The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-24 TIA Technical Appendix - 09.19.24 Transportation Technical Appendix Winchester East at Opequon Creek Frederick County, Virginia September 19, 2024 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com CONTENTS (Note: Click on heading to navigate directly to each section of the Technical Attachments) A. Scoping Document B. Existing Traffic Count Data C. Level of Service & Delay Definition D. Analysis Worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions E. Background Traffic Impact Studies F. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions without Development G. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions with Development H. Turn Lane Warrants Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com A. Scoping Document It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. THIS IS NOT A CHAPTER 870 STUDY PRE-SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Information Consultant Name: Tele: E-mail: Kevin D Sitzman, Gorove Slade Associates, Inc. 703-787-9595 ksitzman@goroveslade.com Developer/Owner Name: Tele: E-mail: Terra Foundry Partners tom@terrafoundrypartners.com Project Information Project Name: Opequon Creek Locality/County: Frederick County Project Location: (Attach regional and site specific location map) The proposed Opequon Creek development site is located north of Senseny Road in Frederick County, Virginia. Submission Type Comp Plan REZ/SUP Site Plan Subd Plat Project Description: (Including details on the land use, acreage, phasing, access location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary) The proposed development will be on two (2) parcels of approximately 91.7 acres in Frederick County, Virginia. The specific parcel can be identified by PIN 65 A 195 and PIN 65 A 194B in the Frederick County Tax Map. The current zoning designation for the parcel is RA (Rural Area District). Development Details: The proposed development consists of 31 single-family detached units and 255 single- family attached (townhouses/duplexes) units. The anticipated build-out year for the project is 2027. Site Access: The development will have access points through: • One proposed access point off of Senseny Road • One proposed access point off of Canyon Road (the 4th leg connection at Sensory Glen Drive and Canyon Road) Proposed Use(s): (Check all that apply; attach additional pages as necessary) Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other Residential Uses(s) • ITE LU Code(s): 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing Number of Units: 31 Commercial Use(s) It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. • ITE LU Code(s): 215 – Single-Family Attached Housing Number of Units: 255 Other Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): NA Square Ft or Other Variable: NA Total Peak Hour Trip Projection: Less than 100 100 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 or more Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Study Period Existing Year: 2024 Build-out Year: 2027 Design Year: Study Area Boundaries (Attach map) North: Woodrow Road/Canyon Road South: Senseny Road West: Channing Road East: Sensory Glen Drive External Factors That Could Affect Project (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Route 37 Improvements Consistency With Comprehensive Plan (Land use, transportation plan) Yes, per Frederick County Long Range Land Use Map identifies the portion of the parcel to be for Residential use. Available Traffic Data (Historical, forecasts) VDOT Historical AADT Data (2018-2022) 2024 turning movement counts. Trip Distribution (Please refer to attached Figure 2 in Supplement) Road Name: NA (to/from the South) – NA Road Name: Channing Road (to/from the North) – 40% Road Name: Senseny Road (to/from the West) – 50% Road Name: Senseny Road (to/from the East) – 10% Annual Vehicle Trip Growth Rate: (See Note 10.) 1.0%/yr. (2024-2027) Peak Period for Study (check all that apply) AM PM SAT Peak Hour of the Adj. (to be used in study) AM: 153 / PM: 182 / Daily: 2,237 Study Intersections and/or Road Segments (Attach additional sheets as necessary) (Please refer to attached Figure 1.) 1. Senseny Road and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive 7. 2. Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive 8. 3. Senseny Road and Future Site Driveway 9. 4. 10. 5. 11. 6. 12. It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Trip Adjustment Factors Internal allowance Reduction: Yes No Pass-by allowance Reduction: Yes No Software Methodology Synchro HCS (v.2000/+) SIDRA CORSIM Other Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected (Analysis software to be used, progression speed, cycle length) Analysis Software: Synchro version 11 Results: HCM 6 methodology Improvement(s) Assumed or to be Considered Route 37 Improvements Background Traffic Studies Considered Senseny Village, Rossum Crossing, Winchester Landing Plan Submission Master Development Plan (MDP) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues to be Addressed Queuing analysis Actuation/Coordination Weaving analysis Merge analysis Bike/Ped Accommodations Intersection(s) TDM Measures Other (_________________________) Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A1 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Synchro files/signal timings will be obtained from VDOT. 2. The scenarios to be included in the study are Existing Conditions (2024), Future without Development (202 7), and Future with Development (2027). The study will analyze AM and PM peak hours. 3. Existing peak hour factors will be based on the traffic counts and utilized on a by-intersection basis. Peak hours factors by intersection in the range of 0.85 to 1.00 will be used for the existing scenario. Peak hour factors of 0.92 will be used for all future scenarios if the existing peak hour factor by intersection is less than 0.92. 4. Heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) will be based on count data. For any new intersection, the HV% will be based on a default Synchro value of 2.0% per movement on new approaches and the HV% on existing approaches will be based on the truck volumes of the adjacent intersections. 5. For any approach, a level of service (LOS) C or better would be considered as acceptable/desirable for traffic operations. For all approaches, the projected future conditions without development LOS and delay will be maintained in the future with development conditions. Will show intersection, approach, and movement LOS. 6. 95th percentile queues will be provided from Synchro. 7. HCM 6 methodology will be utilized where applicable; HCM 2000 methodology will be utilized if HCM 6 methodology is not applicable for a certain location. 8. Preliminary Access Management/Intersections Spacing will be provided. 9. Turn Lanes requirements will be evaluated for the site entrances. 10. An inherent growth rate of 1% (compounded annually) for the period 2024-2027 will be applied to mainline thru movements at the intersection of Senseny Road and Senseny Glen Drive and the intersection of Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive, which will be balanced as through movements at the adjacent intersection. SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: 09/06/2024 Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: ______________ Applicant or Consultant SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: VDOT Representative PRINT NAME: ____________________________ VDOT Representative SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: Prince William County Representative PRINT NAME: _____________________________ Prince William County Representative Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A2 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com Table 1: Historic Growth (Based on VDOT Traffic Data) Figure 1: Site Location and Study Intersection Growth Rate Road Segment From To 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018-2022 Senseny Road 34-736 Rossum Lane Clarke County Line 2,100 2,100 1,900 2,200 2,177 0.90% Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A3 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com Figure 2: Direction of Approach Table 2: Trip Generation – Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street (ITE 11th Edition) In Out Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 31 DU 6 20 26 21 12 33 344 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 255 DU 32 95 127 88 61 149 1,893 Total 38 115 153 109 73 182 2,237 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ Land Use ITE Code Size Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com B. Existing Traffic Count Data Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Senseny Glen Dr -- Senseny Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16634503 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, May 23 2024 56 15 44 1 11 150 12 3 72 128 0.880.88 69 151 11 0 150 37 0 11 12 48 Peak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 1.8 0 0 0 9.1 4 0 0 6.9 3.9 7.2 4.6 18.2 0 4 2.7 0 0 16.7 2.1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 5:30 AM 3 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 19 5:45 AM 6 0 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 6:00 AM 3 0 4 0 5 1 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 37 6:15 AM 4 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 0 18 1 0 0 3 0 0 41 120 6:30 AM 6 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 1 28 1 0 0 10 0 0 60 161 6:45 AM 4 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 1 24 0 0 0 5 0 0 45 183 7:00 AM 7 0 4 0 6 0 5 0 0 28 0 0 0 14 0 0 64 210 7:15 AM 9 0 2 0 3 0 12 0 2 38 2 0 0 13 0 0 81 250 7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 1 0 17 0 3 25 2 0 0 9 1 0 74 264 7:45 AM 12 0 3 0 4 0 8 0 2 34 3 0 0 25 2 0 93 312 8:00 AM 3 0 3 0 3 1 7 0 5 31 4 0 0 22 0 0 79 327 8:15 AM 6 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 9 34 3 0 1 14 0 0 79 325 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 48 0 12 0 16 0 32 0 8 136 12 0 0 100 8 0 372 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 12 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 5/29/2024 8:18 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Senseny Glen Dr -- Senseny Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16634504 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, May 23 2024 35 72 32 0 3 213 50 22 194 97 0.900.90 160 188 41 12 110 21 0 10 53 31 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PMPeak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM 0 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 0 4.5 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.6 2.4 0 3.6 4.8 0 20 1.9 9.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 3:00 PM 11 0 4 0 1 1 14 0 9 18 7 0 1 27 2 0 95 3:15 PM 3 0 3 0 1 2 10 0 6 30 8 0 0 26 2 0 91 3:30 PM 4 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 13 22 7 0 2 26 1 0 84 3:45 PM 4 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 9 22 4 0 1 44 3 0 98 368 4:00 PM 6 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 12 23 11 0 4 39 5 0 111 384 4:15 PM 3 0 2 0 1 0 9 0 20 22 8 0 2 52 6 0 125 418 4:30 PM 4 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 8 26 8 0 4 24 5 0 90 424 4:45 PM 8 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 10 26 14 0 2 45 6 0 122 448 5:00 PM 8 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 6 25 12 0 3 39 2 0 106 443 5:15 PM 7 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 8 20 9 0 3 26 3 0 83 401 5:30 PM 6 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 13 20 3 0 2 33 3 0 89 400 5:45 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 12 3 0 2 28 2 0 65 343 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 12 0 8 0 4 0 36 0 80 88 32 0 8 208 24 0 500 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 5/29/2024 8:18 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Channing Dr -- Woodrow Rd/Canyon Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16713301 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Tue, Aug 20 2024 130 248 9 95 26 19 40 89 106 3 0.900.90 4 65 22 13 34 6 119 5 130 130 Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM 1.5 2.8 0 1.1 3.8 5.3 2.5 3.4 2.8 33.3 0 3.1 0 0 8.8 16.7 2.5 20 0.8 3.8 2 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Channing Dr Channing Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Channing Dr Channing Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 5:30 AM 0 8 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 5:45 AM 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 26 6:00 AM 1 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 43 6:15 AM 0 12 1 0 2 15 0 0 9 2 1 0 1 0 8 0 51 142 6:30 AM 0 15 0 0 4 17 1 0 5 2 2 0 1 1 17 0 65 185 6:45 AM 0 22 0 0 3 21 3 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 71 230 7:00 AM 2 30 1 0 5 19 0 0 9 1 2 0 2 0 20 0 91 278 7:15 AM 0 32 2 0 3 21 0 0 11 1 6 0 3 4 26 0 109 336 7:30 AM 2 27 0 0 7 24 2 0 17 1 9 0 4 0 27 0 120 391 7:45 AM 2 30 2 0 11 31 7 0 3 0 5 0 4 0 16 0 111 431 8:00 AM 0 24 1 0 3 32 1 0 6 2 3 0 3 1 11 0 87 427 8:15 AM 2 20 1 0 5 28 2 0 6 1 5 0 2 1 6 0 79 397 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 8 108 0 0 28 96 8 0 68 4 36 0 16 0 108 0 480 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 12 Buses Pedestrians 16 0 0 4 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 8/21/2024 10:35 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Channing Dr -- Woodrow Rd/Canyon Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16713302 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Tue, Aug 20 2024 227 214 34 138 55 65 28 49 64 4 0.850.85 5 45 13 10 75 26 137 16 161 179 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PMPeak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PM 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.6 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Channing Dr Channing Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Channing Dr Channing Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 3:00 PM 1 20 3 0 13 24 5 0 5 0 3 0 4 2 5 0 85 3:15 PM 4 23 3 0 13 32 2 0 6 2 5 0 5 2 6 0 103 3:30 PM 5 26 5 0 14 30 9 0 5 1 8 0 2 0 11 0 116 3:45 PM 6 30 5 0 13 29 7 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 7 0 105 409 4:00 PM 9 41 2 0 14 27 4 0 4 1 4 0 1 1 12 0 120 444 4:15 PM 3 52 4 0 12 31 7 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 9 0 125 466 4:30 PM 5 24 2 0 12 30 6 0 6 1 5 0 2 2 7 0 102 452 4:45 PM 5 40 5 0 18 44 7 0 9 1 5 0 5 3 9 0 151 498 5:00 PM 9 30 3 0 11 35 7 0 7 1 3 0 3 0 8 0 117 495 5:15 PM 2 30 4 0 13 25 10 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 13 0 104 474 5:30 PM 10 37 4 0 13 34 10 0 8 1 4 0 1 2 19 0 143 515 5:45 PM 3 20 1 0 17 27 8 0 4 1 4 0 2 0 11 0 98 462 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 20 160 20 0 72 176 28 0 36 4 20 0 20 12 36 0 604 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 8/21/2024 10:35 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com C. Level of Service & Delay Definition 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Subject: Level of Service Definitions Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to define the level of service (LOS) metric that commonly used as a measure of effectiveness (MOE) for traffic operations. All capacity analyses are based on the procedures specified by the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which is currently on its sixth edition. Level of service ranges from A to F. A brief description of each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided below. Signalized Intersections Level of service is based upon the traffic volume present in each lane on the roadway, the capacity of each lane at the intersection and the delay associated with each directional movement. The levels of service for signalized intersections are defined below: •Level of Service A describes operations with very low average delay per vehicle, i.e., less than 10.0 seconds. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop. Short signal cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. •Level of Service B describes operations with average delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. •Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. This is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in rural areas. •Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high traffic volumes as compared to the roadway capacity. Many vehicles are required to stop and the number of vehicles that do not have to stop declines. Individual signal cycle failures, where all waiting vehicles do not clear the intersection during a single green time, are noticeable. This is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in urban areas. •Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high traffic volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS E has been set as the limit of acceptable conditions. •Level of Service F describes operations with average delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, i.e., when traffic arrives at a flow rate that exceeds the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volumes with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delays. Level of Service Definitions Page 2 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Unsignalized Intersections At an unsignalized intersection, the major street through traffic and right-turns are assumed to operate unimpeded and therefore receive no level of service rating. The level of service for the minor street and the major street left-turn traffic is dependent on the volume and capacity of the available lanes, and, the number and frequency of acceptable gaps in the major street traffic to make a conflicting turn. The level of service grade is provided for each conflicting movement at an unsignalized intersection and is based on the total average delay experienced by each vehicle. The delay includes the time it takes a vehicle to move from the back of a queue through the intersection. The unsignalized intersection level of service analysis does not account for variations in driver behavior or the effects of nearby traffic signals. Therefore, the results from this analysis usually indicate worse levels of service than may be experienced in the field. The unsignalized intersection level of service descriptions are provided below: •Level of Service A describes operations where there is very little to no conflicting traffic for a minor side street movement, i.e., an average total delay of less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service B describes operations with average total delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service C describes operations with average total delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 second per vehicle. •Level of Service D describes operations with average total delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service E describes operations with average total delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service F describes operations with average total delay of 50 seconds per vehicle. LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to cross safely through or enter a major street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident from extremely long total delays experienced by side street traffic and by queuing on the minor approaches. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal driver behavior. Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com D. Analysis Worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 128 11 0 69 3 37 0 11 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 140 11 0 69 3 0 48 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1892 1615 0 1900 1615 0 1764 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 839 0 1900 0 576 0 1729 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) 8.8 16.9 NA NA 10.5 11.3 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 16.9 4.4 10.0 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 20.9 8.7 14.2 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 8.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 8.1 0.0 4.4 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 8.9 8.9 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 12.9 12.9 8.7 8.7 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 20.9 14.2 Split Option (s) 21.6 16.4 Minimum (s) 20.9 14.2 35.1 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.7 12.9 Combined (s) 24.7 29.7 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 89 6 119 5 26 95 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 106 0 6 119 5 26 95 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1651 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.5 1.5 1.7 6.0 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 13.7 11.1 8.0 10.6 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 507 0 1669 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 15.6 0.0 8.3 6.0 7.5 25.9 6.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 1900 Reference Time B (s) 10.7 12.7 8.9 16.3 8.4 7.5 9.7 6.0 Reference Time (s) 12.7 8.3 7.5 9.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 13.7 13.7 14.1 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 8.3 0.4 7.5 1.7 6.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 7.5 1.7 6.0 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 8.3 8.3 7.5 7.5 6.0 6.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 10.6 10.6 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 21.7 Permitted Option (s) 17.2 14.1 Split Option (s) 24.2 24.4 Minimum (s) 17.2 14.1 31.3 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 13.7 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 30.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 97 41 12 160 22 21 0 10 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 147 41 0 172 22 0 31 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1868 1615 0 1893 1615 0 1747 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 298 0 940 0 376 0 1662 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 59.3 0.0 22.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA 8.8 18.9 9.4 10.1 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 59.3 18.9 9.9 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 63.3 22.9 13.9 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.4 0.0 10.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 6.1 0.8 10.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 9.4 9.4 10.9 10.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.4 13.4 14.9 14.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 63.3 13.9 Split Option (s) 28.3 16.0 Minimum (s) 28.3 13.9 42.2 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 14.9 13.4 Combined (s) 30.9 29.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.2% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 49 26 137 16 55 138 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 64 0 26 137 16 55 138 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1669 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 8.7 1.8 3.7 8.7 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 13.8 9.8 8.0 12.7 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 590 0 1686 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 9.2 0.0 4.9 25.9 8.7 54.8 8.7 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 12.9 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 9.2 4.9 25.9 54.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.7 9.9 29.9 58.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 4.9 1.7 8.7 3.7 8.7 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 8.7 3.7 8.7 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 4.9 4.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 13.8 13.8 12.7 12.7 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 21.8 Permitted Option (s) 13.7 58.8 Split Option (s) 18.7 26.5 Minimum (s) 13.7 21.8 35.4 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 9.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 26.6 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com E. Background Development Trip Generation Senseny Village Rossum Crossing Winchester Landing In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 108 DU 20 60 80 67 40 107 1,083 56 47 103 1,034 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 40 DU 4 11 15 12 8 20 254 8 8 16 182 Total 24 71 95 79 48 127 1,337 64 55 119 1,216 Land Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k e n d ------ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Saturday Peak Hour Sat Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 18 DU 1 3 4 4 3 7 87 3 4 7 82 Land Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k e n d ------ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Saturday Peak Hour Sat Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ In Out Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 40 DU 8 24 32 26 16 42 434 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 81 DU 9 27 36 27 18 45 567 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Apartments, Townhomes, Condo; max 10 floors; Not Close to Rail Transit)221 48 DU 2 8 10 12 7 19 183 Total 19 59 78 65 41 106 1,184 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ Land Use ITE Code Size 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -WardProperty Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscap e Architects. P 208Church Street, S.E. Leesburg, Virginia 20175 7703.777.3616 F703.777.3725 November 29, 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Han Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert-Ward Property to be located along the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), east of Greenwood Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 285 residential units (145 single family detached and 140 townhouse) with access to be provided along Senseny Road viaRossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle, respectively. The development is tobebuilt -outinasingle transportation phase bytheyear 2010. PHR +Ahasprovided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Lambert -Ward Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology Thetraffic impacts accompanying theLambert -Ward Property 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 oftrip generation fortheproposed Lambert-Ward Property development, Distribution and assignment of the Lambert -Ward Property generated trips onto the study area roadway network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, forexisting and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections: Senseny Road /Greenwood Road, Senseny Road /Rossum Lane and Senseny Road Twinbrook Circle inFrederick County, Virginia. Inorder todetermine theADT Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a conservative `k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3shows therespective existing lane geometry and AM /PM peals hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 1 rN No Scale rFigure 1 \ 11 Vicinity Map Lambert -Ward Property A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page2 P Existing ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1-0 Page 3 SignalizedIntersection LOS =B(B) Al 13)B.c, A Unsignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection NoScale 0 0 UV Figu 030 R SITE DenotesUnsignalizedCriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page4 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PMPeak Hour In Out Total ADT Butcher Property 210 Single Family Detached 69units 14 43 58 43 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Red -Bud Run 210 Single Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Fieldstone 210 Single Family Detached 63units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Misc Other Developments along Channing Drive* 210 Single- Family Detached 1,164 units 206 618 824 615 361 976 11,640 230Townhouse /Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 323 739 1,063 1,004 753 1,757 20,416 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHRA 1 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR +A increased the existing traffic volumes along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road using aconservative growth rate offive percent (5 per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR +A utilized thefollowing reports toincorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site: Traffic Impact Analysis ofFieldstone, byPHR +A, dated January 16, 2004 and ATraffic Impact Analysis of Butcher Property, by PHR +A, dated September 8, 2004. Using the 7 Edition oftheInstitute ofTransportation Engineers' (1TE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Includes Giles Form, Toll Brotlic Abrams' Po Table 1 2010 "OtherDevelopments" Trip Generation Summary Coventry Court and miscellaneous resi dentia Figure 4shows the 2010 background ADT and AM /PMpeak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page5 No Scale i1/4 66(1 01) 551(475) r- 12(50) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) rverage Dady PHRAFigure42010 Background ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 6 r No Scale SignalizedIntersection LOS =B(C) U Al Signalized Ime rsectian LOS =C(C) Unsignalized Intersection c7 UnsignalizedIntersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AMPeakHour (PMPeakHour) PHAFigure5 P 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert-Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page7 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION TheLambert -Ward Property istoinclude atotal of285 residential units with145as single- family detached and 140 as townhouses. The number of trips entering and exiting the site were determined using the 7 Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers' ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2summarizes the tripgeneration results for the proposed Lambert-Ward Property. Table 2 Lambert -WardProperty Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak (lour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single Family Detached 145units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse /Condo 140 units 11 56 6S 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR =Autilized thetripdistribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Lambert-Ward Property trips (Table 2) through the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development generated AM /PM peak hour tripsandADTassignments. 2010BUILD -OUTCONDITIONS TheLambert-Ward Property assigned trips (Figures 7) were added tothe2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the studyarea. Figure 9shows the corresponding 2010 build -outlane geometry and AM /PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets areincluded inthe Appendix section ofthisreport. ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 8 Trip Distribution Percentages ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page9 AMPeakHour(PMPeakHour) verageiDaily Development- Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page10 NoScale s N P NNJ 94(118) JIL 12235 9614 logs, 6248 490 247)103648)232.0 66)52'nt 593(500)33(62) Os R 0181 442 61ti SITE k 4) o N s 444)13 110.1% (379) 41267V 3)32 ,11 r ti P roe o JG U c5 AMPeakHour(PMPeakHour) verage1•aIlyrTrips Figure 8 2010 Build -out ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1-0 PageI1 No Scale Signalized o Intersection 3 LOS =B(C) d U5 SignalizedIntersection LOS C(C) Unsignalized Intersection bl" J UnsignalizedIntersection 00 0 O Ro Unsignalized d "Suggested IntersectionImprovements" rx ( 1 EB Right) SITE DenotesUnsignalized CriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert-Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page12 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property are acceptable and manageable. All intersections, assuming the addition of an eastbound right turn lane attheintersection ofSenseny Road /Twinbrook Circle, willmaintain levelsof service of "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The right -turn lane at the intersection ofSenseny Road/ Twinbrook Circle would be designed perthe Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number. 13303 -1 -0 Page13 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by theTransportation Research Board (TRB) inconjunction with theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members ofthetransportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TWSC At an unsignalized two -way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of agap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the trafficflow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks single unitandtractor trailer), busesandmotorcycles. ThelevelofserviceforTWSC intersections isdetermined onlyforindividual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehiclestopsattheendofthequeue untilthevehicle departs fromthestopline; thistime includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in- queueposition. Average Total Delay Level @'of Service= (sec / veh)oeTWSC' Iittersections 5 5 and < 10'l0and < 2020'‘and 53030''and < 45 UNSIGNALIZEDINTERSECTIONSAWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver isrequired tostop, thejudgment astowhether toproceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, adriver proceeds only after determining that therearenovehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. Theanalysis takes into account theproblem ofdetermining, undercapacity conditions foragiven approach, thefactors thatinfluence therateatwhich vehicles candepart successfully fromthe STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks single unit and tractor trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in- queueposition. verage Total Delay sec /seh) 5 5and <10. 10 and <20 20and <30'. 30 and 545 45 Level of Service, Criteria. for AWSC Intersections SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. Intheanalysisofsignalizedintersections, twotermsareimportant: volumetocapacity ratio v /c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, theavailable green time (often expressed asG /C), andthetraffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cyclelength, qualityofprogression onthearterialandavailable greentimeoneach approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed andusedwhenever possible. Whenfuturesignalsarebeingevaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and fortheintersection asawhole. Based onextensive researchstudies, themaximumdelay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined astheupperlimitonthepossible rangeofdelay /levelofservicecriteria. Thefollowing criteria describethefullrangeoflevelofservice: Level ofService Criteria or Signalized Intersections Stopped'Delay erVeliicle 100 and _20.0 20.0 and <35.0 35:0 and' 55.0 and' <80.0` 80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A B C D E F Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression isextremely favorable, andmostvehiclesarriveduringthegreen phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 andupto20scepervehicle. Thislevelgenerally occurswith goodprogression, shortcyclelengths, orboth. Morevehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result fromfairprogression, longercyclelengths, orboth. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping issignificant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes morenoticeable. Longerdelaysmayresult from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, orhighv/cratios. Manyvehicles stop, andtheproportion ofvehicles notstopping declines. Individual cyclefailures are noticeable, Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agenciestobethelimitofacceptabledelay. Thesehighdelay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and highv/cratios. Individual cyclefailuresarefrequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 secpervehicle. Thislevel, considered tobeunacceptable tomost drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels, TWO -WAYSTOPCONTROL SUMMARY GeneralInformation SiteInformation Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2004 Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Possum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study 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 olume (veh /h)0 107 6 1 95 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 112 6 1 100 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Median type Undivided RTChannelized?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 olume (veh /h)17 0 10 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 17 0 10 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ControlDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)1 27 Capacity, c (vph)1470 824 v/c ratio 0.00 0.03 Queuelength (95 0.00 0.10 ControlDelay (s /veh)7.5 9.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 1urL file: /C:ADocuments %20and %20Settings \Boyap ally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A I A I I I Approach delay s /veh) 9.5 ApproachLOS A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1wU- vv ay a Up LARIUM HCS2000 FM Ccpyright (02003 Univer ity of Florida, All Rights Reserved rage 6et 2 Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %2oSettings\Boyapally\ Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAYSTOPCONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004ExistingConditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property EasUWest Street: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study 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)0 112 13 10 180 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 117 13 10 189 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 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)14 0 4 0 0 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 14 0 4 0 0 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 Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)10 18 Capacity, c (vph)1455 702 v/c ratio 0.01 0.03 Queue length (95 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s /veh)7.5 10.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 101 4 file: /C:A Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17D1.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A I 8 Approach delay s /veh)10.3 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WU VY 0.y J LVf) %_,WILLU1 HCS2000T I Cpyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage LOIL Version 4, Id file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17D1.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number oflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)75 73 39 9 192 48 33 53 10 59 79 120 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, 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) oractuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, I,2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unitextension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 ParkingGrade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GG 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G=G=G=G= 39.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, C 88.0 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 79 118 9 253 35 67 62 209 Lanegroupcapacity, c459 783 562 800 499 805 589 751 v/cratio, X 0.17 0.15 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lc ia!icu ncpuiL rage 101 L file: /C: Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 14.8 14.6 13.7 15.9 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delaycalibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 14.9 147 13.8 16.1 14.1 14.2 144 15.8 LanegroupLOS 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 B Approach delay 148 16.0 14.2 15.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 B 8 Intersectiondelay 15.3 X 0.30 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tic tat tcu nc [iuit rage L01 Z ICS2.000 Copyright 20 0 University or Florida, All Ri hts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty VolumeandTimingInput EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)179 162 49 37 144 72 75 107 43 52 142 164 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, 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 AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, 1 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension ofeffective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timefopedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G=G=G=G= 41.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, 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 Adjustedflowrate, v 188 223 39 228 79 158 55 322 Lanegroupcapacity, c467 779 471 767 414 812 557 780 v/c ratio, X 0.40 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1l4L0.111.LL 1N.cpUL L rage 101 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 17.5 16.5 15.0 16.6 146 14.6 14.0 16.4 Progression factor, PF 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 Incremental delay, d 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 18.1 16.7 15.1 16.8 14.8 14.8 140 16.8 Lane group LOS 8 B 8 8 8 8 B 8 Approachdelay 173 16.6 148 16.4 Approach LOS B 8 8 B Intersectiondelay 16.4 X 0.41 Intersection LOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1l l.LQllliu 1'A }JU1 rage L 01 L Hcs2000 Copyright 'J2000 University ofFlorida, All Rihts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GeneralInformation SiteInformation Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert WardProperty East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes andAdjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R plume (veh /h)10 100 14 2 77 8 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 10 105 14 2 81 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT 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)22 1 15 15 1 19 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 23 1 15 15 1 20 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LaneConfiguration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph)10 2 39 36 Capacity, c (vph)1506 1469 778-838 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.04 Queue length (95 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh)7.4 7.5 9.9 9.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ay L)LL' 1.rdgc 1 01 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A A 1 A I I A Approach delay s /veh) 99 9 5 Approach LOS A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WU vv ay OLLJ L. /uuvt ab'C G Ul 4. f/CS Copyright 2003 University of Florida, All Righis Reserved Version 4.1d file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod PMPeak Hour ProjectDescription LambertWardProperty East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes andAdjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh /h)33 90 38 20 154 28 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 34 94 40 21 162 29 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 2 Mediantype Undivided RTChannetized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (vehlh)32 1 4 3 1 24 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 33 1 4 3 1 25 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade 0 0 Hared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ControlDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph)34 21 38 29 Capacity, c (vph)1383 1451 540 812 v/c ratio 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue length (95 0.08 0.04 0.23 0.11 ControlDelay (s /veh)7.7 7.5 12.2 9.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vvv Vv ay Jwh LAJIIu VI ragc 1UlL file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17ED.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A A 1 I I A Approach delay s /veh)12.2 9.6 Approach LOS 8 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i v- vv ay itt*, L.v iv HCS2000 Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage z01 L Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17ED.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR +q Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt657ChanningDrive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property 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 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)122 156 152 53 128 294 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration ofAnalysis, T 0.25 CycleLength, 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 Adjustedflowrate, v 128 164 160 24 374 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/cratio, X 0.28 0.16 0,28 0.05 0.69 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, d 26.9 9.3 23.4 21.7 26.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q5L 1 v1 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17F8.tmp 11/9/2004 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 Incremental delay, d 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 Initialqueue delay, d Control delay 27.2 9.3 23.6 21.7 30.5 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 172 23.4 30.5 ApproachLOS 8 C C Intersectiondelay 24.4 X 0.43 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LLL41Il.LL 1 \L JVll HCS2000TMM Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage L1) Version 4.1e file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally\ Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17F8.tmp 11/912004 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A AgencyorCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt657CharmingDrive AreaType All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property 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 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)387 170 265 168 122 282 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, 1 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 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, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 250 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 27.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T a25 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 Adjustedflowrate, v 407 179 279 145 354 Lane group capacity, c 492 1097 580 492 502 v/cratio, X 0.83 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.30 Uniform delay, d 30.5 8.4 25.1 23.5 28.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ra8c 1 Vl G file: /C:ADocuments %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d 11.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 4.5 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 41.7 8.5 25.7 23,8 32.4 Lane group LOS D A C C C Approachdelay 31 5 25.1 32.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersectiondelay 29 Xc0.67 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vaiicu iwpvi rage L OI L HCS2000 M Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and °l %0Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wv V r uy 1.)1A-IF LVUU VI General Information Lambert TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ward PropertyProjectDescription East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West Site Information North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 rase 1 VL L Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 2 T 276 0.95 290 1 0 3 R 8 0.95 8 0 0 TR Westbound 4 L 1 0.95 1 2 0 LT 5 T 182 0.95 191 1 0 6 R 0 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 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 Northbound 7 L 23 0.95 24 2 0 8 T 0 0. 95 0 0 N 0 0 LR 9 R 13 0.95 13 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB WB 4 LT 1 1263 0.00 0.00 Northbound 7 8 LR 37 598 0.06 0.20 9 Southbound 10 11 12 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 Rt 657 Rossum Lane Analyst PHR +A Intersection Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wv V r uy 1.)1A-IF LVUU VI General Information Lambert TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ward PropertyProjectDescription East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West Site Information North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 rase 1 VL L Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 2 T 276 0.95 290 1 0 3 R 8 0.95 8 0 0 TR Westbound 4 L 1 0.95 1 2 0 LT 5 T 182 0.95 191 1 0 6 R 0 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 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 Northbound 7 L 23 0.95 24 2 0 8 T 0 0. 95 0 0 N 0 0 LR 9 R 13 0.95 13 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB WB 4 LT 1 1263 0.00 0.00 Northbound 7 8 LR 37 598 0.06 0.20 9 Southbound 10 11 12 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 Control Delay (s /veh)7.9 11.4 LOS A I 8 I I I Approachdelay s /veh) 11.4 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wv vv ay JLLJ L/M it /I ra'e z01L HCS2000 NI Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida. AllRights Reserved Version 4.Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jay 'J ,W General Informat ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ion Site Information Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 Undivided Northbound 7 L 19 0.95 20 2 0 EB 1 2 T 275 0.95 289 1 0 8 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach Movement Lane Configuration olume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) c ratio Queue length (95 WB 4 LT 13 1255 0.01 0.03 North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 17 0.95 17 0 0 TR 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LR 25 411 0.06 0.19 Westbound 4 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 9 5 T 414 0.95 435 1 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 10 6 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 11 12 Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West rage 1 VI file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt657 Rossum Lane Analyst PHR+A Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A Analysis Year 2010Background Conditions Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jay 'J ,W General Informat ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ion Site Information Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 Undivided Northbound 7 L 19 0.95 20 2 0 EB 1 2 T 275 0.95 289 1 0 8 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach Movement Lane Configuration olume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) c ratio Queue length (95 WB 4 LT 13 1255 0.01 0.03 North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 17 0.95 17 0 0 TR 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LR 25 411 0.06 0.19 Westbound 4 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 9 5 T 414 0.95 435 1 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 10 6 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 11 12 Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West rage 1 VI file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 Control Delay (slveh)7.9 14.3 LOS A I 8 I I Approach delay s /veh)14.3 ApproachLOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 11 1 1 1 1 wU Qy 1.)ragc L01 L Ci pyright l9 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4,1d file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type Allother areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)103 220 52 12 551 66 44 74 13 83 115 167 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, I 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension ofeffective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGrade/ Parking/0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mintimefopedestrians, GG 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 CycleLength, 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 Adjustedflowrate, v 108 287 13 649 46 92 87 297 Lane group capacity, c 281 1005 573 1018 277 607 433 566 v/cratio, X 0.38 0.29 0.02 0.64 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 1tit 1. file: /C :ADocuments% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 11.3 10.6 9.0 13.8 21.2 21.1 21.4 24.2 Progression factor, PF 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 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 Incremental delay, d 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 12.2 10.7 9.0 151 21.5 21.2 21.7 25.1 LanegroupLOS 8 8 A B C C C C Approach delay 11.1 15.0 21.3 24.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 C C Intersection delay 16.8 X0.60 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L0. G VI G CS2000 Copyright 200University orFlorida, AllRihtsReserved Version 4.1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency orCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear2010BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property 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 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)247 604 66 50 475 101 101 153 58 73 196 224 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, 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 AA A AA A AA A A Start -uplosttime, I 2.0 20 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 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, GG 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 14.0 G= 36.0 G=G=G= 30.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 CycleLength, C 920 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 260 685 53 575 106 204 77 371 Lane group capacity, c 374 1024 255 730 217 601 356 579 v/c ratio, X 0.70 0.67 0.21 0.79 0.49 0.34 0.22 0.64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ..t..... file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 Totalgreenratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 16.5 14.1 17.7 23.7 23.9 22.6 21.6 25.4 Progressionfactor, PF1.0001.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.24 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 Incremental delay, d 5.5 1.7 0.4 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 2.4 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 22.1 15.8 18.1 29.4 25.6 22.9 21.9 27.8 LanegroupLOS C B 8 C C C C C Approach delay 17.6 28.5 23.8 26.8 ApproachLOS 8 C C C Intersectiondelay 23.1 X c 0.81 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ucrnooTM Copyright 20 0 University or Florida, All Ri hts Reserved aE,c c vi Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 1 0 Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 19 0.95 20 0 0 Westbound 4 L 3 0.95 3 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R 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 Northbound 7 L 29 0.95 30 2 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 9 R 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 12 R 25 0.95 26 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 WB 4 LT 3 1260 0.00 0.01 Northbound 7 8 LTR 52 541 0.10 0.32 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 48 622 0.08 a 25 12 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Analyst PHR +A Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A AnalysisYear 2010 Background ConditionsDatePerformed11/2/2004 AnalysisTimePeriod AM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 1 0 Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 19 0.95 20 0 0 Westbound 4 L 3 0.95 3 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R 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 Northbound 7 L 29 0.95 30 2 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 9 R 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 12 R 25 0.95 26 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 WB 4 LT 3 1260 0.00 0.01 Northbound 7 8 LTR 52 541 0.10 0.32 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 48 622 0.08 a 25 12 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 Delay (s /veh)7 1 1OSrolII Approach delay s /veh)12.4 11.3 Approach LOS 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv u ry ay .3 wN '_JIM vt HCS?000 Copyright 2003 Unive city orFlorida, AllRights Reserved rcL8C G ul G Version 4.Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv kJ- rr ay IJ LAJIJ li VIM v1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, 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 Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 Undivided 0 LTR 7 L 43 0.95 45 2 0 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 3 R 51 0.95 53 0 0 Northbound 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Westbound 4 L 27 0.95 28 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 WB 4 LT 28 1249 0.02 0.07 Northbound 7 8 LTR 51 261 0.20 0.71 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 549 0.07 0.22 12 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %2oSettings Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Analyst PHR +A Jurisdiction Agency /Co,PHR +A Analysis Year 2010Background ConditionsDatePerformed11/2/2004 AnalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv kJ- rr ay IJ LAJIJ li VIM v1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, 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 Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 Undivided 0 LTR 7 L 43 0.95 45 2 0 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 3 R 51 0.95 53 0 0 Northbound 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Westbound 4 L 27 0.95 28 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 WB 4 LT 28 1249 0.02 0.07 Northbound 7 8 LTR 51 261 0.20 0.71 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 549 0.07 0.22 12 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %2oSettings Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 Delay (s /veh)7.9 122.1 I 1LOSrol83AII11 I Approach delay s /veh) 221 12.0 Approach LOS C 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V v V VCU L+ wY UtUU yr HCS2000 Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved 1 0.bG G Vl G Version 4.Id file /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)122 181 242 81 136 294 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) oractuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike 1RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 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 Determina 'on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 191 255 54 382 Lanegroupcapacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.18 0.44 0.11 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, d 26.9 9.4 24.7 22.1 26.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. U5. 1 VL file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 Progressionfactor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 27.2 9.5 25.3 22.2 31.1 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 166 24.7 31.1 Approach LOS B C C Intersectiondelay 24.6 X 0.49 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ACS2000 Copyright m2000 University or Florida, All Righ sReserved Version 4.1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency orCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property VolumeandTimingInput EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number oflanes, N1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)387 266 318 185 152 282 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, I,2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extensionofeffectivegreen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initialunmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 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, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time fo pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru RT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 25.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 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 407 280 335 163 386 Lane group capacity, c 511 1056 518 440 542 v/c ratio, X 0.80 0.27 0.65 0.37 0.71 Totalgreenratio, g/C 0.29 0.57 0.28 0.28 0.32 Uniform delay, d 29.6 9.9 28.6 26.2 26.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "b' 1 ul c file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 Progressionfactor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.28 Incremental delay, d 8.6 0.1 2.8 0.5 4.4 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 38.2 10.1 31.4 26.7 31.2 LanegroupLOS D 8 C C C Approach delay 26 7 29.9 31.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 28.8 X 0.72 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCS2000 Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved 1 ue. a Lit Version 4.1e 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a6c i kJ L file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapaliy \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street:Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West StudyPeriod (hrs):0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L-T R L T R olume (veh /h)0 290 28 1 230 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 0 305 29 1 242 0 Proportionofheavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Mediantype 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 olume (veh /h)92 0 13 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 96 0 13 0 0 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 ControlDelay, QueueLength,LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)1 109 Capacity, c (vph)1225 507 v/c ratio 0.00 0.21 Queue length (95 0.00 0.81 Control Delay (s /veh)7.9 14.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a6c i kJ L file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapaliy \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A I 8 Approach delay s /veh) 14.0 ApproachLOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 may ,r 1 a8t...' U1 HCS2000 Cpyright ©2003 Univer iryofFlorida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/WestStreet: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street:Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study 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)0 327 91 13 443 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 344 95 13 466 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Mediantype 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)60 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 63 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LaneConfiguration LT LR Volume, v (vph)13 68 Capacity, c (vph)1121 325 v/c ratio 0.01 0.21 Queuelength (95 0.04 0.78 Control Delay (s /veh)8.2 19.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A I C I 1 I Approach delay s /veh) 19.0 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iwu- vv ay LI up U HCS2000 Copyright O2003University ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved 1 aSlr L V L Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k 11/9/2004 Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt657 Twinbrook Circle Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction FnencytoPerformed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions alysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 1 10.5c L U1 6 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ineral Information SiteInformation ject Description Lambert Ward PropertyIst /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments jorStreet Movement Ilume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) jo portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Inj Channelized? Lanes 1 nfigurationstreamSignal Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 0 3 R 32 0.95 33 0 0 Westbound 4 L 9 0.95 9 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street l vement Volume (veh /h) 13k-hour factor, PHF urlyFlowRate (veh /h) Proportionofheavy cles, PHv rcentgrade Flared approach StorageChannelized? es 1nfiguration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service proachivemenl LaneConfiguration fume, v (vph) pacify, c (vph) ratiocuelength (95 Control Delay (s /veh) 1S Northbound 7 L 78 0.95 82 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 7.6 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR WB 4 LT 9 1246 0.01 0.02 7.9 A 9 R 41 0.95 43 2 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LTR 126 512 0.25 0.96 14.3 B 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 9 Southbound 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 10 12 R 25 a95 26 2 0 0 Southbound 11 LTR 48 592 0.08 0.26 11.6 B 12 fl: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12BC.tmp 11/22/2004 1 pproachdelay (s /veh) proach LOS H. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U47tVe I I 14.3 11.6 8 r u6e.2. u1 2. Copyright 2003 University of Florida, AllRights Reserved Version 4.1 fi: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12BC.tmp 11/22/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY laneral Information Site Information ject Description Lambert Ward Propertyist/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 025 hide Volumes and Adjustments I jor Street Mo Fume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF f urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Channelized? Lanes nfiguration stream Signal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LTR 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 0 Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street vement Volume (veh /h) factor, PHF F urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHv cent grade Flared approach I torogeChannelized?0 L es CInfiguration roach emvement Lane Configuration ume, v (vph) pacity, c (vph) ratioleue length (95 Control Delay (s /veh) L,S Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 1 1 LTR WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 LTR 93 245 0.38 1.69 28.4 0 Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 0 N 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR 38 524 0.07 0.23 12.4 B 6 /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004 PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.irnalyst PHR +A Jurisdiction toPerformed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2010 Bu /dout Conditions nalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY laneral Information Site Information ject Description Lambert Ward Propertyist/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 025 hide Volumes and Adjustments I jor Street Mo Fume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF f urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Channelized? Lanes nfiguration stream Signal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LTR 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 0 Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street vement Volume (veh /h) factor, PHF F urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHv cent grade Flared approach I toroge Channelized?0 L es CInfiguration roach emvement Lane Configuration ume, v (vph) pacity, c (vph) ratioleue length (95 Control Delay (s /veh) L,S Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 1 1 LTR WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 LTR 93 245 0.38 1.69 28.4 0 Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 0 N 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR 38 524 0.07 0.23 12.4 B 6 /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004 1 pproach delay (s /veh) proachLOS 12000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 2 Copyright 2003 Univc sity of Florid 12.4 8 II Rights Reserved Version 4.Id fil: /C:A ocuments %20and %20SettingsvGiangrandeA ocal %20Setty ingsvTempvu2k12B7.t p 11/22/2004 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT Ineral Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A ency or Co. PHR +A to Performed 11/2/2004 nePeriod AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear201CBuildoutConditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty flume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Umber of lanes, NUmber 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 group L TR L TR L TR L TR plume, V (vph)103 232 52 33 593 94 44 74 19 91 115 167 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 50.95 timed (P) oractuated (A)A A A A A A A A A A A A ort -uplosttime, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 tension of effective green, e 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 lit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1ne width 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 Irkingmaneuvers, N Uses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I\ time for pedestrians, GI\3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 EW Perm 02 03 04 NSPerm 06 07 08 ming G= 48.0 G=G=G=G= 32.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= ration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Contro Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Ad flow rate, v 108 299 35 723 46 98 96 297 t 'ustedegroupcapacity, c 201 966 533 973 306 642 459 603 v/cratio, X 0.54 0.31 0.07 0.74 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.49 lal green ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Uniform delay, d 13.7 11.7 10.2 16.2 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.7 I gression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 iu55L. 1 fil: /C:ADocuments% 20and% 20Settings \GiangrandeALocal %20Settings \Temp \s2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Initial queue delay, d intro) delay 16.6 11.9 10.2 19.4 20.0 19.9 20.4 23.3 Lane group LOS 8 8 8 8 8 8 C C 1proach delay 13.2 18.9 19 9 22.6 proachLOS 8 8 8 C ersectiondelay 18.5 X 0.64 Intersection LOS 8 1 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4,1 fl: /C:vDocuments %20and %20SettingsvGiangrandev Local %20SettingsvTempvS2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 AreaType Allother areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear2010BuildoutConditions ProjectID Lambert Ward Property 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 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)247 648 66 62 500 118 101 153 80 102 196 224 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start up lost time, l 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 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 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, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnly EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 50.0 G=G=G= 28.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, C 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determinat on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 731 65 619 106 227 107 371 Lane group capacity, c 353 1106 274 958 165 525 282 512 v/cratio, X 0.74 0.66 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.43 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 13.2 12.6 12.2 16.2 29.1 27.1 26.6 30.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.29 0.24 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.29 Incremental delay, d 7.9 1.5 0.4 1.5 8.2 0.6 0.9 5.1 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 21.1 14.1 12.6 17.7 37.4 27.7 27.5 35.1 LanegroupLOS C 8 8 8 D C C D Approach delay 159 17.2 30.8 33.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 C C Intersection delay 21.6 Xc 0.74 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F /CS2000 Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, AllRdhts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information SiteInformation alyst PHR +A Intersection Rt657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Bulldout Conditions alysis Time Period AM Peak Hour jectDescription Lambert WardProperty -WithRoadwayImprovements EastNVest Street: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle I ersection Orientation: East -West StudyPeriod (hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments for Street Eastbound Westbound ivement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)13 267 32 9 158 11 ak -hourfactor, PHFlurly 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urlyFlowRate (veh /h)Flow Rate (veh/h)1313 281281 3333 99 166166 1111 Proportion ofheavy ICles, PHV 2 2 NWdian type Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 es 0 1 1 0 1 1 C, nfiguration LT R LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 orStreet Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R III ume (veh /h)78 1 41 20 1 25 eak -hour factor, P 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urlyFlowRate (veh /h)82 1 43 21 1 26 portion of heavyivIcles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 centgrade 0 0 FP^red approach N N Storage 0 0 FM Channelized?0 0 Liles 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, Level of ServiceIrtrotroachEB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L e Configuration LT LT LTR LTR Voume, v (vph)13 9 126 48 Csacity, c (vph)1399 1246 525 592 vratio 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.08 Queuelength (95 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.26 lCtrol Delay (s /veh)7.6 7.9 14.0 11.6 A A B B delay (s /veh)14.0 11.6 Aaroachroach LOS 8 8 iCS2000TM Copyright 2003 Unive'sity ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved Version 4 Id fi /C:A Documents% 20and% 20Settings \GiangrandeALocal %20Settings \Temp \u2k2E.tmp 11/29/2004 Ialyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2010 Buildout Conditions lalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information jectDescription Lambert WardProperty -WithRoadwayImprovements SiteInf East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Itersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments jorStreetivement Volume (veh /h) lak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHvLiontype RT Channelized? es nfi guration iill streamSignal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LT 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 1 R Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 Undivided 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 0 or Street Novement jume (veh /h) eak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy v icles, PHv P t dcentgrade ed approach Storage Channelized? Les Configuration Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 Y 1 1 LTR 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 0 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 Southbound 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 Y 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0. 95 33 2 0 0 0 trotDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService A roach M tvemen eConfiguration Volume, v (vph) C c (vph) vratio Queue length (95 Ciro! Delay (s /veh) L roach delay (s /veh) roach LOS EB 1 LT 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A Northbound 7 8 LTR 93 277 0.34 1.43 24.4 C 9 24.4 C Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 751 0.05 0.16 12.2 8 12.2 8 12 vcs200o Copyright 2003 University orFlorida. All Rights Reserved rage 101 Version 4.1 d fi /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k31.tmp 11/29/2004 15Minim BeginingIIPeriod FR: Le11 ROUTE 657 ITntRleftle WW Lell R053 E 657 ThyRigOsTotal N LII ROUTE 656 9TmRightTo SB: ell R0Ur2656 lLmRight TmulYSE.J. W 15MinPeriod Oegining 7.00 6 0 6 26 3 36 9 48 9 0 16 9 9 21 39 129 7:00 5 12 6 12 40 5 41 1 57 12 1 21 14 12 22 53 121 7:15 0 16 4 10 40 50 9 61 15 0 20 10 17 36 63 186 290 5 59 9 9 46 I 52 I 64 16 2 26 I8 21 33 72 208 2:45 0 22 6 II d9 4 49 4 67 12 3 22 16 24 27 67 205 000 5 10 7 9 44 2 44 1 52 II 1 19 l9 18 29 60 180 9 :15 8.30 16 21 II 46 47 61 I 14 4 29 11 16 32 59 192 9 :30 6:45 15 19 7 41 3 42 2 52 9 12 26 16 20 30 66 192 9,45 A.M. To 126 132 76 334 23 361 86 472 66 106 13 165 108 132 234 419 1420 A Total 31 39 12 92 2 22 11 35 12 21 10 43 9 20 22 51 211 6 -00 34 18 10 92 3 27 16 46 14 26 8 48 52 24 27 63 40 6 :15 32 39 8 84 7 52 19 57 18 24 11 53 11 33 33 77 391 6:30 44 43 11 101 11 40 15 66 21 23 14 56 12 36 41 69 314 645 j 48 36 15 101 8 41 21 70 20 29 10 59 12 40 48 105 335 2:00 50 42 12 104 11 31 16 60 16 31 6 55 9 33 42 92 306 935 40 59 9 96 6 33 54 53 12 23 9 49 12 26 35 25 265 230 32 41 11 64 35 11 51 8 22 11 41 14 21 31 66 745 P.M. Tole'316 329 91 736 53 261 IN 438 121 204 91 406 99 235 299 651 P. elm 1Hoc Eft ROUTE 657 W 0.ROUTE 657 Na 600T9 656 50:ROUTE 656 period N.S.Period BoginingLelllLmRIOuTotalLeoT6ntRighttotalLeaT.hmRiglpFO1alLeflT6ntRigIstTotal deuining 2:00 55 59 38 152 12 179 39 210 32 32 3 62 51 59 12 222 696 7.00 7:15 69 65 41 125 12 192 44 249 22 55 6 93 56 74 23 255 293 2.1e 2:30 75 66 36 129 10 195 44 249 31 54 6 91 58 60 24 262 281 7:30 145 25 93 39 182 9 191 40 249 33 53 10 96 59 79 20 259 790 7:45 8 71 73 39 182 II 102 49 242 34 54 10 96 52 28 I2 2 224 3:00 1600 146 169 44 359 23 121 60 204 65 94 43 202 44 113 23 260 1045 g 16J5 163 168 47 370 29 140 70 239 23 102 43 219 52 133 49 034 1169 16J01 129 162 49 390 32 144 22 253 75 102 45 225 52 142 61 356 5226 16:45 182 162 50 394 36 145 69 149 69 III 41 121 53 132 166 356 1220 12:00 170 160 42 329 30 140 64 234 56 110 39 201 122 156 323 1148 I Hour Ed ROUTE 652 WB:ROUS 0057 NB:ROUTE 656 513:0013TE 65n 1HOU4 Period F3,Jellied Reining Le 11 1luU Rielo Toul Leg Taro Tile) 11 TOn0 Lell Thy Rippl Toial Lea Thy R;ehl Total E3 W 9egining JS 23 39 192 9 192 46 249 03 53 l0 59 29 120 250 290 7:45 AM. Pe'tk PHE 095 PH?093 PHP063 PHF 090 095 AM. Peak 14:3 179 162 49 390 37 144 3 253 25 10 2 43 a 5 5_142 164 356 1226 16:30 P.M. Peek PI41 0.94 PH? .9 090 P115—095 PH? .9 095 091 P.M. Ptak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interseclioo: E -WN -S Lwwtior Rowe 657OUFE656 Winc5c55er 7 WeacherCountBy Conn Date DryTil 9099.9699 file NaoselP:9ProjeclS 13303A1.0ATtunspol lul 8400m Ward [1330391 -01 AExcellPUblishe4 Paul' COUno5RT6S6 &RT62xis1putByLOG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Location M. PEAL( FLOUR7,45- 8:45 1DIRE 657 Route 657ROUTE656 WIncLUtgVA 345tat 75 —1 187 73 ti 39 am22.17%32 Noah 2433% South 5629%.100% ROUTE 656 1258 (27%) 1 176 120 79 59 J1L 11 r J) 53 10 1271 04 96 ROUTE 656 PEAK HOUR16901730 350 (29945 358 r— 38352 179 390 162 ROUTE 657 ul r 05 107 43 225 1 (IS 2251 WeatherCountBy Count Dam Dry 10/IW19/L00a t 43 r— 192 C 9 ROUTE 656 ROUTE 657 ta— 24925 I42 164 1 52 JROUTE 657 4__. 72 r— 144 4— 253 37 (21257 ROUTE 656 Fat NamclP:Wrojccl)13303)1 UTranaponatiantambut Ward (1))03-IOyExcHPu61 InputByLOG Datn)TnOic Coun T6562RT657 .xls Imersectian: 6 SENSENY RD Weathcr DAY Pil Ndme'P. \ProlccllI 330311-05Tran5po no nteri Word( N -0'.RO55UAI LA Count By 01P Iput 135111P Location Winchesier.vA Count Date 9(594690 15NlinuePeriod Beginmg E SENSENY RD I. gThorkitTotal WI3: SENSENY RD mL01NRight 'Total 2: ROSSUM LA L1t Thnl Right Total S LgTlwRightTm1EW Ainiod Begining 7.005 10I> 10 8,308.45. 15 0 15 19 1 20 21 1 25 27 0 27 25 7 226127 29 3 32 24 I 25 17 12 22 22 23 23242 342326E620 22 22 21 21 3 5 2 6 44 4 42 10 3 07 4056 5561 5862 53 Total 189 9 196 178 179 1 3 21 57 430 A.M. Total 18 2 20 21 1 22 22 4 26 20 3 31 30 3 33 2 9 5 34 2 2 27 24 3 27 0 33 33 1 30 39 41 41 46 40 48 50 45 49 41 43 36 37 4 1 50 4 3 60 n 2 74 3 0 82 5 1 1 49 2 07 4 1 75 4 0 60 I 10001015 16301645 17:0017.15 17:3017:45 P.M. 1'olul 197 23 220 I 3 0 340 31 0 10 41 0 0 0 0 601 1 P.6I.Total 1HourPeriod Begininn Eli SENSENY RD LB1 '1161RightTotal W13. SENSENY RD Legihm0:030Total NB. ROSSUM LA tea Thru Right Total 50: LollThruRightTotalN.S.LW 1HourPeriod Begthg10 7'00 I7167107 :45 9:00 0 85 2 87 0 95 4 99 0 102 4 106 0 107 6 113 0 104 7 111 0 56 0 66 1 92 0 93 I 96 0 97 I 95 0 96 1 9 0 93 13 0 10 23 17 0 11 20 16 0 11 27 17 0 10 27 19 0 11 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196220 230236 234 7007.15 7.307.45 4:00 16 00 I161516001645 17:00 0 89 10 99 0 101 11 112 0 109 15 124 0 112 13 125 0 100 13 121 3 153 0 161 5 173 0 178 0 100 0 108 10 ISO 0 190 9 170 0 179 16 0 6 22 17 0 6 23 15 0 5 20 14 0 4 13 15 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282313 332333 319 8 IHourProud Begining 004 SENSENY RD Lett 'Dial 011411 rolal WB. SENSENY RD LogThorRightTotal 6B: 000.0U0 LA Leg Thru Right Tolvl SB: Left 'I11mRight TolnlY.S.BW 1HourFetilvl Bcginiryr 745A.M. Peak 0 107 6 113PHP060 I 95 0 96 PHF 092 I7 0 10 27PHF063 0 0 0 0 0116 2360.95 7:45 A Peak 16:451 2. P.M.Peak 0 112 13 12PHP= 092 10 100 0 190 PHF- 0.95 14 0 4 10PHP° 075 0 0 0 0 PHF=all0.94 1645P.2a1.Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3303- 1 -0)AExce8Publiehcd DaMTmITcCountsSENSENYR055UM..xls 1 1 71 P M. PEAK HOUR 1 1645 1745 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A PEAK HOUR 1 ]: J5 -845 4— 111ux) 115 1 NSENY RD 194am%) 155 IISENY RD 1F.`D1.:...., E.MISE.NSENY RD N-5: N-5:I RO55U.41 LA laation Winchefta.VA 0 23 10 0 0 J1[ 11 r 17 0 10 7%1 n 1 1 J 1 L 1 1 r 11654 is 5'0NaIDRY Coon BV IIP Count Dai0 050500805 04) 1 n ROSSUM LA L0 4-- 95 ROSSUM L5 t' 1 0 SENSE NY RD 4-- 9645'%) 11] 5EN5ENY RD 4 0180 4— 190 10 l06w1116 FileNanelP ^Frojacv1550311-0Tnmporution` 14mbmWard (I)103-I- 0) EaiSnfc Counu6ENS0NVRO55UM xb Input Brl11P sn. 0 -0:Wcathal RAIN Fil Nana IPIProjcos \133031LU11'runsP r54 on \Laobvl Wa d 1 TWI]'RROOK CIR Count BV 319 Ipu'BvFJ3P Location Winchster.VA Cams Dne 10 -10-04 InglePeriod Beginigg EB: SENSENY RD Le56 Din Right Total WB: SBSSENV RD Lell 'DNu Ri¢bt Toul NB: TWINBROOK CIR Lell Tlvu Right Total Se SENSENY GLEN DR Lell Tau Right Total N,S,EW 156110Pnsod Begning 10715 7.30745 8.00B:15 8,309:45 ssss8 I 19 19 0 21 23 3 26 35 1 20 2 22 2 4 20 36 2 26 33 2 24 30 0 14 1 15 1 16 17 0 19 19 0 21 22 1 19 20 0 20 22 I 17 22 0 21 23 2 6 5 4 7 3 7 5 11 5 7 7 12 5 0 3 0 6 4 0 8 4 0 7 3 0 8 5 1 10 3 0 10 4 0 8 3 0 7 5962 6566 7575 68AM. Tout I 109 20 234 3 146 10 159 17 3 29 60 29 I 04 Total I6006 :156 :30 6.45100 IS3:30 345 9 13 11 32 9 17 A 34 8 19 11 38 6 24 9 39 II 20 10 37 0 21 P 37 6 16 6 16 25 28 4 36 2 30 39 4 36 4 4 4 5 42 5 52 7 41 10 58 4 35 9 48 E 31 6 39 5 26 34 J 0 5 9 0 P 3 0 10 10 0 1 10 60 0 099 10 0 12930 405 00 0 86 0 6 I 00 0 9 109 6 12E U 4 97 0 fi5 5] 0 ]I P.M.TosI 61 152 02 280 31 269 49 349 59 1 11 ]I 1 45 54 750 P.M.Total 1HowPeriod Binning EB: SENSENY RD Lei TLry Right Total WB: SENSENY RD Loll Thm Right Total FB: TW10BROOK CM Lell Thm Right Total SR. SENSENY GLEN DR hellThmRight total0.3.E &54 IHcuePeon) Detaining 7.007:15 7 :307:45 8:00 5 99 6 100 6 93 7 106 10 100 9 119 9 100 I] 12 10 500 H 124 I 69 2 72 74 1 1 78 3 82 7 00 9 87 50 I 14 30 18 1 17 36 I] H l3 20 16 37 Ii 33 14 0 15 29 16 1 16 33 15 I I9 35 IS 20 Jn IS 19 )5 231253 200281 301 W7:15 33N5 A 00 160016 :15 16'1016'43 17.00 31 73 39 143 34 00 39 155 33 90 39 161 31 as 33 151 30 79 28 Iii 15 136 19 170 18 149 25 192 20 154 29 20E 19 149 30 197 16 033 30 1]9 23 0 6 33 31 0 0 37 32 I 4 5 37 34 1 39 P_ 1 Jfl 5 0 N 20 4 I 25 30 J I 34 28 J I 24 29 3 1 31 25 375417 00415 I79 le001615 10'.431045 I7.0') IHowPeriod Repining EB: SENSENY RD T Right Total 1011: SENSENY RD Lea TItu Right Total 00: I'WINBROO6 CIR L Tl Right T3 30 SENSENY GLEN DR Ttm Ri Total N.S,F.& W 1HourPeio4 B 6I F 1010 1000 I0o 6 P3 77277 0 87 PI 2.02 222 1 IS .8 0 PUP 0 55lIS 19o 35 P V 08.00 4 90 hlA. Pcuk IPOP.M. 30PPeal. Peal.33 YO 161161P000HF .g. 0.96 20 ISJ 4028 202YIIFO9) 32 1 4 39Pt1F0.93 3 24 28PRE089 28028099 1 .P55P.N. Peant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1330.1 -0IIEVCAWUb]ished DaloVTnllic Caunu0SENSEN1'TW NBROOK.Js 1 1 1 1 1 LL 3657•%.7705% Wnh 10 01% Swab nl5•: I 1110% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m. E-W :SEVSLNYR0 N- 97WINBROOK CIR A.M. PEAK HOUR I em.ew INSENY SD IUoAianIWin<balco.VA Count Dale 10-20-04 110113X1 10 —t 114 100 7 210 lo1 —11. I .NSENY RD 33 t 9039 SENSENY GLEN OR IT1 (1.3.901 39 SENSESYG EN DR 59 135 (16901 i 19 11 r 11190, 37 Wt@eeRAIN COw19r11P t 8 77 TWINORCOK CIR N PEAK 35I1116EIJO1 20 (II':) 62 TWINBROOKCIR SENSENY RD 4 87938 %.1139 SENSENY RO 4— 28 f— 154 1— 201 r 20 (35•%)97FJe Nnm0IP.ProjecNI330311.0TmnsportmenL ,ben WadIIJ303- I -0p(ocel'.Pub)ishN046,T,4060CounuaSENSEN IN BROOKxis1401 MIA? 0 0 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Wayne L. Hill The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division 4100 Monument Corner Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Eng neer s. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Ar chi tech. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007PHWilliamsport. Maryland 21795 T 301 .223.4010 • F 301 .223.6831 November 18, 2008 0 n LJ IJ 0 OVERVIEW Report Summary 6 Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development located along the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Valley Mill Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include 155 single - family detached units and 170 townhouse units. Access will be provided via a sole site- driveway to be located along the west side of the proposed Haggerty Connector Road. The proposed Haggerty Connector will serve as the connection between the site and Route 7. The development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2010. PHR+A has provided Figure I to illustrate the location of Opequon Crossing with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology All methodology utilized in this report was based upon the December 11, 2007 scoping meeting (in Edinburg, VA) with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Frederick County staff. The traffic impacts accompanying the Opequon Crossing 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 the proposed Opequon Crossing development, Distribution and assignment of the Opequon Crossing development - generated trips onto the study area roadway network, Analysis of capacity and levels of service for existing and future conditions using Synchro 7. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to determine the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed Haggerty Connection, PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 7Nalley Mill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR +A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 7.70 % based upon Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed location of the Haggerty Connection. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry along Route 7. Traffic count data worksheet is included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Daffic /mnac( Anal vdis of (he Opequon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1-0 November 18, 2008 Page I 0 6 i 0 No Scale frpFactory z f jlea ciao r C Llfl ds =Rd? SITE' ' f Lly4, \ Q { hw ' li7 J, P1 r A F1 "N-1 V Figure I Vicinity Map: Opequon Crossing, in Frederick County, Virginia P ATm(dc Impact Anakvi.s of die OPeaann Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 2 C No Scale SITE r AM Peak HOur(Pil4 Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions P A Trn(rc Impact Analvsi.s oldie Opeouon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2003 Pagc 3 r C J 0 No Scale 40 SITE Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service P A Dalpc Impel Ann(FSi.s of the Oncnuon Crossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November IS, 2008 Page 4 0 0 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR +A increased the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 using a growth rate per the December 11, 2007 seeping meeting) of two percent (2 %) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR +A included all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site. Based upon the Th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report Table 1 is provided to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Table 1 Other Developments" 2010 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Twin Lakes Phase 10 230 Townhouse/Condo 71 units 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Total 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Haggerty Properly 210 Single - Family Detached 76 units 16 47 63 53 31 84 760 230 Townhouse/Condo 224 units 26 87 113 94 53 147 1,466 Total 42 134 176 147 84 231 2,226 Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 7/Haggerty Connector Road. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and levels of service. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 is provided to show the 95 percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 background conditions. A Tm(Rc Impact Ann(vsis o te ec N umber: 2617 -1-0 H Novanbe Crossinq Project umber i 18, 2 008 1-0 r 18, 2 Page 5 0 No Scale 0 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions P RA A Traffic /nroacl Anal v.Vis of the Ooeauon Cro.ssinc Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 6 0 0 0 0 J Figure 5 2010 , Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service P HA A Daffic lnu>acl Anahsis of the Oneauon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Paec 7 Signaliud'. 'Sex' Intersection Inlcn,`cti.n" No Scale A)q 7 UnsignalindIntersection y i Yi `9 lt'JP P 7 c Go` SITE C• N G 3 art O s i y 4 Un51gnalized Intersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement T T A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) J Figure 5 2010 , Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service PHA A Daffic lnu>acl Anahsis of the Oneauon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Paec 7 Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Background Conditions J Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length L Table 2 Opequon Crossing Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Back of ueue LOS Back of Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T B 331.D A 96.0 EB/TR EB LOS B A WB/L A 25.0 A 26.0 WB/T -Lapel A 97.0 B 391.0 WB/T -Lane2 WB LOS A B NB/LR B 72.0 B 46.0 NB LOS B B Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway / Iaggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR Haggerty Road &gg Y Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB /LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right PHA A Traffic hnnact Analysis of the Oneguon Cwssinp Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 8 0 0 0 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' ITE) Trip Generation Report as well as using the rates provided by VDOT Staunton District for ITE Code 230. Table 3 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development. Table 3 Proposed Development: Opequon Crossing Trin Generation Summar Code Land Use Amount In ANI Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out 'Total ADT 210 Single- Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 59 159 1,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,1w Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,658 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 Opequon Crossing trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated AMIPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS C The Opequon Crossing assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. PHR +A has provided Table 4 to show the 95 percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build -out conditions. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A 7 naf6c hnoact Anolvsis of (he Onequon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 9 i No Scale ke 7 4 Goc y 6Oz SIT b ~ O f O ! C PtLd N`ti Q . Pf fy D n n Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage P ATraffic /ngmc(AardvsP ofdie N umber: 12617 -1-0Projectumber12617 -1 -0 November I8, 2008 Paoe 10 0 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development- Generated Trip Assignments PH ATra((ic Impact AnahwP oect N umber: 1 2617 - 1 -0R+A Project umber: 12617 -I -0 November 18, 2008 Page I I 9 E No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 0 Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions PHA A Tragic /mI)acl Analysis of the Onenuon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -U November 18, 2WS Page 12 0 sigoahzzd '. °New lnterseUion,` Intersection" i),LOS B(B) 14 No Scale i e• ; rg r 47 Unsignalized Intersection 7 lp P "tiOC c` G S ITE e SIT b 36 5C P O UHF L d J N 0Qc e Go yJ UnsignahzedIntersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) D A Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service P A Dallic Gnyact Analvsis of die Onegoon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 19. 2008 Page 13 0 Table 4 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS ac o ueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EWT C 462.0 A 146.0 EB /TR EB LOS C A WB/L B 38.0 B 83.0 WB/T -Lanel B 141.0 B 426.0 WB T -Lane2 WB LOS B B NB/LR C 170.0 C 161.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway /Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB /LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SBIfR Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 0 Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right P HA A Traffic Impel Analysis of (he Oneguon Cro.ssinu Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 14 u u E CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analv.eis o(Me Oueuuon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 15 11 0 E 0 SIX -YEARS AFTER" DEVELOPMENT 2016 TRAFFIC IMPACTS PHR +A applied an annual growth rate of 2% to the existing traffic volumes through Year 2016. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included. The trip generation for the background development remains consistent with the Table I of "2010 background conditions" (Page 5). The Opequon Crossing development assigned trips (Table 3) were then added to the 2016 background conditions to obtain 2016 build -out conditions. Figure 10 shows the 2016 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 11 shows the respective 2016 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. Table 5 is provided to show the 95' percentile back of queue and levels of service for each Zane group during 2016 build -out conditions. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Traffic Impact Anal"is of the Oneouon C ossink Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 16 0 11 No Scale e ? e 09 )1S2 r 3x(181912)511 8(133) s 9 S` 7J lya'j z G S•^ •^ SITE . rs a P P I O s AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 17 T) . A Figure 10 2016 Build -out Traffic Conditions P A 7rafOc 6nimei Analysis of the Oueguon Oossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18. 2008 PaPc 17 0 Signaliixd "New Intersection' Intence[ion" No Scale B(C) lg1C - 7 a Unsigmalized Intersection P c G gC SITE Q v O O PO a POy X 4J .l P, 1(y d ` s G Unsignalizad Intersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T7 T_), A H1.1. Figure 11 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service P ATrnffic /mpacr Anahais of the Oneouon Crossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 18 0 Ci Table 5 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2016 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Croup/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS ac o Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T C 567.0 A 168.0 EB/TR EB LOS C I A WB /L C 41.0 C 122.0 WB/I -Lapel B 166.0 C 570.0 WB/T-Lane2 WB LOS B C NB /LR C 182.0 C 103.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS C C Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway/Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB /LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB /LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, W B = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:'I'hru, R: Right P A Daffic bnnnct Anuh•sis of the Ooegtum Gossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 19 0 0 2016 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2016 build -out conditions. PHA AfgiffL ],POuct Analy -io ofthe Onegu 000055111¢ Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 20 0 0 Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 0 jjjj Virginia Department PRE -SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM ofTransportation Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for having this form completed and returned to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a completed form is !not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Consultant Name. _'. Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Michael Glickman Tele..,! (301) 223-4010 E-mail' Michael.Glickman @phra.com DeveloperjOw'netName: , "'I Wayne L. Hill, The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division 4 n isProjectInformation fr Project Name .. ; ' „Opecluon Crossing Protect Location °:Project is located south of Route 7 along the proposed HaggertyAttachregionalandsite) ,.Connection Road in Frederick County, Virginiaspecificlocationma Project "Description _. -. Including type of application _ rezoning; subdivision site The Project includes 155 units of Single Family detached and 170 units of plan), businesssquare .Townhouse /Condo.ft, number of dwelling units - access,location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary Locality /County..Frederick County Proposed =Use . ` Check'all that apply „attach • .Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other additional pagesas necessa ' Residential # of Units:Mixed Use: ITE LU Code(s):Res. Units: ITE LU Code(s): 210 Single Family Detached (155 units) 230 Townhouse /Condo (170 units)Commercial Use Scl Ft: ITE LU Code(s): Commercial Use Scl Ft: Other: ITE LU Code(s): Paee I of 6 U Administrative Guidelines Ah IMF 4 January 29, 2008 t t L } l FJn6 ..."0t.`.j. a F TrafFc Im ct =Anal sisi ...a id { A'ssum tions.. ,: •_.., r,_,:. •,......_ _. il Study, Period Existing Year: 2008 Build -out Year: 2010 Design Year: 2016 Study Area Boundaries North: Route 7 (Berryville Pike)South: attach map) ° ;.East: Haggerty Connection West: 1xter ha Factors Thatr.: Could: Affect. Project," Planned: road improvements,_ other nearbyAevelopments) Consistency Wlth Compreiens(ve Plan ` Available Traffic 'Data f z: Historical, "forecasts) Trip Distribution: `.Road Name: Berryville Pike N %S %E40%W 60 % Attach sketch) Road Name:N %S %E %W Road Name:N %S %E %W Road Name:N _%S %E_%W Annual.Vehlcle Trip Peak Period for'.:PM Growth" Rate .. 2 °11 Study Circle all that a' ' I' `7 9) (4 6)10 1. Route 7 /Proposed Haggerty 5 ' Connection Road. 2• Haggerty Connection Road /Haggerty 6StudyIntersection`s "' and /or`RoadSegments:Driveway #2/Site-Drivewa Attach additional she1et,s!as ..3. Haggerty Connection Road /Haggerty necessary) -Drivewa #1 7 4.8. Trip Adjustment "Internal allowance: Yes 0 No Pass -by allowance: Yes 2 No Factors `Reduction: % trips Reduction: % trips Software Methodology 0 Synchro HCS (v.2000 / +) El aaSIDRA El CORSIM El Other 7raffi 61 Signal, Proposed or Affected = Analysis'software to be_used, '.. progressionspeed }'cycle: ' length) Page 2 of 6 Administrative Guidelines Haggerty Property, Twin Lakes development. January 29, 2008 Plan Submission'El Master Development Plan (MDP) El Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues.fo be 0 Queuing analysis Weaving analysis Merge analysis addressed =` Intersection(s) TDM Measures Other NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: 0 0 SIGNED: DATE: 01 /29/2008 Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: Michael Glickman, PE Applicant or Consultant Page 3 of 6 0 0 Administrative Guidelines No Scale t January 29, 2008 Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Village at Opequon in Frederick County, Virginia J Page 4 0l' 6 0 l J Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 No Scale 0 e 7 I Goc et` SITE 0 c 0 2 n4- Psi n D A Figure 2 Trip Distribution Percentage Page 5 of 6 Administrative Guidelines Table 1 Proposed Development: Village at Opequon January 29, 2008 irm t,eneranon !)ummar J Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Sin-le- Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 1 59 1 159 1.550 230 Townhouse /Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,108 Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,658 0 Page 6 of 6 Intersecrion' ° Intersection" LOS4(B) No Scale (A)g 7 E G +L SITE 0 y AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2010 Build -out L ane Geometry and Level of Service Figure 1 Revised Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service T T 0 11 Table 1 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS uk LOS ac Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/'F-Lane 1 B 425.0 B 218.0 217.0 EB/T -Lane 2 EB/R A 25.0 A 1 49.0 EB LOS B B WB /L D 56.0 C 134.0 WB/I -Lane 1 A 102.0 B 388.0 WB /T -Lane 2 WB LOS A B NB/L D 173.0 C 115.0 NB /R A 1 48.0 A 26.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R Right Table 2 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2016 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PMIPeak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS I ac o Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T -Lane 1 B 516.0 B 1 218.0 EB/T -Lane 2 EB /R A 25.0 A 43.0 EB LOS B B WB/L D 56.0 D 138.0 WB /T -Lane 1 A 112.0 B 424.0 WB/T -Lane 2 WB LOS A B NB/L D 187.0 D 122,0 NB/R A 50.6 A 29.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Assulllcu 25 fum v cuwic ,cugw EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right u A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paramount Development Corporation 607 Briarwood Drive, Suite 5 MyrtleBeach, South Carolina 29572 Preparedby: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc End neers. Surveyors. Planners. Lmdsccpe Architects. PHRA 300FoxcroftAvenue, Suite200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 7 304.264.2711 F304.264.3671 October 11, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present thetraffic impacts associated with theproposed Orrick Property development located along the east side of Route 656 (Greenwood Road), north of Route 657 (Senseny Road) inFrederick County, Virginia. The proposed project iscomprised of75age restricted detached residential units, 100 age- restricted attached residential units, a 6,000 square foot day care facility, 25,000 square feet of office, 80,200 square feet of retail, a 15,000 square foot pharmacy with drive -thru, a 6,000 square foot bank and two (2) 6,000 square foot restaurants. Access is to be provided via three (3) site driveways located to the east of Greenwood Road, north of Senseny Road and south of Farmington Boulevard Extended, respectively. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Inorder toconsider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR +A assumed partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended bythe Year 2008. Figure 1isprovided toillustrate the location of the proposed Orrick Property development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying theOrrick Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment ofbackground traffic including other planned projects inthe areaof impact, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development, Distribution and assignment of the Orrick Property development generated trips onto the completed roadway network, Analysis ofcapacity andlevel ofservice using thelatest version ofthe highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 1 Vicinity Map: Orrick Property in Frederick County, VA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 1I, 2005 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the following intersections: Senseny Road/Greenwood Road, Senseny Road/Channing Drive Greenwood Drive /Greenpark Drive and Greenwood Road/Farmington Boulevard. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Trips) along the study area roadway links, a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2shows theexisting ADTand AM/PM peakhourtraffic volumes atkey locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lanegeometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels ofservice. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 3 Existing Traffic Conditions ATraffic Impact Analysis oftheOrrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 4 NoScale Signalize Intersection LOS-13(B) B(B) Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) rFigure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels ofService A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 5 2008BACKGROUNDCONDITIONS In order to determine the 2008 background traffic conditions, PHR +A utilized the methodology provided in the report titled: ATraffic Impact Analysis ofLambert -Ward Property, by PHR +A, dated November 04, 2004. Accordingly, the existing traffic counts wereincreased byapplying afivepercent (5 annual growth ratetotheexisting traffic volumes along Route 656 (Greenwood Road) and Route 657 (Senseny Road) (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2008 base conditions. In order to consider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR +A assumed the partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended by the Year 2008. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity ofthe proposed site. Using the 7 Edition oftheInstitute ofTransportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +Ahas provided Table 1to summarize the 2008 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 3athrough Figure 3fareincluded intheAppendix section toillustrate thetraffic volumes /assignments relating toeach ofthebackground developments. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes atkey Locations throughout the study area. Figure 5shows thecorresponding 2008 build out lane geometry and levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided intheAppendix section ofthisreport. P ATragic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 6 Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak Hour In OutTotalADT Butcher Property 210SingleFamilyDetached65units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210SingleFamilyDetached63units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210SingleFamilyDetached145units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse /Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 Abrams Pointe 210 Single- Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brairwood III 210SingleFamilyDetached69units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 MiscOtherDevelopmentsalongCharmingDrive* 210Single- FamilyDetached870units 155 464 618 473 278 751 8,700 230 Townhouse /Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 272 585 857 862 670 1,532 17,476 P Table1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential In 2008 traffic analyses only 65% of the total trips g nerated along Channing Drive are eonsiderd. ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 7 Average "DailygTrips 2008 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 8 PFFigure5 No Scale Suggested Improvements"Signalaation SB -1 Left Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotes traffic signal control DenotesUnsignalizedCriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) P 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 9 Code Land Use Amount AMPeak Hoar In Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 251 Elderly Housing Detach 75units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive -in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11,789 TRIP GENERATION 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development. Site layouts of residential and commercial developments are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 2008ProposedDevelopment: OrrickParamount TripGenerationSummary TRIPDISTRIBUTIONANDTRIPASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR +A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Orrick Property development trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development generated AM /PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. The Orrick Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added tothe2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels ofservice. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included intheAppendix section ofthisreport. 4 Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 10 Trip Distribution Percentages ATragic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 11 PRR- Fi 7 Development- Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 12 PHRA Figure 8 No Scale Average ttDaily` AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 13 PHI 9 ri No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS =C(D) T R(D) New Intersection" NewIntersection" New Intersection" Gr3enparkD Slgn uliad: "Suggested Intersection Improvement" 1056(G) WB 1 Right UC Vf pej way SITE Set, oC oad 94 Signulized Int necti9l14110S(C)LOSB(:r Suggested Improvement"Signalization SB I Left Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotestrafficsignalcontrol Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 14 OptionB: 2008Build -outTrafficConditions No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS =B(C)- Suggested Improvements" Signalization NB 1 Right Greenpark D Site Driveway g1 Two -Way Left Turn Lane Denotestrafficsignalcontrol Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) SITE P 2 OptionB: 2008Build -outLaneGeometry andLevelsofService P. t4a CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Orrick Property development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming the improvements shown in Figure 4 and Figure 9, all intersections except Greenwood Road/Site Driveway #1 will maintain levels of service to "C" or better during 2008 background and build -out conditions, respectively. The intersection ofGreenwood Road/Site- Driveway #1would maintain levels ofservice to D" or better during 2008 build -out conditions. The following reiterates the off -site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study area intersections: Senseny Road (a, Charming Drive: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require signalization and a southbound left -turn lane in 2008 background and build -out conditions. The developer is not responsible for this improvement. Senseny Road (cry Greenwood Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require a westbound right -turn lane in 2008 build -out conditions. This improvement is currently proffered by others. Greenwood Road (a, Site- Driveway #1: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. Senseny Road n, SiteDriveway #2: Inorder toachieve acceptable levels ofservice, this intersection should beasignalized intersection with southbound left and right -turn lanes in 2008 build -out conditions. The developer would be responsible for the design and installation. Farmington Boulevard (a Site Driveway #3: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 15 MUT MIT Rorsi n Patton Herr/5 Run 8Ruoclal•s Engineer.. Surveyors. Planner.. Landscape Architect. RA HT .....n. T WS/21T F 54.060103 LOCATION MAP ORRICK CEMETERY FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA CMSMONDE. 2065 FRE MO. N/! CREENVOO9VOLVN]ECR PRE CO ORRICKOUTPARCEL A 1.53 ACRES OWNEDBYOTHERS 76 ACRES 4/- WWI Mri t NEW INC TAPER Jr OWNED I itiv O'HEIM ORRICK I 1 OUTPARCEL 11 i OWNED 1]4 ACRES I IBYOTHERSII !I 1 NEW I.uxo 1 iy x_iw xurL 1 rtt PO >0 4 ORRICKOUTPARCEL #2 1.2 ACRES ORRICKOUTPARCEL #5 2.0 ACRES #1- ORRICKOUTPARCEL R6 2.26 ACRES i/- FUTURE OFFICE MEDICAL VICINITYPLAN ORRICKOUTPARCEL 17 1.3 ACRES I 1 ORRICKOUTPARCEL a4 1 0.94 ACRE +/y 04 -79 0479091 5171UN SP -1 FOOD LION SHOPPING CENTER WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA al! NM 441401-1;41-11471 PARAMOUNTDEVELOPMENT MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NEUHOFF TAYLOR ARCHITECTS, P.C. C HATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com F. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions without Development Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 135 11 1 72 3 37 0 15 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 147 11 0 73 3 0 52 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1892 1615 0 1899 1615 0 1753 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 863 0 1591 0 612 0 1707 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 20.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 10.2 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) 8.8 17.3 NA NA 10.5 11.6 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 17.3 5.5 10.2 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 21.3 9.9 14.4 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 8.5 0.1 4.5 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 9.3 9.3 4.6 4.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.3 13.3 9.0 9.0 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 21.3 14.4 Split Option (s) 22.3 16.4 Minimum (s) 21.3 14.4 35.7 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 9.0 13.3 Combined (s) 25.0 30.1 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 89 6 152 5 26 107 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 106 0 6 152 5 26 107 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1651 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 1.5 1.7 6.8 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.3 11.1 8.0 11.4 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 507 0 1669 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 15.6 0.0 8.3 6.0 9.6 25.9 6.8 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 1900 NA NA Reference Time B (s) 10.7 12.7 8.9 16.3 8.4 9.6 NA NA Reference Time (s) 12.7 8.3 9.6 25.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 13.7 15.3 29.9 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 8.3 0.4 9.6 1.7 6.8 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 9.6 1.7 6.8 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 8.3 8.3 9.6 9.6 6.8 6.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 13.7 13.7 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.3 Permitted Option (s) 17.2 29.9 Split Option (s) 24.2 26.6 Minimum (s) 17.2 23.3 40.4 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 13.7 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 30.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 102 41 16 169 22 21 0 12 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 152 41 0 185 22 0 33 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1869 1615 0 1892 1615 0 1739 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 307 0 834 0 396 0 1655 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 59.5 0.0 26.6 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA 9.1 19.7 9.4 10.3 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 59.5 19.7 10.0 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 63.5 23.7 14.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.8 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 6.4 1.1 10.7 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 9.8 9.8 11.7 11.7 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.8 13.8 15.7 15.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 63.5 14.0 Split Option (s) 29.5 16.0 Minimum (s) 29.5 14.0 43.5 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 15.7 13.8 Combined (s) 31.7 29.8 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 49 26 162 16 55 176 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 64 0 26 162 16 55 176 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1669 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.2 1.8 3.7 11.1 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.1 9.8 8.0 15.1 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 590 0 1686 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 9.2 0.0 4.9 25.9 10.2 54.8 11.1 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 12.9 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 9.2 4.9 25.9 54.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.7 9.9 29.9 58.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 4.9 1.7 10.2 3.7 11.1 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 10.2 3.7 11.1 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 4.9 4.9 10.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.1 Permitted Option (s) 13.7 58.8 Split Option (s) 18.7 30.2 Minimum (s) 13.7 23.1 36.8 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 9.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 26.6 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com G. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions with Development Intersection Capacity Utilization 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 154 11 1 129 3 37 0 15 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 166 11 0 130 3 0 52 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1893 1615 0 1899 1615 0 1753 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 922 0 1714 0 612 0 1707 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 21.6 0.0 9.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA NA NA 10.5 11.6 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 21.6 9.1 10.2 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 25.6 13.3 14.4 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 10.5 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 9.7 0.1 8.1 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 10.5 10.5 8.2 8.2 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 14.5 14.5 12.5 12.5 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 25.6 14.4 Split Option (s) 27.0 16.4 Minimum (s) 25.6 14.4 40.0 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 12.5 14.5 Combined (s) 28.5 31.3 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 135 6 152 5 41 107 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 152 0 6 152 5 41 107 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1640 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 1.5 2.7 6.8 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.3 11.1 8.0 11.4 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 410 0 1658 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 19.2 0.0 11.7 6.0 9.6 40.9 6.8 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 1900 NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 8.9 19.8 8.4 9.6 NA NA Reference Time (s) 19.2 11.7 9.6 40.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 23.2 16.5 15.3 44.9 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 11.8 0.4 9.6 2.7 6.8 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.4 9.6 2.7 6.8 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 11.8 11.8 9.6 9.6 6.8 6.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 16.6 16.6 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.3 Permitted Option (s) 23.2 44.9 Split Option (s) 27.0 26.6 Minimum (s) 23.2 23.3 46.5 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 16.5 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 33.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization 3: Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 19 158 78 4 12 57 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 177 82 0 69 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1890 1886 0 1650 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 731 1886 110 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 29.1 5.2 75.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.3 19.2 NA NA Reference Time (s) 19.2 5.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 23.2 9.2 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 11.2 5.2 5.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.3 10.0 5.0 0.9 Reference Time (s) 11.2 11.2 5.2 5.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 15.2 15.2 9.2 9.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 23.2 Err Split Option (s) 24.5 9.0 Minimum (s) 23.2 9.0 32.3 Right Turns Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.9% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 157 41 16 206 22 21 0 12 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 207 41 0 222 22 0 33 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1877 1615 0 1893 1615 0 1739 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 399 0 924 0 396 0 1655 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 62.2 0.0 28.8 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA NA NA 9.4 10.3 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 62.2 28.8 10.0 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 66.2 32.8 14.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 13.2 0.0 14.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 9.9 1.1 13.0 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 13.2 13.2 14.1 14.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 17.2 18.1 18.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 66.2 14.0 Split Option (s) 35.3 16.0 Minimum (s) 35.3 14.0 49.3 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 18.1 17.2 Combined (s) 34.1 33.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 78 26 162 16 99 176 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 93 0 26 162 16 99 176 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1652 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.2 1.8 6.6 11.1 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.1 9.8 10.6 15.1 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 467 0 1673 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 11.6 0.0 7.0 25.9 10.2 98.7 11.1 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 15.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 11.1 7.0 25.9 98.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 15.5 11.9 29.9 102.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.1 1.7 10.2 6.6 11.1 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 10.2 6.6 11.1 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 7.1 7.1 10.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 11.9 11.9 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 25.7 Permitted Option (s) 15.5 102.7 Split Option (s) 20.7 30.2 Minimum (s) 15.5 25.7 41.2 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 11.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 10.6 8.0 Combined (s) 29.2 27.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Intersection Capacity Utilization 3: Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 55 114 202 11 7 37 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 169 213 0 44 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.85 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1869 1885 0 1647 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 309 1885 110 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 65.5 13.6 48.1 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 1885 NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 13.6 NA Reference Time (s) 65.5 13.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 69.5 17.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 10.9 13.6 3.2 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.7 7.2 12.9 0.5 Reference Time (s) 10.9 10.9 13.6 3.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 14.9 14.9 17.6 8.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 69.5 Err Split Option (s) 32.4 8.0 Minimum (s) 32.4 8.0 40.4 Right Turns Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com H. Turn Lane Warrants AASHTO/VDOT Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Background: Project Information: Project: Project ID: Intersection(s) and Movement(s): Scenario: Analysis: Design Speed (mph):50 (40, 50, or 60?) Assessment Summary: Study Scenario Opposing Vol. (VPH) Advancin g Vol. (VPH) Left Turn Vol. (VPH) Left Turn % Minimum Opposing Threshold (VPH) VDOT RDM F Figure Treatment INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF AM Peak 82 177 19 10.73%765 Fig. 3-12 Not Warranted INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF PM Peak 213 169 55 32.54%493 Fig. 3-15 Not Warranted Input VDOT Calculated Thesholds Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Opequon Creek 3392-002 3 - Senseny Road at Site Entrance (EBL) Gorove Slade 2027 Future Conditions with Development Warrants for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3-4 to Figure 3-21 in Appendix F of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Road Design Manual (RDM). The figures provide a graphical representation for determining the necessity of a left turn lane by comparing the advancing volumes of a given approach and the respective opposing volumes and are differentiated by design speed and percent left turning volume. Two-Lane Highways Based on AASHTO / VDOT RDM Appendix F Gorove Slade INT 5 -WBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -940ln(x) + 5831.6 R² = 0.9991 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-11 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 10% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted INT 3 -EBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -2E-05x3 + 0.0255x2 -11.57x + 2151.1 R² = 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-12 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 15% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted INT 3 -EBL -2027 TF PM Peak INT 5 -WBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -0.0002x3 + 0.1083x2 -28.786x + 3002 R² = 0.9998 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-15 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 40% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted