North Approach 42 L 303 2.3 0.321 14.5 LOS B 67 0.55 0.73 29.2 42 T 1 2.3 0.321 14.5 LOS B 67 0.55 0.73 29.2 43 R 21 4.5 0.319 8.7 LOS A 67 0.55 0.63 32.0 Approach 327 2.4 0.321 14.1 LOS B 67 0.55 0.72 29.4 •West Approach 12 T 80 2.5 0.104 8.7 LOS A 18 0.49 0.62 29.6 13 R 11 9.1 0.105 9.6 LOS A 18 0.49 0.66 29.0 Approach 91 3.3 0.104 8.8 LOS A 18 0.49 0.62 29.5 All Vehicles 823 2.3 0.321 10.4 LOS B 67 0.27 0.63 31.1 r J _ akcelik �.. & associates aaTraff c aaSIDR T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\b12_PM SB ramps & ]ubal Early Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:12:53 PM • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary *Rt 37 NB ramp & Jubal Early Drive AM Peak Hour_2012 Background Conditions Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Mov No Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Speed (veh/h) (v/c) (sec) Service Q(ue a Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 32 L 3 3.7 0.105 9.6 LOS A 18 0.38 0.61 31.8 32 T 1 3.7 0.105 9.6 LOS A 18 0.38 0.61 31.8 32 R 101 3.7 0.105 9.6 LOS A 18 0.38 0.61 31.8 Approach 107 3.7 0.105 9.6 LOS A 18 0.38 0.61 31.8 East Approach 22 T 144 2.1 0.163 6.9 LOS A 29 0.06 0.53 33.6 23 R 112 1.8 0.163 7.7 LOS A 29 0.06 0.59 33.0 Approach 256 2.0 0.163 7.2 LOS A 29 0.06 0.55 33.3 West Approach 12 L 5 2.4 0.172 6.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.55 33.8 12 T 287 2.4 0.172 6.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.55 33.8 Approach 293 2.4 0.172 6.9 LOS A 0.00 0.55 33.8 All Vehicles 656 2.4 0.172 7.5 LOS A 29 0.08 0.56 33.3 ` a akcelik & associates aaTraffic aa$IDRA T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\b12_AM Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:13:05 PM • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary 0Rt 37 NB ramp & ]ubal Early Drive PM Peak Hour_2012 Background Conditions Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Mov No Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Speed ( (veh/h) (v/c) (sec) Service Queue Queued Rate (mph) South Approach 32 L 20 2.9 0.145 11.0 LOS B 27 0.46 0.65 30.9 32 T 1 2.9 0.145 11.0 LOS B 27 0.46 0.65 30.9 32 R 116 2.9 0.145 11.0 LOS B 27 0.46 0.65 30.9 Approach 139 2.9 0.145 11.0 LOS B 27 0.46 0.65 30.9 East Approach 22 T 366 1.9 0.478 7.0 LOS A 130 0.17 0.51 33.2 23 R 367 1.9 0.478 7.9 LOS A 130 0.17 0.56 32.6 Approach 732 1.9 0.479 7.5 LOS A 130 0.17 0.54 32.9 West Approach 12 L 9 2.2 0.238 6.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.56 33.8 12 T 395 2.2 0.238 6.9 LOS A 0 0.00 0.56 33.8 Approach 405 2.2 0.238 6.9 LOS A 0.00 0.56 33.8 All Vehicles 1276 2.1 0.478 7.7 LOS A 130 0.15 0.55 32.9 r akcelik 03 & associates aaTraffic aaSIDRA, T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\b12_PM Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Ptv Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:13:17 PM • 6/22/2006 HCS2000'm DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information .Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 920 1292 833 665 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 D Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 25.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 968 1360 877 700 0 Lane group capacity, c 1001 3160 1436 801 434 v/c ratio, X 0.97 0.43 0.61 0.87 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.29 0.65 0.29 0.24 0.24 Uniform delay, d, 29.6 7.3 25.8 31.3 24.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.11 0.20 0.40 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 20.8 0.1 1 0.8 1 110.5 1 0.0 6/22/2006 11 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 50.4 7.4 26.6 41.8 24.9 Lane group LOS D A C D C Approach delay 25.3 26.6 41.8 Approach LOS C C D Intersection delay 28.6 XC = 0.81 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 • HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Project Route 50 & Rt 37 NB Ramp All other areas Year 2012 Build -out Conditions ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L T Volume, V (vph) 749 655 1779 952 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 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 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 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 D Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.4 G= 35.8 IY= G= G= G= 28.8 G= G= G= Y= 0 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 788 689 1873 1002 0 Lane group capacity, c 731 2891 1843 1030 558 v/c ratio, X 1.08 0.24 1.02 0.97 0.00 Total green ratio, g/C 0.21 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.30 Uniform delay, di 37.3 9.2 29.6 32.7 23.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.48 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 56.3 0.0 25.1 1 121.6 0.0 6/22/2006 C` J Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 93.6 9.2 54.7 54.4 23.1 Lane group LOS F A D D C Approach delay 54.3 54.7 54.4 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 54.5 Xc = 1.02 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 C: 4 HCS20007. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1655 343 1155 557 0 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= 32.0 G= G= G= 32.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1742 361 1216 586 Lane group capacity, c 1736 416 1820 625 v/c ratio, X 1.00 0.87 0.67 0.94 Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.12 0.53 0.36 ' Uniform delay, di 29.0 38.8 15.2 28.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.45 Incremental delay, d2 22.4 17.4 1.01 121.9 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay Lane group LOS 51.4 D 56.2 E 16.2 B 50.0 D Approach delay 51.4 25.3 50.0 Approach LOS D C D Intersection delay 40.7 Xc = 0.96 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000'm General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/17/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group T L T LT Volume, V (vph) 1074 908 1823 331 0 Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 3 6 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only Thru Only 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= 23.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1131 956 1919 348 Lane group capacity, c 1321 961 2088 475 v/c ratio, X 0.86 0.99 0.92 0.73 Total green ratio, g/C 0.27 0.28 0.61 0.27 Uniform delay, di 29.4 30.4 14.6 28.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.39 0.50 0.44 0.29 Incremental delay, d2 5.8 27.7 7.1 5.8 DETAILED REPORT 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 35.2 58.1 21.8 34.0 Lane group LOS D E C C Approach delay 35.2 33.9 34.0 Approach LOS D C C Intersection delay 34.2 X c = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 C� 4 HCS2000T. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 621 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lane group TR L T L TR Volume, V (vph) 107 7 125 58 370 0 6 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 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 EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 37.0 G= G= G= G= 43.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 120 132 61 389 6 Lane group capacity, c 752 495 759 837 749 v/c ratio, X 0.16 0.27 0.08 0.46 0.01 ' Total green ratio, g/C 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.48 Uniform delay, di 16.7 17.5 16.1 15.8 12.3 Progression factor, PF 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 L.� Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 16.8 17.8 16.2 16.2 12.3 Lane group LOS g g g 8 8 Approach delay 16.8 17.3 16.1 Approach LOS g g 8 Intersection delay 16.6 XC = 0.37 Intersection LOS e HCS200dM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 1� HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 621 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lane group TR L T L TR Volume, V (vph) 91 8 304 244 686 0 17 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 10.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 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 WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 21.9 G= 6.9 G= G= G= 31.2 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 104 320 257 722 18 Lane group capacity, c 180 653 759 781 699 v/c ratio, X 0.511 1 0.49 10.34 0.92 0.03 Total green ratio, g/C 0.10 1 0.41 0.41 1 0.45 0.45 A Uniform delay, di 30.2 14.9 14.1 1 18.3 110.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 10.17 1.000 10.11 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 10.11 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.44 6/22/2006 IF Incremental delay, d2 4.6 0.6 0.3 16.7 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 34.7 15.5 14.4 35.0 10.9 Lane group LOS C B B C B Approach delay 34.7 15.0 34.4 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 26.5 XC = 0.83 Intersection LOS C HCS3000T"t Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ab General Information Site Information qr Analyst PHR+A Intersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Breckinridge Lane North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 74 16 18 31 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR D 77 1 16 18 1 32 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 22 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 18 28 C (m) (vph) 1495 849 lc 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.04 0.10 Control Delay 7.4 9.4 LOS A A Approach Delay 9.4 pproach LOS == _= A Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.Id 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 3eneral Information analyst PHR+A agency/Co. PHR+A )ate Performed 03117106 analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 3roject Description Willow Run Phase 2 ast/West Street: Breckinridge Lane ntersection Orientation: North -South iite Information ntersection Breckinridge Ln & Route 621 Jurisdiction \nalysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Borth/South Street: Route 621 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 52 9 20 76 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 54 9 21 80 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 3 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 131 0 27 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 137 10 1 28 0 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 ed Approach N N age L''-, 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 21 165 C (m) (vph) 1533 825 v/c 0.01 0.20 95% queue length 0.04 0.74 Control Delay 7.4 10.5 LOS A B Delay 10.5 'Approach pproach LOS =_ _= B Rights Reserved HCS2000T M Version 4.1 d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information nalyst PHR+A gency/Co. PHR+A ate Performed 03117106 nalvsis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analvsis Year Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Handle Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 324 83 2 201 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 341 1 87 2 1 211 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 0 73 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 0 76 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 2 106 C (m) (vph) 1126 657 lc 0.00 0.16 95% queue length 0.01 0.57 Control Delay 8.2 11.5 A B 'LOS Approach Delay 11.5 Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000iM Version 4.1 d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information alyst PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A to Performed 03117106 alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Handley Ave & Jubal Early Dr 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Handley Ave North/South Street: Jubal Early Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 447 89 48 502 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 470 1 93 50 528 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 3 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 30 0 61 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 1 0 64 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 50 95 C (m) (vph) 1003 485 v/c 0.05 0.20 95% queue length 0.16 0.72 Control Delay 8.8 14.2 LOS A B 'Approach Delay -- -- 14.2 [Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Version 4.Id Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early & New Jubal Early Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 116 375 224 292 194 36 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 44.0 G= G= G= G= 31.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, 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 517 236 307 242 Lane group capacity, c 783 955 812 632 v/c ratio, X 0.66 0.25 10.38 0.38 ' Total green ratio, g/C 0.52 111.3 0.52 0.52 0.36 Uniform delay, di 15.0 12.3 19.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 U Ll • Incremental delay, d2 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 17.1 11.5 12.6 20.3 Lane group LOS B B B C Approach delay 17.1 12.1 20.3 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 15.6 XC = 0.55 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early & New Jubal Early Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 67 486 577 470 415 118 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 +_ 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 42.0 G= G= G= G= 33.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 1 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 583 607 495 561 Lane group capacity, c 671 912 775 669 v/c ratio, X 0.87 0.67 10.64 0.84 ' Total green ratio, g/C 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.39 Uniform delay, di 19.1 16.2 15.9 23.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1 1 1 11-000 Delay calibration, k 1 10.40 1 1 10.24 10.22 1 1 1 1 10.37 6/22/2006 L� Incremental delay, d2 11.8 1.9 1.8 1 9.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 30.8 18.1 17.7 32.9 Lane group LOS C B B C Approach delay 30.8 17.9 32.9 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 25.0 XC = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM PeakHour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 175 545 124 346 320 1 89 104 392 328 276 344 172 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 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 10.0 0.0 10.0 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 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 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 13.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 16.4 G= 23.0 G= G= G= 4.0 G= 4.0 G= 22.6 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 184 705 364 337 94 109 413 345 291 543 Lane group capacity, c 552 872 403 898 714 286 463 767 335 986 v/c ratio, X 0.33 0.81 0.90 0.38 0.13 0.38 0.89 10.45 0.87 0.55 Total green ratio, g/C 0.49 0.26 0.49 0.26 0.46 0.30 0.25 0.49 0.40 0.30 Uniform delay, di 13.3 31.4 22.5 27.6 14.2 25.0 32.5 15.1 22.0 26.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.35 0.42 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.42 10.11 0.40 10.15 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 1 5.7 23.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.9 19.2 1 0.4 20.9 1 0.7 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 13.6 37.2 45.6 27.8 14.3 25.8 51.7 15.5 42.9 27.3 Lane group LOS g D D C 8 C D 8 D C Approach delay 32.3 34.4 34.0 32.8 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 33.3 XC = 0.97 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • • 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Lane group L TR L T R L T R L TR Volume, V (vph) 233 693 181 539 601 538 250 468 377 233 467 332 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 10.95 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 1 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 150 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 8.4 G= 4.2 G= 22.0 G= G= 7.0 G= 23.4 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 245 920 567 633 408 263 493 397 245 841 Lane group capacity, c 370 881 450 1083 705 231 508 849 231 907 v/c ratio, X 0.66 1.04 1.26 0.58 0.58 1.14 0.97 0.47 1.06 0.93 • Total green ratio, g/C 0.36 0.26 0.47 0.31 0.45 0.42 0.28 0.54 0.42 0.28 Uniform delay, di 24.2 31.5 22.9 24.8 17.4 28.1 130.5 12.0 23.6 30.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.24 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.17 0.50 0.48 0.11 0.50 0.44 Incremental delay, dZ 4.4 42.5 133.9 0.8 1 1.2 101.6 32.3 1 0.4 76.1 15.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 28.6 74.0 156.8 25.6 18.6 129.8 62.8 12.4 99.8 45.3 Lane group LOS C E F C B F E B F D Approach delay 64.5 70.1 60.7 57.6 Approach LOS E E E E Intersection delay 63.9 XC = 1.54 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 - 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, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 175 545 124 346 320 89 104 1392 328 276 344 172 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 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 volumes 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 4.0 G= 20.0 G= G= 12.0 G= 26.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 184 574 131 364 337 94 109 413 345 291 362 181 Lane group capacity, c 381 780 645 413 937 714 492 1015 836 467 1015 679 v/c ratio, X 0.48 0.74 0.20 0.88 0.36 10.13 0.22 0.41 0.41 10.62 0.36 0.27 Total green ratio, g/C 0.31 0.22 0.41 0.41 0.27 0.46 0.48 0.29 0.53 0.48 0.29 0.43 Uniform delay, di 23.9 32.5 17.0 21.3 26.8 14.2 13.4 25.8 12.6 15.3 25.4 16.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.41 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 10.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 1.0 1 3.7 0.2 19.4 0.2 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.6 0.2 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 24.8 36.2 17.2 40.6 27.0 14.3 13.7 26.1 12.9 17.9 25.6 16.5 Lane group LOS C D B D C B B C B B C B Approach delay 31.1 31.7 19.3 21.0 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection delay 25.7 XC = 0.78 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Valley Avenue Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 - Suggested Improvements Volume and Tim ing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 233 693 181 539 601 538 250 1468 377 1233 467 1332 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 1, 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 volumes 0 0 1 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 10.0 G= 19.5 G= G= 8.5 G= 15.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 245 729 191 567 633 566 263 493 397 245 492 349 Lane group capacity, c 338 856 647 574 1295 843 285 659 823 285 659 529 v/c ratio, X 0.72 0.85 10.30 0.99 0.49 0.67 0.92 0.75 0.48 0.86 0.75 0.66 Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.24 0.41 0.52 0.37 0.54 0.36 0.19 0.52 0.36 0.19 0.34 Uniform delay, di 25.2 28.9 15.7 20.5 19.4 13.4 27.6 30.7 12.1 20.3 30.7 22.6 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 10.29 10.38 0.11 10.49 0.11 0.24 0.44 0.30 0.11 0.39 0.30 0.23 Incremental delay, d2 7.5 1 8.3 0.3 34.3 0.3 1 2.1 3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 32.7 37.1 16.0 54.8 19.7 15.5 6 Lane group LOS C D 8 D 8 8 Approach delay 32.7 29.6 Approach LOS C C Intersection delay 32.1 XC = 0.91 1 HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All RightE • 6/22/2006 HCS20001. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Merrimans Ln Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing In of EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 171 385 95 15 308 0 93 1 0 55 0 0 96 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, li 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 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 Min. time for pedestrians, GP'3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 45.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 30.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 685 340 156 101 Lane group capacity, c 1287 1608 468 532 v/c ratio, X 0.53 0.21 0.33 0.19 AMk Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.33 Uniform delay, d, 15.3 12.6 19.3 21.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.111 10.11 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 15.8 12.6 19.7 21.5 Lane group LOS B B B C Approach delay 15.8 12.6 19.7 21.5 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection delay 95.9 XC = 0.46 Intersection LOS B HCS2000Tt"t Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e Is 0 019.9.19006 4 4 HCS2000`M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Merrimans Ln Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 189 657 179 56 723 0 189 0 31 0 0 369 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 Lane width 112.0 112.0 12.0 1 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 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 12.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 20.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1079 820 232 267 Lane group capacity, c 1138 965 301 399 v/c ratio, X 10.95 1 0.85 10.77 1 0.67 ' Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.35 0.38 1 1 0.25 Uniform delay, di 119.0 24.1 1 122.0 127.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10.24 Delay calibration, k 0.46 0.38 0.32 rimonnr) Incremental delay, d2 15.8 7.3 11.6 1 4.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 34.9 31.3 33.6 31.3 Lane group LOS C C C C Approach delay 34.9 31.3 33.6 31.3 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 33.1 XC = 0.93 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 03117106 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 EasUWest Street: Meadow Branch Ave North/South Street: Rt 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 365 0 0 289 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 384 0 0 1 304 1 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 1 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 1 C (m) (vph) 1239 407 lc 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay 7.9 13.9 A B 'LOS pproach Delay 13.9 pproach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved IICS2000TM Copyright Q 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d 6/9.9.19.00 i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY L. General Information alyst PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A to Performed 03117106 alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Meadow Branch Ave In+orco finn nrionfnfinn• Alnrth_.Qniifh ite Information ntersection urisdiction �nalvsis Year rth/South Street: Rt 621 trly PPrind (hrs)- 0.25 Meadow Branch Ave & Rt 621 2012 Build -out Conditions Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 302 0 0 696 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 317 0 0 732 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 20 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 3 3 0 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 ____,_0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 21 C (m) (vph) 866 250 v/c 0.00 0.08 95% queue length 0.00 0.27 Control Delay 9.2 20.7 A C 'LOS pproach Delay 20.7 pproach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Version 4.1d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6l%%li0n6 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT Generallnformafion Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 118 657 201 136 289 192 90 699 255 115 471 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 volumes 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 124 692 212 143 304 202 95 736 268 121 496 26 Lane group capacity, c 476 896 784 176 896 784 303 1405 627 196 1405 627 v/c ratio, X 0.26 0.77 0.27 0.81 0.34 10.26 0.31 0.52 0.43 0.62 10.35 0.04 • Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform delay, di 14.4 20.4 14.5 21.1 15.1 14.3 20.6 22.8 21.7 23.9 21.0 18.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 6/22/2006 17, Incremental delay, d2 0.3 4.2 0.2 24.3 0.2 1 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.5 5.8 1 0.2 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.7 24.6 14.6 45.4 15.3 14.5 21.2 23.1 22.2 29.7 21.1 18.3 Lane group LOS B C B D B B C C C C C B Approach delay 21.3 21.7 22.7 22.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection delay 22.1 XC = 0.73 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e C] 6/22/2006 HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Agency or Co. PHR+A Area Type All other areas 7Date Performed 03117106 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Protect ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timin_q Input Number of lanes, N1 Lane group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy vehicles, %HV Peak -hour factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) Start-up lost time, I, Extension of effective green, e Arrival type, AT Unit extension, UE Filtering/metering, I Initial unmet demand, Qb Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes Lane width Parking / Grade / Parking Parking maneuvers, N. Buses stopping, NB Min. time for pedestrians, GP ©©©©©©©©©©©© z Phasing Excl. Left WB Only G = 5.0 G = 14.0 Timing Y= 5 Y= 0 Duration of P Lane Group 0 0 3.2 EW Perm G = 25.0 Y= 5 04 G= Y= ,T=0.25 ity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adjusted flow rate, v Lane group capacity, c v/c ratio, X Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di Progression factor, PF Delay calibration, k 0 10 10 1 0 10 3.2 1 3.2 NB Only NS Perm 08 G= 4.0 G= 24.0 G= Y= 0 Y= 5 1 Y= Cvcle Lenqth, C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 76 478 378 361 783 145 393 833 296 255 907 165 162 448 737 494 699 815 372 983 894 233 843 533 0.47 1.07 0.51 0.73 1.12 0.18 1.06 0.85 0.33 1.09 1.08 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.47 0.49 1 0.39 0.52 0.41 10.28 0.57 0.32 0.24 0.34 27.9 37.5 18.5 22.1 30.5 12.7 27.7 34.0 11.4 42.2 38.0 24.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 0.11 10.50 0.12 0.29 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.38 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 2.1 61.5 0.6 1 5.5 72.1 0.1 62.3 7.0 1 0.2 86.5 53.5 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 30.1 99.0 19.1 27.5 102.6 12.8 90.1 41.0 11.6 128.7 91.5 24.7 Lane group LOS C F B C F B F D B F F C Approach delay 61.0 71.5 48.0 90.3 Approach LOS E E D F Intersection delay 67.4 XC = 1.10 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e • 9 6/22/2006 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+q Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 - 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, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 118 1657 201 136 289 192 90 1699 255 1115 471 1 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 1 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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) q 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 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 1 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 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 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 • Phasing I EW Perm 1 02 03 U4 N5 rerm ub ui ua Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 1 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT 1 TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 124 692 212 143 304 202 95 736 268 121 496 26 Lane group capacity, c 523 1707 784 304 1707 784 303 1405 627 196 1405 627 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.41 0.27 0.47 0.18 0.26 10.31 0.52 10.43 0.62 0.35 0.04 Total green ratio, g/C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform delay, di 14.2 15.7 14.5 16.3 13.7 14.3 20.6 22.8 21.7 23.9 21.0 18.3 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 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 I Incremental delay, d2 10.2 10.2 10.2 11.2 10.1 10.2 10.6 10.4 10.5 15.8 10.2 10.0 E • HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT Am General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Cedar Creek Grade Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 - 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, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 72 454 359 343 744 138 373 1791 281 1242 862 157 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 13.0 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 50 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 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 Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 4.0 G= 5.0 G= 17.0 G= G= 6.0 G= 4.0 G= 23.8 G= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 79.8 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 76 478 378 361 783 145 393 833 243 255 907 165 Lane group capacity, c 210 727 727 399 941 648 421 1223 920 297 1047 644 v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.66 0.52 0.90 0.83 0.22 0.93 0.68 0.26 0.86 0.87 0.26 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.21 0.46 0.39 0.28 0.41 0.49 0.35 0.59 0.37 0.30 0.41 Uniform delay, d, 22.7 28.7 15.1 19.8 27.2 15.1 20.0 22.2 8.1 27.5 26.5 15.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10.39 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.23 0.13 10.43 0.37 0.11 0.45 0.25 0.11 0.40 0.11 619.9.19.006 0 Incremental delay, d2 1.1 2.2 0.7 23.5 6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 23.7 30.9 15.8 43.3 3: Lane group LOS C C B D 1 Approach delay 24.2 34.: Approach LOS C C Intersection delay 30.6 XC = 1. HCS2000 M Copyright © 2000 University • • HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 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 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 46 1032 56 221 634 66 55 75 235 37 24 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, I, 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 Arrival type, AT 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 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 10.0 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 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 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 42.0 G= G= G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 48 1086 59 233 667 69 137 247 39 54 Lane group capacity, c 343 1593 732 302 1972 906 494 488 383 528 v/c ratio, X 0.14 0.68 10.08 0.77 10.34 10.08 0.28 0.51 10.10 0.10 Total green ratio, g/C 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Uniform delay, di 13.7 18.8 13.3 14.9 10.0 8.4 23.4 25.3 22.1 22.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, dZ 0.2 1 1.2 0.0 11.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 6/22/2006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 13.9 20.0 13.3 26.5 10.1 8.4 Lane group LOS B B B C B A Approach delay 19.4 13.9 Approach LOS B B Intersection delay 18,3 XC = 0.70 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights • 0 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT Am General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 50 & Route 621 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume, V (vph) 65 1032 182 330 1695 64 107 41 173 235 1186 64 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 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, 11 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 Arrival type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 1 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 Initial unmet demand, Qb 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 Lane width 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 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only EW Perm 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 4.0 G= 14.0 G= 37.0 G= G= 8.5 G= 16.5 G= G= Y= 5 IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 68 1086 192 347 1784 67 156 182 247 263 Lane group capacity, c 152 1329 611 502 1832 1065 202 734 273 467 v/c ratio, X 0.45 0.82 0.31 0.69 0.97 0.06 0.77 0.25 0.90 0.56 Total green ratio, g/C 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.63 0.54 0.68 0.17 0.47 0.26 0.26 Uniform delay, di 19.4 26.0 20.2 21.7 21.4 5.1 37.5 15.2 34.8 30.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.26 0.48 10.11 0.32 0.11 0.43 0.16 Incremental delay, d2 2.1 4.1 0.3 4.0 15.3 0.0 1 116.7 0.2 31.0 1.6 r)/??/?nor) Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.4 30.1 20.5 25.7 36.6 5.1 54.2 15.4 65.8 31.8 Lane group LOS C C C C D A D 8 E C Approach delay 28.3 33.9 33.3 48.3 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection delay 33.8 XC = 1.00 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 4 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information [Agency/Co. Site Information nalyst PHR+A PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 621 & Route 622 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 EasUWest Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 129 111 29 55 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 135 116 30 57 1 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 -- - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 87 85 27 50 86 18 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 91 89 28 52 90 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 1 30 208 160 C (m) (vph) 1526 1309 558 548 lc 0.00 0.02 0.37 0.29 95% queue length 0.00 0.07 1.72 1.21 Control Delay 7.4 7.8 15.2 14.3 LOS A A C B Approach Delay -- -- 15.2 14.3 [Approach LOS -- -- C B Rights Reserved I-ICS2000TM Copyright Q 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 is is TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: North -South ►ite Information itersection Route 621 & Route 622 urisdiction ,nalysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions lorth/South Street: Route 621 >tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 59 69 66 4 71 47 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 62 1 72 69 4 74 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 — — 3 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 134 205 73 48 104 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 141 215 76 50 1 109 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 3 3 3 3 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 Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 62 4 432 163 C (m) (vph) 1458 1436 547 434 v/c 0.04 0.00 0.79 0.38 95% queue length 0.13 0.01 7.43 1.72 Control Delay 7.6 7.5 31.9 18.2 LOS A A D C Approach Delay -- -- 31.9 18.2 Approach LOS -- -- D C Rights Reserved HCS 000TM Version 4.1d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d t;/99/?nor) J- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 622 & Harvest Drive Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 75 968 0 0 352 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 78 1018 0 0 370 78 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 3 — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 1 0 0 AM Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 61 0 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 64 0 1 78 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 78 142 Capacity, cm (vph) 1112 350 v/c ratio 0.07 0.41 Queue length (95%) 0.23 1.91 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 22.1 LOS A C pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 22.1 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000" M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 622 & Harvest Drive Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Year 2012 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Harvest Drive Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 52 856 0 0 1196 145 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 54 901 1 0 0 1258 1 152 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 — 3 _ Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 •Minor Street Movement Northbound 7 8 9 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 75 0 61 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 78 0 64 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 54 142 Capacity, cm (vph) 484 180 v/c ratio 0.11 0.79 Queue length (95%) 0.37 5.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.4 74.2 LOS B F pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 74.2 Approach LOS -- -- F I-ICS2000 rM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id rl??l?nnri HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Spine Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 15 1003 381 1 46 41 55 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 AM Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 52.0 G= G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 1072 401 48 101 Lane group capacity, c 1261 1066 906 333 v/c ratio, X 0.85 0.38 0.05 0.30 Total green ratio, g/C 0.69 0.58 0.58 0.20 Uniform delay, d, 10.5 10.2 8.3 30.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 5.7 0.2 0.0 0.5 L. Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 16.2 10.5 B.3 31.2 Lane group LOS B B A C Approach delay 16.2 10.2 31.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 15.5 XC = 0.73 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 11 r� HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Spine Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LR Volume, V (vph) 56 816 1173 84 92 1 31 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 62.0 G= G= G= G= 18.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 918 1235 88 130 Lane group capacity, c 1081 1271 1080 343 v/c ratio, X 0.85 0.97 10.08 0.38 Total green ratio, g/C 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.20 Uniform delay, di 10.5 13.2 4.6 31.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.38 0.48 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 6.5 18.8 0.0 0.7 619.9.19.006 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 17.0 32.0 4.6 31.9 Lane group LOS B C A C Approach delay 17.0 30.1 31.9 Approach LOS B C C Intersection delay 25.2 XC = O.B4 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright (D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e Is 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 4 472 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 496 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Signal 0 •Upstream Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Control Dela , Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 4 Capacity, cm (vph) 1039 ratio 0.00 •v/c Queue length (95%) 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 LOS A delay (s/veh)proach kpproach LOS I-- -- Intersection Rt 37 NB Ramp & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions South Street: Rt 37 NB Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound 0 Raised curb I - South •• 0 � © I I i Northbound • .. • 12 rl??l?nn() TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03117106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 621 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 7 770 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 7 810 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Movement Northbound 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 15 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 15 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 7 Capacity, cm (vph) 508 v/c ratio 0.01 Queue length (95%) 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.2 LOS B pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- [Approach LOS -- - Intersection Rt 37 NB Ramp & Route 621 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: Rt 37 NB tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Raised curb 0 Southbound 0 � • .• •Southbound 12 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 131 616 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 137 648 Proportion of heavy 3 — ehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement Volume (veh/h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Control Delay, Queue Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, cm (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS Approach delay (s/veh) Approach LOS 0 0 0 I' I• 0 0 / I Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 NB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: Route 37 NB tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 I I• I• I' I• 1 : •I Undivided I South .. I I I• I• ■ I• I• I I I I 7 Northbound 8 LTR 108 383 0.28 1.14 18.0 C 18.0 C Southbound 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 6/22/2006 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID Willow Run Phase 2 (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 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 131 616 77 1532 12 0 92 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, 11 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 100 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, Ng 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= 55.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 786 81 455 110 Lane group capacity, c 1101 1194 1015 380 v/c ratio, X 0.71 0.07 0.45 0.29 • Total green ratio, g/C 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.24 Uniform delay, di 9.8 5.5 7.5 26.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 1 10.28 1 1 10.11 10.11 10.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.1 5.6 7.8 27.1 Lane group LOS B A A C Approach delay 12.1 7.4 27.1 Approach LOS B A C Intersection delay 11.5 XC = 0.60 Intersection LOS B HCS200J" Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0310912006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 NB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (Suggested Improvements) 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 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 66 803 118 910 130 0 43 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 AM Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 200 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 47.0 G= G= G= 27.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 914 124 747 182 Lane group capacity, c 1053 963 819 515 v/c ratio, X 0.87 0.13 0.91 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.30 Uniform delay, d, 15.6 11.0 19.6 24.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.40 0.11 0.43 0.11 6/22/2006 1� Incremental delay, d2 7.9 0.1 14.4 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 23.4 11.1 34.0 25.1 Lane group LOS C 8 C C Approach delay 23.4 30.8 25.1 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 26.8 XC = 0.78 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • r� U 6/22/2006 General Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 167 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 175 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles; PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 31 Capacity, cm (vph) 1325 v/c ratio Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.07 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 LOS A pproach delay (s/veh)pproach F LOS -- - Intersection Route 622 & Route 37 SB Ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: Route 37 SB tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Undivided Southbound •so of of Southbound 12 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY AM General Information Isite Information w11n_..i, n_nn o n-...4- n� nn Analyst PHR+A Intersection FWULU ULL Oc L-XUULC Of OLD Ramp Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/20/06 Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Route 622 North/South Street: Route 37 SB Ramp Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 115 59 35 213 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 121 1 62 36 224 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 0 — — 3 — — Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 754 4 199 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 793 4 209 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 3 0 3 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration r LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR Volume, v (vph) 36 1006 Capacity, cm (vph) 1386 591 v/c ratio 0.03 1.70 Queue length (95%) 0.08 58.34 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 341.2 LOS A F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 341.2 pproach LOS -- -- F 6/22/2006 HCS2000`. DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 0311912006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (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, N� 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 167 58 30 59 580 1 140 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A _r A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 37.0 G= G= G= G= 43.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 237 94 612 147 Lane group capacity, c 732 655 839 749 v/c ratio, X 0.32 0.14 0.73 0.20 . Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d, 0.41 18.0 0.41 16.6 0.48 18.8 0.48 13.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 1 0.11 1 9 0.11 6/22/2006 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.1 3.3 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 18.3 16.7 22.1 13.7 Lane group LOS B B C B Approach delay 18.3 16.7 20.5 Approach LOS B B C Intersection delay 19.7 X� = 0.54 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • 6/22/2006 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03/19/2006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 622 & Rt 37 SB Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project ID willow Run Phase 2 (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 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group TR LT LT R Volume, V (vph) 115 59 35 213 754 4 199 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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 Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 13.0 G= G= G= 37.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 75.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 183 261 798 209 Lane group capacity, c 305 456 867 774 v/c ratio, X 0.60 0.57 0.92 0.27 Total green ratio, g/C 0.17 0.37 0.49 0.49 Uniform delay, di 28.6 18.7 17.6 11.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 10.19 1.000 10.17 1 1.000 10.44 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 6/22/2006 • Incremental delay, d2 3.3 1.7 14.9 1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 31.9 20.5 32.5 11.3 Lane group LOS C C C 8 Approach delay 31.9 20.5 28.1 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 27.2 X c = 0.88 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e CJ is 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection ubal Early Dr & Spine Road Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Jubal Earl Drive North/South Street: Spine Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 374 75 50 210 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 393 78 52 221 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 — — 2 — — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R LT T Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 108 0 117 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 113 0 123 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 52 236 Capacity, cm (vph) 1087 628 v/c ratio 0.05 0.38 Queue length (95%) 0.15 1.74 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 14.1 LOS A B Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.1 Approach LOS -- -- B 6/22/2006 HCS20001 M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 0 • • 6/22/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 03120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jubal Early Dr & Spine Road Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2012 Build -out Conditions Project Description Willow Run Phase 2 East/West Street: Jubal Early Drive North/South Street: Spine Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 453 176 141 554 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 476 185 148 583 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 0 2 — Median type Raised curb RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R LT T Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 153 0 100 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 161 0 105 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 148 266 Capacity, cm (vph) 923 463 v/c ratio 0.16 0.57 Queue length (95%) 0.57 3.54 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 22.8 LOS A C pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 22.8 [Approach LOS -- -- C 6/22/2006 Movement Summary *Rt 37 SB ramp & Jubal Early Drive 2012 Build -out Conditions AM Peak Hour Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Dem Flow Level of Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Mov No Turn (veh/h) o/oHV Satn De lay Service Queue Queued Rate Speed (v/c) (sec) (mph) East Approach 22 L 167 2.0 0.142 2.8 LOS A 0 0.00 0.34 19.2 22 T 77 2.0 0.142 2.8 LOS A 0 0.00 0.34 19.2 Approach 244 2.0 0.142 2.8 LOS A 0.00 - 0.34 19.2 North Approach 42 L 467 2.1 0.440 5.9 LOS A 95 0.48 0.58 18.3 42 T 1 2.1 0.440 5.9 LOS A 95 0.48 0.58 18.3 43 R 8 12.5 0.444 2.5 LOS A 95 0.48 0.40 19.0 Approach 477 2.3 0.440 5.9 LOS A 95 0.48 0.58 18.3 West Approach 12 T 135 2.2 0.193 4.7 LOS A 36 0.61 0.51 18.6 13 R 9 10.0 0.192 5.6 LOS A 36 0.61 0.58 18.4 Approach 145 2.8 0.193 4.8 LOS A 36 0.61 0.52 18.6 All Vehicles 866 2.3 0.444 4.8 LOS A 95 0.37 0.50 18.6 r l I akcelik .�.• J & associates aaTraffic aaSlD /, T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\AM SB ramps & Jubal Early Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:25:06 PM • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary ORt 37 SB ramp & ]ubal Early Drive 2030 Build -out Conditions PM Peak Hour Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Dem Flow Level of Back of Pro Eff. Stop Speed (veh/h) (v/c) (sec) Service Queue Queued Rate (mph) (ft) East Approach 22 L 338 2.0 0.354 2.3 LOS A 0 0.00 0.27 19.3 22 T 271 2.0 0.354 2.3 LOS A 0 0.00 0.27 19.3 Approach 609 2.0 0.354 2.3 LOS A 0.00 0.27 19.3 North Approach 42 L 722 2.1 0.884 31.6 LOS C 706 1.00 1.74 13.7 42 T 1 2.1 0.884 31.6 LOS C 706 1.00 1.74 13.7 43 R 18 5.3 0.864 28.2 LOS C 706 1.00 1.74 13.9 Approach 743 2.2 0.884 31.5 LOS C 706 1.00 1.74 13.7 *West Approach 12 T 96 2.1 0.262 12.2 LOS B 64 0.86 0.77 16.8 13 R 9 10.0 0.263 13.1 LOS B 64 0.86 0.80 16.6 Approach 106 2.8 0.262 12.3 LOS B 64 0.86 0.77 16.8 All Vehicles 1458 2.1 0.884 17.9 LOS B 706 0.57 1.06 15.8 r akcelik -_..,.I & associates aaTraff i c aaSIDRA T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\PM SB ramps & Jubal Early Produced by aaSZDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 6/22/2006 12:25:25 PM • 6/22/2006 Movement Summary *Rt 37 NB ramp Y & ]ubal Earl Drive 2030 Build -out Conditions AM Peak Hour Roundabout Vehicle Movements Deg of Aver 950/0 Aver Mov No Turn Dem Flow %HV Satn Delay Level of Back of Pro p' Eff. Stop Speed (veh/h) (v/c) (sec) Service Queue Queued Rate (mph) (ft) South Approach 32 L 3 2.9 0.290 6.9 LOS A 68 0.64 0.55 18.1 32 T 1 2.9 0.290 6.9 LOS A 68 0.64 0.55 18.1 32 R 239 2.9 0.290 6.9 LOS A 68 0.64 0.55 18.1 Approach 245 2.9 0.290 6.9 LOS A 68 0.64 0.55 18.1 East Approach 22 T 229 2.2 0.393 0.2 LOS A 95 0.07 0.04 19.8 23 R 421 1.9 0.393 1.1 LOS A 95 0.07 0.17 19.6 650 2.0 0.393 0.8 LOS A 95 0.07 0.13 19.7 •Approach West Approach 12 L 5 2.2 0.371 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 20.0 12 T 629 2.2 0.371 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 20.0 Approach 636 2.2 0.371 0.0 LOS A 0.00 0.00 20.0 All Vehicles 1531 2.2 0.393 1.5 LOS A 95 0.13 0.14 19.5 2 ` akcelik �• & associates aaTraffic aaSIDRA T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised)\HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\AM Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Ptv Ltd • Generated 6/22/2006 12:25:37 PM 6/22/2006 Movement Summary *Rt 37 NB ramp Y & Jubal Earl Drive 2012 Build -out Conditions PM Peak Hour Roundabout Vehicle Movements Dem Flow Deg of Aver Level of 950/0 Back of Prop. Eff. Stop Aver Mov No Turn (veh/h) %HV Satn Delay Service Queue Queued Rate Speed (v/c) (sec) (ft (mph) South Approach 32 L 17 2.6 0.418 13.5 LOS B 133 0.84 0.67 16.6 32 T 1 2.6 0.418 13.5 LOS B 133 0.84 0.67 16.6 32 R 282 2.6 0.418 13.5 LOS B 133 0.84 0.67 16.6 Approach 302 2.6 0.417 13.5 LOS B 133 0.84 0.67 16.6 East Approach 22 T 561 2.0 0.866 0.8 LOS A 731 0.38 0.13 19.3 23 R 831 2.0 0.866 1.7 LOS A 731 0.38 0.22 19.1 Approach 1392 2.0 0.865 1.3 LOS A 731 0.38 0.19 19.2 West Approach 12 L 8 2.1 0.503 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 20.0 12 T 856 2.1 0.503 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 20.0 Approach 864 2.1 0.503 0.0 LOS A 0.00 0.00 20.0 All Vehicles 2558 2.1 0.866 2.3 LOS A 731 0.31 0.18 19.1 akceiik ti & associates, aaTraff i aaSIDRA T:\Projects\12883-1-2 (Willow Run Revised) \HCS\Working Files\HCS_Phase 2_5-15-06\PM Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.1.354 Copyright© 2000-2004 Akcelik & Associates Ptv Ltd • Generated 6/22/2006 12:25:49 PM 6/22/2006 • Traffic Counts E Intersection: E-W: Route 622 N-S: Route 37 (SB Ramp) Adak Location lWinchester, VA Weather Dry File Name Count By J7P Input By HK Count Date 8/26/2004 15 Minute EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Rout 37 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 12 12 8 8 0 81 0 14 95 115 7:00 7:15 15 15 7 7 0 90 1 21 112 134 7:15 7:30 11 11 11 11 0 114 0 18 132 154 7:30 7:45 13 13 8 8 0 110 1 26 137 158 7:45 8:00 9 9 14 14 0 107 0 21 128 151 3:00 8:15 14 14 10 10 0 91 0 30 121 145L8:45 8:30 15 15 11 11 0 84 0 34 118 144 8:45 10 10 12 12 0 80 0 28 108 1309:00 0 0 0 0 09:15 0 0 0 0 09:30 0 0 0 0 09:45 0 0 0 0 0 A.M. Total 0 0 99 99 81 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 757 2 192 951 1131 F.A.M. Total 4:00 8 8 8 8 0 116 t 18 135 151 4:00 4:15 11 11 14 14 0 122 0 19 141 166 4:15 4:30 14 14 13 13 0 131 1 24 156 183 4:30 4:45 10 10 17 17 0 134 0 29 163 190 4:45 5:00 17 17 21 21 0 147 0 42 189 227 5:00 5:15 15 15 18 18 0 137 2 40 179 212 5:15 5:30 12 12 15 15 0 116 1 31 148 175 5:30 5:45 8 8 11 11 0 100 0 26 126 145 5:45 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 :45 0 0 0 0 1 0 6:45 Total r70 0 95 95 117 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 1003 5 229 1237 1 1449 JFp.M.Total I Hour EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Route 37 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 51 51 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 395 2 79 476 561 7:00 7:15 0 0 48 48 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 421 2 86 509 597 7:15 7:30 0 0 47 47 43 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 422 1 95 518 608 7:30 7:45 0 0 51 51 43 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 392 1 111 504 598 7:45 8:00 0 0 48 48 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 362 0 113 475 570 8:00 8:15 0 0 39 39 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 255 0 92 347 419 8:15 8:30 0 0 25 25 23 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 164 0 62 226 274 8:30 8:45 0 0 10 10 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 80 0 28 108 130 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 4:00 0 0 43 43 52 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 503 2 90 595 690 4:00 4:15 0 0 52 52 65 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 534 1 114 649 766 4:15 4:30 0 0 56 56 69 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 549 3 135 687 812 4:30 4:45 0 0 54 54 71 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 534 3 142 679 804 4:45 5:00 0 0 52 52 65 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 500 3 139 642 759 5:00 5:15 0 0 35 35 44 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 353 3 97 453 532 5:15 5:30 0 0 20 20 26 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 216 1 57 274 320 5:30 5:45 0 0 8 8 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 126 145 5:45 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 1 Hour EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Route 37 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 0 0 47 47 43 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 422 1 95 518 608 7:30 Peak PHF = 0.84 PHF = 0.77 PHF = Off"# PHF = 0.95 0.96 A.M. Peak 4:30 0 0 56 56 69 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 549 3 135 687 812 4:30 P.M. Peak PHY = 0.82 PHF = 0.82 PHF = f!1?NIItJtI PHF = 0.91 0.89 P.M. Peak r-1 section: E-W: HANDLEY AVE Weather Dry File Name N-S: MEADOW BRANCH AVE Count By JJP Int By pu JJP Location winchester,va Count Date 6/2/2004 15 Minute EB: WB: HANDLEY AVE NB: MEADOW BRANCH A\ SB: MEADOW BRANCH AVE 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 31 10 41 1 35 0 36 83 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 14 0 38 12 50 2 37 0 39 103 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 16 0 40 11 51 1 42 0 43 110 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 4 0 16 20 0 41 12 53 3 46 0 49 122 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 16 0 48 16 64 1 44 0 45 125 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 0 3 0 14 17 0 42 14 56 0 40 0 40 113 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 6 0 10 16 0 36 12 48 2 38 0 40 104 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 7 0 11 18 0 41 14 55 5 35 0 40 1 113 8:45 A.M. Total IF 0 0 0 0 38 0 35 123 0 317 101 418 15 317 0 332 873 A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 10 0 82 14 96 6 76 0 82 188 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 13 0 90 7 97 5 80 0 85 195 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 10 0 94 6 I00 4 83 0 87 197 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 14 0 102 11 113 7 97 0 104 231 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 18 0 I10 14 124 11 107 0 118 260 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 5 0 10 15 0 96 17 113 10 96 0 106 234 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 15 0 89 15 104 8 84 0 92 211 17:30 17:45 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 15 0 80 10 90 6 79 0 85 190 17:45 P.M. Total 0 0 0 0 33 0 77 110 0 743 94 837 57 702 0 759 1706 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: WB: HANDLEY AVE NB: MEADOW BRANCH A\ SB: MEADOW BRANCH AVE I Hour N,S, Period �iod ining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 18 0 38 56 0 150 45 195 7 160 0 167 418 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 20 0 46 66 0 167 51 218 7 169 0 176 460 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 16 0 53 69 0 171 53 224 5 172 0 177 470 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 17 0 52 69 0 167 54 221 6 168 0 174 464 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 20 0 47 67 0 167 56 223 8 157 0 165 455 8:00 16:00 0 0 0 0 12 0 35 47 0 368 38 406 22 336 0 358 811L17:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 10 0 45 55 0 396 38 434 27 367 0 394 883 16:30 0 0 0 0 12 0 45 57 0 402 48 450 32 383 0 415 922 16:45 0 0 0 0 17 0 45 62 0 397 57 454 36 384 0 420 936 17:00 0 0 0 0 21 0 42 63 0 375 56 431 35 366 0 401 895 1 Hour EB: WB: I-IANDLEY AVE NB: MEADOW BRANCH A SB: MEADOW BRANCH AVE 1 Hour N,S, Period Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Tliru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 0 0 0 0 16 0 53 69 0 171 53 224 5 172 0 177 470 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = PFIF = 0.86 PHF = 0.88 PI -IF = 0.90 0.94 A.M. Peak 16:45 0 0 0 0 17 0 45 62 0 397 5�74 3G 384 0 420 936 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = PHF = 0.86 PH2 PHF = 0.89 0.90 P.M. Peak 0 section: E-W: BRECKINRIDGE LN N-S: NIERRIMAN'S LN Location I winchester.va Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Inpul By JJP Count Date 6/3/2004 15 Minute EB: 1A'B: BRECKR\RIDGE LN NB: MERRIMANS LN SB: MERRIMAN'S LN 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E &'A' Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 10 0 6 2 8 32 2 0 34 52 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 12 0 8 1 9 40 5 0 45 66L7:45 7:30 0 0 0 0 6 0 14 20 0 11 2 13 46 6 0 52 85 7:45 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 14 0 12 3 15 49 7 0 56 858:00 0 0 0 0 5 0 14 19 0 17 4 21 61 7 0 68 1088:15 0 0 0 0 3 0 18 21 0 14 4 18 63 6 0 69 1088:30 0 0 0 0 3 0 17 20 0 12 1 13 64 8 0 72 1058:45 0 0 0 0 4 0 15 19 0 10 2 12 60 4 0 64 95 A.M. Total 0 0 0 0 31 0 104 135 0 90 19 109 415 45 0 460 704 A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 0 0 16 0 68 84 0 8 0 8 48 11 0 59 151 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 15 0 77 92 0 11 1 12 51 14 0 65 169 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 19 0 84 103 0 6 2 8 56 14 0 70 181 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 18 0 85 103 0 8 2 10 60 16 0 76 189 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 24 0 96 120 0 10 0 10 72 17 0 89 219 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 26 0 90 116 0 12 3 IS 74 16 0 90 221 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 21 0 89 110 0 10 1 11 68 14 0 82 203 17:30 17:45 0 0 0 0 17 0 76 93 0 8 2 10 59 ` 11 0 70 173 17:45 P.M. Total 0 0 0 0 156 0 665 821 0 73 11 84 488 113 0 6D] 1506 P.M. Total I Hour EB: WB: BRECKINRIDGE LN NB: MERRIMANS LN SB: MERRIMAN'S LN 1 Hour -iod N,S, Period ning Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W —Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 16 0 40 56 0 37 8 45 167 20 0 187 288 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 19 0 46 65 0 48 10 58 196 25 0 221 344 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 18 0 56 74 0 54 13 67 219 26 0 245 386 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 15 0 59 74 0 55 12 67 237 28 0 265 406 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 15 0 64 79 0 53 11 64 248 25 0 273 416 8:00 16:00 0 0 0 0 68 0 314 392 0 33 5 38 215 55 0 270 690 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 76 0 342 418 0 35 5 40 239 61 0 300 758 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 87 0 355 442 0 36 7 43 262 63 0 325 810 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 89 0 360 449 0 40 6 46 274 63 0 337 832 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 88 0 351 439 0 40 6 46 273 58 0 331 816 17:00 I Flour EB: WB: BRECKINRTDGE LN NB: MERRIMAN'S IN SB: MERRIMAN'S LN I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 8:00 A.M. Peak 0 0 0 PHF = 0 IS 0 64 PHF = 79 0.94 0 53 11 PHF = 64 0.76 248 25 0 PHF = 273 0.95 416 0.96 8:00 A.M. Peak 16:45 0 0 0 0 89 0 360 449 0 40 6 46 274 63 0 337 832 1 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.77 1 PHF = 0.94 0.94 P.M. Peak t♦ Wrsection: E-W: IROUTE 50 Weather Dry File Name N-S: MERRIh4ANS LN Count By JJP Input By J7P Location winchester,va Count Date 6/3/2004 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NTB: MERRIMANS LN SB: MEDICAL CENTER 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 4 129 12 145 14 41 5 60 10 7 12 29 4 0 3 7 241 7:00 7:15 6 137 16 159 21 48 8 77 12 9 15 36 2 2 3 7 279 7:15 7:30 8 144 20 172 26 51 6 83 17 10 17 44 6 1 1 8 307 7:30 7:45 10 151 24 185 29 60 10 99 16 15 21 52 8 3 4 15 351 7:45 8:00 11 169 26 206 32 71 12 115 17 10 26 53 7 5 3 15 389 8:00 8:15 7 174 27 208 35 74 12 121 20 II 22 53 4 4 6 14 396 8:15 8:30 3 166 21 190 37 69 11 117 14 15 18 47 6 4 6 16 370 8:30 8:45 4 150 20 174 32 66 7 105 16 14 15 45 6 3 4 13 337 8:45 A.M. Total 53 1220 166 1439 226 430 71 777 122 91 146 359 43 22 30 95 26LO�l A.M. Total 16:00 8 138 42 188 34 240 8 282 40 5 15 60 31 30 8 69 599 16:00 16:15 10 136 51 197 31 254 9 294 44 7 18 69 41 26 11 78 638 16:15 16:30 12 140 58 210 37 261 10 308 49 11 16 76 36 30 7 73 667 16:30 16:45 7 139 63 209 40 279 14 333 54 5 21 80 41 33 11 85 707 16:45 17:00 11 140 60 211 42 276 Il 329 53 6 19 78 42 34 12 88 706 17:00 17:15 14 141 66 221 40 251 8 299 56 6 24 86 40 29 13 82 688 17:15 17:30 10 133 58 201 35 244 10 289 49 4 20 73 36 21 11 68 631 17:30 17:45 11 126 47 184 31 231 6 268 41 5 18 64 31 20 8 59 575 17:45 P.M. Total IF 83 1093 445 1621 290 2036 76 2402 386 49 151 586 298 223 81 602 5211 P.M. Total I Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: MERRIMANS LN SB: MEDICAL CENTER 1 Hour iod N,S, Period wing Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 28 561 72 661 90 200 29 319 55 41 65 161 20 6 11 37 1178 7:00 7:15 35 601 86 722 108 230 36 374 62 44 79 185 23 11 11 45 1326 7:15 7:30 36 638 97 771 122 256 40 418 70 46 86 202 25 13 14 52 1443 730 7:45 31 660 98 789 133 274 45 452 67 51 87 205 25 16 19 60 1506L74 8:00 25 659 94 778 136 290 42 458 67 50 81 198 23 16 19 58 1492 16:00 37 553 214 804 142 1034 41 1217 187 28 70 285 149 119 37 305 2611 16:15 40 555 232 827 150 1070 44 1264 200 29 74 303 160 123 41 324 2718 16:30 44 560 247 851 159 1067 43 1269 212 28 80 320 159 126 43 328 2768 16:45 42 553 247 842 157 1050 43 1250 212 21 84 317 159 117 47 323 2732 17:00 46 540 231 817 148 1002 35 1185 199 21 81 301 149 104 44 297 2600 I Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: MERRIMAN'S LN SB: MEDICAL CENTER I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:45 31 660 98 789 133 274 45 452 67 51 87 205 25 16 19 60 1506 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.97 PHF = 0.94 0.95 A.M. Peak 16:30 44 560 247 851 159 1067 43 1269 212 28 80 320 159 126 43 328 2768 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.93 1 0.98 P.M. Peak 0 *section: E-W: I ROUTE 622 N-S: 1-IARVEST DR Location I winchester,va Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Input By JJP Count Date I 6/l/2004 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 622 WB: ROUTE 622 NB: SB: HARVEST DR 15 Min. Period N.S, Period BeeininL, Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 8 151 0 159 0 54 7 61 0 0 0 0 11 0 8 19 239 7:00 7:15 12 159 0 171 0 69 8 77 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 20 268 7:15 7:30 15 176 0 191 0 73 10 83 0 0 0 0 14 0 12 26 300 7:30 7:45 10 188 0 198 0 72 14 86 0 0 0 0 8 0 15 23 307 7:45 8:00 14 174 0 188 0 66 12 78 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 21 287 8:00 8:15 12 166 0 178 0 64 15 79 0 0 0 0 8 0 14 22 279 8:15 8:30 14 171 0 185 0 66 16 82 0 0 0 0 8 0 12 20 287 8:30 8:45 11 164 0 175 0 60 15 75 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 15 24 1 274 8:45 A.M. Total 96 1349 0 1445 0 524 97 621 0 0 0---O—T 79 0 96 FA.M. Total I6:00 6 139 0 145 0 180 21 201 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 18 364 16:00 16:15 8 142 0 150 0 194 23 217 0 0 0 0 10 0 11 21 388 16:15 16:30 6 144 0 150 0 207 21 228 0 0 0 0 14 0 12 26 404 16:30 16:45 11 149 0 160 0 211 26 237 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 20 417 16:45 17:00 8 159 0 167 0 221 29 250 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 22 439 17:00 17:15 10 151 0 161 0 216 22 238 0 0 0 0 16 0 8 24 423 17:15 17:30 7 142 0 149 0 192 21 213 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 20 382 17:30 17:45 8 133 0 141 0 188 16 204 0 0 0 0 11 ` 0 7 18 1 363 17:45 P.M.Total 64 I159 0 1223 0 1609 179 1788 0 0 0 0 88 0 81 169 3180 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 622 118: ROUTE 622 NB: SB: HARVEST DR 1 Hour iod N,S, Period ing Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Rieht Total E & 'V Begining 7:00 45 674 0 719 0 268 39 307 0 0 0 0 43 0 45 88 1114 7:00 7:15 51 697 0 748 0 280 44 324 0 0 0 0 43 0 47 90 1162 7:15 7:30 51 704 0 755 0 275 51 326 0 0 0 0 41 0 51 92 1173 7:30 7:45 50 699 0 749 0 268 57 325 0 0 0 0 35 0 51 86 1160 7:45 8:00 51 675 0 726 0 256 58 314 0 0 0 0 36 0 51 87 1127 8:00 16:00 31 574 0 605 0 792 91 883 0 0 0 0 40 0 45 85 1573 16:00 16:15 33 594 0 627 0 833 99 932 0 0 0 0 45 0 44 89 1648L17:00 16:30 35 603 0 633 0 855 98 953 0 0 0 0 51 0 41 92 1683 16:45 36 601 0 637 0 840 98 938 0 0 0 0 47 0 39 86 1661 17:00 33 585 0 618 0 817 88 905 0 0 0 0 48 0 36 84 1607 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 622 WB: ROUTE 622 NB: SB: HARVEST DR I I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Rieht Total E & W Begining 7:30 51 704 0 755 0 275 51 326 0 0 0 0 41 0 51 92 1173 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.95 PHF = PHF = 0.88 0.96 A.M. Peak 16:30 35 603 0 638 0 855 98 953 0 0 0 0 51 0 41 92 1683 16.30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.95 PHF = PHF = 0.88 1 0.96 P.M. Peak 11 1ersection: E-W: ROUTE 622 N-S: ROUTE 621 Location winchester,va Weather Dry File Name Count By I JJP Input By JJP Count Date I 6/9/2004 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 622 IAB: ROUTE 622 NB: ROUTE 621 SB: ROUTE 621 15 lytin. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 3 11 1 15 10 3 3 16 2 16 14 32 3 6 0 9 72 7:00 7:15 3 12 3 18 12 5 5 22 0 21 14 35 1 8 1 10 85 7:15 7:30 4 16 2 22 14 7 4 25 0 22 17 39 3 11 0 14 100 7:30 7:45 2 12 2 16 16 6 5 27 1 20 12 33 4 9 1 14 90 7:45 8:00 5 17 4 26 17 8 6 31 0 24 18 42 7 12 2 21 120 8:00 8:15 5 15 4 24 16 8 6 30 1 27 21 49 6 10 1 17 120 8:15 3:30 6 12 2 20 14 11 5 30 0 20 20 40 8 8 0 16 106 8:30 8:45 5 9 2 16 12 12 7 31 1 0 16 16 32 1 6 7 1 14 93 8:45 A.M. Total IF 33 104 20 157 1 I l 60 41 212 4 166 132 302 38 71 6 115 786 JFA.M. Total 16:00 6 8 2 16 17 21 14 52 8 6 7 21 6 14 1 21 110 16:00 16:15 4 10 1 15 14 26 12 52 7 8 8 23 5 10 2 17 107 16:15 16:30 3 14 0 17 19 30 16 65 10 11 10 31 7 11 3 21 134 16:30 16:45 4 11 2 17 21 35 16 72 12 10 14 36 4 15 1 20 145 16:45 17:00 3 12 0 15 27 33 17 77 11 14 10 35 5 10 0 15 142 17:00 17:15 4 14 1 19 24 30 14 68 7 12 11 30 3 12 2 17 134 17:15 17:30 2 13 1 16 21 26 12 59 6 10 12 28 2 14 0 16 119 17:30 17:45 4 13 0 17 19 23 11 53 9 9 10 28 2 9 1 12 110 17:45 P.M. Total 30 95 7 132 162 224 112 498 70 80 82 232 34 95 10 139 1001 IF P.M. Total I Hour EB: ROUTE 622 WB: ROUTE 622 NB: ROUTE 621 SB: ROUTE 621 1 Hour jftriod N,S, Period ning Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 12 51 8 71 52 21 17 90 3 79 57 139 11 34 2 47 347 7:00 7:15 14 57 11 82 59 26 20 105 1 87 61 149 15 40 4 59 395 7:15 7:30 16 60 12 88 63 29 21 113 2 93 68 163 20 42 4 66 430 7:30 7:45 18 56 12 86 63 33 22 118 2 91 71 164 25 39 4 68 436 7:45 8:00 21 53 12 86 59 39 24 122 1 87 75 163 27 37 4 68 439 8:00 16:00 17 43 5 65 71 112 58 241 37 35 39 111 22 50 7 79 496 16:00 16:15 14 47 3 64 81 124 61 266 40 43 42 125 21 46 6 73 528 16:15 16:30 14 51 3 68 91 128 63 282 40 47 45 132 19 48 6 73 555 16:30 16:45 13 50 4 67 93 124 59 276 36 46 47 129 14 51 3 68 540 16:45 17:00 13 52 2 67 91 112 54 257 33 45 43 121 12 45 3 60 505 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 622 WB: ROUTE 622 NB: ROUTE 621 SB: ROUTE 621 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 8:00 21 53 12 86 59 39 24 122 1 87 75 163 27 37 4 68 439 8:00 A.M. Peak PIIF = 0.83 PHF = 0.98 PI -IF = 0.83 PHF = 0.81 0.91 A.M. Peak 16:30 14 51 3 68 91 128 63 282 1 40 47 45 132 19 48 6 73 555 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.89 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.87 0.96 P.M. Peak • Intersection: E-W: Jubal Early Dr N-S: Valley Ave (Route l l ) _ Location Winchester, VA Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Input By HK Count Date I 9/1/2004 15 Minute EB: Jubal Early Dr WB: Jubal Early Dr NB: Route 11 SB: Route 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 6 53 11 70 48 26 6 80 8 70 33 111 33 45 9 87 348 7:00 7:15 8 48 9 65 52 25 4 81 5 65 40 110 40 47 8 95 351 7:15 7:30 10 50 12 72 62 28 6 96 6 61 48 115 43 50 11 104 387 7:30 7:45 14 58 14 86 66 25 11 102 11 74 54 139 44 51 14 109 436 7:45 8:00 16 67 19 102 61 32 14 107 10 84 66 160 56 59 17 132 501 8:00 8:15 10 60 16 86 54 34 16 10.4 12 S4 51 147 51 55 21 127 464 8:15 8:30 13 65 II 89 60 44 15 119 14 74 52 140 39 84 16 139 487 8:30 8:45 14 68 15 97 59 46 15 120 16 70 53 139 41 76 16 133 489 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 9:15 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 9:30 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 9:45 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 A.M. Total 91 469 107 667 462 260 87 809 82 582 397 1061 347 467 112 926 3463 A.M. Total 16:00 17 45 16 78 61 47 72 I80 21 55 41 117 37 50 14 101 476 16:00 16:15 21 58 14 93 72 48 71 191 36 59 44 139 46 52 22 120 543 16:15 16:30 22 80 18 120 78 55 84 217 32 71 56 159 42 76 26 144 640 16:30 16:45 19 78 21 118 91 65 96 252 31 96 69 196 40 95 40 175 741 16:45 17:00 24 100 24 148 98 79 107 284 37 95 71 203 37 99 42 178 813 17:00 17:15 27 95 21 143 90 69 89 248 32 93 61 186 44 96 37 177 754 17:15 17:30 21 90 20 131 86 52 72 210 31 89 54 174 37 82 31 150 665 17:30 17:45 18 95 15 128 79 60 66 205 26 60 49 135 33 69 33 135 603 17:45 18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 :45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 NW To—tall169 641 149 959 655 475 657 1787 246 618 445 1309 316 619 245 1180 5235 P.M.Total 1 Hour EB: Jubal Early Dr WB: Jubal Early Dr NB: Route I I SB: Route I I 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 38 209 46 293 228 104 27 359 30 270 175 475 160 193 42 395 1522 7:00 7:15 48 223 54 325 241 110 35 386 32 284 209 524 183 207 50 440 1675 7:15 7:30 50 235 61 346 243 119 47 409 39 303 219 561 194 215 63 472 1788 7:30 7:45 53 250 60 363 241 135 56 432 47 316 223 586 190 249 68 507 1888 7:45 8:00 53 260 61 374 234 156 60 450 52 312 222 586 187 274 70 531 1941 9:00 8:15 37 193 42 272 173 124 46 343 42 228 156 426 131 215 53 399 1440 8:15 9:30 27 133 26 186 119 90 30 239 30 144 105 279 80 160 32 272 976 8:30 8:45 14 68 15 97 59 46 15 120 16 70 53 139 41 76 16 133 489 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 16:00 79 261 69 409 302 215 323 840 120 281 210 611 165 273 102 540 2400 16:00 16:15 86 316 77 479 339 247 358 944 136 321 240 697 165 322 130 617 2737 16:15 16:30 92 353 84 529 357 268 376 1001 132 355 257 744 163 366 145 674 2948 16:30 16:45 91 363 86 540 365 265 364 994 131 373 255 759 158 372 150 680 2973 16:45 17:00 90 380 80 550 353 260 334 947 126 337 235 698 151 346 143 640 2835 17:00 17:15 66 280 56 402 255 181 227 663 89 242 164 495 114 247 101 462 2022 17:15 17:30 39 185 35 259 165 112 138 415 57 149 103 309 70 151 64 285 1268 17:30 17:45 18 95 15 128 79 60 66 205 26 60 49 135 33 69 33 135 603 17:45 18:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 I Hour EB: Juba] Early Dr WB: Jubal Early Dr NB: Route I I SB: Route 11 1 Hour Period N,Sj Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & Begining 8:00 53 260 61 374 234 156 60 450 52 312 222 586 187 274 70 531 1941 8:00 Peak PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.96 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:45 91 363 86 540 365 265 364 994 131 373 255 759 158 372 150 680 2973 16:45 P.M. Peak PI -IF = 0.91 1 PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.96 0.91 P.M. Peak Osection: E-W: IROUTE 50 N-S: RT 37 NB RAMP Location WINCHESTER VA Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Input By JJP Count Date 4/3/2002 15 Nlinute EB: ROUTE 50 %VB: ROUTE 50 NB: RT 37 RAMP SB: RT 37 RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 100 127 0 227 0 38 10 48 58 0 44 102 0 0 0 0 377 7:00 7:15 116 169 0 285 0 86 29 115 59 0 86 145 0 0 0 0 545 7:15 7:30 144 199 0 343 0 124 51 175 64 0 124 188 0 0 0 0 706 7:30 7:45 145 238 0 383 0 121 56 177 60 0 139 199 0 0 0 0 759 7:45 8:00 109 196 0 305 0 89 44 133 54 0 144 198 0 0 0 0 636 8:00 8:15 94 182 0 276 0 64 25 89 49 0 149 198 0 0 0 0 563 8:15 8:30 76 169 0 245 0 66 22 88 40 0 116 156 0 0 0 0 489 8:30 8:45 60 150 0 210 0 65 19 84 44 0 99 143 0 0 0 0 437 8:45 A.M. Total 844 1430 0 2274 0 653 256 909 428 0 901 1329 0 0 0 0 4512 A.M. Total 16:00 33 79 0 112 0 240 40 280 76 0 35 111 0 0 0 0 503 16:00 16:15 38 86 0 124 0 259 46 305 82 0 40 122 0 0 0 0 551 16:15 16:30 41 91 0 132 0 277 53 330 95 0 45 140 0 0 0 0 602 16:30 16:45 49 101 0 150 0 284 60 344 I10 0 49 159 0 0 0 0 653 16:45 17:00 56 107 0 163 0 297 78 375 99 0 51 150 0 0 0 0 688 17:00 17:15 41 94 0 135 0 288 70 358 82 0 58 140 0 0 0 0 633 17:15 17:30 34 88 0 122 0 254 60 314 67 0 48 115 0 0 0 0 551 17:30 17:45 28 74 0 102 0 239 49 288 52 0 40 92 0 0 0 0 487 17.45 P.M. Total 320 720 0 1040 0 2138 456 2594 663 0 366 1029 0 0 0 0 4663 P.M. Total I Flour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: RT 37 RAMP SB: RT 37 RAMP 1 Hour rind N,S, Period ,fining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 505 733 0 1238 0 369 146 515 241 0 393 634 0 0 0 0 2387 7:00 7:15 514 802 0 1316 0 420 180 600 237 0 493 730 0 0 0 0 2646 7:15 7:30 492 815 0 1307 0 398 176 574 227 0 556 783 0 0 0 0 2664 7:30 7:45 424 785 0 1209 0 340 147 487 203 0 548 751 0 0 0 0 2447 7:45 8:00 339 697 0 1036 0 284 110 394 187 0 508 695 0 0 0 0 2125 8:00 16:00 161 357 0 518 0 1060 199 1259 363 0 169 532 0 0 0 0 2309 16:00 16:15 184 385 0 569 0 1117 237 1354 386 0 185 571 0 0 0 0 2494 16:15 16:30 187 393 0 580 0 1146 261 1407 386 0 203 589 0 0 0 0 2576 16:30 16:45 180 390 0 570 0 1123 268 1391 358 0 206 564 0 0 0 0 2525 16:45 17:00 159 363 0 522 0 1078 257 1335 300 0 197 497 0 0 0 0 2354 17:00 1 Flour EB: ROUTE 50 WI3: ROUTE 50 NB: RT 37 RAMP SB: RT 37 RAMP 1 Flour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 492 815 0 1307 0 398 176 574 227 0 556 783 0 0 0 0 2664 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.81 PHF = 0.98 PI -IF = 0.88 A.M. Peak 16:30 187 393 0 580 0 1146 261 1407 386 0 203 589 0 0 0 0 2576 16:30 P.M. Peak 11 PHF = 0.89 PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.94 P.M. Peak 0 Ah section: E-W: ROUTE 50 Weather Dry File Name N-S: RT 37 SB RAMP Count By JJP Input By JJP Location WINCHESTERNA Count Date 4/25/2002 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 50 W13: ROUTE 50 NB: RT 37 RAMMP SB: RT 37 RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 70 70 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 38 0 29 67 167 7:00 7:15 0 0 89 89 48 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 49 0 30 79 216 7:15 7:30 0 0 116 116 46 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 85 0 38 123 285 7:30 7:45 0 0 122 122 51 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 86 0 40 126 299 7:45 8:00 0 0 120 120 60 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 90 0 36 126 306 8:00 8:15 0 0 129 129 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 81 0 38 119 298 8:15 5:30 0 0 104 104 41 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 60 0 36 96 241 8:30 8:45 0 0 96 96 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 49 0 30 79 208 8:45 A.M. Total 0 0 846 846 359 0 0 359 0 0 0 0 538 0 277 815 2020JI A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 72 72 90 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 34 0 88 122 284 16:00 16:15 0 0 76 76 96 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 36 0 92 128 300 16:15 16:30 0 0 84 84 107 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 48 0 107 155 346 16:30 16:45 0 0 90 90 146 0 0 146 0 0 0 0 59 0 148 207 44-3 16:45 17:00 0 0 92 92 154 0 0 154 0 0 0 0 50 0 149 199 445 17:00 17:15 0 0 86 86 140 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 46 0 113 159 385 17:15 17:30 0 0 66 66 133 0 0 133 0 0 0 0 40 0 102 142 341 17:30 17:45 0 0 59 59 121 0 0 121 0 0 0 0 38 0 89 127 307 17:45 P.M. Total IF 0 0 625 625 987 0 0 987 0 0 0 0 351 0 888 1239 2851 JFP.M. Total I Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NIB: RT 37 RAMP SB: RT 37 RAMP I Hour riod N,S, Period wing Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 397 397 175 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 258 0 137 395 967 7:00 7:15 0 0 447 447 205 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 310 0 144 454 1106 7:15 7:30 0 0 487 487 207 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 342 0 152 494 1188 7:30 7:45 0 0 475 475 202 0 0 202 0 0 0 0 317 0 150 467 1144 7:45 8:00 0 0 449 449 184 0 0 184 0 0 0 0 280 0 140 420 1053 8:00 16:00 0 0 322 322 439 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 177 0 435 612 1373 16:00 16:15 0 0 342 342 503 0 0 503 0 0 0 0 193 0 496 689 1534 16:15 16:30 0 0 352 352 547 0 0 547 0 0 0 0 203 0 517 720 1619 16:30 16:45 0 0 334 334 573 0 0 573 0 0 0 0 195 0 512 707 1614 16:45 17:00 0 0 303 303 548 0 0 548 0 0 0 0 174 0 453 627 1478 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 50 WB: ROUTE 50 NB: RT 37 RAMP SB: RT 37 RAMP 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 0 0 487 487 207 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 342 0 152 494 1188 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 Pi -IF = 0.86 PHF = PHF = 0.98 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:30 0 0 352 352 547 0 0 547 0 0 0 0 203 0 517 720 1619 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.89 PHF = PHF = 0.87 0.91 P.M. Peak 0 Intersection: E-W: I Route 622 N-S: IRoute 37 NB Ramp _ Location I Winchester, VA Weather Dry File Name Count By JJP Input By IIK Count Date I 8/26/2004 5 Minute EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Rout 37 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 14 0 14 0 69 69 3 0 21 24 0 107 7:00 7:15 17 0 17 0 81 81 1 0 24 25 0 123 7:15 7:30 21 0 21 0 90 90 4 0 27 31 0 142 7:30 7:45 20 0 20 0 94 94 3 0 23 26 0 140 7:45 8:00 27 0 27 0 107 107 2 0 25 27 0 161 8:00 8:15 21 0 21 0 96 96 5 0 29 34 0 151 8:15 8:30 18 0 18 0 81 81 3 0 24 27 0 126 8:30 8:45 21 0 21 0 70 70 3 0 26 29 0 120 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 9:15 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 9:30 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 9:45 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 A.M. Total F 15 00 0 159 0 0 688 688 r 24 0 199 223 0 0 0 0 1070 JFANI. Total 4:00 6 0 6 0 140 140 16 0 5 21 0 167 4:00 4:15 8 0 8 0 142 142 14 0 7 21 0 171 4:15 4:30 11 0 11 0 159 159 17 0 11 28 0 198 4:30 4:45 10 0 10 0 177 177 24 0 16 40 0 227 4:45 5:00 14 0 14 0 176 176 29 0 21 50 0 240 5:00 5:15 10 0 10 0 150 150 31 0 18 49 0 209 5:15 5:30 8 0 8 0 129 129 22 0 14 36 0 173 5:30 5:45 9 0 9 0 120 120 18 0 11 29 0 158 5:45 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 :45 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 6:45 Total 76 0 0 76T 0 0 1193 1193 171 0 103 274 0 0 0 0 1543 FPM, Total I Hour EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Route 37 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 72 0 0 72 0 0 334 334 11 0 95 106 0 0 0 0 512 7:00 7:15 85 0 0 85 0 0 372 372 10 0 99 109 0 0 0 0 566 7:15 7:30 89 0 0 89 0 0 387 387 14 0 104 118 0 0 0 0 594 7:30 7:45 86 0 0 86 0 0 378 378 13 0 101 114 0 0 0 0 578 7:45 8:00 87 0 0 87 0 0 354 354 13 0 104 117 0 0 0 0 558 8:00 8:15 60 0 0 60 0 0 247 247 11 0 79 90 0 0 0 0 397 8:15 8:30 39 0 0 39 0 0 151 151 6 0 50 56 0 0 0 0 246 8:30 8:45 21 0 0 21 0 0 70 70 3 0 26 29 0 0 0 0 120 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 4:00 35 0 0 35 0 0 618 618 71 0 39 110 0 0 0 0 763 4:00 4:15 43 0 0 43 0 0 654 654 84 0 55 139 0 0 0 0 836 4:15 4:30 45 0 0 45 0 0 662 662 101 0 66 167 0 0 0 0 874 4:30 4:45 42 0 0 42 0 0 632 632 106 0 69 175 0 0 0 0 849 4:45 5:00 41 0 0 41 0 0 575 575 100 0 64 164 0 0 0 0 780 5:00 5:15 27 0 0 27 0 0 399 399 71 0 43 114 0 0 0 0 540 5:15 5:30 17 0 0 17 0 0 249 249 40 0 25 65 0 0 0 0 331 5:30 5:45 9 0 0 9 0 0 120 120 18 0 11 29 0 0 0 0 158 5:45 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 1 Hour EB: Route 622 WB: Route 622 NB: Route 37 SB: Route 37 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 89 0 0 89 0 0 387 387 14 0 104 118 0 0 0 0 594 7:30 AMLA Peak PHF = 0.82 PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.87 PHF = ###### 0.92 A.M. Peak :30 45 0 0 45 0 0 662 662 101 0 66 167 0 0 0 0 874 4:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.90 1 PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.84 PHF = ###### 0.91 P.M. Peak