HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26 Traffic Impact Statement revised 07.30.26
Traffic Impact Study
Gibson Property
Frederick County, Virginia
May 8, 2026
Revised July 30, 2026
Prepared for:
Peterson Companies
4100 Monument Corner Drive, Suite 300
Fairfax, VA 22030
07/30/2026
Prepared by:
4114 Legato Road, Suite 650, Fairfax, VA 22033
1140 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20036
4951 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 250, Glen Allen, VA 23060
300 E Main Street, Suite 360, Norfolk, VA 23510
4550 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 400, Bethesda, MD 20814
www.goroveslade.com
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the spe cific
purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization b y
Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 3
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 7
Site Location and Study Area ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Description of Proposed Development ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Principal Findings, Conclusions, and Proposed Mitigations ..................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Background Information: Proposed Development (Site & Nearby) ............................................................................................ 13
Description of the Existing Site ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Site Location ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Location within Jurisdiction and Region ............................................................................................................................. 15
Existing Zoning and Long-Range Land-Use ....................................................................................................................... 16
Existing Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
Planned Future Transportation Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 19
Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Improvements ............................................................................................................. 19
Historical Crash Data ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Analysis of 2026 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................................... 21
Existing Transit Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Existing Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis........................................................................................................... 24
Analysis of 2035 Future Conditions without Development ......................................................................................................... 28
Inherent Growth ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Approved Background Development(s).................................................................................................................................. 28
Planned Transportation Improvements .................................................................................................................................. 28
Future without Development Traffic Volumes (2035) ............................................................................................................. 29
Future without Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis .......................................................................... 33
Analysis of 2035 Future Conditions with Development .............................................................................................................. 38
Site Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Proposed Site Access ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
Projected Site Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................... 39
Distribution and Assignment of Vehicular Site Traffic ............................................................................................................. 39
Future with Development (2035) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................. 42
Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis ............................................................................... 44
Spacing Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Preliminary Signal Warrant Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 55
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 4
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Analysis of 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Planning Year)..................................................................................... 58
Site Description and Site Access ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Projected Site Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................... 58
Distribution and Assignment of Vehicular Site Traffic ............................................................................................................. 58
Inherent Growth & Planned Background Development .......................................................................................................... 58
Future with Development (2041) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................. 60
Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis (2041) .................................................................... 62
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Intersections Map .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2: Regional Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3: Frederick County Zoning Map ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Eastern Frederick County Long Range Use Plan Map ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 5: 2026 Existing Conditions – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices ........................ 22
Figure 6: 2026 Existing Conditions – Vehicular Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7: 2026 Existing Conditions – Level of Service Results .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2026 to 2035) ......................................................................... 30
Figure 9: Total Background Development Volumes ................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 10: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Vehicular Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 32
Figure 11: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Level of Service Results ................................................................ 37
Figure 12: Rezoning Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 13: Global Vehicular Direction of Approach (Site Trip Distribution) ................................................................................. 40
Figure 14: Site Trips Assignment ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 15: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Vehicular Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 43
Figure 16: 2035 Future Conditions with Development ‐ Level of Service Results ...................................................................... 51
Figure 17: Spacing Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 18: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2026 – 2041) ........................................................................ 59
Figure 19: 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Design Year) – Vehicular Traffic Volumes ............................................ 61
Figure 20: 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Planning Year) ‐ Level of Service Results ............................................ 66
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Existing Road Network ............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2: Crash Data Summary (January 2021 -December 2025) .............................................................................................. 19
Table 3: 2026 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1) ........................................... 25
Table 4: 2026 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2) ........................................... 26
Table 5: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1) ........... 34
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 5
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 6: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2) ........... 35
Table 7: Projected Site Trip Generation – Proposed Use (Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street; ITE 12th Ed.) .............................. 39
Table 8: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1) ................ 45
Table 9: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2) ................ 46
Table 10: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 3) ............. 47
Table 11: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 4) .............. 48
Table 12: Minimum Spacing Standards for Commercial Accesses, Intersections, and Median Crossovers (RDM, Appendix F,
Table 2-2) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 13: Spacing Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Table 14: Right-Turn Lane Analysis for Two-Lane Roadway ..................................................................................................... 54
Table 15: Right-Turn Lane Analysis for Four-Lane Roadway ..................................................................................................... 54
Table 16: Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Two-Lane Roadway ........................................................................................................ 54
Table 17: Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Four-Lane Roadway ....................................................................................................... 54
Table 18: Traffic Signal Warrant Using Average Daily Traffic Estimate (Source: Virginia MUTCD, Table 4C -V1) ..................... 56
Table 19: ADT Signal Warrant Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 20: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1) .............. 63
Table 21: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2) .............. 64
Table 22: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 3) .............. 65
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 6
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Scoping Guidance
Appendix B – Turning Movement Counts Data
Appendix C – Crash Data
Appendix D – Level of Service Definitions
Appendix E – 2026 Existing Conditions – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix F – Background Information
Appendix G – 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix H – 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix I – 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix J – VJuST
Appendix K – Turn Lane Warrant Tables and Graphics
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 7
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Executive Summary
Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed Gibson Property development (the
Site / the Development / the Property). The proposed development site is situated northwest of the intersection of Route 522
and Fairfax Pike (Route 277)/Lord Fairfax Highway (Route 340), positioned north of Fairfax Pike and both east and west of
Route 522 in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is identified by Tax Map #s 87-3-A, 87-3-B, and 87-A-16B and totals
approximately 294.14 acres. The applicant proposes a rezoning on the entire site to M1 (Light Industrial District) and a
Comprehensive Plan amendment on the parcel east of Route 522 (Tax map # 87-3-A) in order to develop up to 3,200,000 SF
of industrial uses. This study evaluates all parcels under the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment.
This TIS was developed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Frederick County
transportation impact guidelines. The document was prepared in accordance with best professional practice and standards that
assess the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and recommends improvements to lessen or negate
those impacts. Traffic operational analyses, as presented in this TIS, involves the evaluation of anticipated future roadway
conditions with and without the proposed development and recommend transportation improvements to offset both the impacts
of the increase in future traffic volumes and the changes in traffic operations due to the development. The analysis herein a ssists
public officials and developers to balance interrelations b etween efficient traffic movements with necessary lane access.
Site Location and Study Area
The proposed development site is located northwest of the intersection of Route 522 and Fairfax Pike (Route 277)/Lord Fairfax
Highway (Route 340), positioned north of Fairfax Pike and both east and west of Route 522. The site is identified by Tax Map
#s 87-3-A, 87-3-B, and 87-A-16B in Frederick County, Virginia and totals approximately 294.14 acres. The vehicular study area
includes five (5) existing intersections along Fairfax Pike and along Route 522.
Description of Proposed Development
The site is currently zoned RA (Rural Agricultural) with a Long Range Land Use of Industrial, Mixed Use Industrial/Office for the
parcels west of Route 522 and Rural Area east of Route 522. The applicant proposes a rezoning on the entire site to M1 (Light
Industrial District) and a Comprehensive Plan amendment on the parcel east of Route 522 (Tax map # 87-3-A) in order to
develop up to 3,200,000 SF of industrial uses. Parcels 87-3-A and 87-A-16B are each currently occupied by one single-family
detached house. This study evaluates all parcels under the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment .
The site is anticipated to include up to 3,200,000 SF of Industrial uses with a build-out year of 2035. For the purposes of the
traffic study, the Industrial Park use (ITE Land Use 130) was analyzed as that is representative of a mix of industrial uses.
Access to the site will be provided via proposed entrances along Route 522 and Fairfax Pike .
Principal Findings, Conclusions, and Proposed Mitigations
Discussions regarding the study assumptions and relevant background information occurred with the Frederick County and
VDOT staff during scoping discussions held on Tuesday, April 14, 2026. A copy of the signed scoping document guiding
discussions is included in Appendix A.
The analysis presented in this report supports the following assumptions and findings:
• The following intersections were included for evaluation per the scoping document:
1. Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive
2. Fairfax Pike at White Oak Road/Hudson Hollow Road
3. Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway at Route 522
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 8
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
4. Route 522 at Lake Frederick Drive
5. Route 522 at Tasker Road
6. Site entrances on Fairfax Pike and on Route 522
*See Supplemental Analysis summary below pertaining to the evaluation of the I-81/Fairfax Pike ramps.
• Existing Conditions (2026):
o All approaches operate at LOS D by approach except for the following:
▪ Fairfax Pike and Warrior Drive (Intersection #1):
• The overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 98.9 sec) in AM Peak
• Northbound approach operates at LOS E in both AM and PM Peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 333.1 sec) in AM Peak
• Eastbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak.
• It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School and the AM peak
hour LOS deficiencies are primarily attributed to the higher volumes processed during the
school peak arrival time.
• Future without Development (2035):
o Future volumes were projected by applying regional growth to the regional roads and incorporation of six
planned background developments including:
▪ Madison 277
▪ Lake Frederick (remaining build out)
▪ Sherando Green
▪ Fairfax Downs
▪ Enclave at Tasker Residential
▪ Eastgate Commercial
o The following planned transportation improvements was incorporated in the study:
▪ Construction of exclusive left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches at the
intersection of Fairfax Pike and White Oak Road/Hudson Hallow Road (study Intersection #2)
▪ Improvements at Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) at Warrior Drive (VDOT SMART SCALE project) to extend
the eastbound right turn lane by another 200 feet with 200 foot taper
o Under Future without Development (2035), the following intersections have approaches that operate below
acceptable level of service:
▪ Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
• The overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 88.6 sec) in AM peak, and operates at
LOS E in PM peak
• Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 9
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 99.9 sec) in PM peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 312.3 sec) in AM peak
• Westbound left exceeds available storage length on both AM and PM peaks, while
eastbound left and northbound left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is
noted the eastbound and westbound lefts have protected only phasing.
• It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School as well as
significant background traffic projected from Sherando Green retail and Fairfax Downs
residential developments adjacent to the intersection. There are no known improvements
planned as part of those developments to this intersection.
▪ Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 108.6 sec) and PM (delay of
161.1 sec) peak hours
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 249.9 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 293.3 sec)
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 124.4 sec) in PM peak.
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 174.5 sec) in PM peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS E in PM peak
• Northbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while southbound left
exceeds on both AM and PM peaks.
▪ Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance (Intersection #6)
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F during both the AM (delay of 89.8 sec) and PM
(delay of 295.5 sec) peak hours.
• Future with Development (2035):
o Under Future with Development (2035), the following intersections have approaches that operate below
acceptable level of service:
▪ Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 86 sec) in AM peak and LOS E in PM peak
• Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F (delay of 91.3 sec) in
the PM peak
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 105.6 sec) in PM peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 307.2 sec) in the AM peak
• Westbound left exceeds available storage length in both AM and PM peaks, while
eastbound left and northbound left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is
noted the eastbound and westbound lefts have protected only phasing.
• This intersection fails due to existing and background volumes and is not caused by the
proposed development. The intersection is projected to process significant additional traffic
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 10
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
from nearby planned background developments of Sherando Green retail and Fairfax
Downs residential. There are no known improvements planned as part of those
developments to this intersection.
• Mitigation: Left turn phasing change from “protected only” to “flashing yellow arrow”
on eastbound and westbound approaches are recommended to mitigate the site
impacts on this intersection and improve the delay and queuing at the intersection.
With the above improvement in place, the eastbound and westbound left turn movements
have significant reduction in delay and queuing. While the northbound approach remains
at LOS F in the AM peak and the westbound approach and northbound approach
operates at LOS E in the PM peak, the conditions are improved to be better than
Future Conditions without Development (non-degradation).
▪ Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 147.2 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 189.8 sec).
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 311.3) and PM peak (delay of
331.2 sec).
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 139.8 sec) in the PM peak.
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 111.7 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 207.7 sec).
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 85.9 sec) in the PM peak.
• Northbound left and eastbound right exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while
southbound left exceeds available storage length in both AM and PM peaks.
• This intersection fails under background projected conditions due to regional growth and
planned background development traffic.
• Mitigation: To mitigate site-related impacts, an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and
a second northbound left-turn lane are recommended.
• With the above recommended improvements in place, the delay and queuing are
significantly improved and notably all approaches operate at LOS D in the AM peak. The
post-mitigated improvements show the following:
• Overall intersection operates at LOS D in AM peak and LOS F (delay of 94.3 sec) in
PM peak.
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS E in AM peak and LOS F (delay of 107.6 sec) in
PM peak.
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 114.4 sec) and Northbound
approach operates at LOS F (delay of 101.4 sec) in PM Peak.
• While some approaches operate at LOS E or F in the PM peak hour only, the delay
and queuing are significantly improved with the above improvements and
conditions are improved to be better than Future without Development (non-
degradation).
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 11
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
▪ Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance/Site Entrance #1 (Intersection #6)
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F during both AM (delay of 537.5 sec) and PM peak
(delay of 1675.9 sec).
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F during both AM (delay of 150.5 sec) and PM peak
(delay of 1551.2 sec).
• With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection operates at
acceptable levels of service. Installation of a new traffic signal is subject to VDOT review
and approval through a future Signal Justification Report (“SJR”). A preliminary signal
warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis were performed as part of this study to screen
potential intersection control configurations. A conventional traffic signal, thru-cut signal,
roundabout, and two-way stop control were considered as possible intersection
configurations. The ultimate configuration will be determined through the future SJR. It is
noted that a roundabout is anticipated to require significant offsite right-of-way and was
therefore not recommended for further consideration.
▪ Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #3 (Intersection #8)
• Southbound approach of the site access operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F
(delay of 130.5 sec) in the PM peak. The failing level of service is due to high through
volumes on Fairfax Pike and not a result of high volumes from the entrance (17 peak hour
left turn trips). The queuing for the southbound approach is 40 feet, indicating only 2 stacked
vehicles. Hence, no mitigations are recommended.
▪ Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 (Intersection #9)
• Eastbound approach and westbound approach operates at LOS E in the PM peak
• With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection would operate at
acceptable levels of service with acceptable queuing along Route 522. Installation of a new
traffic signal is subject to VDOT review and approval through a future Signal Justification
Report (“SJR”). A preliminary signal warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis were performed
as part of this study to screen potential intersection control configurations. A conventional
traffic signal, unsignalized continuous green-T, unsignalized restricted crossing U-turn
(RCUT), and two-way stop control were considered as possible intersection configurations.
The ultimate configuration will be determined through the future SJR. It is noted that an
RCUT would result in additional U-turn traffic downstream along Route 522 including truck
traffic from the proposed industrial use. It is also noted that a continuous green-T would not
meet spacing and acceleration distance requirements and was therefore not recommended
for further consideration.
o The other site entrances operate at acceptable levels of service.
• Future with Development (Planning Year 2041):
o The planning year/plus 6 year analysis reveals similar results to the Future with Development 2035 analysis,
and the intersections with failing level of service continuing to have approaches that fail. All of the intersections
operating acceptably under 2035 continue to operate acceptably under 2041. Hence, no additional mitigations
are recommended for 2041.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 12
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• *I-81 and Exit 307 (Fairfax Pike) Ramps
o As scoped with County and VDOT staff, a supplemental memo was provided separately, dated May 8, 2026,
providing an evaluation of the projected traffic volumes at the I-81/Fairfax Pike ramp intersections and the
projected volume from this proposed site. As discussed with VDOT staff, this evaluation is separate from the
Traffic Impact Study and provided for informational purposes.
• Conclusions
o This traffic impact study provides an evaluation of existing, future without development and future with
development conditions at five regional intersections as well as the five site entrances. Two of the regional
intersections have level of service or queuing deficiencies due to existing or background related traffic
volumes. To mitigate site-related impacts, the following improvements are recommended: at Intersection 1,
convert the eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing from protected-only to flashing yellow arrow operation;
and at Intersection 3, add an exclusive eastbound left -turn lane and a second northbound left-turn lane.
Proposed improvements at the site entrances include turn lanes where warranted and a traffic signal or other
innovative intersection control, subject to future SJR, at the southern entrance on Route 522 and western
entrance on Fairfax Pike.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 13
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed Gibson Property development (the
Site / the Development / the Property), located north of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and east and west of Route 522 in Frederick
County, Virginia. The applicant proposes a rezoning on the entire site to M1 (Light Industrial District) and a Comprehensive Plan
amendment on the parcel east of Route 522 in order to develop up to 3,200,000 SF of industrial uses.
The following tasks were completed as part of this study effort:
• Scoping discussions were held on Tuesday, April 14, 2026 with VDOT and County staff to discuss the parameters of this
study as well as any relevant background information. A copy of the scoping document guiding discussions is included
in Appendix A. The application triggers the thresholds for a VDOT Chapter 870 study.
• Existing conditions were observed in the field to verify roadway geometry, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and
traffic flow characteristics.
• Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were collected at the study intersections along Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive, White
Oak Road/Hudson Hollow Road, and at Route 522, as well as along Route 522 at Tasker Road and Lake Frederick
Drive. Counts at the intersections of Warrior Drive/Fairfax Pike and Tasker Road/Route 522 were conducted on
Thursday, April 16, 2026, while counts at the other intersections were conducted on Thursday, April 9, 2026. All counts
were performed during the AM peak period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 7:00 PM) to
determine peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections .
• Future traffic conditions were estimated based on existing traffic volumes, regional growth, planned background
improvements, approved developments in the area, and the proposed development plan.
• Proposed site traffic volumes were derived based on the methodology outlined in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, publication, and were assigned to the road network based on
the agreed upon direction of approach discussed during the aforementioned scoping discussions.
• Intersection capacity and queueing analyses were performed for the identified study intersections for the 2026 Existing
Conditions, 2035 Future without Development, 2035 Future with Development, and 2041 Future with Development
during the weekday morning (AM), and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hours. The 2041 conditions (plus 6 years after
build out) is for planning purposes only.
• Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed using Synchro, version 11, with results based on the
Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology and in following the County’s
guidelines. The analysis herein includes level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning
movements analyzed.
Sources of data for this study include information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), Frederick County, and the office files and field reconnaissance efforts of Gorove Slade .
Background Information: Proposed Development (Site & Nearby)
Description of the Existing Site
Site Location
The site is situated on three parcels that can be identified on the Frederick County Tax Map with the following Tax Map #s: 8 7-
3-A, 87-3-B, and 87-A-16B. Parcels 87-3-A and 87-A-16B are each currently occupied by one single-family detached house.
Access to the site will be provided via the proposed entrances along Route 522 and Fairfax Pike .
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 14
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
The vehicular study area includes five (5) existing intersections as well as all future entrances on Route 522 and Fairfax Pike .
The geographic scope of the study area was developed based on scoping discussions with VDOT and the County and are based
on the regional intersections that are most to be impacted by the proposed development based on trip generation of the proposed
use and distribution of that traffic through the road network. The study area includes more intersections to the west of the site
along Fairfax Pike as the proposed site distribution is higher on Fairfax Pike as compared to the other roads.
The existing study intersections are as follows:
Intersection 1: Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive
Intersection 2: Fairfax Pike at White Oak Road/Hudson Hollow Road
Intersection 3: Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway at Route 522
Intersection 4: Route 522 at Lake Frederick Drive
Intersection 5: Route 522 at Tasker Road
In addition, all proposed entrances on Fairfax Pike and Route 522 were included for evaluation in future with development
scenarios. An aerial of the study intersections is provided in Figure 1.
An in-depth description of the roadways in the study vicinity is provided in the Existing Roadway Network section of this report.
The results of the analysis and the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development are presented in the Conclusions
section of this report.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 15
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 1: Study Intersections Map
Location within Jurisdiction and Region
The site is located in the southern portion of the county, generally east of I-81 and south of US Route 50. The site is bordered
by Fairfax Pike to its south and Route 522 to its east and west. A regional aerial image of the Site is provided in Figure 2.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 16
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 2: Regional Location
Existing Zoning and Long-Range Land-Use
The site is situated on three parcels that can be identified on the Frederick County Tax Map with the following Tax Map #s: 8 7-
3-A, 87-3-B, and 87-A-16B. The parcels are currently zoned as RA (Rural Area District), with a Long-Range Land Use of
Industrial, Mixed Use Industrial/Office for the parcels west of Route 522 and Rural Area for the parcel east of Route 522.
The existing zoning is presented in Figure 3; the Long Range Land Use Plan is presented in Figure 4.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 17
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 3: Frederick County Zoning Map
(Source: Frederick County GIS, https://fredcogis.fcva.us/PlanningAccessTerminal/ )
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 18
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 4: Eastern Frederick County Long Range Use Plan Map
(Source: https://www.fcva.us/home/showpublisheddocument/23720/638748693950870000 )
Existing Roadway Network
A description of the major roadways within the immediate vicinity of the Site is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Existing Road Network
Warrior Drive SC-719 Minor Arterial 25 Two Lane Undivided 7,278 2024 Fairfax Pike Centre Drive 10.59%
S.Warrior Drive SC-720 -25 Two Lane Undivided 990 2020 Dead End Fairfax Pike -
Fairfax Pike VA-277 Minor Arterial 45 Two Lane Undivided 13,720 2024 Lexington Ct Warrior Drive 9.75%
Hudson Hollow Road SC-636 `-45 Two Lane Undivided 1,700 2020 Spotswood Ct Fairfax Pike -
White Oak Road VA-622 -45 Two Lane Undivided 3,000 2023 Fairfax Pike , Rte 277 Periwinkle Pl 10.55%
Fairfax Pike VA-277 Minor Arterial 55 Two Lane Undivided 8,698 2024 Maint Bdy Clarke Cnty/Frederick Cnty Rte 522 8.97%
Stonewall Jackson Highway US-522 Minor Arterial 55 Four Lane Divided 13,383 2024 Lord Fairfax Highway Highland Corners Rd 8.54%
Lord Fairfax Highway VA-240 Minor Arterial 55 Two Lane Undivided 8,757 2024 Stonewall Jackson Hwy Highland Corners Rd 8.75%
Lake Frederick Drive SC-1434 -25 Two Way Divided 3,200 2018 Rte 340 Rte 1434 -
Stonewall Jackson Highway US-522 Minor Arterial 55 Four Lane Divided 18,348 2024 Lake Frederick Drive Rte Change 8.49%
Tasker Road SC-642 Major Collector 45 Four Lane Divided 7,178 2024 Front Royal Pike Rainville Rd 10.22%
Front Royal Pike US-522 Minor Arterial 55 Four Lane Divided 13,167 2024 Bridgeport Ln Tasker Rd 8.95%
Road Segment Between k-factorAADT
(vpd)Roadway RTE #VDOT Classification Legal/Design
Speed Limit (mph)Number of Lanes AADT Year
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 19
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Planned Future Transportation Improvements
Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Improvements
Based on the aforementioned scoping meeting following improvements are considered:
• Improvements associated with approved background developments (Madison 277)
• Improvements at Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) at Warrior Drive (VDOT SMART SCALE project)
Historical Crash Data
Crash data at the existing study intersections were obtained from the VDOT website for the most recent five years. The crash
data is summarized in Table 2. The crash data extracted from VDOT website is included in Appendix C.
Table 2: Crash Data Summary (January 2021 -December 2025)
The crash data included in Table 1 shows the following:
• Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive:
o The intersection had a total of 19 crashes in the five-year period. The Intersection Crash Rate is 0.59 per million
entering vehicles.
o Of the total crashes, 17 of them were all property-damage only crashes while two (2) of them were injury crashes.
o Of the total crashes, 14 was a rear end crash, one (1) was an angle crash, and four (4) were other types of crashes.
• Fairfax Pike at White Oak Road/Hudson Hollow Road:
o The intersection had a total of 16 crashes in the five-year period. The Intersection Crash Rate is 0.75 per million
entering vehicles.
o Of the total crashes, 11 were property-damage only crashes and five (5) were injury crashes. There were no fatal
crashes at the intersection.
o Of the total crashes, five (5) were rear end crashes, eight (8) were angle crashes, and three (3) were other types
of crashes.
o It is noted that improvements are planned as part of a proffered improvement by Madison 277 to add left turn lanes
along Fairfax Pike which will provide safety improvements.
• Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway at Route 522:
o The intersection had a total of 21 crashes in the five-year period. The Intersection Crash Rate is 0.44 per million
entering vehicles.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Property
Damage
Only
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Rear
Ends
Angle
Crashes
Other
Types
1 Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive 19 0 4 9 4 2 17 2 0 14 1 4 0.59 17585
2 Fairfax Pike at White Oak
Road/Hudson Hollow Road 16 0 3 8 3 2 11 5 0 5 8 3 0.75 11665
3 Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway
at Route 522 21 4 0 7 6 4 14 7 0 10 9 2 0.44 26245
4 Route 522 at Lake Frederick Drive 18 2 4 4 4 4 12 6 0 10 4 4 0.46 21265
5 Route 522 at Tasker Road 10 1 1 2 3 3 7 3 0 9 0 1 0.37 14910
ADT
By Year
No.Intersection
Number
of
Crashes
By Severity By Crash Type Intersection
Crash Rate
(Crashes/million
entering
vehicles)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 20
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
o Of the total crashes, 14 were property-damage only crashes and seven (7) were injury crashes. There were no
fatal crashes at the intersection.
o Of the total crashes, 10 were rear end crashes, nine (9) were angle crashes, while two (2) were other types of
crashes.
• Route 522 at Lake Frederick Drive:
o The intersection had a total of 18 crashes in the five-year period. The Intersection Crash Rate is 0.46 per million
entering vehicles.
o Of the total crashes, 12 were property-damage only crashes and six (6) were injury crashes. There were no fatal
crashes at the intersection.
o Of the total crashes, 10 were rear end crashes, four (4) were angle crashes, while four (4) were other types of
crashes.
• Route 522 at Tasker Road:
o The intersection had a total of ten (10) crashes in the five-year period. The Intersection Crash Rate is 0.37 per
million entering vehicles.
o Of the total crashes, seven (7) were property-damage only crashes and three (3) were injury crashes. There were
no fatal crashes at the intersection.
o Of the total crashes, nine (9) were rear end crashes and one of them was other types of crashes.
The crash rates shown for each intersection are calculated as crashes per one million entering vehicles (MEV), and were
calculated based on the following formula:
𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑛= 1,000,000 ∗ # 𝑜𝑑 𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑟ℎ𝑑𝑟
# 𝑜𝑑 𝑌𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑟∗365 (𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑟
𝑦𝑑𝑎𝑟)∗𝐴𝐶𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑛
The intersection ADT is calculated as the sum of ADTs on each leg, divided by 2. ADTs are taken from the existing volumes
shown in Figure 6. For crash rate calculations, ADTs are assumed to remain constant over the crash analysis years, consistent
with similar traffic studies approved by the County.
It should be noted that according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Transportation Impact Analysis for Site
Development, a crash rate of 1.00/MEV or higher can be used as a threshold to identify intersections that may have an elevated
crash rate due to operational, geometric, or other deficiencies.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 21
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Analysis of 2026 Existing Conditions
In order to project future traffic conditions, it was necessary to determine existing vehicular traffic volumes to utilize as a baseline.
For the purposes of this report and as agreed to by VDOT and County staff, 2026 roadway conditions were to be considered as
existing.
Existing Transit Services
The site is located within a 7.5-mile radius of the Winchester Regional Airport (OKV). The nearest bus stop is located near
intersection of Valley Avenue and Cedar Creek Grade/Weems Lane.
Existing Traffic Volumes
In order to determine the weekday morning (AM) peak hour and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hour turning movement traffic
volumes, turning movement counts (TMC) were collected at the study intersections. Counts at the intersections of Warrior
Drive/Fairfax Pike and Tasker Road/Route 522 were conducted on Thursday, April 16, 2026, while counts at the remaining
intersections were conducted on Thursday, April 9, 2026.
From the turning movement counts, the following system peak hours were determined.
• AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM
• PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
The 2026 existing road network configuration is presented in Figure 5. The 2026 existing peak hour traffic volumes for the study
intersections are illustrated in Figure 6. The published K-factors from VDOT’s P4P website were used to estimate daily traffic
volumes from the PM peak hour. The applied K-factors are presented in Table 1. For roadways without published values on the
P4P website, a default K-factor of 10% was assumed. The existing count data is provided in Appendix B.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 22
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 5: 2026 Existing Conditions – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 23
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 6: 2026 Existing Conditions – Vehicular Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 24
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Existing Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis
Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed for the 2026 Existing Conditions scenario at the study area
intersections during AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based
on HCM 6th methodology1 presented in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and
analysis guidelines provided by the County. The analysis herein includes level of service (LOS), delay, and queue lengths.
The existing signal timings for Study Intersections were obtained from the VDOT. These timings were incorporated into the
Synchro analysis models. Existing peak hour factors observed in the field (overall intersection) were used, except where the
field peak hour factor was less than 0.85, in which case a minimum value of 0.85 was applied, consistent with VDOT analysis
guidelines.
Per the scoping process with County staff, it would be considered acceptable and/or desirable to achieve an approach LOS D
or better for traffic operations using HCM methodology. The results of the intersection capacity analyses from Synchro are
presented in Table 3 and graphically in Figure 7.
The 95th percentile queue lengths were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet.
The description of different LOS and delay are included in Appendix D. The detailed analysis worksheets of 2026 Existing
Conditions are contained in Appendix E.
1 It should be noted that HCM 2000 methodology was used in lieu of HCM 6th if the HCM 6th methodology was not applicable. HCM 6th could not be
applicable in such cases as nonstandard National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) configurations, shared lane configurations, placement of
loop detectors, U-turns, etc.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 25
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 3: 2026 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1)
Warrior Drive (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)F 98.9 C 32.7
Eastbound Approach C 24.4 C 32.2
Eastbound Left 260 E 79.8 112 162 E 73.5 162 #288
Eastbound Thru B 15 285 330 B 12 181 375
Eastbound Right 280 B 12.4 233 270 A 6.2 1 17
Westbound Approach C 32.6 C 23.1
Westbound Left 270 F 94.3 91 #189 E 58.4 11 33
Westbound Thru B 16.7 257 321 C 23.3 295 370
Westbound Right 575 B 10.3 0 29 B 12.5 0 7
Northbound Approach E 56.1 E 55.8
Northbound Left 190 D 54.9 16 39 D 45.3 38 75
Northbound Thru/Right E 57.8 13 43 E 64.2 59 #112
Southbound Approach F 333.1 D 44.2
Southbound Left 150 D 51.5 33 64 D 46.2 56 102
Southbound Thru F 435.5 230 335 D 49.8 28 64
Southbound Right D 44.8 0 36 C 34.3 4 62
Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road
& Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 8.2 A 7.9
Eastbound Approach A 8 A 7.1
Eastbound Left/Thru A 8 99 202 A 7.2 51 112
Eastbound Right 90 A 4.2 0 6 A 5 0 10
Westbound Approach A 5 A 7.1
Westbound Left/Thru A 5 28 60 A 7.2 67 133
Westbound Right 155 A 4.3 0 8 A 5 0 10
Northbound Approach B 14.6 B 12.3
Northbound Left/Thru/Right B 14.6 16 55 B 12.3 11 45
Southbound Approach B 14.7 B 12.5
Southbound Left/Thru/Right B 14.7 13 63 B 12.5 9 56
Route 522 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike/Lord
Fairfax Highway
Overall Intersection (Signalized)C 34.1 D 45.2
Eastbound Approach D 37.3 D 49.7
Eastbound Left/Thru D 37.7 152 #300 D 50 101 168
Eastbound Right 230 C 26.3 0 0 D 39.2 0 18
Westbound Approach D 36.5 D 46.5
Westbound Left 500 D 37.9 64 124 D 35.7 140 234
Westbound Thru/Right C 34.9 51 109 D 53.5 233 #426
Northbound Approach C 32.9 D 42.1
Northbound Left 565 D 50.8 68 138 E 68.3 140 #298
Northbound Thru C 28.7 127 190 C 34.3 212 #314
Northbound Right 250 C 24.8 0 41 C 26.9 0 23
Southbound Approach C 32.6 D 47
Southbound Left 125 D 46.3 51 110 E 58.7 49 102
Southbound Thru C 29.2 105 161 D 45.5 200 #306
[1]
[2]
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
NOTES:
Synchro Synchro
50th %
Queue (ft.)
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s)
2
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
3
No.
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
LOS 50th %
Queue (ft.)
1
LOSIntersection (Movement)Delay (s)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 26
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 4: 2026 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2)
The capacity analysis results shown in Table 3 and Table 4 reveal that all intersections operate at level of service (LOS) D or
better by approach under the existing (2026) conditions except the following:
• Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
o The overall intersection operates at LOS F in AM Peak
o Northbound approach operates at LOS E in both AM and PM Peak
o Southbound approach operates at LOS F in AM Peak
o Eastbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak.
o It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School and the AM peak hour LOS deficiencies are
primarily attributed to the higher volumes processed during the school peak arrival time.
The Existing Conditions (2026) levels of service and lane configuration s are summarized in Figure 7.
Route 522 (N/S) & Lake Frederick
Drive (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 18.3 C 20.1
Eastbound Approach C 27.4 C 31.2
Eastbound Left C 28.1 65 131 C 32.5 83 175
Eastbound Right B 19.5 0 23 C 21.2 3 33
Northbound Approach B 16.2 B 18.5
Northbound Left 470 B 19.2 6 19 C 23.2 21 50
Northbound Thru B 16 71 174 B 17.9 100 165
Southbound Approach B 17.6 B 18.7
Southbound Thru B 17.7 95 153 B 19 144 234
Southbound Right 295 B 13.9 0 24 B 14.9 0 44
Route 522 (N/S) & Tasker Road (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 14.3 B 15.8
Eastbound Approach C 20.4 C 22.8
Eastbound Left C 20.6 6 24 C 23.4 14 44
Eastbound Right 250 C 20.3 0 25 C 22.6 0 25
Northbound Approach B 10.2 B 10.6
Northbound Left 485 C 22.6 18 39 C 23 29 62
Northbound Thru A 6.1 26 43 A 5.9 36 61
Southbound Approach B 16.6 B 19.7
Southbound Thru B 17.5 44 80 C 20.2 83 138
Southbound Right 315 B 10.3 0 12 B 11.1 0 11
[1]
[2]
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
NOTES:
Synchro Synchro
50th %
Queue (ft.)
4
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s)
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
No.
5
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
LOS 50th %
Queue (ft.)LOSIntersection (Movement)Delay (s)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 27
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 7: 2026 Existing Conditions – Level of Service Results
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 28
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Analysis of 2035 Future Conditions without Development
This scenario analyzes the future without development conditions for the year 2035.
Inherent Growth
As specified in the scoping document, an annual linear growth rate of 0.5% was applied to all major movements on Route 522
and Hudson Hollow Road, while a rate of 1% was applied on Fairfax Pike, Warrior Drive, White Oak Road, and Tasker Road.
The inherent regional growth volumes (for the period between 2026 and 2035) are illustrated in Figure 8.
Approved Background Development(s)
In addition to the applied inherent regional growth accommodating increased traffic demand, six (6) background development in
the vicinity of the site was identified in the scoping discussions for inclusion in this study:
• Madison 277
o 900 DU of Housing
o 17,000 SF of Retail
o 80,000 SF of Medical/Office Uses
• Lake Frederick (Remaining Build Out)
o 199 DU of Single Family Detached (Age Restricted)
o 78 DU of Single Family Detached
o 385 DU of Single Family Attached
• Sherando Green
o 93,900 SF of Shopping Plaza with Supermarket
• Fairfax Downs
o 93 DU of Single Family Detached
• Enclave at Tasker Residential
o 165 DU of Single Family Detached
o 154 DU of Single Family Attached
• Eastgate Commercial
o 179,000 SF of Retail
The total volume generated by background development is shown in Figure 9. Further details on each of the background
developments, including trip generation, trip distribution and site location is provided in Appendix F.
Planned Transportation Improvements
The following transportation improvements were included for future 2035 conditions:
• Improvements associated with approved background developments including:
o Construction of exclusive left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Fairfax
Pike and White Oak Road/Hudson Hallow Road (study Intersection #2).
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 29
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Improvements at Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) at Warrior Drive (VDOT SMART SCALE project) to extend the eastbound
right turn lane by another 200 feet with 200 foot taper.
Future without Development Traffic Volumes (2035)
In order to forecast future roadway traffic volumes for the year 2035, the 2026 existing traffic volumes (Figure 6) were combined
with the inherent growth traffic volumes (Figure 8) and the background development traffic assignment volume (Figure 9). The
2035 Future without Development traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 10.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 30
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 8: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2026 to 2035)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 31
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 9: Total Background Development Volumes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 32
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 10: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Vehicular Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 33
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Future without Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the 2035 Future Conditions without Development scenario at the study area
intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results
based on the HCM 6th methodology2 presented in the TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and analysis guidelines provided
by the County. The analysis herein includes level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning
movements analyzed.
For the purposes of this analysis, the future peak hour factors (PHF) were based on the traffic count s, as applicable, and utilized
on a by-intersection basis; PHF in the range of 0.92 to 1.00 were used for the future scenario, consistent with scoping document.
The heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) were the same as those used in the 2026 Existing Conditions scenario analysis. As
discussed with VDOT staff during the 1st submission review, the intersection of Rt 522 and Maranto Manor Drive was coded in
the Synchro analysis given its adjacency to Intersection #5 and was coded as coordinated in all future 2035 and 2041 analysis
given that it may be coordinated in the future. It is noted Maranto Manor Drive was not scoped as a study intersection.
Per the scoping process with County staff, it would be considered acceptable to achieve an approach LOS D or better for traffic
operations using HCM methodology. The results of the intersection capacity analyses from Synchro are presented in Table 5
and Table 6 and graphically in Figure 11. The results are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds per vehicle) for overall signalized
intersections and per approach and lane group for all study intersections.
The 95th percentile queue lengths were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet.
The detailed analysis worksheets of the 2035 Future Conditions without Development are contained in Appendix G.
2 It should be noted that HCM 2000 methodology was used in lieu of HCM 6th if the HCM 6th methodology was not applicable. HCM 6th could not be
applicable in such cases as nonstandard National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) configurations, shared lane configurations, placement of
loop detectors, U-turns, etc.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 34
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 5: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1)
Warrior Drive (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)F 88.6 E 59.3
Eastbound Approach C 28.9 D 50.8
Eastbound Left 260 F 84.9 132 #242 F 128.2 ~248 #418
Eastbound Thru C 23.9 425 523 C 25.9 497 #691
Eastbound Right 500 B 13.3 184 270 A 8.4 0 53
Westbound Approach E 68.6 E 58.9
Westbound Left 270 F 227.8 ~192 #343 F 165.8 ~140 #274
Westbound Thru C 30.1 471 608 D 40.6 ~591 #826
Westbound Right 575 B 14.3 0 25 B 13.3 0 11
Northbound Approach D 53.1 F 99.9
Northbound Left 190 D 53.8 56 #133 D 53 123 #216
Northbound Thru/Right D 51.5 20 #96 F 148.5 ~186 #351
Southbound Approach F 312.3 D 47.6
Southbound Left 150 D 49.9 41 83 D 44.8 60 110
Southbound Thru F 398.3 ~340 #555 D 49 41 84
Southbound Right D 42.7 0 55 D 48.2 175 287
Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road
& Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 12.4 B 15
Eastbound Approach A 9.4 B 10.1
Eastbound Left 145 A 9.9 25 62 B 12.1 16 40
Eastbound Thru A 9.2 90 275 A 9.8 110 320
Eastbound Right 90 A 5.6 0 0 A 5.7 0 7
Westbound Approach B 14.6 B 17.7
Westbound Left 125 A 6.6 0 2 A 6.6 2 10
Westbound Thru B 14.8 147 287 B 18.3 270 #560
Westbound Right 155 A 8.2 0 2 A 7 0 3
Northbound Approach C 20.4 C 26
Northbound Left/Thru/Right C 20.4 20 69 C 26 30 #76
Southbound Approach C 20.7 C 26.2
Southbound Left/Thru/Right C 20.7 17 86 C 26.2 23 85
Route 522 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike/Lord
Fairfax Highway
Overall Intersection (Signalized)F 108.6 F 161.1
Eastbound Approach F 249.9 F 293.3
Eastbound Left/Thru F 273 ~541 #837 F 343 ~534 #742
Eastbound Right 230 C 30.9 18 100 D 42.4 46 150
Westbound Approach D 43.9 F 124.4
Westbound Left 500 D 41.3 71 130 D 44.3 161 250
Westbound Thru/Right D 45.7 104 182 F 165 ~433 #644
Northbound Approach D 53.1 F 174.5
Northbound Left 565 F 92.8 ~174 #367 F 410.5 ~410 #598
Northbound Thru C 34.1 143 214 D 48.2 251 #360
Northbound Right 250 C 29.2 0 46 C 33.9 0 25
Southbound Approach D 44.2 E 66.6
Southbound Left 125 E 55.3 61 #139 E 72.4 67 #136
Southbound Thru D 41.2 116 178 E 65.7 237 #350
NOTES:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
LOSDelay (s)Intersection (Movement)
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
Synchro
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Synchro
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
Delay (s)
2
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
No.
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
LOS
3
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
1
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 35
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 6: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2)
The capacity analysis results shown in Table 5 and Table 6 reveal that the study intersections operate at level of service (LOS)
D or better by approach in Future Conditions without Development (2035) except for the following intersections:
• Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
o The overall intersection operates at LOS F in AM peak, and operates at LOS E in PM peak
o Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak
o Northbound approach operates at LOS F in PM peak
o Southbound approach operates at LOS F in AM peak
o Westbound left exceeds available storage length on both AM and PM peaks, while eastbound left and northbound
left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is noted the eastbound and westbound left has protected
only phasing.
o It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School as well as significant background traffic
projected from Sherando Green retail and Fairfax Downs residential developments adjacent to the intersection.
There are no known improvements planned as part of those developments to this intersection.
Route 522 (N/S) & Lake Frederick
Drive (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 18.3 C 21
Eastbound Approach C 29.2 C 33.1
Eastbound Left C 30.4 65 144 D 36.2 101 177
Eastbound Right C 21.3 0 31 C 25.6 27 62
Northbound Approach B 16.2 B 19.5
Northbound Left 470 C 20.2 7 23 C 28.8 27 58
Northbound Thru B 16 89 234 B 18.4 146 227
Southbound Approach B 17.6 B 19.4
Southbound Thru B 17.7 123 205 B 19.8 225 349
Southbound Right 295 B 13.3 0 25 B 14.1 0 45
Southbound U-Turn 0 3
Route 522 (N/S) & Tasker Road (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 18.9 C 24
Eastbound Approach D 46.9 D 45.1
Eastbound Left D 49.4 38 77 D 51.3 119 181
Eastbound Right 250 D 46.3 0 37 D 40.7 0 36
Northbound Approach B 14.2 B 19.3
Northbound Left 485 D 51.6 59 91 D 53.3 109 125
Northbound Thru A 3.3 40 62 A 5 67 94
Southbound Approach B 11.9 B 19.4
Southbound Thru B 12.8 85 136 C 21.1 193 293
Southbound Right 315 A 6.8 0 14 A 8.5 0 20
Lake Frederick Entrance (N) & Fairfax
Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Westbound Approach
Westbound Left 150 A 9.8 5 B 10.9 13
Northbound Approach F 89.8 F 295.5
Northbound Left F 147.2 180.0 F $ 514.8 203.0
Northbound Right C 17.7 27.5 C 17.7 18
NOTES:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]INT 5 is analysed using HCM 2000
6
LOS
5
Delay (s)Intersection (Movement)
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
4
Synchro
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Synchro
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
Delay (s)
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
No.
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
LOS
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 36
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
o Overall intersection and eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours
o Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peak
o Westbound approach operates at LOS F in PM peak.
o Northbound approach operates at LOS F in PM peak
o Southbound approach operates at LOS E in PM peak
o Northbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while southbound left exceeds on both AM and PM
peaks.
o There are no known planned improvements by others at this intersection.
o Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance (Intersection #6)
o Northbound approach operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.
The Future Conditions without Development (2035) levels of service and lane configurations are summarized in Figure 11.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 37
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 11: 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Level of Service Results
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 38
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Analysis of 2035 Future Conditions with Development
For the purposes of this study, full build out is anticipated for 2035; this scenario analyzes the future with full build development
conditions for the year 2035.
Site Description
The proposed development site is located northwest of the intersection of Route 522 and Fairfax Pike (Route 277)/Lord Fairfax
Highway (Route 340), positioned north of Fairfax Pike and both east and west of Route 522. The site is currently zoned RA
(Rural Agricultural) with a Long Range Land Use of Industrial, Mixed Use Industrial/Office for the parcels west of Route 522 and
Rural Area east of Route 522. The applicant proposes a rezoning on the entire site to M1 (Light Industrial District) and a
Comprehensive Plan amendment on the parcel east of Route 522 (Tax map # 87-3-A) in order to develop up to 3,200,000 SF
of industrial uses. Parcels 87-3-A and 87-A-16B are each currently occupied by one single-family detached house.
The site is anticipated to include up to 3,200,000 SF of Industrial uses with a build -out year of 2035. For the purposes of the
traffic study, the Industrial Park use (ITE Land Use 130) was analyzed as that is representative of a mix of industrial uses.
Proposed Site Access
Access to the site will be provided via three proposed entrances along Fairfax Pike and 3 proposed entrances along Route 522.
One entrance on Fairfax Pike is proposed as a right-in/right-out only and the other two are proposed as full access. The
westernmost entrance on Fairfax Pike is proposed to align with the planned entrance for Lake Frederick development. Two of
the entrances on Route 522 are on opposite sides and aligned as one intersection . The entrances on Route 522 are proposed
as full access with median breaks. The routing of traffic in the study also considers an interparcel connection between the two
sites west of Route 522.
A conceptual Layout for the Site is illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Rezoning Plan
For informational purposes only.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 39
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Projected Site Trip Generation
In order to calculate the trips generated by the proposed development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 12th Edition, publication was used to determine the total trips going into and out of the subject study site
during the AM and PM peak hours as well as the typical number of weekday daily trips. The projected trip generation for the
proposed development is depicted in Table 7.
Table 7: Projected Site Trip Generation – Proposed Use (Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street; ITE 12th Ed.)
As illustrated in the Table 7, the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 574 total trips during the AM
peak hour, 626 total trips during the PM peak hour, and 7,336 total weekday daily trips during a typical weekday.
Distribution and Assignment of Vehicular Site Traffic
The distribution and assignment of the vehicular site generated trips were based on the existing traffic patterns, engineering
judgement, the nature of the proposed development, and with the input and agreeance from County and VDOT staff during the
scoping. The site direction of approach is depicted in Figure 13. The site assignment for the peak hour trips is presented in
Figure 14.
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Proposed Use
Industrial Park 130 3,200.0 kSF of GFA 442 132 574 175 451 626 7,336
Total Proposed Trips 442 132 574 175 451 626 7,336
ITE Code Size
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 40
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 13: Global Vehicular Direction of Approach (Site Trip Distribution)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 41
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 14: Site Trips Assignment
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 42
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Future with Development (2035) Traffic Volumes
The future with development traffic volumes were determined by adding the assigned site generated traffic volumes (Figure 14)
to the 2035 future conditions without development traffic volumes (Figure 10). The 2035 Future Conditions with Development
traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 15.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 43
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 15: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Vehicular Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 44
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the 2035 Future Conditions with Development scenario at the study area
intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results
based on the HCM 6th methodology3 presented in the TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and analysis guidelines provided
by the County. The analysis herein includes level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning
movements analyzed.
For the purposes of this analysis, the future peak hour factors (PHF) were based on the traffic count s, as applicable, and utilized
on a by-intersection basis; PHF in the range of 0.92 to 1.00 were used for the future scenario, consistent with the scoping
document. The heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) were the same as those used in the 2026 Existing Conditions and 2035 Future
Conditions without Development scenario analyses.
The results of the intersection capacity analyses from Synchro are presented in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 and
graphically in Figure 16. The results are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds per vehicle) for overall signalized intersections
and per approach and lane group for all study intersections.
The 95th percentile queue lengths were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet.
The detailed analysis worksheets of the 2035 Future Conditions with Development are contained in Appendix H.
3 It should be noted that HCM 2000 methodology was used in lieu of HCM 6th if the HCM 6th methodology was not applicable. HCM 6th could not be
applicable in such cases as nonstandard National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) configurations, shared lane configurations, placement of
loop detectors, U-turns, etc.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 45
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 8: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1)
Warrior Drive (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)F 86 E 71.8
Eastbound Approach C 31.7 D 51.9
Eastbound Left 260 F 84.9 133 #241 F 128.2 ~249 #420
Eastbound Thru C 29.8 572 726 C 29.3 561 #795
Eastbound Right 500 B 13.3 161 260 A 8.4 0 53
Westbound Approach E 67.7 F 91.3
Westbound Left 270 F 226.1 ~192 #343 F 148.1 ~140 #274
Westbound Thru C 32.2 505 #696 F 87.1 ~804 #1047
Westbound Right 575 B 14.2 0 25 B 13.2 0 15
Northbound Approach D 53.2 F 105.6
Northbound Left 190 D 53.9 58 #128 D 53.1 123 #215
Northbound Thru/Right D 51.4 21 #96 F 160.1 ~186 #351
Southbound Approach F 307.2 D 48.3
Southbound Left 150 D 50.1 50 94 D 44.8 63 114
Southbound Thru F 398.3 ~371 #555 D 49 41 84
Southbound Right D 42.6 0 55 D 49.5 180 293
Mitigation: Flashing Yellow Arrow on EBL and
WBL movement
Warrior Drive (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)E 56.4 E 56.5
Eastbound Approach C 23.6 D 43.9
Eastbound Left 260 C 21.9 73 70 F 96.9 ~186 #357
Eastbound Thru C 29.4 582 734 C 28.9 568 #820
Eastbound Right 500 B 12.9 165 243 A 7.9 0 57
Westbound Approach C 25.8 E 65.4
Westbound Left 270 C 24.4 60 103 C 21.2 67 #185
Westbound Thru C 27.5 500 #733 F 77.1 ~791 #1034
Westbound Right 575 B 12.3 0 25 B 12.7 0 26
Northbound Approach D 51.9 E 73.6
Northbound Left 190 D 52.8 56 #129 D 46.7 120 #201
Northbound Thru/Right D 49.8 20 #86 F 101.4 ~181 #351
Southbound Approach F 229.3 D 53.3
Southbound Left 150 D 48.2 47 92 D 43.7 62 111
Southbound Thru F 292.5 ~327 #530 D 47.7 40 83
Southbound Right D 46 0 55 E 57.9 185 301
Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax
Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 14.3 C 21.2
Eastbound Approach B 12 B 11.9
Eastbound Left 145 B 11.7 25 70 B 18.4 16 #118
Eastbound Thru B 12.2 136 #488 B 10.6 127 381
Eastbound Right 90 A 5.9 0 0 A 5.7 0 7
Westbound Approach B 15.7 C 27.8
Westbound Left 125 A 8.3 0 3 A 7 3 11
Westbound Thru B 16 170 351 C 29 375 #734
Westbound Right 155 A 8.4 0 3 A 6.7 0 8
Northbound Approach C 21.3 C 28.5
Northbound Left/Thru/Right C 21.3 21 69 C 28.5 30 74
Southbound Approach C 22.4 C 29.2
Southbound Left/Thru/Right C 22.4 30 105 C 29.2 29 94
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
2
Synchro
1
1
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 46
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 9: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2)
Route 522 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax
Highway
Overall Intersection (Signalized)F 147.2 F 189.8
Eastbound Approach F 311.3 F 331.2
Eastbound Left/Thru F 349.5 ~647 #921 F 409 ~606 #820
Eastbound Right 230 C 33.6 35 129 D 45.7 84 #249
Westbound Approach D 44 F 139.8
Westbound Left 500 D 39.1 73 130 D 44.3 161 250
Westbound Thru/Right D 46.7 144 231 F 186.3 ~465 #677
Northbound Approach F 111.7 F 207.7
Northbound Left 565 F 237.4 ~315 #522 F 479.1 ~460 #655
Northbound Thru D 38.5 174 248 E 55.2 263 #381
Northbound Right 250 C 31 0 46 C 34.8 0 25
Southbound Approach D 47.8 F 85.9
Southbound Left 125 E 59.7 68 #152 E 77.1 79 #168
Southbound Thru D 44.7 128 191 F 87.4 ~282 #403
Southbound Right 480 A 0 0 33 A 0 0 77
Mitigation: Addition of Exclusive EBL and
second NBL turn lanes
Route 522 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax
Highway
Overall Intersection (Signalized)D 52.7 F 94.3
Eastbound Approach E 76.1 F 107.6
Eastbound Left 250 E 76.9 195 #369 F 166.6 ~280 #457
Eastbound Thru E 79.6 218 #403 E 58.1 154 #277
Eastbound Right 230 D 37.8 0 73 D 45.0 67 #235
Westbound Approach D 54.0 F 114.4
Westbound Left 500 D 44.3 75 128 D 40.2 152 237
Westbound Thru/Right E 59.3 147 227 F 150.5 ~427 #637
Northbound Approach D 44.4 F 101.4
Northbound Left 565 E 60.0 114 #177 F 179.6 ~185 #284
Northbound Thru D 35.7 182 243 E 57.9 256 #380
Northbound Right 250 C 29.5 0 41 C 34.3 0 20
Southbound Approach D 35.5 D 54.1
Southbound Left 125 E 69.1 61 #151 E 70.3 80 #157
Southbound Thru C 26.6 136 186 D 51.5 231 #370
Southbound Right 480 A 0 25 81 A 0 24 126
Route 522 (N/S) & Lake Frederick Drive (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 17.7 C 22.4
Eastbound Approach C 29.3 D 35.1
Eastbound Left C 30.9 69 155 D 38.5 105 181
Eastbound Right C 22.2 4 38 C 27.8 33 68
Northbound Approach B 15 C 21.1
Northbound Left 470 C 20.9 8 23 C 32.4 27 58
Northbound Thru B 14.7 115 276 B 19.8 159 248
Southbound Approach B 17.8 C 20.6
Southbound Thru B 17.9 136 230 C 21.1 282 432
Southbound Right 295 B 13.2 0 25 B 13.7 0 46
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
3
4
Synchro
3
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 47
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 10: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 3)
Route 522 (N/S) & Tasker Road (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 19.2 C 23.9
Eastbound Approach D 46.9 D 45.0
Eastbound Left D 49.4 38 77 D 51.3 119 181
Eastbound Right -/250 D 46.3 0 39 D 40.7 0 36
Northbound Approach B 14.4 B 18.8
Northbound Left 485/485 D 52.7 61 96 D 52.3 119 139
Northbound Thru A 3.3 42 66 A 5.5 81 105
Southbound Approach B 12.7 C 20.3
Southbound Thru B 13.5 106 166 C 22.0 207 315
Southbound Right 315 A 6.9 0 14 A 8.8 1 21
Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance
1 & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach
Eastbound Left 150 A 9.6 7.5 B 11.5 5.0
Westbound Approach
Westbound Left 150 B 10.2 5.0 B 11.1 12.5
Northbound Approach F $ 537.5 F $ 1675.9
Northbound Left F $ 949.1 350 F $ 2984.5 285
Northbound Thru/Right C 19.8 32.5 C 18.4 17.5
Southbound Approach F 150.5 F $ 1551.2
Southbound Left 50 F 268.3 75 F $ 2896.2 340
Southbound Thru/Right B 13 5 D 28 40
Mitigation: Install a Signal
Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance
1 & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 7.2 B 10.3
Eastbound Approach A 2.1 A 2.1
Eastbound Left 150 A 4.6 8 m11 B 10.9 2 m6
Eastbound Thru A 2.0 117 122 A 1.9 139 275
Eastbound Right 150 A 0.0 0 m0 A 0.1 0 m5
Westbound Approach A 7.1 B 12.3
Westbound Left 150 A 3.3 5 12 A 2.8 7 14
Westbound Thru A 7.5 185 263 B 13.3 419 #807
Westbound Right 150 A 4.9 0 16 A 3.3 0 3
Northbound Approach D 38.3 D 39.9
Northbound Left D 38.6 67 #136 D 40.0 45 #121
Northbound Thru/Right C 33.5 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
Southbound Approach C 34.4 D 41.1
Southbound Left 50 C 34.5 14 39 D 41.2 56 #151
Southbound Thru/Right C 33.3 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]INT 5 is analysed using HCM 2000
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
5
6
Synchro
6
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 48
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 11: 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 4)
The capacity analysis results shown in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 reveal that the study intersections operate at
level of service (LOS) D or better by approach in Future Conditions with Development (2035) except for the following
intersections:
o Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
o Overall intersection operates at LOS F in AM peak and LOS E in PM peaks
Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance 2 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Southbound Approach B 14.2 D 26.1
Southbound Right B 14.2 2.5 D 26.1 20
Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance 3 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach
Eastbound Left 150 A 9.6 5.0 B 11.6 2.5
Southbound Approach E 47.2 F 130.5
Southbound Left F 53.9 5 F 162.5 40
Southbound Right 50 B 14 0 C 21.9 2.5
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4
(E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach C 17.1 E 40.8
Eastbound Left/Thru C 19.8 10 F 52.1 80
Eastbound Right 50 B 10.5 2.5 B 12.8 7.5
Westbound Approach C 20.6 E 39
Westbound Left/Thru C 21.2 5 E 40 37.5
Westbound Right 50 B 10.9 0 B 12.4 0
Northbound Approach
Northbound Left 300 A 9.5 2.5 B 10.7 2.5
Southbound Approach
Southbound Left 300 A 9.5 0 B 10.7 0
Mitigation: Install a Signal
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4
(E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 4.5 B 11.9
Eastbound Approach D 53.6 D 51.2
Eastbound Left D 53.6 20 49 D 51.3 69 120
Eastbound Thru/Right A 0.0 0 0 D 45.7 0 0
Westbound Approach D 52.5 D 48.5
Westbound Left D 52.5 11 33 D 48.5 37 73
Westbound Thru/Right A 0.0 0 0 A 0 0 0
Northbound Approach A 0.4 A 8.4
Northbound Left 300 A 4.2 3 m3 A 7.0 1 m6
Northbound Thru A 0.2 2 m222 A 8.5 2 m292
Northbound Right 150 A 0.0 0 m6 A 5.9 0 m0
Southbound Approach A 6.3 A 9.6
Southbound Left 300 A 4 0 m2 A 6.9 0 m1
Southbound Thru A 6.4 74 87 A 9.7 105 233
Southbound Right 150 A 5.3 0 1 A 6.6 0 1
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 5 (W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Westbound Approach B 12.8 C 16.3
Westbound Left C 17.3 0 C 24.8 2.5
Westbound Right 50 B 11 0 B 13.3 2.5
Southbound Approach
Southbound Left 300 A 9.5 2.5 B 11.2 0
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
9
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
10
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
9
7
Synchro
8
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 49
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
o Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F in the PM peak
o Northbound approach operates at LOS F in PM peak
o Southbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM peak
o Westbound left exceeds available storage length in both AM and PM peaks, while eastbound left and northbound
left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is noted the westbound left has protected only phasing.
o This intersection fails due to existing and background volumes and is not caused by the proposed development.
The intersection is projected to process significant additional traffic from nearby planned background developments
of Sherando Green retail and Fairfax Downs residential. There are no known improvements planned as part of those
developments to this intersection. However, left turn phasing changed from “protected only” to “flashing yellow
arrow” on eastbound and westbound approaches are proposed to mitigate the site impacts on this intersection .
o Mitigation: Left turn phasing change from “protected only” to “flashing yellow arrow” on eastbound and
westbound approaches are recommended to mitigate the site impacts on this intersection and improve the
delay and queuing at the intersection. With the above improvement in place, the eastbound and westbound left
turn movements have significant reduction in delay and queuing. While the northbound approach remains at
LOS F in the AM peak and the westbound approach and northbound approach operates at LOS E in the PM
peak, the conditions are improved to be better than Future Conditions without Development (non -
degradation).
o Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
o Overall intersection operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peaks .
o Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peaks.
o Westbound approach operates at LOS F in the PM peak.
o Northbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peaks .
o Southbound approach operates at LOS F in the PM peak.
o Northbound left and eastbound right exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while southbound left exceeds
available storage length in both AM and PM peaks.
o This intersection fails under background projected conditions due to regional growth and planned background
development traffic.
o Mitigation: To mitigate site-related impacts, an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and a second northbound
left-turn lane are recommended. For this mitigated scenario, Intersection #3 was analyzed as coordinated with
Intersection #9 based on feedback from VDOT review.
o With the above recommended improvements in place, the delay and queuing are significantly improved and notably
all approaches operate at LOS D in the AM peak. The post-mitigated improvements show the following:
• Overall intersection operates at LOS D in AM peak and LOS F in PM peak.
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS E in AM peak and LOS F in PM peak.
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F and Northbound approach operates at LOS F in PM Peak.
• While some approaches operate at LOS E or F in the PM peak hour only, the delay and queuing
are significantly improved with the above improvements and conditions are improved to be
better than Future without Development (non-degradation).
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 50
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance/Site Entrance #1 (Intersection #6)
o Northbound Approach and Southbound Approach operates at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours.
o For this mitigated scenario, Intersection #6 was analyzed as coordinated with the Madison 277 entrance based on
feedback from VDOT review.
o With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection operates at acceptable levels of service.
Installation of a new traffic signal is subject to VDOT review and approval through a future Signal Justification Report
(“SJR”). A preliminary signal warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis were performed as part of this study to screen
potential intersection control configurations. A conventional traffic signal, thru -cut signal, roundabout, and two-way
stop control were considered as possible intersection configurations. The ultima te configuration will be determined
through the future SJR. It is noted that a roundabout is anticipated to require significant offsite right -of-way and was
therefore not recommended for further consideration.
o Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #3 (Intersection #8)
o Southbound approach of the site access operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F in the PM peak. The failing
level of service is due to high through volumes on Fairfax Pike and not a result of high volumes from the entrance
(17 peak hour trips). The queuing for the southbound approach is 40 feet, indicating only 2 stacked vehicles. Hence,
no mitigations are recommended.
o Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 (Intersection #9)
o Eastbound approach and westbound approach operates at LOS E in the PM peak
o With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service
with acceptable queuing along Route 522. Installation of a new traffic signal is subject to VDOT review and approval
through a future Signal Justification Report (“SJR”). A preliminary signal warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis
were performed as part of this study to screen potential intersection control configurations. A conventional traffic
signal, unsignalized continuous green-T, unsignalized restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT), and two-way stop control
were considered as possible intersection configurations. The ultimate configuration will be determined through the
future SJR. It is noted that an RCUT would result in additional U-turn traffic downstream along Route 522 including
truck traffic from the proposed industrial use. It is also noted that a continuous green-T would not meet spacing and
acceleration distance requirements and was therefore not recommended for further consideration.
The Future Conditions with Development (2035) levels of service and lane configurations are summarized in Figure 16.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 51
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 16: 2035 Future Conditions with Development ‐ Level of Service Results
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 52
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Spacing Analysis
A spacing analysis was conducted for the proposed site entrances based on VDOT’s Road Design Manual (RDM) Appendix F,
Table 2-2.
Appendix F focuses on access management design standards for entrances and intersections. The minimum spacing standards
are specified in Table 2-2 through Table 2-4. Table 2-2 provides guidance on the minimum spacing standards for commercial
accesses, intersections, and median crossovers based on roadway functional classification and design speed. Tables 2-3 and
2-4 provide guidance on minimum spacing standards for accesses near interchange areas.
Both Fairfax Pike and Route 522 are classified as Minor Arterials according to VDOT’s Functional Classification, with a posted
speed limit of 55 mph in the vicinity of the site.
The applicable minimum spacing standards (centerline to centerline) per Appendix F, Table 2-2 are shown in Table 12. This
spacing analysis evaluates the minimum spacing standards for the proposed site entrances. A comparison of the proposed and
required spacing is provided in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 17.
Table 12: Minimum Spacing Standards for Commercial Accesses, Intersections, and Median Crossovers (RDM,
Appendix F, Table 2-2)
Table 13: Spacing Analysis Summary
Principal Arterial ≤ 30 mph 1,050 880 440 250
35 to 45 mph 1,320 1,050 565 305
≥ 50mph 2,640 1,320 750 495
Minor Arterial ≤ 30 mph 880 660 355 200
35 to 45 mph 1,050 660 470 250
≥ 50mph 1,320 1,050 555 425
Collector ≤ 30 mph 660 440 225 200
35 to 45 mph 660 440 335 250
≥ 50mph 1,050 660 445 360
Notes:
2. Design speed for roadways with posted speed of 45 mph or less is at least equal to the posted speed. For roadways with a posted speed of
50 mph or higher, the design speed is at least 5 mph higher than the posted speed. Where design speed is not available, the posted speed
should be used.
Highway
Functional Class
Design Speed
(mph)
1. Based on the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Road Design Manual (RDM), Appendix F Table 2-2 for Minimum Spacing Standards
Minimum Centerline to Centerline Spacing (Feet)
(Type 1)
Signalized
Intersection
(Type 2)
Unsignalized
Intersection or Full
Crossover
(Type 3)
Full Access /
Directional
Crossover
(Type 4)
Partial Access
Intersection(s) / Access Point(s)Type of Traffic
Control Direction Adjacent Intersection Type of Traffic
Control
Proposed
Distance
(ft.)
Minimum
Spacing
Required
(ft.)*
Meets the
Standard
(Yes / No)
A. Route 522 and Sasser Lane Partial Access South Route 522 and Site Entrance #5 Full Access 1,490 425 Yes
B. Route 522 and Site Entrance #5 Full Access South Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 Signalized 1,035 555 Yes
C. Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 Signalized South Route 522 and Highland Corners Road Unsignalized 1,330 1,050 Yes
D. Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 Signalized South Route 522 and 3636 Entrance Partial Access 425 425 Yes
E. Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 Signalized South Route 522 and Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Signalized 2,375 1,320 Yes
F. Fairfax Pike and Double Tollgate Road Full Access West Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #3 Full Access 665 555 Yes
G. Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #3 Full Access West Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #2 Partial Access 930 425 Yes
H. Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #2 Partial Access West Fairfax Pike and 1867 Entrance Full Access 710 425 Yes
I. Fairfax Pike and 1867 Entrance Full Access West Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1 Signalized 1,160 555 Yes
J. Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1 Signalized West Fairfax Pike and Madison 277 Entrance Signalized 1,320 1,320 Yes
K. Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1 Signalized East Route 522 and Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Signalized 4,850 1,320 Yes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 53
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
As shown in Table 13, all proposed site entrances would meet minimum spacing standards per VDOT’S RDM Appendix F. It is
noted that signalized spacing was evaluated for Intersections #6 and #9 to evaluate the highest potential category if those
entrances become signalized; however, spacing for the other innovative intersection types is further discussed in the VJuST
section in Appendix J.
Figure 17: Spacing Analysis
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Left and right turn lane warrants are based on VDOT’s Road Design Manual (RDM), Appendix F. In order to determine the need
for exclusive left and/or right turn lanes or tapers at the site entrances, the 2035 Future Conditions with Development traffic
volumes were utilized.
Warrants for right‐turn storage lanes on two‐ and four‐lane highways at intersections are based on Figure 3‐26 and Figure 3‐27
in Appendix F. These figures provide a graphical representation for determining the necessity of a right turn lane by compari ng
the total volumes of a given approach with their respective right turn volumes.
Warrants for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways are based on Figures 3-5 through 3-21 in Appendix F, while warrants
for left-turn storage lanes on four-lane highways are based on Figure 3-3 in Appendix F. These figures provide graphical
representations for determining the necessity of a left turn lane by comparing the advancing volumes of a given approach and
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 54
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
the respective opposing volumes with respect to the percentage of left turning vehicles of the advancing volumes and the desi gn
speed of a given roadway.
Fairfax Pike is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed of 55 mph in the vicinity of the site, whereas Route 522 is a
four-lane median divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph in the vicinity of the site.
A summary of the right-turn lane warrant analysis for two-lane roadways and four-lane roadways is provided in Table 14 and
Table 15, respectively, and the left-turn lane warrant analysis for two-lane roadways and four-lane roadways is provided in Table
16 and Table 17, respectively.
Table 14: Right-Turn Lane Analysis for Two-Lane Roadway
Table 15: Right-Turn Lane Analysis for Four-Lane Roadway
As shown in Table 14, a full-width right turn lane and taper are warranted for the westbound right turn at Intersection 6, while no
right turn lane is warranted at Intersections 7 and 8. As shown in Table 15, a taper is warranted for the northbound right turn at
Intersection 9, a full-width right turn lane and taper are warranted for the southbound right turn at Intersection 9, and no right
turn lane is warranted at Intersection 10. Right turn lanes will be provided at the proposed site entrances along Route 522 and
where warranted on Fairfax Pike.
Table 16: Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Two-Lane Roadway
Table 17: Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Four-Lane Roadway
As shown in Table 16, a left turn lane is warranted for the eastbound left turns at Intersections 6 and 8. As shown in Table 17 ,
a left turn lane is warranted for the northbound left turn at Intersection 9, while no left turn lane is warranted at Intersections 9
and 10 for the southbound left turns. Left turn lanes will be provided at the proposed full access site entrances along Fairfax
Pike. Exclusive left turn lanes are already present along Route 522 under existing conditions .
Study Scenario Approach
Volume
Right Turn
Volume
Minimum Right
Turn Taper
Threshold
Minimum Right
Turn Full Lane
Threshold
Treatment
Intersection 6: WBR AM Peak 712 92 20 40 Full-width Lane and Taper Required
Intersection 6: WBR PM Peak 1,171 37 20 40 Taper Required
Intersection 7: WBR AM Peak 702 3 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 7: WBR PM Peak 1,129 1 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 8: WBR AM Peak 715 14 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 8: WBR PM Peak 1,130 6 20 40 Not Warranted
Study Scenario Approach
Volume
Right Turn
Volume
Minimum Right
Turn Taper
Threshold
Minimum Right
Turn Full Lane
Threshold
Treatment
Intersection 9: NBR AM Peak 801 53 16 69 Taper Required
Intersection 9: NBR PM Peak 1,024 21 10 53 Taper Required
Intersection 9: SBR AM Peak 705 92 19 75 Full-width Lane and Taper Required
Intersection 9: SBR PM Peak 985 37 10 55 Taper Required
Intersection 10: NBR AM Peak 740 6 18 73 Not Warranted
Intersection 10: NBR AM Peak 1,084 2 10 48 Not Warranted
Study Scenario Opposing Vol.
(VPH)
Advancing Vol.
(VPH)
Left Turn Vol.
(VPH)Left Turn %VDOT Figure Treatment
Intersection 6: EBL AM Peak 712 933 81 8.68%Fig. 3-11 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 6: EBL PM Peak 1,171 974 33 3.39%Fig. 3-10 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 8: EBL AM Peak 715 930 48 5.16%Fig. 3-11 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 8: EBL PM Peak 1130 988 19 1.92%Fig. 3-10 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Study Scenario Median Opposing
Vol. (VPH)
Advancing
Vol.
(VPH)
Left
Turning
Vol.
Left Turn %Treatment
Intersection 9: NBL AM Peak Divided 705 801 36 4.5%Full-width Turn Lane and Taper Warranted (for Undivided and Divided)
Intersection 9: NBL PM Peak Divided 985 1,024 15 1.5%Not Warranted
Intersection 9: SBL AM Peak Divided 801 705 2 0.3%Not Warranted
Intersection 9: SBL PM Peak Divided 1,024 985 1 0.1%Not Warranted
Intersection 10: SBL AM Peak Divided 740 720 17 2.4%Not Warranted
Intersection 10: SBL PM Peak Divided 1,084 986 7 0.7%Not Warranted
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 55
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Preliminary Signal Warrant Analysis
This section presents a preliminary signal warrant analysis for the following intersection:
• Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1/Lake Frederick Entrance – A traffic signal is recommended as a mitigation measure
in the Future with Development (2035) conditions. PM peak traffic volumes from Figure 15 were utilized for this analysis.
Fairfax Pike has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.
• Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 – A traffic signal is recommended as a mitigation measure in the Future with
Development (2035) conditions. PM peak traffic volumes from Figure 15 were utilized for this analysis. Route 522 has
a posted speed limit of 55 mph.
This warrant analysis was conducted using Table 4C-V1: Traffic Signal Warrant Using Average Daily Traffic Estimate from the
Virginia MUTCD. Table 4C-V1 from the Virginia MUTCD is shown in Table 18. The results of the preliminary signal warrant
analysis are shown in Table 19.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 56
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 18: Traffic Signal Warrant Using Average Daily Traffic Estimate (Source: Virginia MUTCD, Table 4C-V1)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 57
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 19: ADT Signal Warrant Analysis
Per the Virginia MUTCD, the following are the requirements for a traffic signal to be warranted at an intersection:
• Either Condition A or Condition B for the 70% thresholds must be satisfied or;
• Both Condition A and Condition B for the 56% thresholds must be satisfied
As shown in Table 19, the preliminary signal warrants based on the estimated ADTs for the intersection of Fairfax Pike and Site
Entrance #1/Lake Frederick Entrance, and Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 are satisfied under the Future with Development
(2035) conditions. Please note that this analysis is a preliminary signal warrant analysis. A future, comprehensive Signal
Justification Report would need to be submitted in accordance with VDOT guidelines to determine whether other signal warrants
are satisfied and if signalization is warranted. Please also refer to the VJuST section in Appendix J, which provides a screening
of other innovative intersection types at these two entrance locations.
Major Street Minor Street
Major Street
(Both
Directions)
Minor Street
(One Direction
Only)
Major Street
(Both
Directions)
Minor Street
(One Direction
Only)
Condition A 5,600 2,240
Condition B 8,400 1,120
Condition A 4,480 1,792
Condition B 6,720 896
Condition A 6,720 2,240
Condition B 10,080 1,120
Condition A 5,376 1,792
Condition B 8,064 896
23,913 2,010 YES56% Threshold
Intersection # 6: Fairfax
Pike and Site Entrance
#1/Lake Frederick Entrance
Future with
Development (2035)1 2 or more
70% Thresholds
Signal
Warrant
Met?
Intersection Scenario
Number of lanes for moving
traffic on each approach
2 or more
Condition
22,447
Signal Warrant Requirements Estimated ADT
1,3202 or more
70% Thresholds
56% Threshold
Intersection 9: Route 522
and Site Entrance #4 YESFuture with
Development (2035)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 58
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Analysis of 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Planning Year)
This scenario analyzes the future with development conditions for the planning year 2041 (plus 6 years from build out).
Consistent with VDOT Chapter 870 guidelines a plus 6 year analysis provides information for regional planning purposes.
Site Description and Site Access
A description of the proposed development and the site access was provided in the earlier 2035 section of the report.
Projected Site Trip Generation
The trip generation for the site in the Planning Year conditions is consistent with the trip generation for the site in the build out
year, as previously shown in Table 7.
Distribution and Assignment of Vehicular Site Traffic
The distribution and assignment of the vehicular site generated trips were based on the existing traffic patterns, engineerin g
judgement, the nature of the proposed development, and with the input and agreeance from County and VDOT staff during the
scoping. The site direction of approach was shown earlier in Figure 13. The site assignment for the peak hour trips was presented
earlier in Figure 14.
Inherent Growth & Planned Background Development
As specified in the scoping document, an annual linear growth rate of 0.5% was applied to all major movements on Route 522
and Hudson Hollow Road, while a rate of 1% was applied on Fairfax Pike, Warrior Drive, White Oak Road, and Tasker Road.
The inherent regional growth volumes (for the period between 2026 and 2041) are illustrated in Figure 18.
All planned background developments shown in 2035 were utilized for 2041. The total background development traffic was
shown in Figure 9.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 59
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 18: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2026 – 2041)
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 60
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Future with Development (2041) Traffic Volumes
The 2041 future with development traffic volumes were determined by adding the inherent growth (Figure 18) and planned
background development volumes (Figure 9) as well as the assigned site generated traffic volumes (Figure 14) to the existing
volumes (Figure 6). The 2041 Future Conditions with Development traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 19.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 61
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 19: 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Design Year) – Vehicular Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 62
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis (2041)
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the 2041 Future Conditions with Development scenario at the study area
intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results
based on the HCM 6th methodology4 presented in the TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and analysis guidelines provided
by the County. The analysis herein includes level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning
movements analyzed.
For the purposes of this analysis, the future peak hour factors (PHF) were based on the traffic counts, as applicable, and utilized
on a by-intersection basis; PHF in the range of 0.92 to 1.00 were used for the future scenario, consistent with the scoping
document. The heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) were the same as those used in the 2026 Existing Conditions and 203 5 Future
Conditions without Development scenario analyses .
The planned background and recommended due to site improvements outlined in the 2035 analysis year were carried forward
for the 2041 analysis.
The results of the intersection capacity analyses from Synchro are presented in Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22 and graphically
in Figure 20.
The 95th percentile queue lengths were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet.
The detailed analysis worksheets of the 2041 Future Conditions with Development are contained in Appendix I.
4 It should be noted that HCM 2000 methodology was used in lieu of HCM 6th if the HCM 6th methodology was not applicable. HCM 6th could not be
applicable in such cases as nonstandard National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) configurations, shared lane configurations, placement of
loop detectors, U-turns, etc.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 63
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 20: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 1)
Warrior Drive (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)E 56.6 E 63.6
Eastbound Approach C 24.6 D 49.1
Eastbound Left 260 C 23.4 70 85 F 111.1 ~206 #381
Eastbound Thru C 30.6 592 772 C 30.9 591 #860
Eastbound Right 500 B 13 157 243 A 7.9 0 56
Westbound Approach C 26.9 E 76.9
Westbound Left 270 C 26.3 56 #110 C 22.5 66 #183
Westbound Thru C 28.6 494 #784 F 91 ~834 #1078
Westbound Right 575 B 12.4 0 26 B 12.6 0 26
Northbound Approach D 52 E 77.5
Northbound Left 190 D 52.9 58 #127 D 46.8 120 #200
Northbound Thru/Right D 49.8 21 #91 F 109.1 ~183 #351
Southbound Approach F 228 E 58.5
Southbound Left 150 D 48.2 51 95 D 43.8 65 115
Southbound Thru F 292.5 ~346 #530 D 47.7 40 83
Southbound Right D 45.8 0 56 E 65.8 200 #345
Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road
& Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 14.9 C 23.7
Eastbound Approach B 12.7 B 12.8
Eastbound Left 145 B 12.9 28 76 C 21.7 19 #129
Eastbound Thru B 12.8 147 #517 B 11 131 401
Eastbound Right 90 A 5.9 0 0 A 5.7 0 8
Westbound Approach B 16 C 31.9
Westbound Left 125 A 8.5 0 3 A 7.2 3 12
Westbound Thru B 16.2 178 368 C 33.4 396 #770
Westbound Right 155 A 8.4 0 3 A 6.8 0 8
Northbound Approach C 21.6 C 28.8
Northbound Left/Thru/Right C 21.6 23 72 C 28.8 31 77
Southbound Approach C 22.9 C 29.6
Southbound Left/Thru/Right C 22.9 34 111 C 29.6 32 100
Route 522 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike/Lord
Fairfax Highway
Overall Intersection (Signalized)D 54.8 F 100.6
Eastbound Approach F 81.8 F 109.1
Eastbound Left 250 E 78.4 197 #371 F 170.9 ~285 #462
Eastbound Thru F 89.7 231 #423 E 60.4 159 #287
Eastbound Right 230 D 37.8 0 75 D 47.5 83 #261
Westbound Approach D 54.4 F 128.9
Westbound Left 500 D 44.1 79 135 D 41.3 161 251
Westbound Thru/Right E 60.1 152 235 F 171.9 ~460 #671
Northbound Approach D 45 F 107
Northbound Left 565 E 60.2 116 #179 F 188.3 ~190 #290
Northbound Thru D 36.6 186 250 E 62.2 ~265 #394
Northbound Right 250 C 30 0 46 C 34.5 0 24
Southbound Approach D 36.5 E 57.5
Southbound Left 125 E 69.7 64 #155 E 70.6 81 #162
Southbound Thru C 27.8 140 188 E 55.5 234 #386
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
LOS
1
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
Synchro Synchro
2
3
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 64
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 21: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 2)
Route 522 (N/S) & Lake Frederick
Drive (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 17.7 C 22.5
Eastbound Approach C 29.4 D 35.4
Eastbound Left C 31.1 70 155 D 38.8 105 182
Eastbound Right C 22.5 6 41 C 28 34 69
Northbound Approach B 15 C 21.2
Northbound Left 470 C 21 8 23 C 32.9 27 58
Northbound Thru B 14.7 118 284 B 19.8 164 256
Southbound Approach B 17.9 C 20.8
Southbound Thru B 18 141 232 C 21.3 290 #456
Southbound Right 295 B 13.1 0 25 B 13.7 0 46
Route 522 (N/S) & Tasker Road (E)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 19.5 C 24.4
Eastbound Approach D 46.9 D 45.2
Eastbound Left D 49.5 39 78 D 51.8 120 184
Eastbound Right 250 D 46.3 0 39 D 40.7 0 37
Northbound Approach B 14.9 B 19.5
Northbound Left 485 D 53.8 65 99 D 50.3 122 142
Northbound Thru A 3.6 26 102 A 7.2 130 77
Southbound Approach B 12.8 C 20.7
Southbound Thru B 13.6 108 170 C 22.4 214 323
Southbound Right 315 A 6.9 0 14 A 8.9 2 23
Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site
Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)B 11.1 B 10.9
Eastbound Approach A 9.4 A 2.3
Eastbound Left 150 A 4.9 5 m5 B 12 2 m3
Eastbound Thru B 10 84 534 A 2.1 108 180
Eastbound Right 150 A 4.2 0 m0 A 0.1 0 m4
Westbound Approach A 7.3 B 13.5
Westbound Left 150 A 7.2 5 12 A 2.8 7 14
Westbound Thru A 7.6 189 268 B 14.6 445 #839
Westbound Right 150 A 4.9 0 16 A 3.3 0 3
Northbound Approach D 38.3 D 39.9
Northbound Left D 38.6 67 #136 D 40 45 #121
Northbound Thru/Right C 33.5 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
Southbound Approach C 34.4 D 41.1
Southbound Left 50 C 34.5 14 39 D 41.2 56 #151
Southbound Thru/Right C 33.3 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
LOSNo.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
Synchro Synchro
INT 5 is analysed using HCM 2000
4
5
6
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 65
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 22: 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Results (Part 3)
The capacity analysis results shown in Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22 reveal that the planning year/plus 6 year analysis reveals
similar results to the Future with Development 2035 analysis, the intersections with failing level of service continuing to h ave
approaches that fail. All of the intersections operating acceptably under 2035 continue to operate acceptably under 2041 except
the following changes:
o Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
o Southbound approach operates at LOS E in PM peak.
o Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
o Southbound approach operates at LOS E in PM peak.
o Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in AM peak.
The Future Conditions with Development (2041) levels of service and lane configurations are summarized in Figure 20.
Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance
2 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Southbound Approach B 14.3 D 27
Southbound Right B 14.3 2.5 D 27 20
Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance
3 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach
Eastbound Left 150 A 9.6 5 B 11.8 2.5
Southbound Approach E 49.6 F 140.8
Southbound Left F 56.7 5 F 175.5 42.5
Southbound Right 50 B 14.1 0 C 22.6 2.5
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site
Entrance 4 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 4.5 B 11.9
Eastbound Approach D 53.6 D 51.2
Eastbound Left D 53.6 20 49 D 51.3 69 120
Eastbound Thru/Right A 0 0 0 D 45.7 0 0
Westbound Approach D 52.5 D 48.5
Westbound Left D 52.5 11 33 D 48.5 37 73
Westbound Thru/Right A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0
Northbound Approach A 0.3 A 8.5
Northbound Left 300 A 4.3 3 m3 A 7.1 1 m7
Northbound Thru A 0.2 2 m229 A 8.5 0 m293
Northbound Right 150 A 0 0 m6 A 5.9 0 m0
Southbound Approach A 6.4 A 9.8
Southbound Left 300 A 4 0 m2 A 7 0 m1
Southbound Thru A 6.5 78 92 A 9.9 111 241
Southbound Right 150 A 5.3 0 1 A 6.6 0 0
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site
Entrance 5 (W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Westbound Approach B 13 C 16.5
Westbound Left C 17.6 0 D 25.4 2.5
Westbound Right 50 B 11.1 0 B 13.4 2.5
Southbound Approach 0.2 0.1
Southbound Left 300 A 9.6 2.5 B 11.3 0
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
LOSNo.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Delay (s)
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[3][4]
Synchro Synchro
8
9
10
7
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 66
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 20: 2041 Future Conditions with Development (Planning Year) ‐ Level of Service Results
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 67
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Conclusion
The analysis presented in this report supports the following assumptions and findings:
• The following intersections were included for evaluation per the scoping document:
1. Fairfax Pike at Warrior Drive
2. Fairfax Pike at White Oak Road/Hudson Hollow Road
3. Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway at Route 522
4. Route 522 at Lake Frederick Drive
5. Route 522 at Tasker Road
6. Site entrances on Fairfax Pike and on Route 522
*See Supplemental Analysis summary below pertaining to the evaluation of the I -81/Fairfax Pike ramps.
• Existing Conditions (2026):
o All approaches operate at LOS D by approach except for the following:
▪ Fairfax Pike and Warrior Drive (Intersection #1):
• The overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 98.9 sec) in AM Peak
• Northbound approach operates at LOS E in both AM and PM Peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 333.1 sec) in AM Peak
• Eastbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak.
• It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School and the AM peak
hour LOS deficiencies are primarily attributed to the higher volumes processed during the
school peak arrival time.
• Future without Development (2035):
o Future volumes were projected by applying regional growth to the regional roads and incorporation of six
planned background developments including:
▪ Madison 277
▪ Lake Frederick (remaining build out)
▪ Sherando Green
▪ Fairfax Downs
▪ Enclave at Tasker Residential
▪ Eastgate Commercial
o The following planned transportation improvements was incorporated in the study:
▪ Construction of exclusive left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches at the
intersection of Fairfax Pike and White Oak Road/Hudson Hallow Road (study Intersection #2)
▪ Improvements at Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) at Warrior Drive (VDOT SMART SCALE project) to extend
the eastbound right turn lane by another 200 feet with 200 foot taper
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 68
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
o Under Future without Development (2035), the following intersections have approaches that operate below
acceptable level of service:
▪ Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
• The overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 88.6 sec) in AM peak, and operates at
LOS E in PM peak
• Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 99.9 sec) in PM peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 312.3 sec) in AM peak
• Westbound left exceeds available storage length on both AM and PM peaks, while
eastbound left and northbound left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is
noted the eastbound and westbound lefts have protected only phasing.
• It is noted that this intersection provides access to Sherando High School as well as
significant background traffic projected from Sherando Green retail and Fairfax Downs
residential developments adjacent to the intersection. There are no known improvements
planned as part of those developments to this intersection.
▪ Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 108.6 sec) and PM (delay of
161.1 sec) peak hours
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 249.9 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 293.3 sec)
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 124.4 sec) in PM peak.
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 174.5 sec) in PM peak
• Southbound approach operates at LOS E in PM peak
• Northbound left exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while southbound left
exceeds on both AM and PM peaks.
▪ Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance (Intersection #6)
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F during both the AM (delay of 89.8 sec) and PM
(delay of 295.5 sec) peak hours.
• Future with Development (2035):
o Under Future with Development (2035), the following intersections have approaches that operate below
acceptable level of service:
▪ Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike (Intersection #1)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F (delay of 86 sec) in AM peak and LOS E in PM peak
• Westbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F (delay of 91.3 sec) in
the PM peak
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 105.6 sec) in PM peak
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 69
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 307.2 sec) in the AM peak
• Westbound left exceeds available storage length in both AM and PM peaks, while
eastbound left and northbound left exceed available storage length in PM peak only. It is
noted the eastbound and westbound lefts have protected only phasing.
• This intersection fails due to existing and background volumes and is not caused by the
proposed development. The intersection is projected to process significant additional traffic
from nearby planned background developments of Sherando Green retail and F airfax
Downs residential. There are no known improvements planned as part of those
developments to this intersection.
• Mitigation: Left turn phasing change from “protected only” to “flashing yellow arrow”
on eastbound and westbound approaches are recommended to mitigate the site
impacts on this intersection and improve the delay and queuing at the intersection.
With the above improvement in place, the eastbound and westbound left turn movements
have significant reduction in delay and queuing. While the northbound approach remains
at LOS F in the AM peak and the westbound approach and northbound approach
operates at LOS E in the PM peak, the conditions are improved to be better than
Future Conditions without Development (non-degradation).
▪ Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3)
• Overall intersection operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 147.2 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 189.8 sec).
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 311.3) and PM peak (delay of
331.2 sec).
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 139.8 sec) in the PM peak.
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM (delay of 111.7 sec) and PM peak (delay
of 207.7 sec).
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 85.9 sec) in the PM peak.
• Northbound left and eastbound right exceeds available storage length in PM peak, while
southbound left exceeds available storage length in both AM and PM peaks.
• This intersection fails under background projected conditions due to regional growth and
planned background development traffic.
• Mitigation: To mitigate site-related impacts, an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and
a second northbound left-turn lane are recommended.
• With the above recommended improvements in place, the delay and queuing are
significantly improved and notably all approaches operate at LOS D in the AM peak. The
post-mitigated improvements show the following:
• Overall intersection operates at LOS D in AM peak and LOS F (delay of 94.3 sec) in
PM peak.
• Eastbound approach operates at LOS E in AM peak and LOS F (delay of 107.6 sec) in
PM peak.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 70
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Westbound approach operates at LOS F (delay of 114.4 sec) and Northbound
approach operates at LOS F (delay of 101.4 sec) in PM Peak.
• While some approaches operate at LOS E or F in the PM peak hour only, the delay
and queuing are significantly improved with the above improvements and
conditions are improved to be better than Future without Development (non-
degradation).
▪ Fairfax Pike and Lake Frederick Entrance/Site Entrance #1 (Intersection #6)
• Northbound approach operates at LOS F during both AM (delay of 537.5 sec) and PM peak
(delay of 1675.9 sec).
• Southbound approach operates at LOS F during both AM (delay of 150.5 sec) and PM peak
(delay of 1551.2 sec).
• With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection operates at
acceptable levels of service. Installation of a new traffic signal is subject to VDOT review
and approval through a future Signal Justification Report (“SJR”). A prelim inary signal
warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis were performed as part of this study to screen
potential intersection control configurations. A conventional traffic signal, thru -cut signal,
roundabout, and two-way stop control were considered as possible intersection
configurations. The ultimate configuration will be determined through the future SJR. It is
noted that a roundabout is anticipated to require significant offsite right-of-way and was
therefore not recommended for further consideration.
▪ Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #3 (Intersection #8)
• Southbound approach of the site access operates at LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F
(delay of 130.5 sec) in the PM peak. The failing level of service is due to high through
volumes on Fairfax Pike and not a result of high volumes from the entrance (17 peak h our
left turn trips). The queuing for the southbound approach is 40 feet, indicating only 2 stacked
vehicles. Hence, no mitigations are recommended.
▪ Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 (Intersection #9)
• Eastbound approach and westbound approach operates at LOS E in the PM peak
• With a conventional traffic signal added at this location, the intersection would operate at
acceptable levels of service with acceptable queuing along Route 522. Installation of a new
traffic signal is subject to VDOT review and approval through a future Signal Justification
Report (“SJR”). A preliminary signal warrant evaluation and VJuST analysis were performed
as part of this study to screen potential intersection control configurations. A conventional
traffic signal, unsignalized continuous green-T, unsignalized restricted crossing U-turn
(RCUT), and two-way stop control were considered as possible intersection configurations.
The ultimate configuration will be determined through the future SJR. It is noted that an
RCUT would result in additional U-turn traffic downstream along Route 522 including truck
traffic from the proposed industrial use. It is also noted that a continuous green-T would not
meet spacing and acceleration distance requirements and was therefore not recommended
for further consideration.
o The other site entrances operate at acceptable levels of service.
Traffic Impact Study – Gibson Property
July 30, 2026
Page 71
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
• Future with Development (Planning Year 2041):
o The planning year/plus 6 year analysis reveals similar results to the Future with Development 2035 analysis,
and the intersections with failing level of service continuing to have approaches that fail. All of the intersections
operating acceptably under 2035 continue to operate acceptably under 2041. Hence, no additional mitigations
are recommended for 2041.
• *I-81 and Exit 307 (Fairfax Pike) Ramps
o As scoped with County and VDOT staff, a supplemental memo was provided separately, dated May 8, 2026,
providing an evaluation of the projected traffic volumes at the I-81/Fairfax Pike ramp intersections and the
projected volume from this proposed site. As discussed with VDOT staff, this evaluation is separate from the
Traffic Impact Study and provided for informational purposes.
• Conclusions
o This traffic impact study provides an evaluation of existing, future without development and future with
development conditions at five regional intersections as well as the five site entrances. Two of the regional
intersections have level of service or queuing deficiencies due to existing or background related traffic
volumes. To mitigate site-related impacts, the following improvements are recommended: at Intersection 1,
convert the eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing from protected-only to flashing yellow arrow operation;
and at Intersection 3, add an exclusive eastbound left -turn lane and a second northbound left-turn lane.
Proposed improvements at the site entrances include turn lanes where warranted and a traffic signal or other
innovative intersection control, subject to future SJR, at the southern entrance on Route 522 and western
entrance on Fairfax Pike.
Transportation Technical Appendix
Gibson Property
Frederick County, Virginia
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A – Scoping Guidance
Appendix B – Turning Movement Counts Data
Appendix C – Crash Data
Appendix D – Level of Service Definitions
Appendix E – 2026 Existing Conditions – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix F – Background Information
Appendix G – 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix H – 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix I – 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix J – VJuST
Appendix K – Turn Lane Warrant Tables and Graphics
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
A. Scoping Guidance
05/06/2026John A. Bishop
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
B. Turning Movement Counts Data
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Warrior Dr -- Fairfax Pike QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17563801
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Stephens City, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 16 2026
443 250
122 267 54
450 116 116 513
328 0.790.79 301
773 329 96 399
27 18 17
692 62
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
4.7 8
8.2 3.7 1.9
13.8 4.3 2.6 8.8
10.1 11.6
7.9 7 7.3 11.5
63 66.7 70.6
5.8 66.1
0
0 4
1
0 0 3
0 0
0 0
0 2
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
Warrior DrWarrior Dr
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Warrior DrWarrior Dr
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
6:00 AM 0 1 1 0 16 2 17 0 11 48 1 0 0 18 7 0 122
6:15 AM 0 1 0 0 12 4 17 0 9 64 4 0 0 28 3 0 142
6:30 AM 1 1 0 0 14 8 16 0 14 63 5 0 0 32 6 0 160
6:45 AM 3 4 0 0 23 25 26 0 23 60 16 0 4 25 6 0 215 639
7:00 AM 12 6 2 0 15 30 27 0 20 76 46 0 10 43 10 0 297 814
7:15 AM 11 6 10 0 14 77 34 0 22 62 102 0 21 49 34 0 442 1114
7:30 AM 2 4 3 0 11 108 31 0 18 101 121 0 46 88 32 0 565 1519
7:45 AM 2 2 2 0 14 52 30 0 56 89 60 0 19 121 40 0 487 1791
8:00 AM 9 1 0 0 14 5 43 0 31 61 13 0 0 59 10 0 246 1740
8:15 AM 4 1 3 0 16 3 32 0 25 71 11 0 0 50 6 0 222 1520
8:30 AM 3 1 1 0 19 3 32 0 32 77 6 0 0 47 12 0 233 1188
8:45 AM 2 2 0 0 13 2 51 0 42 58 4 0 0 63 8 0 245 946
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 8 16 12 0 44 432 124 0 72 404 484 0 184 352 128 0 2260
Heavy Trucks 8 12 8 4 8 8 8 32 8 4 32 4 136
Buses
Pedestrians 4 0 0 8 12
Bicycles 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 4/20/2026 11:07 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 2
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: White Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow Rd -- Fairfax Pike QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547901
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
170 222
124 6 40
346 184 28 208
259 0.760.76 178
461 18 2 328
44 10 29
26 83
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
11.2 9
12.9 16.7 5
11.8 8.7 10.7 12
10 12.4
9.3 5.6 0 9.1
6.8 10 6.9
7.7 7.2
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
White Oak Rd/Hudson HollowWhite Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow
Rd Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
White Oak Rd/Hudson HollowWhite Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow
Rd Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotals
LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU
6:00 AM 1 2 10 0 3 3 0 0 5 61 1 0 0 6 1 0 93
6:15 AM 8 4 2 0 5 1 3 0 6 63 1 0 0 19 2 0 114
6:30 AM 7 3 13 0 3 1 2 0 4 67 1 0 1 28 1 0 131
6:45 AM 7 4 7 0 7 0 2 0 14 60 3 0 1 29 0 0 134 472
7:00 AM 5 4 4 0 3 1 9 0 22 62 0 0 0 35 1 0 146 525
7:15 AM 11 1 13 0 9 0 10 0 43 70 0 0 0 46 6 0 209 620
7:30 AM 15 1 7 0 17 3 63 0 75 59 9 0 1 41 13 0 304 793
7:45 AM 13 4 5 0 11 2 42 0 44 68 9 0 1 56 8 0 263 922
8:00 AM 6 2 2 0 1 4 11 0 11 64 3 0 1 39 0 0 144 920
8:15 AM 14 4 8 0 4 2 7 0 12 50 4 0 0 38 3 0 146 857
8:30 AM 6 4 6 0 4 3 9 0 10 53 4 0 1 49 6 0 155 708
8:45 AM 11 3 4 0 3 3 6 0 13 57 7 0 1 45 2 0 155 600
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 60 4 28 0 68 12 252 0 300 236 36 0 4 164 52 0 1216
Heavy Trucks 0 0 4 0 4 24 32 36 4 0 16 8 128
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 4/20/2026 11:03 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt 522 -- Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547903
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Clarke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
404 463
9 316 79
180 32 40 204
209 0.910.91 64
339 98 100 475
107 391 187
514 685
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
16.1 9.3
33.3 18.7 3.8
12.2 9.4 2.5 11.3
3.8 9.4
8 16.3 16 7.4
12.1 10 12.8
17.7 11.1
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
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax HwyFairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax HwyFairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
6:00 AM 7 53 29 0 22 59 2 0 1 44 22 0 10 2 5 0 256
6:15 AM 7 49 26 0 19 77 1 0 3 52 30 0 11 9 1 0 285
6:30 AM 15 54 39 0 14 91 1 0 6 67 30 0 18 13 6 0 354
6:45 AM 13 76 27 0 19 80 1 0 3 56 22 0 21 18 8 0 344 1239
7:00 AM 24 88 56 0 18 89 3 0 10 53 15 0 11 9 7 0 383 1366
7:15 AM 21 82 42 0 22 76 1 0 7 57 23 0 24 21 7 0 383 1464
7:30 AM 27 122 49 0 19 73 3 0 12 55 30 0 33 16 9 0 448 1558
7:45 AM 35 99 40 0 20 78 2 0 3 44 30 0 32 18 17 0 418 1632
8:00 AM 11 77 48 0 15 86 1 0 5 39 31 0 30 20 14 0 377 1626
8:15 AM 22 84 30 0 24 84 3 0 6 38 34 0 41 24 7 0 397 1640
8:30 AM 23 107 34 0 18 72 0 0 7 43 22 0 30 21 10 0 387 1579
8:45 AM 27 97 39 0 14 77 2 1 4 27 32 0 23 19 11 0 373 1534
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 108 488 196 0 76 292 12 0 48 220 120 0 132 64 36 0 1792
Heavy Trucks 16 40 20 4 44 4 4 20 16 20 4 4 196
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 4/20/2026 11:03 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 2 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt 522 -- Lord Frederick Dr QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547907
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Clarke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
498 667
56 440 2
84 144 0 0
0 0.860.86 0
212 68 0 0
28 521 0
508 549
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
18.7 13.6
12.5 19.5 0
15.5 1.4 0 0
0 0
4.2 10.3 0 0
21.4 17.1 0
18.3 17.3
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
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Lord Frederick DrLord Frederick Dr
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Lord Frederick DrLord Frederick Dr
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
6:00 AM 2 79 0 0 0 74 3 1 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 176
6:15 AM 1 78 0 0 0 120 2 0 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 234
6:30 AM 5 90 0 0 0 117 6 0 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 249
6:45 AM 9 117 0 0 0 116 13 0 15 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 291 950
7:00 AM 4 124 0 0 0 91 17 1 22 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 273 1047
7:15 AM 6 124 0 0 0 113 9 0 32 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 303 1116
7:30 AM 7 158 0 0 0 121 9 0 49 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 365 1232
7:45 AM 11 115 0 0 0 115 21 1 41 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 318 1259
8:00 AM 11 117 0 1 0 112 32 0 23 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 309 1295
8:15 AM 20 111 0 0 0 125 30 0 29 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 332 1324
8:30 AM 18 99 0 0 0 106 20 0 60 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 315 1274
8:45 AM 12 104 0 0 0 116 25 0 43 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 325 1281
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 28 632 0 0 0 484 36 0 196 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 1460
Heavy Trucks 4 108 0 0 64 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 184
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 4/20/2026 11:03 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 3 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt. 522 -- Tasker Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17563803
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Stephens City, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 16 2026
342 371
42 300 0
159 21 0 0
0 0.970.97 0
181 160 0 0
117 350 0
460 467
Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
21.6 12.9
0 24.7 0
5 14.3 0 0
0 0
5.5 4.4 0 0
6.8 12.9 0
17.6 11.3
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
Rt. 522Rt. 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt. 522Rt. 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Tasker RdTasker Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Tasker RdTasker Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
6:00 AM 17 40 0 0 0 58 7 0 2 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 164
6:15 AM 14 53 0 0 0 84 5 0 2 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 192
6:30 AM 16 64 0 0 0 67 12 0 2 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 203
6:45 AM 20 68 0 0 0 72 10 0 3 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 202 761
7:00 AM 28 77 0 0 0 78 11 0 4 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 245 842
7:15 AM 24 87 0 0 0 84 13 0 4 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 250 900
7:30 AM 34 96 0 0 0 60 9 0 4 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 240 937
7:45 AM 31 90 0 0 0 78 9 0 9 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 255 990
8:00 AM 34 73 0 0 0 59 7 0 6 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 210 955
8:15 AM 32 58 0 0 0 61 5 0 8 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 190 895
8:30 AM 34 109 0 0 0 63 11 0 3 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 258 913
8:45 AM 22 99 0 0 0 68 9 0 5 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 233 891
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 124 360 0 0 0 312 36 0 36 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 1020
Heavy Trucks 8 56 0 0 72 0 4 0 16 0 0 0 156
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 4/20/2026 11:07 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 2 of 2
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Warrior Dr -- Fairfax Pike QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17563802
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Stephens City, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 16 2026
399 397
273 38 88
760 211 117 557
398 0.880.88 426
650 41 14 499
61 69 13
93 143
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
0.5 1.3
0.7 0 0
2.5 1.9 0 3.4
3.5 4
2.8 0 14.3 2.8
0 1.4 0
2.2 0.7
0
0 3
0
0 0 0
0 1
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
Warrior DrWarrior Dr
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Warrior DrWarrior Dr
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 9 9 3 0 13 9 77 0 44 98 3 0 9 102 24 0 400
4:15 PM 13 19 3 0 16 9 60 0 57 108 8 0 2 102 22 0 419
4:30 PM 16 16 1 0 14 9 67 0 36 93 13 0 6 123 25 0 419
4:45 PM 12 10 3 0 26 10 61 0 53 100 12 0 4 94 30 0 415 1653
5:00 PM 20 24 6 0 32 10 85 0 65 97 8 0 2 107 40 0 496 1749
5:15 PM 8 4 2 0 26 7 77 0 44 91 9 0 4 99 27 0 398 1728
5:30 PM 2 2 2 0 25 10 58 0 52 101 20 0 0 66 31 0 369 1678
5:45 PM 1 1 0 0 24 12 60 0 55 96 28 0 3 96 27 0 403 1666
6:00 PM 8 10 2 0 29 12 53 0 53 70 12 0 6 81 38 0 374 1544
6:15 PM 11 8 2 0 32 1 68 0 55 74 1 0 2 85 32 0 371 1517
6:30 PM 1 1 0 0 20 4 57 0 41 69 0 0 2 86 25 0 306 1454
6:45 PM 4 1 1 0 18 2 55 0 38 55 1 0 0 86 31 0 292 1343
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 80 96 24 0 128 40 340 0 260 388 32 0 8 428 160 0 1984
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 20
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 4/20/2026 11:14 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 2
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: White Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow Rd -- Fairfax Pike QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547902
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
182 169
132 28 22
576 114 34 458
204 0.980.98 401
359 41 23 236
43 21 10
92 74
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
0.5 2.4
0 3.6 0
3.3 1.8 0 4.1
8.3 4.5
5.6 2.4 4.3 7.2
2.3 9.5 0
3.3 4.1
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
White Oak Rd/Hudson HollowWhite Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow
Rd Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
White Oak Rd/Hudson HollowWhite Oak Rd/Hudson Hollow
Rd Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax PikeFairfax Pike
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotals
LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU
4:00 PM 10 7 0 0 6 8 23 0 24 53 12 0 7 106 15 0 271
4:15 PM 16 8 6 0 7 11 23 0 31 49 11 0 3 97 12 0 274
4:30 PM 8 4 1 0 5 6 51 0 27 61 6 0 6 83 12 0 270
4:45 PM 7 4 2 0 7 5 21 0 35 48 7 0 5 118 6 0 265 1080
5:00 PM 12 5 1 0 3 6 37 0 21 46 17 0 9 103 4 0 264 1073
5:15 PM 10 4 2 0 5 6 20 0 22 50 9 0 8 102 7 0 245 1044
5:30 PM 6 8 2 0 5 13 20 0 13 55 11 0 6 116 3 0 258 1032
5:45 PM 9 6 2 0 4 10 23 0 20 43 12 0 2 88 6 0 225 992
6:00 PM 8 3 3 0 2 6 15 0 24 46 11 0 6 86 5 0 215 943
6:15 PM 10 2 0 0 3 7 17 0 22 43 5 0 6 76 8 0 199 897
6:30 PM 8 2 2 0 3 7 23 0 21 46 6 0 2 63 6 0 189 828
6:45 PM 5 1 1 0 3 6 21 0 15 42 12 0 2 61 3 0 172 775
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 64 32 24 0 28 44 92 0 124 196 44 0 12 388 48 0 1096
Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 28 4 4 24 0 68
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 4/20/2026 11:05 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt 522 -- Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547904
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Clarke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
588 667
12 510 66
441 45 72 522
90 0.900.90 248
266 131 202 317
181 550 161
843 892
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM -- 4:45 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:30 PM -- 4:45 PM
5.8 7.5
0 6.1 4.5
5 6.7 6.9 6.5
5.6 4.8
6.4 6.9 8.4 6
5.5 7.6 6.8
6.8 7.1
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
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax HwyFairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax HwyFairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Hwy
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 40 118 38 2 13 118 3 0 12 20 33 0 61 62 17 0 537
4:15 PM 45 168 46 0 16 126 0 0 15 16 25 0 53 63 16 0 589
4:30 PM 44 164 46 0 18 130 6 0 13 30 41 0 58 59 18 0 627
4:45 PM 43 115 36 0 15 116 3 0 12 23 32 0 48 61 15 0 519 2272
5:00 PM 49 103 33 0 17 138 3 0 5 21 33 0 43 65 23 0 533 2268
5:15 PM 36 112 42 0 13 121 2 0 10 16 35 0 44 71 25 0 527 2206
5:30 PM 47 117 32 0 14 115 3 1 11 19 28 0 31 75 19 0 512 2091
5:45 PM 27 111 39 0 17 108 1 0 8 26 32 0 53 65 17 0 504 2076
6:00 PM 33 117 33 0 16 73 2 0 11 20 19 0 43 57 12 0 436 1979
6:15 PM 32 83 15 0 9 76 5 0 4 21 21 0 34 47 20 0 367 1819
6:30 PM 25 76 19 0 4 65 0 0 9 13 17 0 27 42 18 0 315 1622
6:45 PM 23 66 17 0 8 80 4 0 8 27 17 0 32 41 13 0 336 1454
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 176 656 184 0 72 520 24 0 52 120 164 0 232 236 72 0 2508
Heavy Trucks 8 48 0 0 48 0 0 8 16 24 12 4 168
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 4/20/2026 11:05 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 2 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt 522 -- Lord Frederick Dr QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17547908
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Clarke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 9 2026
819 857
189 630 0
281 167 0 0
0 0.900.90 0
243 76 0 0
93 690 0
707 783
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
6.8 6.3
0.5 8.7 0
2.1 1.2 0 0
0 0
4.5 11.8 0 0
5.4 7.5 0
9.1 7.3
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
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt 522 Rt 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Lord Frederick DrLord Frederick Dr
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Lord Frederick DrLord Frederick Dr
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 22 161 0 1 0 168 46 0 43 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 457
4:15 PM 33 203 0 1 0 160 43 0 54 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 514
4:30 PM 20 189 0 0 0 180 38 0 57 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 509
4:45 PM 21 152 0 0 0 138 57 0 36 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 418 1898
5:00 PM 18 146 0 0 0 152 51 0 20 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 404 1845
5:15 PM 26 174 0 0 0 145 51 0 28 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 442 1773
5:30 PM 22 157 0 0 0 134 40 1 22 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 387 1651
5:45 PM 34 152 0 0 0 142 46 0 20 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 408 1641
6:00 PM 28 157 0 0 0 99 41 0 22 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 366 1603
6:15 PM 18 112 0 0 0 96 40 0 17 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 297 1458
6:30 PM 12 101 0 0 0 82 27 1 23 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 261 1332
6:45 PM 14 85 0 0 0 96 26 0 18 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 245 1169
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 132 812 0 4 0 640 172 0 216 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 2056
Heavy Trucks 8 60 0 0 60 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 140
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 4/20/2026 11:05 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 3 of 3
Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Rt. 522 -- Tasker Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 17563804
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Stephens City, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Apr 16 2026
531 505
31 500 0
209 42 0 0
0 0.960.96 0
187 145 0 0
178 463 0
645 641
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
6.8 10.5
0 7.2 0
3.8 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
4.5 11.4 0
5.6 9.5
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
Rt. 522Rt. 522
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Rt. 522Rt. 522
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Tasker RdTasker Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Tasker RdTasker Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 48 107 0 0 0 152 7 0 10 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 363
4:15 PM 44 126 0 0 0 113 8 0 14 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 345
4:30 PM 51 120 0 0 0 123 10 0 8 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 344
4:45 PM 46 103 0 0 0 111 7 0 13 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 315 1367
5:00 PM 37 114 0 0 0 153 6 0 7 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 355 1359
5:15 PM 48 132 0 0 0 112 7 0 2 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 330 1344
5:30 PM 35 101 0 0 0 95 6 0 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 276 1276
5:45 PM 50 112 0 0 0 72 1 0 9 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 260 1221
6:00 PM 33 91 0 0 0 89 10 0 5 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 253 1119
6:15 PM 42 83 0 0 0 78 4 0 8 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 240 1029
6:30 PM 31 90 0 0 0 66 6 0 4 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 220 973
6:45 PM 29 59 0 0 0 95 3 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 204 917
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 148 456 0 0 0 612 24 0 28 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 1420
Heavy Trucks 16 48 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
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 4/20/2026 11:14 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 2 of 2
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
C. Crash Data
Document
Number Date Crash Severity Collsion Type Pedestrain
Injury Persons Injured Fatalities Work Zone
Related
Adverse
Weather
Conditions
Distracted
Driver
221825080 6/29/2022 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
222145169 8/2/2022 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
223475140 12/13/2022 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
222845560 10/9/2022 B 3. Head On 0 2 0 no no
231955279 7/14/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
233415045 12/5/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
231325168 5/12/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
230365120 1/27/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
233395100 12/1/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
233405205 12/6/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
230695135 3/10/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
231455194 5/23/2023 O 4. Sideswipe -
Same Direction 0 0 0 no no
233315291 11/26/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
240545361 2/22/2024 A 3. Head On 0 2 0 no no
241545251 5/30/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
240985124 4/7/2024 O 9. Fixed Object -
Off Road 0 0 0 no no
242855190 10/11/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
250285256 1/27/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
250855169 3/25/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
Crash Data in Study Intersection 1
(January 2021 to December 2025)
Document
Number Date Crash Severity Collsion Type Pedestrain
Injury Persons Injured Fatalities Work Zone
Related
Adverse
Weather
Conditions
Distracted
Driver
223215223 11/16/2022 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
222475116 9/4/2022 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
223225052 11/14/2022 O 3. Head On 0 0 0 no no
232335200 8/21/2023 B 1. Rear End 0 2 0 no no
233125428 11/6/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
232485093 9/5/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
231845225 7/2/2023 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
232935291 10/20/2023 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
233115282 11/6/2023 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
233045284 10/28/2023 B 2. Angle 0 1 0 no no
232365149 8/24/2023 B 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
240775228 3/17/2024 B 3. Head On 0 3 0 no no
242835358 10/8/2024 B 2. Angle 0 1 0 no no
241515407 5/30/2024 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
250860012 3/26/2025 O 3. Head On 0 0 0 no no
253070286 11/3/2025 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
Crash Data in Study Intersection 2
(January 2021 to December 2025)
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Document
Number Date Crash Severity Collsion Type Pedestrain
Injury Persons Injured Fatalities Work Zone
Related
Adverse
Weather
Conditions
Distracted
Driver
212235307 8/11/2021 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
210355031 2/2/2021 B 2. Angle 0 1 0 no no
212075395 7/25/2021 B 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
211345201 5/12/2021 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
233355285 12/1/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
233215300 11/14/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
231765352 6/25/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
232715131 9/26/2023 O 9. Fixed Object -
Off Road 0 0 0 yes no
232885079 10/14/2023 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 yes no
232265413 8/14/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
231925274 7/9/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
240785254 3/18/2024 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
242985375 10/23/2024 B 2. Angle 0 2 0 no no
240635093 3/2/2024 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
240615069 2/28/2024 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 yes no
242575270 8/27/2024 B 2. Angle 0 2 0 no no
243065425 10/31/2024 B 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
250785000 3/17/2025 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
251470178 5/27/2025 B 2. Angle 0 1 0 yes no
251660159 6/15/2025 A 3. Head On 0 2 0 yes no
252650082 9/20/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
Crash Data in Study Intersection 3
(January 2021 to December 2025)
Document
Number Date Crash Severity Collsion Type Pedestrain
Injury Persons Injured Fatalities Work Zone
Related
Adverse
Weather
Conditions
Distracted
Driver
210415208 2/8/2021 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
211025207 4/9/2021 B 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
220565169 2/24/2022 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
222725236 9/29/2022 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
223195357 11/15/2022 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
222035303 7/21/2022 A 10. Deer 0 1 0 no no
232505117 9/6/2023 B 2. Angle 0 2 0 no no
231855238 7/3/2023 B 2. Angle 0 1 0 yes no
232845209 10/11/2023 O 2. Angle 0 0 0 no no
231315138 5/1/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
242495578 9/5/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
242145186 7/30/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 yes no
241765241 6/24/2024 O 15. Backed Into 0 0 0 no no
240405235 2/9/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
250325061 1/28/2025 B 1. Rear End 0 2 0 no no
250355183 2/4/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
251415080 4/9/2025 O 9. Fixed Object -
Off Road 0 0 0 no no
253115229 11/6/2025 C 10. Deer 0 1 0 no no
Crash Data in Study Intersection 4
(January 2021 to December 2025)
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Document
Number Date Crash Severity Collsion Type Pedestrain
Injury Persons Injured Fatalities Work Zone
Related
Adverse
Weather
Conditions
Distracted
Driver
212125117 7/31/2021 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
223085231 11/1/2022 B 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
230345053 2/2/2023 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
231535244 6/2/2023 O 10. Deer 0 0 0 no no
240875266 3/27/2024 C 1. Rear End 0 2 0 yes no
241485084 5/25/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
243015337 10/16/2024 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
251900129 7/9/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
252810102 10/6/2025 O 1. Rear End 0 0 0 no no
253210131 11/14/2025 C 1. Rear End 0 1 0 no no
Crash Data in Study Intersection 5
(January 2021 to December 2025)
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
D. Level of Service Definitions
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.
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
E. 2026 Existing Conditions – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike EX AM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 386 387 113 354 136 32 41 64 314 144
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.67 0.70 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.11 0.56 0.21
Control Delay 69.7 39.1 26.7 75.3 47.6 3.5 31.6 26.3 25.6 44.9 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 69.7 39.1 26.7 75.3 47.6 3.5 31.6 26.3 25.6 44.9 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 285 233 91 257 0 16 13 33 230 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 162 330 270 #189 321 29 39 43 64 335 36
Internal Link Dist (ft) 496 4165 244 340
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 280 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 212 919 663 169 812 908 209 215 605 562 692
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.42 0.58 0.67 0.44 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.11 0.56 0.21
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike EX AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 328 329 96 301 116 27 18 17 54 267 122
Future Volume (veh/h) 116 328 329 96 301 116 27 18 17 54 267 122
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1752 1796 1796 1722 1856 966 907 848 1870 1841 1781
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 386 322 113 354 60 32 21 0 64 314 49
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 10 7 7 12 3 63 67 71 2 4 8
Cap, veh/h 161 1035 955 134 969 942 89 76 0 226 176 275
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.59 0.59 0.08 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1538 920 907 0 1781 1841 1431
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 386 322 113 354 60 32 21 0 64 314 49
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1538 920 907 0 1781 1841 1431
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 15.0 13.0 8.5 14.7 2.1 4.1 2.8 0.0 4.2 12.4 3.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 15.0 13.0 8.5 14.7 2.1 4.1 2.8 0.0 4.2 12.4 3.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 161 1035 955 134 969 942 89 76 0 226 176 275
V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.37 0.34 0.84 0.37 0.06 0.36 0.28 0.00 0.28 1.79 0.18
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 1035 955 134 969 942 143 87 0 310 176 275
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.1 14.0 11.4 59.1 15.6 10.2 52.5 55.9 0.0 50.8 58.8 44.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.7 1.0 1.0 35.2 1.0 0.1 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.7 376.7 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 5.8 4.7 4.9 5.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.0 1.9 24.2 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.8 15.0 12.4 94.3 16.7 10.3 54.9 57.8 0.0 51.5 435.5 44.8
LnGrp LOS E B B F B B D E A D F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 844 527 53 427
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 32.6 56.1 333.1
Approach LOS C C E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.6 79.0 12.9 17.5 17.0 82.6 11.4 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 62 12.4 12.4 * 10 69.2 12.4 12.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.9 16.7 6.2 4.8 10.5 17.0 6.1 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 98.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike EX AM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 521 21 211 33 98 200
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.33 0.49
Control Delay 15.9 2.2 6.9 2.4 17.7 12.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.9 2.2 6.9 2.4 17.7 12.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 0 28 0 16 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 202 6 60 8 55 63
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 155
Base Capacity (vph) 1056 1210 1334 1156 653 756
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.15 0.26
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike EX AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 184 259 18 2 178 28 44 10 29 40 6 124
Future Volume (veh/h) 184 259 18 2 178 28 44 10 29 40 6 124
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1752 1811 1870 1722 1737 1796 1752 1796 1826 1648 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 216 305 9 2 209 15 52 12 2 47 7 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 10 6 2 12 11 7 10 7 5 17 13
Cap, veh/h 402 469 801 100 897 768 309 55 6 278 43 31
Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 504 899 1535 3 1718 1472 1009 414 44 820 321 232
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 521 0 9 211 0 15 66 0 0 65 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1404 0 1535 1720 0 1472 1468 0 0 1373 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.41 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.79 0.03 0.72 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 871 0 801 997 0 768 370 0 0 351 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1657 0 1666 1960 0 1598 1120 0 0 1057 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.6 0.0 4.2 4.8 0.0 4.3 14.4 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.0 0.0 4.2 5.0 0.0 4.3 14.6 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 530 226 66 65
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 5.0 14.6 14.7
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 9.8 27.0 9.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.8 4.9 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 25.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 3.3 4.5 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.9 0.2 2.4 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway EX AM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 108 110 114 118 430 205 87 347 10
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.25 0.54 0.47 0.55 0.51 0.38 0.53 0.61 0.02
Control Delay 53.6 1.4 50.3 37.7 50.7 35.4 5.0 55.6 41.2 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.6 1.4 50.3 37.7 50.7 35.4 5.0 55.6 41.2 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 0 64 51 68 127 0 51 105 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #300 0 124 109 138 190 41 110 161 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 3900 694 8434 5712
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 387 459 417 468 242 941 577 186 716 466
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.47 0.48 0.02
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway EX AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 209 98 100 64 40 107 391 187 79 316 9
Future Volume (veh/h) 32 209 98 100 64 40 107 391 187 79 316 9
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1663 1663 1767 1856 1722 1752 1707 1841 1618 1411
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 230 11 110 70 20 118 430 36 87 347 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 4 16 16 9 3 12 10 13 4 19 33
Cap, veh/h 42 279 248 163 136 39 151 698 304 112 602
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.20 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 242 1587 1409 1584 1321 377 1640 3328 1447 1753 3075 1196
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 265 0 11 110 0 90 118 430 36 87 347 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 1409 1584 0 1699 1640 1664 1447 1753 1537 1196
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.7 0.0 0.5 5.1 0.0 3.8 5.4 9.0 1.5 3.7 7.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.7 0.0 0.5 5.1 0.0 3.8 5.4 9.0 1.5 3.7 7.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 321 0 248 163 0 175 151 698 304 112 602
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.51 0.78 0.62 0.12 0.78 0.58
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 477 0 368 517 0 554 300 1082 470 229 883
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.4 0.0 26.2 33.1 0.0 32.5 34.0 27.5 24.5 35.3 27.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 0.0 0.1 4.8 0.0 2.3 16.8 1.3 0.2 11.0 1.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 1.6 2.6 3.3 0.5 1.8 2.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 0.0 26.3 37.9 0.0 34.9 50.8 28.7 24.8 46.3 29.2 0.0
LnGrp LOS D A C D A C D C C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 276 200 584 434
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.3 36.5 32.9 32.6
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 21.7 16.2 14.3 22.8 23.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 9.8 7.1 5.7 11.0 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.0 0.7 0.1 2.9 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive EX AM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 167 79 33 606 2 512 65
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.14 0.08 0.41 0.00 0.51 0.13
Control Delay 33.0 4.6 9.8 13.8 8.5 22.4 6.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 33.0 4.6 9.8 13.8 8.5 22.4 6.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 6 71 0 95 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 131 23 19 174 3 153 24
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 275 295
Base Capacity (vph) 671 643 690 2105 727 1824 892
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.12 0.05 0.29 0.00 0.28 0.07
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive EX AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 144 68 28 521 2 440 56
Future Volume (veh/h) 144 68 28 521 2 440 56
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1752 1589 1648 1604 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 167 16 33 606 512 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 10 21 17 20 13
Cap, veh/h 230 245 298 1055 894 424
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.34 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1485 1513 3214 3127 1447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 167 16 33 606 512 12
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1485 1513 1566 1523 1447
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 0.0 0.0 8.7 7.8 0.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 0.0 0.0 8.7 7.8 0.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 230 245 298 1055 894 424
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.07 0.11 0.57 0.57 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 812 730 795 2569 2222 1055
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 19.3 19.0 14.9 16.5 13.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.3 2.4 2.2 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 19.5 19.2 16.0 17.7 13.9
LnGrp LOS C B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 183 639 524
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 16.2 17.6
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 15.8 12.5 26.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.7 6.9 2.0 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 0.6 0.1 6.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX AM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 165 121 361 309 43
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.41 0.05
Control Delay 23.0 6.8 22.5 6.3 19.7 3.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.0 6.8 22.5 6.3 19.7 3.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 18 26 44 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 25 39 43 80 12
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 625 1179 1292 2815 2277 1231
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.03
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 160 117 350 0 300 42
Future Volume (vph) 21 160 117 350 0 300 42
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 165 121 361 0 309 43
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 143 0 0 0 0 26
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 22 121 361 0 309 17
Heavy Vehicles (%) 14% 4% 7% 13% 2% 25% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 7.3 6.0 29.9 13.4 20.7
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 7.3 6.0 29.9 13.4 20.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.56 0.25 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 370 365 1775 719 609
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 0.04 c0.11 c0.11 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.06 0.33 0.20 0.43 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 20.4 20.3 22.0 6.0 17.0 10.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 20.6 20.3 22.6 6.1 17.5 10.3
Level of Service C C C A B B
Approach Delay (s) 20.4 10.2 16.6
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.8 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike EX PM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 452 47 16 484 133 69 93 100 43 310
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.40 0.04 0.15 0.61 0.15 0.26 0.57 0.41 0.25 0.48
Control Delay 62.3 16.3 2.3 51.5 30.3 0.8 35.5 58.0 41.1 49.6 6.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.3 16.3 2.3 51.5 30.3 0.8 35.5 58.0 41.1 49.6 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 162 181 1 11 295 0 38 59 56 28 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) #288 375 17 33 370 7 75 #112 102 64 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 496 4165 244 340
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 280 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 298 1146 1289 132 838 897 277 174 252 186 648
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.39 0.04 0.12 0.58 0.15 0.25 0.53 0.40 0.23 0.48
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike EX PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 211 398 41 14 426 117 61 69 13 88 38 273
Future Volume (veh/h) 211 398 41 14 426 117 61 69 13 88 38 273
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1693 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 452 29 16 484 59 69 78 8 100 43 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 2 14 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 269 1127 1059 40 863 834 230 102 10 205 136 352
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.61 0.61 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 1664 171 1781 1870 1552
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 452 29 16 484 59 69 0 86 100 43 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 0 1835 1781 1870 1552
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.5 13.9 0.7 1.1 20.8 2.0 3.9 0.0 5.1 5.7 2.4 2.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.5 13.9 0.7 1.1 20.8 2.0 3.9 0.0 5.1 5.7 2.4 2.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 1127 1059 40 863 834 230 0 113 205 136 352
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.40 0.03 0.40 0.56 0.07 0.30 0.00 0.76 0.49 0.32 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 1127 1059 135 863 834 283 0 157 237 160 372
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.8 10.9 6.2 52.9 21.0 12.3 44.6 0.0 50.8 44.4 48.4 34.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.6 1.1 0.0 5.5 2.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 13.4 1.8 1.3 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.3 5.3 0.2 0.5 8.9 0.7 1.8 0.0 2.8 2.6 1.2 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.5 12.0 6.2 58.4 23.3 12.5 45.3 0.0 64.2 46.2 49.8 34.3
LnGrp LOS E B A E C B D A E D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 721 559 155 188
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 23.1 55.8 44.2
Approach LOS C C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.3 57.4 14.0 13.4 9.5 73.2 12.7 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 17 * 46 9.4 9.4 * 9.2 56.2 9.4 9.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.5 22.8 7.7 7.1 3.1 15.9 5.9 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike EX PM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 324 42 432 35 75 186
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.51 0.04 0.22 0.39
Control Delay 12.0 2.7 10.6 2.8 14.9 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.0 2.7 10.6 2.8 14.9 8.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 0 67 0 11 9
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 10 133 10 45 56
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 155
Base Capacity (vph) 1127 1406 1551 1405 815 959
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.09 0.19
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike EX PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 114 204 41 23 401 34 43 21 10 22 28 132
Future Volume (veh/h) 114 204 41 23 401 34 43 21 10 22 28 132
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1781 1870 1841 1826 1870 1870 1752 1870 1870 1841 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 208 20 23 409 17 44 21 2 22 29 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 2 4 5 2 2 10 2 2 4 2
Cap, veh/h 285 432 722 132 805 722 301 108 7 184 119 96
Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 300 948 1585 36 1767 1585 755 677 44 281 749 605
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 324 0 20 432 0 17 67 0 0 81 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1248 0 1585 1803 0 1585 1477 0 0 1634 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 0.2 5.6 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.36 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.66 0.03 0.27 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 717 0 722 937 0 722 416 0 0 399 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1727 0 1925 2278 0 1925 1248 0 0 1350 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 0.0 4.9 6.4 0.0 4.9 12.1 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.2 0.0 5.0 7.2 0.0 5.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 344 449 67 81
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 7.1 12.3 12.5
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.8 10.1 22.8 10.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.8 4.9 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 25.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 3.1 7.6 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.2 5.5 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway EX PM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 146 224 356 201 611 179 73 567 13
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.39 0.60 0.89 0.90 0.68 0.31 0.52 0.84 0.03
Control Delay 56.9 4.6 45.7 65.3 86.4 42.1 3.0 61.9 54.3 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.9 4.6 45.7 65.3 86.4 42.1 3.0 61.9 54.3 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 0 140 233 140 212 0 49 200 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 18 234 #426 #298 #314 23 102 #306 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 3900 694 8434 5712
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 330 449 393 418 224 903 579 161 705 513
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.33 0.57 0.85 0.90 0.68 0.31 0.45 0.80 0.03
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway EX PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 90 131 202 248 72 181 550 161 66 510 12
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 90 131 202 248 72 181 550 161 66 510 12
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1811 1796 1781 1826 1796 1811 1781 1796 1826 1811 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 100 5 224 276 70 201 611 33 73 567 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 6 7 8 5 7 6 8 7 5 6 2
Cap, veh/h 63 126 161 377 312 79 233 902 406 93 676
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.20 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 594 1188 1522 1697 1405 356 1725 3385 1522 1739 3441 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 0 5 224 0 346 201 611 33 73 567 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1522 1697 0 1762 1725 1692 1522 1739 1721 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 18.5 11.1 15.8 1.6 4.0 15.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 18.5 11.1 15.8 1.6 4.0 15.5 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 0 161 377 0 392 233 902 406 93 676
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.88 0.86 0.68 0.08 0.78 0.84
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 312 435 0 451 248 902 406 178 776
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 0.0 39.1 34.0 0.0 36.7 41.3 32.0 26.8 45.6 37.7 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 16.8 27.0 2.3 0.1 13.1 7.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 0.1 4.7 0.0 9.5 6.2 6.2 0.5 2.0 6.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.0 0.0 39.2 35.7 0.0 53.5 68.3 34.3 26.9 58.7 45.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS D A D D A D E C C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 155 570 845 640
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.7 46.5 42.1 47.0
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.5 25.9 30.0 14.6 32.7 20.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 17.5 20.5 6.0 17.8 10.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.7 1.1 0.0 2.7 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive EX PM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 84 103 767 700 210
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.14 0.28 0.40 0.61 0.31
Control Delay 39.2 6.4 12.4 10.4 24.2 4.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.2 6.4 12.4 10.4 24.2 4.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 3 21 100 144 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 175 33 50 165 234 44
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 295
Base Capacity (vph) 565 598 657 2065 1694 912
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.14 0.16 0.37 0.41 0.23
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive EX PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 167 76 93 690 0 630 189
Future Volume (veh/h) 167 76 93 690 0 630 189
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1722 1826 1781 1767 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 186 24 103 767 700 59
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 12 5 8 9 2
Cap, veh/h 247 297 338 1245 1144 540
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.37 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1459 1739 3474 3445 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 186 24 103 767 700 59
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1459 1739 1692 1678 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.3 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.3 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 247 297 338 1245 1144 540
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.08 0.30 0.62 0.61 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 683 655 759 2338 2061 973
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.0 21.0 22.6 16.8 17.9 14.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.4 1.3 3.9 3.7 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 21.2 23.2 17.9 19.0 14.9
LnGrp LOS C C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 210 870 759
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 18.5 18.7
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.5 17.7 14.7 32.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.1 8.5 2.0 13.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.9 0.7 0.3 8.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX PM Peak
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 151 185 482 521 32
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.31 0.37 0.25 0.60 0.04
Control Delay 27.2 7.4 25.7 6.2 22.5 3.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.2 7.4 25.7 6.2 22.5 3.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 0 29 36 83 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 25 62 61 138 11
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 604 1050 1138 2569 2303 1136
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.03
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX PM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 145 178 463 0 500 31
Future Volume (vph) 42 145 178 463 0 500 31
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 44 151 185 482 0 521 32
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 132 0 0 0 0 20
Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 19 185 482 0 521 12
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 11% 2% 7% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 7.6 8.9 34.8 15.4 23.0
Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 7.6 8.9 34.8 15.4 23.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.59 0.26 0.39
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 359 503 1918 880 617
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.01 0.06 c0.15 c0.15 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.05 0.37 0.25 0.59 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 22.5 22.5 5.8 19.1 11.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.0
Delay (s) 23.4 22.6 23.0 5.9 20.2 11.1
Level of Service C C C A C B
Approach Delay (s) 22.8 10.6 19.7
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road EX PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
F. Background Information
Enclave at Tasker Residential and Eastgate Commercial
Figure 1: Enclave at Tasker Residential and Eastgate Commercial Locations
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 1: Trip Generation of Enclave at Tasker Residential Development
Note: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition is used for site trip generation.
Figure 2: Enclave at Tasker Direction of Approach
Note: The distribution of traffic is based on engineering judgment. Due to the presence of multiple access points for the Enclave a t Tasker
development, not all trips generated by this development are expected to pass through the study intersection.
Weekday
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Single Family Detached 210 165 DU 31 85 116 95 58 153 1,597
Single Family Attached 215 154 DU 19 57 76 46 34 80 1,009
Subtotal 319 DU 50 142 192 141 92 233 2,606
Land Use ITE
Code Size Units
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 3: Enclave at Tasker Trips Assignment
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 2: Trip Generation of Eastgate Development
Note: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition is used for site trip generation. Pass-by rates for Shopping Plaza with Supermarket use were
based on ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 820. Since ITE does not provide pass-by rates for the AM or PM for LUC 820, both were assumed to be
25% percent, while 29% Is used for the Weekday.
Figure 4: Eastgate Direction of Approach
Note: The distribution of traffic is based on engineering judgment. Due to the presence of multiple access points for Eastgate development, not all trips generated
by this development are expected to pass through the study intersection.
Weekday
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Retail (>150 K)820 179 KSF 150 92 242 381 395 776 6,514
Pass-by Reductions -Retail (AM/PM/WKDY)-38 -23 -61 -95 -99 -194 -1,889
Site Trips with Reduction 179 KSF 113 69 182 286 296 582 4,625
Notes:
A pass-by trip reduction of 25% was used for the AM and PM peak hour and a reduction of 29% was used for the Weekday
Land Use ITE
Code Size Units
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 5: Eastgate Pass-by Trips Assignment
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 6: Eastgate Site Trips Assignment
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Sherando Green
Figure 7: Sherando Green Location
Table 3: Trips Generation of Sherando Green
Note: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition is used for site trip generation. Pass-by rates for Shopping Plaza with Supermarket use were
based on ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 821. Since ITE does not provide pass-by rates for the AM or PM for LUC 821, both were assumed to be
25% percent, while 29% Is used for the Weekday.
Weekday
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket (40 - 150 K)821 93.9 KSF 199 133 332 395 411 806 10,128
Pass-by Reductions -Retail (AM/PM/WKDY)-50 -33 -83 -99 -103 -202 -2,937
Site Trips with Reduction 93.9 KSF 149 100 249 296 308 605 7,191
Notes:
A pass-by trip reduction of 25% was used for the AM and PM peak hour and a reduction of 29% was used for the Weekday
Land Use ITE
Code Size Units
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 8: Sherando Green Direction of Approach
Note: As no traffic study was conducted for Sherando Green, the directional distribution assumptions were based on existing
travel patterns, surrounding land uses, and engineering judgment.
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 9: Sherando Green Pass-by Trips
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 10: Sherando Green Site Trips Assignment
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Fairfax Downs
Figure 11: Fairfax Downs Land Use Plan
Table 4: Trips Generation by Fairfax Downs
Note: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition is used for site trip generation. The number of units were referenced from the approved Master
Development Plan.
Weekday
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Single Family Urban Lots
Single Family Detached 210 93 DU 18 50 68 56 34 90 1,016
Subtotal 93 DU 18 50 68 56 34 90 1,016
Land Use ITE
Code Size Units
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 12: Fairfax Downs Direction of Approach
Note: As no traffic study was conducted for Sherando Green, the directional distribution assumptions were based on existing
travel patterns, surrounding land uses, and engineering judgment.
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 13: Fairfax Downs Site Trips Assignment
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Lake Frederick (remaining build out)
Figure 14: Lake Frederick Master Development Plan
Figure 15: Lake Frederick Lot Phasing Tabulations
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 5: Lake Frederick Site Trips Generation
Notes: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition is used for site trip generation. The vacant area shown on Google Satellite imagery corresponds
to Phases VIA, VIB, VIIA, and VIIB.
Figure 16: Lake Frederick Direction of Approach
Note: The direction of approach (DOA) was referenced from the memorandum titled “Lake Frederick Development – Fairfax
Pike Site Access Evaluation.” All trips traveling from the south to the northbound direction are assumed to use the existing
entrance on Route 522, while all other trips are assumed to use the proposed new driveway on Fairfax Pike.
Weekday
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Single Family Detached ( Age Restricted)251 199 DU 22 42 64 46 30 76 1,038
Single Family Attached 215 385 DU 53 159 212 121 91 212 2,529
Delta
Single Family Detached 210 78 DU 16 42 58 47 30 77 895
Subtotal 662 DU 91 243 334 214 151 365 4,462
Land Use ITE
Code Size Units
------ W e e k d a y ------
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 17: Lake Frederick Site Trips Assignment
Madison Farms 277
Traffic Impact Study
September 2024
Latest Revision June 2025
35
Site Generated Traffic Distributions and Assignments
Trip distributions for the proposed development are based on recent traffic counts, the
surrounding road network, local knowledge and engineering judgement and are consistent with
the approved scoping document. The following trip distributions were assumed for the proposed
development’s site trips.
Distribution
To/From the North on US Route 522: 30%
To/From the South on US Route 522 25%
To/From the East on US Route 340: 10%
To/From the West on Fairfax Pike (Route 277): 35%
Total: 100%
The peak hour vehicle trips shown in Table 5-1 were assigned to the public roadway network
according to the directional distribution described above. Pass-by site trips are shown on Figure
5-1 and the new site generated trips are shown on Figure 5-2.
Madison Farms 277
Traffic Impact Study
September 2024
Latest Revision June 2025
36
Table 5-1
Site Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Size Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
LUC In Out Total In Out Total
Development Program
Land Bay 1
Residential Uses:
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 120 DU 14 46 60 45 27 72 845
Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily 252 150 DU 10 19 29 21 17 38 458
Sub-total Land Bay 1 Residential (270 units): 24 65 89 66 44 110 1,303
Commercial Uses:
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 934 4,000 SF 91 87 178 69 63 132 1,870
Pass-By Reduction (50% Weekday AM Peak & 55% Weekday PM Peak) (46)(44)(89)(38)(35)(73)(935)
Subtotal: 46 44 89 31 29 59 935
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window 937 5,000 SF 219 210 429 97 97 195 2,668
Pass-By Reduction(2) (90% Weekday AM Peak & 98% Weekday PM Peak) (197)(189)(386)(96)(96)(191) (2,401)
Subtotal: 22 21 43 2 2 4 267
Strip Retail Plaza (<40K) 822 8,000 SF 11 8 19 33 33 66 567
Free-Standing Emergency Room 650 10,000 SF 6 6 11 7 8 15 249
Clinic 630 10,000 SF 22 5 28 11 26 37 393
Clinic (Family Medicine) 630 20,000 SF 45 10 55 22 52 74 752
Medical-Dental Office Building (Stand-Alone) (Outpatient Medical Facility) 720 20,000 SF 45 12 57 23 55 78 751
Medical-Dental Office Building (Stand-Alone) 720 20,000 SF 45 12 57 23 55 78 751
Sub-total Land Bay 1 Commercial (90,500 sf): 241 117 358 152 260 412 4,667
Total Land Bay 1 Residential and Commercial Subtotal: 265 182 447 218 304 522 5,970
Madison Farms 277
Traffic Impact Study
September 2024
Latest Revision June 2025
37
Table 5-1 (continued)
Site Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Size Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
LUC In Out Total In Out Total
Land Bay 2
Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily 252 360 DU 24 45 69 50 40 90 1,065
Land Bay 2 Residential Subtotal: 24 45 69 50 40 90 1,065
Land Bay 3
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 120 DU 22 66 88 74 44 118 1,193
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 150 DU 18 54 72 51 35 86 1,093
Land Bay 3 Residential Subtotal: 40 120 160 125 79 204 2,286
Land Bay 4
Open Space Only
Net New Trips 329 348 677 393 423 816 9,321
Notes:
Trip Generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Coffee Shop Pass-by reduction was based on ITE LUC 938, Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window and No Indoor Seating.
SITEFAIRFAXPIKELAKEFREDERICKDRIVEMARANTOMANORDRIVEWH
I
T
E
O
A
K
R
O
AD
HU
D
S
O
NHO
L
L
O
W
R
O A
SITEFAIRFAXPIKELAKEFREDERICKDRIVEMARANTOMANORDRIVEWH
I
T
E
O
A
K
R
O
AD
HU
D
S
O
NHO
L
L
O
W
R
O A
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
G. 2035 Future Conditions without Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future without Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 574 424 176 639 137 85 101 64 299 167
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.69 0.48 1.33 0.87 0.16 0.62 0.44 0.20 1.09 0.34
Control Delay 82.9 33.1 15.1 237.3 46.9 2.1 58.5 25.6 38.8 130.8 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 82.9 33.1 15.1 237.3 46.9 2.1 58.5 25.6 38.8 130.8 7.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 425 184 ~192 471 0 56 20 41 ~340 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #242 523 270 #343 608 25 #133 #96 83 #555 55
Internal Link Dist (ft) 496 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 204 919 888 132 812 868 146 228 360 275 496
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.62 0.48 1.33 0.79 0.16 0.58 0.44 0.18 1.09 0.34
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 146 528 390 162 588 126 78 25 68 59 275 154
Future Volume (veh/h) 146 528 390 162 588 126 78 25 68 59 275 154
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1752 1796 1796 1722 1856 966 907 848 1870 1841 1781
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 574 384 176 639 63 85 27 8 64 299 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 10 7 7 12 3 63 67 71 2 4 8
Cap, veh/h 184 937 955 134 851 836 141 93 28 270 176 295
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 670 198 1781 1841 1431
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 574 384 176 639 63 85 0 35 64 299 33
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 0 868 1781 1841 1431
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 29.5 16.3 10.2 38.8 2.5 10.6 0.0 4.7 4.1 12.4 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 29.5 16.3 10.2 38.8 2.5 10.6 0.0 4.7 4.1 12.4 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 937 955 134 851 836 141 0 121 270 176 295
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.61 0.40 1.31 0.75 0.08 0.60 0.00 0.29 0.24 1.70 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 937 955 134 851 836 143 0 121 354 176 295
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 20.9 12.1 59.9 26.4 14.2 46.9 0.0 50.2 49.4 58.8 42.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.7 3.0 1.3 167.9 3.6 0.1 6.8 0.0 1.3 0.4 339.5 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 12.1 5.9 10.6 15.8 0.9 2.7 0.0 1.1 1.9 22.4 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.9 23.9 13.3 227.8 30.1 14.3 53.8 0.0 51.5 49.9 398.3 42.7
LnGrp LOS F C B F C B D A D D F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1117 878 120 396
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 68.6 53.1 312.3
Approach LOS C E D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 70.0 12.9 24.7 17.0 75.4 18.6 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 62 12.4 12.4 * 10 69.2 12.4 12.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.6 40.8 6.1 6.7 12.2 31.5 12.6 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 88.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future without Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 229 536 22 2 548 34 94 219
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.54 0.02 0.00 0.74 0.05 0.41 0.55
Control Delay 9.4 11.5 0.1 4.0 20.9 0.4 23.8 14.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.4 11.5 0.1 4.0 20.9 0.4 23.8 14.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 90 0 0 147 0 20 17
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 275 0 2 287 2 69 86
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1170 1059 566 1143 1007 475 686
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.46 0.02 0.00 0.48 0.03 0.20 0.32
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 211 493 20 2 504 31 46 10 30 44 7 150
Future Volume (veh/h) 211 493 20 2 504 31 46 10 30 44 7 150
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1752 1811 1870 1722 1737 1796 1752 1796 1826 1648 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 229 536 11 2 548 14 50 11 6 48 8 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 10 6 2 12 11 7 10 7 5 17 13
Cap, veh/h 445 930 815 426 749 640 247 48 17 212 40 41
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 973 378 133 746 315 322
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 229 536 11 2 548 14 67 0 0 73 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 1484 0 0 1383 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 10.5 0.2 0.0 13.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 10.5 0.2 0.0 13.4 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.09 0.66 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 445 930 815 426 749 640 312 0 0 293 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.58 0.01 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445 1383 1212 597 1360 1162 815 0 0 771 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 8.0 5.6 6.6 11.9 8.2 20.1 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.9 9.2 5.6 6.6 14.8 8.2 20.4 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A B A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 776 564 67 73
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 14.6 20.4 20.7
Approach LOS A B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 34.7 11.3 9.5 29.8 11.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.5 3.8 5.7 15.4 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.7 0.2 0.0 6.7 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future without Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 570 238 118 185 239 459 212 97 365 182
v/c Ratio 1.65 0.54 0.50 0.68 1.07 0.64 0.43 0.61 0.66 0.44
Control Delay 334.0 13.7 47.3 50.4 124.5 41.3 6.2 63.6 45.3 5.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 334.0 13.7 47.3 50.4 124.5 41.3 6.2 63.6 45.3 5.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~541 18 71 104 ~174 143 0 61 116 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #837 100 130 182 #367 214 46 #139 178 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1857 694 8434 5712
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 346 439 385 431 223 808 529 171 660 448
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.65 0.54 0.31 0.43 1.07 0.57 0.40 0.57 0.55 0.41
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 237 287 219 109 120 51 220 422 195 89 336 167
Future Volume (veh/h) 237 287 219 109 120 51 220 422 195 89 336 167
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1663 1663 1767 1856 1722 1752 1707 1841 1618 1411
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 258 312 60 118 130 40 239 459 33 97 365 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 4 16 16 9 3 12 10 13 4 19 33
Cap, veh/h 173 209 299 204 167 51 243 751 326 123 489
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.16 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 815 985 1409 1584 1296 399 1640 3328 1447 1753 3075 1196
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 570 0 60 118 0 170 239 459 33 97 365 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 1409 1584 0 1695 1640 1664 1447 1753 1537 1196
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.0 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0 9.2 13.7 11.7 1.7 5.1 10.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.0 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0 9.2 13.7 11.7 1.7 5.1 10.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 382 0 299 204 0 218 243 751 326 123 489
V/C Ratio(X) 1.49 0.00 0.20 0.58 0.00 0.78 0.98 0.61 0.10 0.79 0.75
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 382 0 299 420 0 449 243 878 382 186 717
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 0.0 30.6 38.7 0.0 39.8 40.1 32.8 29.0 43.2 37.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 235.8 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 5.9 52.8 1.3 0.2 12.1 3.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 33.4 0.0 1.1 2.6 0.0 4.0 8.7 4.5 0.6 2.5 4.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 273.0 0.0 30.9 41.3 0.0 45.7 92.8 34.1 29.2 55.3 41.2 0.0
LnGrp LOS F A C D A D F C C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 630 288 731 462
Approach Delay, s/veh 249.9 43.9 53.1 44.2
Approach LOS F D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 21.7 20.5 16.0 28.0 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 12.7 11.2 7.1 13.7 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 108.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future without Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 100 40 723 2 628 61
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.18 0.11 0.46 0.00 0.57 0.11
Control Delay 35.6 4.9 9.6 14.2 8.0 22.5 5.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.6 4.9 9.6 14.2 8.0 22.5 5.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 7 89 0 123 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 31 23 234 3 205 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 275 295
Base Capacity (vph) 637 630 644 2008 673 1733 849
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.16 0.06 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.07
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 144 92 37 665 2 578 56
Future Volume (veh/h) 144 92 37 665 2 578 56
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1752 1589 1648 1604 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 157 24 40 723 628 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 10 21 17 20 13
Cap, veh/h 218 242 292 1185 1024 486
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.38 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1485 1513 3214 3127 1447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 24 40 723 628 16
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1485 1513 1566 1523 1447
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 10.2 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 10.2 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 218 242 292 1185 1024 486
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.10 0.14 0.61 0.61 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 751 686 741 2377 2056 976
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 21.1 19.9 14.9 16.5 13.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.4 0.4 3.1 2.9 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 21.3 20.2 16.0 17.7 13.3
LnGrp LOS C C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 181 763 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 16.2 17.6
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.9 15.9 12.9 30.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 7.0 2.0 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.4 0.6 0.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 203 165 567 474 79
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.48 0.51 0.23 0.29 0.07
Control Delay 55.7 10.4 55.5 3.4 13.6 1.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.7 10.4 55.5 3.4 13.6 1.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 0 59 40 85 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 37 91 62 136 14
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 313 704 615 2434 1638 1320
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.06
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development AM 2035
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 54 197 160 550 0 460 77
Future Volume (vph) 54 197 160 550 0 460 77
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 56 203 165 567 0 474 79
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 185 0 0 0 0 27
Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 18 165 567 0 474 52
Heavy Vehicles (%) 14% 4% 7% 13% 2% 25% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 10.9 83.8 62.4 72.0
Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 9.6 10.9 83.8 62.4 72.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.76 0.57 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 238 324 2434 1638 1036
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.01 c0.05 0.18 c0.16 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.07 0.51 0.23 0.29 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 47.5 46.1 47.0 3.8 12.3 6.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.07 0.80 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.0
Delay (s) 49.4 46.3 51.6 3.3 12.8 6.8
Level of Service D D D A B A
Approach Delay (s) 46.9 14.2 11.9
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
6: Lake Frederick Entrance & Fairfax Pike Future without Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 12.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 730 46 36 561 122 97
Future Vol, veh/h 730 46 36 561 122 97
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 793 50 39 610 133 105
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 843 0 1481 793
Stage 1 - - - - 793 -
Stage 2 - - - - 688 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 793 - 138 389
Stage 1 - - - - 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - 499 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 793 - ~ 131 389
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - ~ 131 -
Stage 1 - - - - 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - 475 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 89.8
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 131 389 - - 793 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.012 0.271 - - 0.049 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 147.2 17.7 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS F C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 7.2 1.1 - - 0.2 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future without Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 307 775 182 161 786 139 200 254 104 60 379
v/c Ratio 1.10 0.83 0.16 1.22 1.02 0.16 0.76 1.24 0.50 0.40 0.75
Control Delay 126.2 36.0 2.8 192.3 70.7 1.0 58.4 174.1 44.3 55.9 35.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 126.2 36.0 2.8 192.3 70.7 1.0 58.4 174.1 44.3 55.9 35.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~248 497 0 ~140 ~591 0 123 ~186 60 41 175
Queue Length 95th (ft) #418 #691 53 #274 #826 11 #216 #351 110 84 287
Internal Link Dist (ft) 496 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 278 933 1132 132 769 870 264 205 218 159 505
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.10 0.83 0.16 1.22 1.02 0.16 0.76 1.24 0.48 0.38 0.75
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 713 167 148 723 128 184 86 148 96 55 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 282 713 167 148 723 128 184 86 148 96 55 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1693 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 775 106 161 786 62 200 93 100 104 60 295
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 2 14 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 808 274 84 90 187 160 382
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 818 879 1781 1870 1557
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 775 106 161 786 62 200 0 193 104 60 295
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 0 1697 1781 1870 1557
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.3 36.7 2.9 9.2 45.0 2.2 9.4 0.0 11.3 5.8 3.3 9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.3 36.7 2.9 9.2 45.0 2.2 9.4 0.0 11.3 5.8 3.3 9.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 808 274 0 175 187 160 382
V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.78 0.11 1.19 0.95 0.08 0.73 0.00 1.11 0.56 0.38 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 808 274 0 175 218 160 382
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.3 19.9 8.2 50.4 28.9 13.3 43.4 0.0 49.3 42.3 47.5 38.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 81.8 5.9 0.2 115.4 11.7 0.1 9.5 0.0 99.2 2.6 1.5 9.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.7 15.6 1.0 7.9 20.8 0.8 1.5 0.0 9.6 2.7 1.6 8.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.2 25.9 8.4 165.8 40.6 13.3 53.0 0.0 148.5 44.8 49.0 48.2
LnGrp LOS F C A F D B D A F D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1188 1009 393 459
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.8 58.9 99.9 47.6
Approach LOS D E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 55.5 14.1 17.9 16.0 65.5 16.0 16.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 17 * 46 9.4 9.4 * 9.2 56.2 9.4 9.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.3 47.0 7.8 13.3 11.2 38.7 11.4 11.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future without Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 616 46 26 815 38 78 234
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.56 0.05 0.05 0.83 0.04 0.63 0.60
Control Delay 8.7 12.1 1.0 3.6 23.7 0.6 49.3 15.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.7 12.1 1.0 3.6 23.7 0.6 49.3 15.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 110 0 2 270 0 30 23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 320 7 10 #560 3 #76 85
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 331 1096 1016 526 993 904 270 664
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.56 0.05 0.05 0.82 0.04 0.29 0.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 604 45 25 799 37 45 22 10 24 31 174
Future Volume (veh/h) 155 604 45 25 799 37 45 22 10 24 31 174
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1781 1870 1841 1826 1870 1870 1752 1870 1870 1841 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 616 28 26 815 21 46 22 2 24 32 23
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 2 4 5 2 2 10 2 2 4 2
Cap, veh/h 350 1032 918 441 975 846 194 75 5 112 101 57
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 832 630 43 318 847 479
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 616 28 26 815 21 70 0 0 79 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 1505 0 0 1644 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 14.0 0.5 0.4 23.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 14.0 0.5 0.4 23.7 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.03 0.30 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 350 1032 918 441 975 846 274 0 0 270 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.60 0.03 0.06 0.84 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 359 1131 1006 529 1159 1006 660 0 0 712 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 8.5 5.7 6.5 12.4 6.9 25.5 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.1 5.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 4.0 0.1 0.1 8.4 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.1 9.8 5.7 6.6 18.3 7.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A A A B A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 802 862 70 79
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 17.7 26.0 26.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 44.3 12.4 9.2 41.4 12.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 16.0 4.4 4.4 25.7 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.8 0.2 0.0 7.9 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future without Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 500 328 239 481 372 663 183 93 618 283
v/c Ratio 1.66 0.69 0.65 1.23 1.79 0.89 0.35 0.66 0.94 0.53
Control Delay 340.9 19.3 50.3 163.2 403.9 58.6 3.7 72.7 69.4 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 340.9 19.3 50.3 163.2 403.9 58.6 3.7 72.7 69.4 8.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~534 46 161 ~433 ~410 251 0 67 237 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #742 150 250 #644 #598 #360 25 #136 #350 73
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1857 694 8434 5712
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 302 475 365 390 208 745 519 150 656 533
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.66 0.69 0.65 1.23 1.79 0.89 0.35 0.62 0.94 0.53
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 286 174 302 220 348 95 342 610 168 86 569 260
Future Volume (veh/h) 286 174 302 220 348 95 342 610 168 86 569 260
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1811 1796 1781 1826 1796 1811 1781 1796 1826 1811 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 311 189 99 239 378 93 372 663 29 93 618 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 6 7 8 5 7 6 8 7 5 6 2
Cap, veh/h 191 116 267 371 310 76 211 808 363 116 663
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.19 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1093 664 1522 1697 1415 348 1725 3385 1522 1739 3441 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 500 0 99 239 0 471 372 663 29 93 618 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1756 0 1522 1697 0 1763 1725 1692 1522 1739 1721 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.0 0.0 6.6 14.6 0.0 25.0 14.0 21.2 1.7 6.0 20.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.0 0.0 6.6 14.6 0.0 25.0 14.0 21.2 1.7 6.0 20.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 0 267 371 0 386 211 808 363 116 663
V/C Ratio(X) 1.63 0.00 0.37 0.64 0.00 1.22 1.76 0.82 0.08 0.80 0.93
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 0 267 371 0 386 211 808 363 152 663
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.1 0.0 41.6 40.5 0.0 44.6 50.1 41.1 33.7 52.5 45.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 295.9 0.0 0.9 3.8 0.0 120.4 360.4 7.0 0.1 19.8 20.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 33.8 0.0 2.5 6.4 0.0 23.5 26.9 9.1 0.6 3.2 10.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 343.0 0.0 42.4 44.3 0.0 165.0 410.5 48.2 33.9 72.4 65.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS F A D D A F F D C E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 599 710 1064 711
Approach Delay, s/veh 293.3 124.4 174.5 66.6
Approach LOS F F F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 28.7 33.3 17.0 34.0 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.0 22.2 27.0 8.0 23.2 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 161.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future without Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 99 124 988 927 205
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.18 0.37 0.48 0.72 0.28
Control Delay 45.0 15.3 16.0 10.7 27.2 4.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.0 15.3 16.0 10.7 27.2 4.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 27 27 146 225 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 177 62 58 227 349 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 295
Base Capacity (vph) 503 540 550 2080 1507 832
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.18 0.23 0.47 0.62 0.25
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 167 91 114 909 0 853 189
Future Volume (veh/h) 167 91 114 909 0 853 189
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1722 1826 1781 1767 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 182 75 124 988 927 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 12 5 8 9 2
Cap, veh/h 243 290 300 1447 1343 634
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.43 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1459 1739 3474 3445 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 75 124 988 927 70
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1459 1739 1692 1678 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 17.5 16.9 2.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 17.5 16.9 2.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 290 300 1447 1343 634
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.26 0.41 0.68 0.69 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 584 661 2058 1814 856
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.7 25.1 27.7 17.1 18.4 13.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 0.0 2.0 5.7 5.6 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.2 25.6 28.8 18.4 19.8 14.1
LnGrp LOS D C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 257 1112 997
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.1 19.5 19.4
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.1 18.8 15.1 40.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.5 9.3 2.0 18.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.2 0.9 0.3 10.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 245 295 704 778 119
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.40 0.65 0.31 0.49 0.11
Control Delay 57.1 6.9 56.7 5.4 22.7 1.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.1 6.9 56.7 5.4 22.7 1.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 0 109 67 193 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 36 125 94 293 20
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 350 749 627 2285 1590 1187
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.33 0.47 0.31 0.49 0.10
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development PM 2035
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 168 235 283 676 0 747 114
Future Volume (vph) 168 235 283 676 0 747 114
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 175 245 295 704 0 778 119
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 209 0 0 0 0 46
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 36 295 704 0 778 73
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 11% 2% 7% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 15.0 77.3 51.8 67.9
Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 15.0 77.3 51.8 67.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.70 0.47 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 259 407 454 2285 1588 977
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.01 c0.09 0.22 c0.23 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.09 0.65 0.31 0.49 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 40.6 45.0 6.2 20.0 8.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.75 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.1 3.2 0.3 1.1 0.0
Delay (s) 51.3 40.7 53.3 5.0 21.1 8.5
Level of Service D D D A C A
Approach Delay (s) 45.1 19.3 19.4
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
6: Lake Frederick Entrance & Fairfax Pike Future without Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 19.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 804 107 85 974 76 60
Future Vol, veh/h 804 107 85 974 76 60
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 874 116 92 1059 83 65
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 990 0 2117 874
Stage 1 - - - - 874 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1243 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 698 - ~ 56 349
Stage 1 - - - - 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - 272 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 698 - ~ 49 349
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - ~ 49 -
Stage 1 - - - - 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - 236 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 295.5
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 49 349 - - 698 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.686 0.187 - - 0.132 -
HCM Control Delay (s) $ 514.8 17.7 - - 10.9 -
HCM Lane LOS F C - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.1 0.7 - - 0.5 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
H. 2035 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 718 424 176 685 139 85 101 75 299 167
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.83 0.47 1.33 0.90 0.16 0.63 0.49 0.25 1.22 0.36
Control Delay 83.6 39.7 13.7 237.3 48.2 2.1 61.0 27.7 40.5 175.7 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 83.6 39.7 13.7 237.3 48.2 2.1 61.0 27.7 40.5 175.7 7.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 133 572 161 ~192 505 0 58 21 50 ~371 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #241 726 260 #343 #696 25 #128 #96 94 #555 55
Internal Link Dist (ft) 648 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 204 919 910 132 812 895 143 208 340 245 476
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.47 1.33 0.84 0.16 0.59 0.49 0.22 1.22 0.35
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 146 661 390 162 630 128 78 25 68 69 275 154
Future Volume (veh/h) 146 661 390 162 630 128 78 25 68 69 275 154
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1752 1796 1796 1722 1856 966 907 848 1870 1841 1781
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 718 385 176 685 67 85 27 6 75 299 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 10 7 7 12 3 63 67 71 2 4 8
Cap, veh/h 184 937 955 134 851 838 141 99 22 274 176 295
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 716 159 1781 1841 1431
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 718 385 176 685 67 85 0 33 75 299 30
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 0 876 1781 1841 1431
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 42.0 16.4 10.2 43.4 2.7 10.6 0.0 4.4 4.9 12.4 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 42.0 16.4 10.2 43.4 2.7 10.6 0.0 4.4 4.9 12.4 2.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 937 955 134 851 838 141 0 121 274 176 295
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.77 0.40 1.31 0.81 0.08 0.60 0.00 0.27 0.27 1.70 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 937 955 134 851 838 143 0 121 354 176 295
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 23.8 12.1 59.9 27.6 14.1 47.1 0.0 50.2 49.5 58.8 42.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.7 6.0 1.3 166.2 4.6 0.1 6.8 0.0 1.2 0.5 339.5 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 17.7 5.9 10.5 17.8 1.0 2.7 0.0 1.0 2.2 22.4 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.9 29.8 13.3 226.1 32.2 14.2 53.9 0.0 51.4 50.1 398.3 42.6
LnGrp LOS F C B F C B D A D D F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1262 928 118 404
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.7 67.7 53.2 307.2
Approach LOS C E D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 70.0 13.1 24.5 17.0 75.3 18.7 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 62 12.4 12.4 * 10 69.2 12.4 12.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.6 45.4 6.9 6.4 12.2 44.0 12.6 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 86.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 229 691 22 3 596 36 98 230
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.68 0.02 0.01 0.77 0.05 0.42 0.61
Control Delay 11.1 15.5 0.1 4.3 22.3 0.5 23.7 18.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.1 15.5 0.1 4.3 22.3 0.5 23.7 18.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 136 0 0 170 0 21 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 #488 0 3 351 3 69 105
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 413 1123 1019 442 1071 948 449 636
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.62 0.02 0.01 0.56 0.04 0.22 0.36
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 211 636 20 3 548 33 46 10 34 54 7 150
Future Volume (veh/h) 211 636 20 3 548 33 46 10 34 54 7 150
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1752 1811 1870 1722 1737 1796 1752 1796 1826 1648 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 229 691 11 3 596 16 50 11 5 59 8 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 10 6 2 12 11 7 10 7 5 17 13
Cap, veh/h 408 946 829 316 781 668 265 52 17 190 39 72
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 1040 356 114 608 268 496
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 229 691 11 3 596 16 66 0 0 105 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 1510 0 0 1371 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 16.6 0.2 0.0 16.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 16.6 0.2 0.0 16.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.08 0.56 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 408 946 829 316 781 668 333 0 0 300 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.76 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 408 1268 1111 470 1246 1065 748 0 0 704 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0 9.7 5.9 8.2 12.6 8.3 21.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.7 12.2 5.9 8.3 16.0 8.4 21.3 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS B B A A B A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 931 615 66 105
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.0 15.7 21.3 22.4
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 37.6 12.9 9.5 32.9 12.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 18.6 3.9 6.0 18.0 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.4 0.2 0.0 7.1 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 610 263 118 234 323 518 212 101 382 191
v/c Ratio 1.84 0.61 0.44 0.76 1.50 0.72 0.43 0.65 0.68 0.46
Control Delay 415.8 17.8 44.2 54.6 283.8 45.5 6.3 68.5 47.4 5.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 415.8 17.8 44.2 54.6 283.8 45.5 6.3 68.5 47.4 5.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~647 35 73 144 ~315 174 0 68 128 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #921 129 130 231 #522 248 46 #152 191 33
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1857 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 332 430 370 416 215 778 518 165 636 440
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.84 0.61 0.32 0.56 1.50 0.67 0.41 0.61 0.60 0.43
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 296 242 109 153 63 297 477 195 93 351 176
Future Volume (veh/h) 265 296 242 109 153 63 297 477 195 93 351 176
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1663 1663 1767 1856 1722 1752 1707 1841 1618 1411
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 288 322 84 118 166 53 323 518 33 101 382 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 4 16 16 9 3 12 10 13 4 19 33
Cap, veh/h 173 194 287 249 201 64 234 722 314 127 486
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.16 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 849 949 1409 1584 1283 410 1640 3328 1447 1753 3075 1196
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 610 0 84 118 0 219 323 518 33 101 382 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1798 0 1409 1584 0 1693 1640 1664 1447 1753 1537 1196
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.0 0.0 4.9 6.7 0.0 12.3 14.0 14.2 1.8 5.6 11.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.0 0.0 4.9 6.7 0.0 12.3 14.0 14.2 1.8 5.6 11.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 0 287 249 0 266 234 722 314 127 486
V/C Ratio(X) 1.66 0.00 0.29 0.47 0.00 0.82 1.38 0.72 0.11 0.79 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 367 0 287 404 0 431 234 845 367 179 690
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.0 0.0 33.1 37.7 0.0 40.0 42.0 35.6 30.8 44.8 39.7 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 310.4 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 6.7 195.3 2.9 0.2 14.9 5.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 40.1 0.0 1.7 2.6 0.0 5.4 18.0 5.6 0.6 2.8 4.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 349.5 0.0 33.6 39.1 0.0 46.7 237.4 38.5 31.0 59.7 44.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS F A C D A D F D C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 694 337 874 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 311.3 44.0 111.7 47.8
Approach LOS F D F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 22.2 23.7 16.5 28.0 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.0 13.7 14.3 7.6 16.2 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 2.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 147.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 100 40 862 2 670 62
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.18 0.11 0.54 0.01 0.60 0.11
Control Delay 37.3 6.6 9.6 14.4 8.0 23.3 5.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 37.3 6.6 9.6 14.4 8.0 23.3 5.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 4 8 115 0 136 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 38 23 276 3 230 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 275 295
Base Capacity (vph) 621 616 620 1977 631 1690 830
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.16 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.40 0.07
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 92 37 793 2 616 57
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 92 37 793 2 616 57
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1752 1589 1648 1604 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 36 40 862 670 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 10 21 17 20 13
Cap, veh/h 224 246 285 1354 1065 506
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.43 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1485 1513 3214 3127 1447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 36 40 862 670 17
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1485 1513 1566 1523 1447
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 0.0 0.0 13.2 11.2 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 0.0 0.0 13.2 11.2 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 224 246 285 1354 1065 506
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.15 0.14 0.64 0.63 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 726 665 718 2298 1988 944
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.8 21.9 20.6 13.6 16.6 13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 0.4 3.6 3.2 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.9 22.2 20.9 14.7 17.9 13.2
LnGrp LOS C C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 197 902 687
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 15.0 17.8
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 16.4 13.0 31.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.2 7.3 2.0 13.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.3 0.7 0.1 8.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 227 171 594 565 79
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.51 0.52 0.24 0.35 0.07
Control Delay 55.7 10.3 56.6 3.5 14.4 1.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.7 10.3 56.6 3.5 14.4 1.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 0 61 42 106 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 39 96 66 166 14
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 313 723 615 2434 1634 1318
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.31 0.28 0.24 0.35 0.06
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2035
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 54 220 166 576 0 548 77
Future Volume (vph) 54 220 166 576 0 548 77
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 56 227 171 594 0 565 79
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 207 0 0 0 0 27
Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 20 171 594 0 565 52
Heavy Vehicles (%) 14% 4% 7% 13% 2% 25% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 11.1 83.8 62.2 71.8
Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 9.6 11.1 83.8 62.2 71.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.76 0.57 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 238 330 2434 1633 1033
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.01 c0.05 0.19 c0.20 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.08 0.52 0.24 0.35 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 47.5 46.2 46.9 3.8 12.9 6.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.81 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.6 0.0
Delay (s) 49.4 46.3 52.7 3.3 13.5 6.9
Level of Service D D D A B A
Approach Delay (s) 46.9 14.4 12.7
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 66.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 806 46 36 584 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Future Vol, veh/h 81 806 46 36 584 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 150 - 150 0 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 876 50 39 635 100 133 0 105 30 0 26
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 735 0 0 926 0 0 1828 1865 876 1843 1815 635
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1052 1052 - 713 713 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 776 813 - 1130 1102 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 870 - - 738 - - ~ 59 73 348 58 78 478
Stage 1 - - - - - - 274 303 - 423 435 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 390 392 - 248 287 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 870 - - 738 - - ~ 49 62 348 36 66 478
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - ~ 49 62 - 36 66 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 246 272 - 380 412 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 349 371 - 155 258 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.5 $ 537.5 150.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 49 348 870 - - 738 - - 36 478
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.706 0.303 0.101 - - 0.053 - - 0.845 0.055
HCM Control Delay (s) $ 949.1 19.8 9.6 - - 10.2 - - 268.3 13
HCM Lane LOS F C A - - B - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 14 1.3 0.3 - - 0.2 - - 3 0.2
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
7: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 2 Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 930 699 3 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 0 930 699 3 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1011 760 3 0 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 762
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 405
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 405
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 405
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.035
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 14.2
HCM Lane LOS - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
8: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 3 Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 882 701 14 5 1
Future Vol, veh/h 48 882 701 14 5 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 52 959 762 15 5 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 777 0 - 0 1833 770
Stage 1 - - - - 770 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1063 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 839 - - - 84 401
Stage 1 - - - - 457 -
Stage 2 - - - - 332 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 839 - - - 79 401
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 79 -
Stage 1 - - - - 429 -
Stage 2 - - - - 332 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 47.2
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 839 - - - 79 401
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 - - - 0.069 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - - 53.9 14
HCM Lane LOS A - - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.2 0
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 712 53 2 611 92
Future Vol, veh/h 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 712 53 2 611 92
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 50 - - 50 300 - 150 300 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 29 0 12 16 0 1 39 774 58 2 664 100
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1133 1578 332 1188 1620 387 764 0 0 832 0 0
Stage 1 668 668 - 852 852 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 465 910 - 336 768 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 158 108 664 144 102 611 845 - - 796 - -
Stage 1 414 455 - 321 374 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 547 352 - 652 409 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 152 103 664 136 97 611 845 - - 796 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 272 221 - 238 210 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 395 454 - 306 357 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 521 336 - 639 408 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.1 20.6 0.4 0
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 845 - - 272 664 238 611 796 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - - 0.108 0.018 0.069 0.002 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 19.8 10.5 21.2 10.9 9.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0 - -
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development AM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 734 6 17 703
Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 734 6 17 703
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 5 798 7 18 764
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1216 399 0 0 805 0
Stage 1 798 - - - - -
Stage 2 418 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 601 - - 815 -
Stage 1 404 - - - - -
Stage 2 632 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 169 601 - - 815 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 295 - - - - -
Stage 1 404 - - - - -
Stage 2 618 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 0 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 295 601 815 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.007 0.009 0.023 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.3 11 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 0.1 -
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 307 833 182 161 930 150 200 254 109 60 379
v/c Ratio 1.10 0.89 0.16 1.22 1.21 0.17 0.76 1.25 0.51 0.40 0.76
Control Delay 126.4 41.7 2.7 192.3 136.6 1.2 58.3 177.4 45.1 55.9 37.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 126.4 41.7 2.7 192.3 136.6 1.2 58.3 177.4 45.1 55.9 37.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~249 561 0 ~140 ~804 0 123 ~186 63 41 180
Queue Length 95th (ft) #420 #795 53 #274 #1047 15 #215 #351 114 84 293
Internal Link Dist (ft) 648 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 278 933 1132 132 769 870 264 204 218 159 501
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.10 0.89 0.16 1.22 1.21 0.17 0.76 1.25 0.50 0.38 0.76
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 766 167 148 856 138 184 86 148 100 55 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 282 766 167 148 856 138 184 86 148 100 55 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1693 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 833 106 161 930 67 200 93 100 109 60 301
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 2 14 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 812 273 82 88 192 160 382
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 817 879 1781 1870 1557
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 833 106 161 930 67 200 0 193 109 60 301
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 0 1696 1781 1870 1557
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.3 41.7 2.9 9.2 49.6 2.4 9.4 0.0 11.0 6.0 3.3 9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.3 41.7 2.9 9.2 49.6 2.4 9.4 0.0 11.0 6.0 3.3 9.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 812 273 0 170 192 160 382
V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.84 0.11 1.19 1.12 0.08 0.73 0.00 1.14 0.57 0.38 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 997 994 135 830 812 273 0 170 218 160 382
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.3 21.1 8.2 50.4 30.2 13.1 43.4 0.0 49.5 42.1 47.5 39.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 81.8 8.2 0.2 97.7 56.9 0.0 9.6 0.0 110.6 2.7 1.5 10.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.7 18.1 1.0 7.2 33.1 0.8 1.5 0.0 9.9 2.8 1.6 8.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 128.2 29.3 8.4 148.1 87.1 13.2 53.1 0.0 160.1 44.8 49.0 49.5
LnGrp LOS F C A F F B D A F D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1246 1158 393 470
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.9 91.3 105.6 48.3
Approach LOS D F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 55.5 14.4 17.6 16.0 65.5 16.0 16.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 17 * 46 9.4 9.4 * 9.2 56.2 9.4 9.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.3 51.6 8.0 13.0 11.2 43.7 11.4 11.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 71.8
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 674 46 30 962 48 80 239
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.62 0.05 0.06 0.98 0.05 0.62 0.62
Control Delay 30.4 13.5 1.0 3.9 43.1 1.2 47.2 17.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.4 13.5 1.0 3.9 43.1 1.2 47.2 17.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 127 0 3 375 0 30 29
Queue Length 95th (ft) #118 381 7 11 #734 8 74 94
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 222 1094 1015 479 983 896 272 652
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.62 0.05 0.06 0.98 0.05 0.29 0.37
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 661 45 29 943 47 45 22 12 28 31 174
Future Volume (veh/h) 155 661 45 29 943 47 45 22 12 28 31 174
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1781 1870 1841 1826 1870 1870 1752 1870 1870 1841 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 674 28 30 962 27 46 22 3 29 32 31
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 2 4 5 2 2 10 2 2 4 2
Cap, veh/h 270 1070 952 421 1029 893 186 74 8 109 88 66
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.60 0.60 0.03 0.56 0.56 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 840 617 64 343 735 547
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 674 28 30 962 27 71 0 0 92 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 1522 0 0 1625 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 16.9 0.5 0.4 33.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 16.9 0.5 0.4 33.7 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.04 0.32 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 1070 952 421 1029 893 268 0 0 263 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.63 0.03 0.07 0.94 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 276 1070 952 492 1054 915 602 0 0 642 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 8.9 5.6 6.9 14.0 6.7 28.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 15.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 5.0 0.1 0.1 14.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.4 10.6 5.7 7.0 29.0 6.7 28.5 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS B B A A C A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 860 1019 71 92
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 27.8 28.5 29.2
Approach LOS B C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 49.4 13.2 9.3 46.8 13.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 18.9 4.6 4.5 35.7 5.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.2 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 547 413 239 501 405 688 183 109 679 312
v/c Ratio 1.81 0.82 0.65 1.28 1.95 0.93 0.35 0.75 1.04 0.56
Control Delay 404.5 27.5 50.3 183.0 471.5 64.3 3.7 81.8 89.8 8.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 404.5 27.5 50.3 183.0 471.5 64.3 3.7 81.8 89.8 8.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~606 84 161 ~465 ~460 263 0 79 ~282 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #820 #249 250 #677 #655 #381 25 #168 #403 77
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1857 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 303 506 365 390 208 739 516 150 656 556
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.81 0.82 0.65 1.28 1.95 0.93 0.35 0.73 1.04 0.56
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 297 206 380 220 361 100 373 633 168 100 625 287
Future Volume (veh/h) 297 206 380 220 361 100 373 633 168 100 625 287
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1811 1796 1781 1826 1796 1811 1781 1796 1826 1811 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 323 224 149 239 392 99 405 688 29 109 679 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 6 7 8 5 7 6 8 7 5 6 2
Cap, veh/h 182 126 267 371 308 78 211 774 348 134 663
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.19 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1039 720 1522 1697 1407 355 1725 3385 1522 1739 3441 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 547 0 149 239 0 491 405 688 29 109 679 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1759 0 1522 1697 0 1762 1725 1692 1522 1739 1721 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.0 0.0 10.2 14.6 0.0 25.0 14.0 22.5 1.7 7.0 22.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.0 0.0 10.2 14.6 0.0 25.0 14.0 22.5 1.7 7.0 22.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 0 267 371 0 386 211 774 348 134 663
V/C Ratio(X) 1.78 0.00 0.56 0.64 0.00 1.27 1.92 0.89 0.08 0.81 1.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 0 267 371 0 386 211 774 348 152 663
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.1 0.0 43.1 40.5 0.0 44.6 50.1 42.6 34.6 51.9 46.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 361.9 0.0 2.6 3.8 0.0 141.7 429.0 12.6 0.1 25.2 41.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 39.5 0.0 4.0 6.4 0.0 25.8 30.9 10.2 0.6 3.9 12.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 409.0 0.0 45.7 44.3 0.0 186.3 479.1 55.2 34.8 77.1 87.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS F A D D A F F E C E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 696 730 1122 788
Approach Delay, s/veh 331.2 139.8 207.7 85.9
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 28.7 33.3 18.2 32.8 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 22.0 * 25 * 10 24.9 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.0 24.0 27.0 9.0 24.5 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 189.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 99 124 1045 1068 210
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.19 0.41 0.50 0.78 0.27
Control Delay 47.2 17.7 20.2 10.8 30.0 4.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.2 17.7 20.2 10.8 30.0 4.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 33 27 159 282 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 68 58 248 432 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 295
Base Capacity (vph) 476 517 495 2098 1426 801
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.19 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.26
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 91 114 961 0 983 193
Future Volume (veh/h) 169 91 114 961 0 983 193
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1722 1826 1781 1767 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 86 124 1045 1068 76
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 12 5 8 9 2
Cap, veh/h 243 285 271 1467 1434 677
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1459 1739 3474 3445 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184 86 124 1045 1068 76
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1459 1739 1692 1678 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 0.0 19.9 21.0 2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 0.0 19.9 21.0 2.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 285 271 1467 1434 677
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.30 0.46 0.71 0.74 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 566 550 610 1935 1706 806
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 27.1 30.9 18.3 18.9 13.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.7 1.4 1.5 2.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.1 2.2 6.6 7.1 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 27.8 32.4 19.8 21.1 13.7
LnGrp LOS D C C B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 270 1169 1144
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.1 21.1 20.6
Approach LOS D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.6 19.4 15.2 44.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.9 9.8 2.0 23.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.2 0.9 0.3 10.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2035
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 255 319 798 815 119
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.41 0.67 0.35 0.52 0.11
Control Delay 57.2 6.8 55.4 5.9 23.7 1.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.2 6.8 55.4 5.9 23.7 1.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 0 119 81 207 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 36 139 105 315 21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 350 756 627 2286 1568 1176
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.51 0.35 0.52 0.10
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2035
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 168 245 306 766 0 782 114
Future Volume (vph) 168 245 306 766 0 782 114
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 175 255 319 798 0 815 119
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 218 0 0 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 37 319 798 0 815 74
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 11% 2% 7% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 15.7 77.3 51.1 67.2
Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 15.7 77.3 51.1 67.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.70 0.46 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 259 407 475 2285 1567 967
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.01 c0.10 0.25 c0.24 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.09 0.67 0.35 0.52 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 40.6 44.7 6.4 20.8 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.78 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.1 3.7 0.4 1.2 0.0
Delay (s) 51.3 40.7 52.3 5.5 22.0 8.8
Level of Service D D D A C A
Approach Delay (s) 45.0 18.8 20.3
Approach LOS D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 205
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 834 107 85 1049 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Future Vol, veh/h 33 834 107 85 1049 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 150 - 150 0 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 36 907 116 92 1140 40 83 0 65 102 0 90
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1180 0 0 1023 0 0 2368 2343 907 2394 2419 1140
Stage 1 - - - - - - 979 979 - 1324 1324 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 1389 1364 - 1070 1095 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 592 - - 679 - - ~ 24 36 334 ~ 23 32 245
Stage 1 - - - - - - 301 328 - 192 225 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 176 215 - 268 290 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 592 - - 679 - - ~ 13 29 334 ~ 16 26 245
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - ~ 13 29 - ~ 16 26 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 283 308 - 180 195 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 96 186 - 203 272 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.8 $ 1675.9 $ 1551.2
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 13 334 592 - - 679 - - 16 245
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 6.355 0.195 0.061 - - 0.136 - - 6.386 0.368
HCM Control Delay (s) $ 2984.5 18.4 11.5 - - 11.1 - -$ 2896.2 28
HCM Lane LOS F C B - - B - - F D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 11.4 0.7 0.2 - - 0.5 - - 13.6 1.6
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
7: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 2 Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 988 1128 1 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 0 988 1128 1 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1074 1226 1 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 1227
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 217
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 217
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 26.1
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.215
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 26.1
HCM Lane LOS - - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.8
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
8: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 3 Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 969 1124 6 17 5
Future Vol, veh/h 19 969 1124 6 17 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 1053 1222 7 18 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1229 0 - 0 2321 1226
Stage 1 - - - - 1226 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1095 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 567 - - - 41 218
Stage 1 - - - - 277 -
Stage 2 - - - - 321 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 567 - - - 39 218
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 39 -
Stage 1 - - - - 267 -
Stage 2 - - - - 321 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 130.5
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 567 - - - 39 218
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 - - - 0.474 0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - - - 162.5 21.9
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.6 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 988 21 1 947 37
Future Vol, veh/h 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 988 21 1 947 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 50 - - 50 300 - 150 300 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 102 0 41 57 0 2 16 1074 23 1 1029 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1600 2160 515 1623 2177 537 1069 0 0 1097 0 0
Stage 1 1031 1031 - 1106 1106 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 569 1129 - 517 1071 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 71 47 505 68 46 488 648 - - 632 - -
Stage 1 249 309 - 224 284 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 474 277 - 509 295 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 69 46 505 61 45 488 648 - - 632 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 173 152 - 158 147 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 243 308 - 218 277 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 460 270 - 467 294 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 40.8 39 0.2 0
HCM LOS E E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 648 - - 173 505 158 488 632 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - 0.591 0.082 0.358 0.004 0.002 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 52.1 12.8 40 12.4 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 3.2 0.3 1.5 0 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development PM 2035
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 17 1082 2 7 979
Future Vol, veh/h 6 17 1082 2 7 979
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 18 1176 2 8 1064
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1724 588 0 0 1178 0
Stage 1 1176 - - - - -
Stage 2 548 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 80 452 - - 589 -
Stage 1 255 - - - - -
Stage 2 543 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 79 452 - - 589 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 188 - - - - -
Stage 1 255 - - - - -
Stage 2 535 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 0 0.1
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 188 452 589 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 0.041 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 24.8 13.3 11.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 0 -
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
2035 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets with Mitigation
Queues Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 718 424 176 685 139 85 101 75 299 167
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.87 0.47 0.70 0.88 0.16 0.62 0.45 0.23 1.06 0.37
Control Delay 23.4 44.2 13.1 28.6 45.8 2.0 58.7 25.6 38.1 122.6 7.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.4 44.2 13.1 28.6 45.8 2.0 58.7 25.6 38.1 122.6 7.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 73 582 165 60 500 0 56 20 47 ~327 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 734 243 103 #733 25 #129 #86 92 #530 55
Internal Link Dist (ft) 593 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 323 892 904 255 802 928 144 226 393 282 502
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.80 0.47 0.69 0.85 0.15 0.59 0.45 0.19 1.06 0.33
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 146 661 390 162 630 128 78 25 68 69 275 154
Future Volume (veh/h) 146 661 390 162 630 128 78 25 68 69 275 154
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1752 1796 1796 1722 1856 966 907 848 1870 1841 1781
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 718 363 176 685 68 85 27 8 75 299 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 10 7 7 12 3 63 67 71 2 4 8
Cap, veh/h 307 941 956 270 906 888 140 102 30 294 204 247
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 670 198 1781 1841 1438
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 718 363 176 685 68 85 0 35 75 299 29
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 0 868 1781 1841 1438
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 41.8 15.1 6.0 40.7 2.5 10.5 0.0 4.6 4.8 14.4 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 41.8 15.1 6.0 40.7 2.5 10.5 0.0 4.6 4.8 14.4 2.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 941 956 270 906 888 140 0 132 294 204 247
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.76 0.08 0.61 0.00 0.27 0.25 1.47 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 411 941 956 298 906 888 143 0 132 402 204 247
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 23.6 11.8 22.0 24.2 12.2 45.8 0.0 48.7 47.8 57.8 45.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 5.8 1.1 2.4 3.3 0.1 7.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 234.7 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 17.5 5.4 2.4 16.2 0.9 2.7 0.0 1.1 2.2 20.0 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.9 29.4 12.9 24.4 27.5 12.3 52.8 0.0 49.8 48.2 292.5 46.0
LnGrp LOS C C B C C B D A D D F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1240 929 120 403
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 25.8 51.9 229.3
Approach LOS C C D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 74.2 13.1 26.4 14.9 75.6 18.5 21.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 60 14.4 12.4 * 10 67.2 12.4 14.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 42.7 6.8 6.6 8.0 43.8 12.5 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.2 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 56.4
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 322 263 118 234 323 518 212 101 382 191
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.86 0.53 0.45 0.78 0.77 0.69 0.41 0.69 0.66 0.45
Control Delay 66.3 65.8 9.2 45.7 58.0 59.4 45.0 5.4 73.5 37.2 11.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.3 65.8 9.2 45.7 58.0 59.4 45.0 5.4 73.5 37.2 11.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 195 218 0 75 147 114 182 0 61 136 25
Queue Length 95th (ft) #369 #403 73 128 227 #177 243 41 #151 186 81
Internal Link Dist (ft) 382 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 338 373 494 321 363 422 761 518 153 583 430
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.86 0.53 0.37 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.41 0.66 0.66 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 296 242 109 153 63 297 477 195 93 351 176
Future Volume (veh/h) 265 296 242 109 153 63 297 477 195 93 351 176
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1663 1663 1767 1856 1722 1752 1707 1841 1618 1411
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 288 322 36 118 166 53 323 518 35 101 382 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 4 16 16 9 3 12 10 13 4 19 33
Cap, veh/h 310 340 260 241 195 62 385 935 406 124 740
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.48 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1841 1409 1584 1283 410 3182 3328 1447 1753 3075 1196
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 288 322 36 118 0 219 323 518 35 101 382 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 1841 1409 1584 0 1693 1591 1664 1447 1753 1537 1196
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 19.0 2.4 7.5 0.0 13.9 10.9 14.6 2.0 6.1 9.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 19.0 2.4 7.5 0.0 13.9 10.9 14.6 2.0 6.1 9.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 340 260 241 0 257 385 935 406 124 740
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.95 0.14 0.49 0.00 0.85 0.84 0.55 0.09 0.81 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 310 340 260 327 0 349 425 935 406 153 740
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.1 44.3 37.5 42.7 0.0 45.4 47.3 33.7 29.1 46.5 24.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.8 35.3 0.2 1.5 0.0 13.8 12.7 2.0 0.3 22.7 2.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.3 11.7 0.8 3.0 0.0 6.7 4.8 5.8 0.7 3.2 3.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.9 79.6 37.8 44.3 0.0 59.3 60.0 35.7 29.5 69.1 26.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS E E D D A E E D C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 646 337 876 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 76.1 54.0 44.4 35.5
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 33.2 25.0 17.2 37.6 30.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.7 19.1 * 23 * 9.6 23.1 20.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 11.4 15.9 8.1 16.6 21.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.7 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax PikeFuture with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 876 50 39 635 100 133 105 30 26
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.69 0.05 0.11 0.52 0.09 0.67 0.24 0.16 0.05
Control Delay 3.0 8.2 0.2 4.0 10.8 1.7 50.7 1.2 32.8 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.0 8.2 0.2 4.0 10.8 1.7 50.7 1.2 32.8 0.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 117 0 5 185 0 67 0 14 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m11 122 m0 12 263 16 #136 0 39 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1336 1871 292 413
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 50
Base Capacity (vph) 510 1279 1112 355 1232 1080 226 470 210 560
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.68 0.04 0.11 0.52 0.09 0.59 0.22 0.14 0.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax PikeFuture with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 806 46 36 584 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 81 806 46 36 584 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 876 32 39 635 61 133 0 7 30 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 560 1291 1094 572 1247 1057 247 0 184 242 0 184
Arrive On Green 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1409 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 876 32 39 635 61 133 0 7 30 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1409 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 14.6 1.1 7.8 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 14.6 1.1 7.9 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 560 1291 1094 572 1247 1057 247 0 184 242 0 184
V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.68 0.03 0.07 0.51 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 562 1291 1094 613 1247 1057 308 0 252 303 0 252
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.68 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 7.2 4.9 36.8 0.0 33.4 34.3 0.0 33.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.3 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.6 2.0 0.0 3.3 7.5 4.9 38.6 0.0 33.5 34.5 0.0 33.3
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A D A C C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 996 735 140 32
Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 7.1 38.3 34.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 63.1 14.3 9.5 61.2 14.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 53.0 13.5 5.1 52.9 13.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.0 9.9 3.2 16.6 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.5 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 12 16 1 39 774 58 2 664 100
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.08
Control Delay 55.1 0.2 49.3 0.0 1.8 2.7 1.1 4.0 5.5 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.1 0.2 49.3 0.0 1.8 2.7 1.1 4.0 5.5 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 0 11 0 3 2 0 0 74 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 0 33 0 m3 m222 m6 m2 87 1
Internal Link Dist (ft) 785 554 2104 1225
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 150 300 150
Base Capacity (vph) 296 571 306 555 664 2934 1340 609 2738 1261
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.08
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 712 53 2 611 92
Future Volume (veh/h) 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 712 53 2 611 92
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 0 0 16 0 0 39 774 40 2 664 65
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 114 64 0 114 64 0 579 2587 1154 559 2484 1108
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70
Sat Flow, veh/h 1418 1870 0 1418 1870 0 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 0 0 16 0 0 39 774 40 2 664 65
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1418 1870 0 1418 1870 0 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 64 0 114 64 0 579 2587 1154 559 2484 1108
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.30 0.03 0.00 0.27 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 393 0 376 410 0 680 2587 1154 695 2484 1108
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.4 0.0 0.0 51.9 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 6.1 5.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.6 0.0 0.0 52.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 4.0 6.4 5.3
LnGrp LOS D A A D A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 29 16 853 731
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.6 52.5 0.4 6.3
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 86.8 14.6 11.8 83.6 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 10.9 8.3 6.7 * 11
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 52.3 23.1 9.7 51.3 * 24
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.7 9.6 3.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 307 833 182 161 930 150 200 254 109 60 379
v/c Ratio 1.04 0.92 0.16 0.84 1.18 0.17 0.69 1.17 0.47 0.37 0.81
Control Delay 93.5 47.5 2.8 59.8 126.2 2.2 50.5 148.9 41.6 53.4 42.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 93.5 47.5 2.8 59.8 126.2 2.2 50.5 148.9 41.6 53.4 42.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~186 568 0 67 ~791 0 120 ~181 62 40 185
Queue Length 95th (ft) #357 #820 57 #185 #1034 26 #201 #351 111 83 301
Internal Link Dist (ft) 593 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 295 901 1122 192 785 889 289 217 251 176 470
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.92 0.16 0.84 1.18 0.17 0.69 1.17 0.43 0.34 0.81
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 766 167 148 856 138 184 86 148 100 55 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 282 766 167 148 856 138 184 86 148 100 55 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1693 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 833 105 161 930 70 200 93 101 109 60 299
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 2 14 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 298 1002 1012 256 847 826 299 96 105 197 177 354
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 814 884 1781 1870 1560
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 833 105 161 930 70 200 0 194 109 60 299
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 0 1698 1781 1870 1560
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 41.5 2.8 4.8 50.6 2.4 10.4 0.0 12.5 6.0 3.3 10.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 41.5 2.8 4.8 50.6 2.4 10.4 0.0 12.5 6.0 3.3 10.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 1002 1012 256 847 826 299 0 201 197 177 354
V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.83 0.10 0.63 1.10 0.08 0.67 0.00 0.96 0.55 0.34 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 298 1002 1012 289 847 826 299 0 201 256 177 354
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 20.9 7.7 20.7 29.7 12.7 41.1 0.0 48.3 41.3 46.6 40.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 60.6 8.0 0.2 0.5 47.4 0.0 5.6 0.0 53.1 2.4 1.1 17.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.8 18.0 1.0 1.9 31.4 0.9 5.4 0.0 8.3 2.8 1.6 9.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 96.9 28.9 7.9 21.2 77.1 12.7 46.7 0.0 101.4 43.7 47.7 57.9
LnGrp LOS F C A C F B D A F D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1245 1161 394 468
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.9 65.4 73.6 53.3
Approach LOS D E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 56.5 14.4 19.6 13.7 65.8 17.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 14 * 47 11.4 9.4 * 9.2 54.2 10.4 10.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 52.6 8.0 14.5 6.8 43.5 12.4 12.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 56.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 224 413 239 501 405 688 183 109 679 312
v/c Ratio 1.22 0.80 0.83 0.61 1.20 1.26 0.97 0.36 0.75 0.95 0.54
Control Delay 168.0 66.1 27.1 45.5 149.6 181.6 70.2 3.4 85.3 59.6 10.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 168.0 66.1 27.1 45.5 149.6 181.6 70.2 3.4 85.3 59.6 10.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~280 154 67 152 ~427 ~185 256 0 80 231 24
Queue Length 95th (ft) #457 #277 #235 237 #637 #284 #380 20 #157 #370 126
Internal Link Dist (ft) 382 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 265 281 499 390 416 321 712 513 150 715 578
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.22 0.80 0.83 0.61 1.20 1.26 0.97 0.36 0.73 0.95 0.54
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 297 206 380 220 361 100 373 633 168 100 625 287
Future Volume (veh/h) 297 206 380 220 361 100 373 633 168 100 625 287
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1811 1796 1781 1826 1796 1811 1781 1796 1826 1811 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 323 224 128 239 392 99 405 688 26 109 679 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 6 7 8 5 7 6 8 7 5 6 2
Cap, veh/h 269 285 239 396 329 83 325 748 336 133 723
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.42 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1711 1811 1522 1697 1407 355 3346 3385 1522 1739 3441 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 323 224 128 239 0 491 405 688 26 109 679 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1711 1811 1522 1697 0 1762 1673 1692 1522 1739 1721 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.3 13.1 8.5 13.8 0.0 25.7 10.7 21.9 1.5 6.7 20.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.3 13.1 8.5 13.8 0.0 25.7 10.7 21.9 1.5 6.7 20.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 285 239 396 0 412 325 748 336 133 723
V/C Ratio(X) 1.20 0.79 0.53 0.60 0.00 1.19 1.24 0.92 0.08 0.82 0.94
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 285 239 396 0 412 325 748 336 152 723
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.3 44.6 42.6 37.6 0.0 42.2 49.7 41.9 34.0 45.9 31.2 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 120.3 13.6 2.3 2.6 0.0 108.4 129.9 16.0 0.4 24.4 20.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.1 6.8 3.3 5.9 0.0 23.2 10.1 10.2 0.6 3.5 7.9 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 166.6 58.1 45.0 40.2 0.0 150.5 179.6 57.9 34.3 70.3 51.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS F E D D A F F E C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 675 730 1119 788
Approach Delay, s/veh 107.6 114.4 101.4 54.1
Approach LOS F F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 29.8 34.0 17.8 31.0 27.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.7 23.1 * 26 * 9.6 23.1 17.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.7 22.8 27.7 8.7 23.9 19.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 94.3
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax PikeFuture with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 907 116 92 1140 40 83 65 102 90
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.69 0.10 0.24 0.84 0.03 0.63 0.16 0.76 0.26
Control Delay 3.1 8.8 1.3 3.5 17.2 0.4 61.5 0.8 74.6 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.1 8.8 1.3 3.5 17.2 0.4 61.5 0.8 74.6 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 139 0 7 419 0 45 0 56 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m6 275 m5 14 #807 3 #121 0 #151 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1336 1871 292 413
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 50
Base Capacity (vph) 233 1330 1164 378 1352 1169 132 405 135 345
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.68 0.10 0.24 0.84 0.03 0.63 0.16 0.76 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax PikeFuture with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 834 107 85 1049 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 834 107 85 1049 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 907 77 92 1140 27 83 0 2 102 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 288 1323 1121 609 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.73 0.73 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1415 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 907 77 92 1140 27 83 0 2 102 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1415 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 37.3 0.4 5.0 0.0 0.1 6.2 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 37.3 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.1 6.3 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 1323 1121 609 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.69 0.07 0.15 0.84 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 342 1323 1121 630 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.4 3.3 38.7 0.0 36.4 39.2 0.0 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 10.9 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.9 1.9 0.1 2.8 13.3 3.3 40.0 0.0 36.4 41.2 0.0 36.4
LnGrp LOS B A A A B A D A D D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1020 1259 85 104
Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 12.3 39.9 41.1
Approach LOS A B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 66.0 12.0 7.4 67.6 12.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 60.5 7.5 5.5 60.5 7.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 7.1 2.4 39.3 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 41 57 2 16 1074 23 1 1029 40
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.11 0.32 0.01 0.04 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.44 0.04
Control Delay 59.7 0.6 46.8 0.0 5.9 9.5 0.2 9.0 9.1 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.7 0.6 46.8 0.0 5.9 9.5 0.2 9.0 9.1 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 37 0 1 2 0 0 105 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 0 73 0 m6 m292 m0 m1 233 1
Internal Link Dist (ft) 785 554 2104 1225
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 150 300 150
Base Capacity (vph) 296 495 297 505 416 2456 1148 394 2359 1109
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.44 0.04
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2035 Mitigation
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 988 21 1 947 37
Future Volume (veh/h) 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 988 21 1 947 37
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 0 2 57 0 0 16 1074 14 1 1029 24
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 193 0 142 191 168 0 380 2393 1067 347 2335 1042
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.66 0.66
Sat Flow, veh/h 1418 0 1585 1415 1870 0 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 0 2 57 0 0 16 1074 14 1 1029 24
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1418 0 1585 1415 1870 0 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 15.6 0.3 0.0 15.4 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 15.6 0.3 0.0 15.4 0.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 0 142 191 168 0 380 2393 1067 347 2335 1042
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 0 333 374 410 0 506 2393 1067 486 2335 1042
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.1 0.0 45.6 47.6 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.4 5.9 6.9 9.1 6.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.1 0.0 4.9 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 0.0 45.7 48.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.5 5.9 6.9 9.7 6.6
LnGrp LOS D A D D A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 104 57 1104 1054
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 48.5 8.4 9.6
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 80.8 20.8 10.2 79.0 20.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 10.9 8.3 6.7 * 11
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 52.3 23.1 9.7 51.3 * 24
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 17.6 9.8 2.3 17.4 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.9 0.2 0.0 7.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
I. 2041 Future Conditions with Development – Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Queues Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 739 424 176 704 147 85 101 78 299 175
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.87 0.47 0.70 0.89 0.16 0.64 0.47 0.24 1.12 0.38
Control Delay 24.6 44.1 12.8 29.1 46.4 2.0 60.9 26.7 39.0 139.3 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.6 44.1 12.8 29.1 46.4 2.0 60.9 26.7 39.0 139.3 7.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 592 157 56 494 0 58 21 51 ~346 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 772 243 #110 #784 26 #127 #91 95 #530 56
Internal Link Dist (ft) 593 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 320 892 912 253 807 942 141 215 383 268 498
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.83 0.46 0.70 0.87 0.16 0.60 0.47 0.20 1.12 0.35
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 153 680 390 162 648 135 78 25 68 72 275 161
Future Volume (veh/h) 153 680 390 162 648 135 78 25 68 72 275 161
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.95
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1752 1796 1796 1722 1856 966 907 848 1870 1841 1781
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 739 366 176 704 74 85 27 7 78 299 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 10 7 7 12 3 63 67 71 2 4 8
Cap, veh/h 295 941 956 259 903 886 140 105 27 296 204 251
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 692 180 1781 1841 1438
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 739 366 176 704 74 85 0 34 78 299 29
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1752 1521 1711 1722 1537 920 0 872 1781 1841 1438
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 43.9 15.3 6.0 42.8 2.8 10.5 0.0 4.5 5.0 14.4 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 43.9 15.3 6.0 42.8 2.8 10.5 0.0 4.5 5.0 14.4 2.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 941 956 259 903 886 140 0 132 296 204 251
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.79 0.38 0.68 0.78 0.08 0.61 0.00 0.26 0.26 1.47 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 395 941 956 287 903 886 143 0 132 402 204 251
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.7 24.1 11.8 23.2 24.9 12.3 45.9 0.0 48.7 47.7 57.8 45.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 6.5 1.2 3.1 3.7 0.1 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 234.7 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 18.5 5.5 2.6 17.2 1.0 2.7 0.0 1.0 2.3 20.0 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 30.6 13.0 26.3 28.6 12.4 52.9 0.0 49.8 48.2 292.5 45.8
LnGrp LOS C C B C C B D A D D F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1271 954 119 406
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 26.9 52.0 228.0
Approach LOS C C D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.6 73.9 13.2 26.3 14.9 75.6 18.5 21.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 60 14.4 12.4 * 10 67.2 12.4 14.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 44.8 7.0 6.5 8.0 45.9 12.5 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 56.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Gibson Property
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 241 709 23 3 608 37 101 241
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.70 0.02 0.01 0.77 0.05 0.43 0.63
Control Delay 12.8 16.3 0.0 4.7 22.9 0.6 24.5 19.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.8 16.3 0.0 4.7 22.9 0.6 24.5 19.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 147 0 0 178 0 23 34
Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 #517 0 3 368 3 72 111
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 404 1113 1010 426 1052 933 434 628
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.64 0.02 0.01 0.58 0.04 0.23 0.38
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 222 652 21 3 559 34 47 11 35 56 7 158
Future Volume (veh/h) 222 652 21 3 559 34 47 11 35 56 7 158
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1752 1811 1870 1722 1737 1796 1752 1796 1826 1648 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 241 709 12 3 608 16 51 12 6 61 8 44
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 10 6 2 12 11 7 10 7 5 17 13
Cap, veh/h 400 951 833 305 789 675 261 55 19 184 38 79
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 1016 373 132 581 257 534
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 241 709 12 3 608 16 69 0 0 113 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 1752 1535 1781 1722 1472 1521 0 0 1373 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 17.5 0.2 0.0 16.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 17.5 0.2 0.0 16.6 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.09 0.54 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 400 951 833 305 789 675 335 0 0 301 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.75 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 1245 1091 456 1224 1046 736 0 0 691 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 9.9 5.9 8.5 12.8 8.3 21.3 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.9 12.8 5.9 8.5 16.2 8.4 21.6 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS B B A A B A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 962 627 69 113
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 16.0 21.6 22.9
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 38.4 13.2 9.5 33.6 13.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 19.5 4.0 6.3 18.6 6.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.4 0.2 0.0 7.2 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 290 335 270 125 242 326 530 218 103 392 192
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.54 0.47 0.79 0.79 0.72 0.43 0.71 0.70 0.45
Control Delay 65.1 68.1 9.1 45.9 58.7 60.6 46.6 6.0 74.5 38.5 11.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65.1 68.1 9.1 45.9 58.7 60.6 46.6 6.0 74.5 38.5 11.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 197 231 0 79 152 116 186 0 64 140 26
Queue Length 95th (ft) #371 #423 75 135 235 #179 250 46 #155 188 79
Internal Link Dist (ft) 382 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 344 380 503 321 363 417 734 508 151 560 423
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.54 0.39 0.67 0.78 0.72 0.43 0.68 0.70 0.45
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 267 308 248 115 157 65 300 488 201 95 361 177
Future Volume (veh/h) 267 308 248 115 157 65 300 488 201 95 361 177
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1663 1663 1767 1856 1722 1752 1707 1841 1618 1411
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 290 335 37 125 171 56 326 530 34 103 392 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 4 16 16 9 3 12 10 13 4 19 33
Cap, veh/h 310 340 260 248 200 65 388 915 398 126 723
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.47 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1841 1409 1584 1274 417 3182 3328 1447 1753 3075 1196
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 290 335 37 125 0 227 326 530 34 103 392 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 1841 1409 1584 0 1692 1591 1664 1447 1753 1537 1196
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 20.0 2.4 8.0 0.0 14.4 11.0 15.1 1.9 6.3 10.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 20.0 2.4 8.0 0.0 14.4 11.0 15.1 1.9 6.3 10.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 340 260 248 0 265 388 915 398 126 723
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.99 0.14 0.50 0.00 0.86 0.84 0.58 0.09 0.81 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 310 340 260 327 0 349 425 915 398 153 723
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.2 44.7 37.6 42.5 0.0 45.2 47.3 34.4 29.6 46.4 24.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.2 45.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 14.9 12.9 2.2 0.4 23.3 2.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.5 13.1 0.8 3.2 0.0 7.0 4.8 6.0 0.7 3.3 3.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.4 89.7 37.8 44.1 0.0 60.1 60.2 36.6 30.0 69.7 27.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS E F D D A E E D C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 662 352 890 495
Approach Delay, s/veh 81.8 54.4 45.0 36.5
Approach LOS F D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 32.6 25.5 17.3 36.9 30.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.7 19.1 * 23 * 9.6 23.1 20.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 12.0 16.4 8.3 17.1 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 2.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Gibson Property
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 100 40 879 2 684 62
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.18 0.11 0.54 0.01 0.60 0.11
Control Delay 37.8 7.4 9.6 14.5 8.0 23.1 5.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 37.8 7.4 9.6 14.5 8.0 23.1 5.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 6 8 118 0 141 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 41 23 284 3 232 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 275 295
Base Capacity (vph) 613 609 616 1964 620 1667 819
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.16 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.41 0.08
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 92 37 809 2 629 57
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 92 37 809 2 629 57
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1752 1589 1648 1604 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 39 40 879 684 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 10 21 17 20 13
Cap, veh/h 224 246 283 1370 1079 512
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.44 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1485 1513 3214 3127 1447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 39 40 879 684 17
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1485 1513 1566 1523 1447
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 0.0 0.0 13.6 11.6 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 0.0 0.0 13.6 11.6 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 224 246 283 1370 1079 512
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.16 0.14 0.64 0.63 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 720 659 711 2277 1969 935
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 22.1 20.8 13.6 16.6 13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.4 0.3 1.1 1.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.7 0.4 3.7 3.3 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.1 22.5 21.0 14.7 18.0 13.1
LnGrp LOS C C C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 200 919 701
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 15.0 17.9
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.6 16.5 13.0 32.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 7.4 2.0 13.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.5 0.7 0.1 8.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 237 175 604 574 80
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.52 0.53 0.25 0.35 0.07
Control Delay 55.8 10.2 57.6 3.8 14.5 1.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.8 10.2 57.6 3.8 14.5 1.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 0 65 26 108 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 39 99 102 170 14
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 313 731 615 2433 1629 1316
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.35 0.06
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2041
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 230 170 586 0 557 78
Future Volume (vph) 55 230 170 586 0 557 78
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 2733 3273 3195 2888 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 57 237 175 604 0 574 80
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 216 0 0 0 0 28
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 21 175 604 0 574 52
Heavy Vehicles (%) 14% 4% 7% 13% 2% 25% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 11.2 83.8 62.1 71.7
Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 9.6 11.2 83.8 62.1 71.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.76 0.56 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 238 333 2434 1630 1031
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.01 c0.05 0.19 c0.20 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.09 0.53 0.25 0.35 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 47.5 46.2 46.9 3.8 13.0 6.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.87 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.6 0.0
Delay (s) 49.5 46.3 53.8 3.6 13.6 6.9
Level of Service D D D A B A
Approach Delay (s) 46.9 14.9 12.8
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
Queues Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 901 50 39 643 100 133 105 30 26
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.71 0.05 0.11 0.52 0.09 0.69 0.24 0.17 0.05
Control Delay 2.0 8.2 0.2 3.8 10.5 1.7 53.6 1.4 33.6 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.0 8.2 0.2 3.8 10.5 1.7 53.6 1.4 33.6 0.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 84 0 5 189 0 67 0 14 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m5 534 m0 12 268 16 #136 0 39 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 737 2471 292 413
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 50
Base Capacity (vph) 512 1279 1112 345 1232 1080 218 455 203 549
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.70 0.04 0.11 0.52 0.09 0.61 0.23 0.15 0.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 829 46 36 592 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 81 829 46 36 592 92 122 0 97 28 0 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 901 32 39 643 62 133 0 7 30 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 555 1291 1094 389 1247 1057 247 0 184 242 0 184
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.69 0.69 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1409 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 901 32 39 643 62 133 0 7 30 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1409 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 24.5 0.5 0.5 14.8 1.2 7.8 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 24.5 0.5 0.5 14.8 1.2 7.9 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 555 1291 1094 389 1247 1057 247 0 184 242 0 184
V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.70 0.03 0.10 0.52 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 1291 1094 431 1247 1057 308 0 252 303 0 252
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.68 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.8 7.9 4.2 7.1 7.2 4.9 36.8 0.0 33.4 34.3 0.0 33.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 7.3 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.3 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.9 10.0 4.2 7.2 7.6 4.9 38.6 0.0 33.5 34.5 0.0 33.3
LnGrp LOS A B A A A A D A C C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1021 744 140 32
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 7.3 38.3 34.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 63.1 14.3 9.5 61.2 14.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 53.0 13.5 5.1 52.9 13.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 26.5 9.9 3.2 16.8 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 0.1 0.0 4.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
7: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 2 Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 953 707 3 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 0 953 707 3 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1036 768 3 0 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 770
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 401
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 401
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 401
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.035
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 14.3
HCM Lane LOS - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.1
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
8: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 3 Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 905 709 14 5 1
Future Vol, veh/h 48 905 709 14 5 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 52 984 771 15 5 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 786 0 - 0 1867 779
Stage 1 - - - - 779 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1088 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 833 - - - 80 396
Stage 1 - - - - 452 -
Stage 2 - - - - 323 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 833 - - - 75 396
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 75 -
Stage 1 - - - - 424 -
Stage 2 - - - - 323 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 49.6
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 833 - - - 75 396
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 - - - 0.072 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - - 56.7 14.1
HCM Lane LOS A - - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.2 0
Queues Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 12 16 1 39 789 58 2 691 100
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.08
Control Delay 55.1 0.2 49.3 0.0 1.8 2.8 1.2 4.0 5.6 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.1 0.2 49.3 0.0 1.8 2.8 1.2 4.0 5.6 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 0 11 0 3 2 0 0 78 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 0 33 0 m3 m229 m6 m2 92 1
Internal Link Dist (ft) 785 554 2104 1225
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 150 300 150
Base Capacity (vph) 296 562 306 551 647 2934 1340 598 2738 1261
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.08
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 726 53 2 636 92
Future Volume (veh/h) 27 0 11 15 0 1 36 726 53 2 636 92
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 0 0 16 0 0 39 789 40 2 691 65
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 114 64 0 114 64 0 565 2587 1154 552 2484 1108
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70
Sat Flow, veh/h 1418 1870 0 1418 1870 0 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 0 0 16 0 0 39 789 40 2 691 65
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1418 1870 0 1418 1870 0 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 1.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 1.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 64 0 114 64 0 565 2587 1154 552 2484 1108
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.31 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 393 0 376 410 0 666 2587 1154 688 2484 1108
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.4 0.0 0.0 51.9 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 6.2 5.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.6 0.0 0.0 52.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.2 0.0 4.0 6.5 5.3
LnGrp LOS D A A D A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 29 16 868 758
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.6 52.5 0.3 6.4
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 86.8 14.6 11.8 83.6 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 10.9 8.3 6.7 * 11
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 52.3 23.1 9.7 51.3 * 24
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.7 10.0 3.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development AM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 748 6 17 728
Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 748 6 17 728
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 5 813 7 18 791
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1245 407 0 0 820 0
Stage 1 813 - - - - -
Stage 2 432 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 166 593 - - 805 -
Stage 1 396 - - - - -
Stage 2 622 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 162 593 - - 805 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 - - - - -
Stage 1 396 - - - - -
Stage 2 608 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13 0 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 288 593 805 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.008 0.009 0.023 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.6 11.1 9.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 0.1 -
Queues Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 859 182 161 959 158 200 254 114 60 397
v/c Ratio 1.09 0.95 0.16 0.83 1.22 0.18 0.69 1.18 0.49 0.37 0.84
Control Delay 107.9 52.2 2.7 58.3 141.1 2.1 50.5 152.5 42.2 53.4 46.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 107.9 52.2 2.7 58.3 141.1 2.1 50.5 152.5 42.2 53.4 46.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~206 591 0 66 ~834 0 120 ~183 65 40 200
Queue Length 95th (ft) #381 #860 56 #183 #1078 26 #200 #351 115 83 #345
Internal Link Dist (ft) 593 4165 244 594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 500 270 575 190 150
Base Capacity (vph) 295 901 1122 193 785 893 289 215 251 176 470
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.09 0.95 0.16 0.83 1.22 0.18 0.69 1.18 0.45 0.34 0.84
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
1: Warrior Drive & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 295 790 167 148 882 145 184 86 148 105 55 365
Future Volume (veh/h) 295 790 167 148 882 145 184 86 148 105 55 365
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1693 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 321 859 104 161 959 74 200 93 101 114 60 317
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 2 14 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 298 1002 1012 243 847 830 298 94 102 198 177 354
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 814 884 1781 1870 1560
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 321 859 104 161 959 74 200 0 194 114 60 317
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1841 1585 1612 1841 1552 1781 0 1698 1781 1870 1560
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 43.9 2.8 4.8 50.6 2.6 10.4 0.0 12.6 6.3 3.3 10.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 43.9 2.8 4.8 50.6 2.6 10.4 0.0 12.6 6.3 3.3 10.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 1002 1012 243 847 830 298 0 196 198 177 354
V/C Ratio(X) 1.08 0.86 0.10 0.66 1.13 0.09 0.67 0.00 0.99 0.58 0.34 0.90
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 298 1002 1012 276 847 830 298 0 196 252 177 354
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 21.4 7.7 22.0 29.7 12.6 41.1 0.0 48.6 41.2 46.6 41.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 9.4 0.2 0.5 61.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 60.5 2.6 1.1 24.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.0 19.3 1.0 2.0 34.7 0.9 5.4 0.0 8.6 2.9 1.6 10.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 111.1 30.9 7.9 22.5 91.0 12.6 46.8 0.0 109.1 43.8 47.7 65.8
LnGrp LOS F C A C F B D A F D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1284 1194 394 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.1 76.9 77.5 58.5
Approach LOS D E E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 56.5 14.7 19.3 13.7 65.8 17.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.7 * 5.8 6.6 6.6 * 6.8 5.8 6.6 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 14 * 47 11.4 9.4 * 9.2 54.2 10.4 10.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 52.6 8.3 14.6 6.8 45.9 12.4 12.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 63.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Queues Gibson Property
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 688 48 31 987 50 83 249
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.63 0.05 0.07 1.01 0.06 0.65 0.63
Control Delay 34.0 14.1 1.2 4.0 50.2 1.3 49.6 17.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.0 14.1 1.2 4.0 50.2 1.3 49.6 17.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 131 0 3 396 0 31 32
Queue Length 95th (ft) #129 401 8 12 #770 8 77 100
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4165 4595 176 167
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 125 155
Base Capacity (vph) 221 1092 1013 465 980 894 264 652
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.63 0.05 0.07 1.01 0.06 0.31 0.38
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
2: Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak Road & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 162 674 47 30 967 49 46 23 13 29 32 182
Future Volume (veh/h) 162 674 47 30 967 49 46 23 13 29 32 182
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1781 1870 1841 1826 1870 1870 1752 1870 1870 1841 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 165 688 29 31 987 28 47 23 4 30 33 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 2 4 5 2 2 10 2 2 4 2
Cap, veh/h 253 1069 952 411 1030 894 185 76 10 106 84 75
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.60 0.60 0.03 0.56 0.56 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 827 621 83 323 688 610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 165 688 29 31 987 28 74 0 0 101 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1585 1753 1826 1585 1531 0 0 1621 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 17.7 0.5 0.5 36.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 17.7 0.5 0.5 36.0 0.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.05 0.30 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 1069 952 411 1030 894 271 0 0 265 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.64 0.03 0.08 0.96 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1069 952 479 1040 903 594 0 0 632 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 9.1 5.7 7.1 14.5 6.8 28.3 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 1.9 0.0 0.1 18.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 5.3 0.1 0.1 16.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.7 11.0 5.7 7.2 33.4 6.8 28.8 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS C B A A C A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 882 1046 74 101
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 31.9 28.8 29.6
Approach LOS B C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 50.0 13.5 9.3 47.4 13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.8 4.9 4.5 7.8 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 40.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 19.7 4.8 4.6 38.0 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.2 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Queues Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 230 422 252 523 412 705 188 111 696 312
v/c Ratio 1.23 0.82 0.86 0.65 1.26 1.28 0.99 0.37 0.76 0.97 0.54
Control Delay 172.1 68.4 31.6 46.8 169.8 189.8 75.9 3.7 86.2 64.0 10.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 172.1 68.4 31.6 46.8 169.8 189.8 75.9 3.7 86.2 64.0 10.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~285 159 83 161 ~460 ~190 ~265 0 81 234 25
Queue Length 95th (ft) #462 #287 #261 251 #671 #290 #394 24 #162 #386 99
Internal Link Dist (ft) 382 694 8434 2104
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 230 500 565 250 125 480
Base Capacity (vph) 265 281 491 390 416 321 710 512 150 715 578
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.23 0.82 0.86 0.65 1.26 1.28 0.99 0.37 0.74 0.97 0.54
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
3: Route 522 & Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 300 212 388 232 376 105 379 649 173 102 640 287
Future Volume (veh/h) 300 212 388 232 376 105 379 649 173 102 640 287
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1811 1796 1781 1826 1796 1811 1781 1796 1826 1811 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 326 230 145 252 409 104 412 705 27 111 696 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 6 7 8 5 7 6 8 7 5 6 2
Cap, veh/h 269 285 239 396 328 83 325 744 335 135 723
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.42 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1711 1811 1522 1697 1404 357 3346 3385 1522 1739 3441 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 326 230 145 252 0 513 412 705 27 111 696 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1711 1811 1522 1697 0 1762 1673 1692 1522 1739 1721 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.3 13.5 9.8 14.7 0.0 25.7 10.7 22.6 1.5 6.8 21.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.3 13.5 9.8 14.7 0.0 25.7 10.7 22.6 1.5 6.8 21.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 285 239 396 0 412 325 744 335 135 723
V/C Ratio(X) 1.21 0.81 0.61 0.64 0.00 1.25 1.27 0.95 0.08 0.82 0.96
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 285 239 396 0 412 325 744 335 152 723
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.3 44.7 43.2 37.9 0.0 42.2 49.7 42.3 34.1 45.8 31.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 124.5 15.7 4.3 3.3 0.0 129.8 138.7 19.9 0.4 24.8 24.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.5 7.1 3.9 6.3 0.0 25.6 10.5 10.9 0.6 3.5 8.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 170.9 60.4 47.5 41.3 0.0 171.9 188.3 62.2 34.5 70.6 55.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS F E D D A F F E C E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 701 765 1144 807
Approach Delay, s/veh 109.1 128.9 107.0 57.5
Approach LOS F F F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 29.8 34.0 17.9 30.9 27.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 * 8.3 * 9.4 6.7 9.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.7 23.1 * 26 * 9.6 23.1 17.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.7 23.7 27.7 8.8 24.6 19.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 100.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues Gibson Property
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 99 124 1067 1089 210
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.19 0.42 0.51 0.80 0.27
Control Delay 47.5 18.0 21.0 10.9 30.6 4.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.5 18.0 21.0 10.9 30.6 4.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 34 27 164 290 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 182 69 58 256 #456 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 1077 8434
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 295
Base Capacity (vph) 473 514 488 2104 1419 798
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.19 0.25 0.51 0.77 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
4: Route 522 & Lake Frederick Drive Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 91 114 982 0 1002 193
Future Volume (veh/h) 169 91 114 982 0 1002 193
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1722 1826 1781 1767 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 87 124 1067 1089 76
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 12 5 8 9 2
Cap, veh/h 242 285 267 1484 1445 682
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.44 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1459 1739 3474 3445 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184 87 124 1067 1089 76
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1459 1739 1692 1678 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 0.0 0.0 20.5 21.7 2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 0.0 20.5 21.7 2.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 285 267 1484 1445 682
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.31 0.46 0.72 0.75 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 562 546 603 1921 1693 800
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 27.3 31.4 18.3 19.0 13.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.7 1.5 1.6 2.3 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 2.0 2.2 6.9 7.3 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 28.0 32.9 19.8 21.3 13.7
LnGrp LOS D C C B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 271 1191 1165
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 21.2 20.8
Approach LOS D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.3 19.5 15.2 44.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 10.5 10.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 20.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 9.9 2.0 23.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.3 0.9 0.3 10.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
Queues Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 265 324 813 830 120
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.42 0.67 0.36 0.53 0.11
Control Delay 57.4 6.8 53.6 7.8 24.1 1.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.4 6.8 53.6 7.8 24.1 1.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 0 122 130 214 2
Queue Length 95th (ft) 184 37 142 77 323 23
Internal Link Dist (ft) 446 1419 813
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 485 315
Base Capacity (vph) 350 764 627 2284 1560 1172
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.35 0.52 0.36 0.53 0.10
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2041
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 254 311 780 0 797 115
Future Volume (vph) 170 254 311 780 0 797 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 2787 3335 3252 3374 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 177 265 324 812 0 830 120
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 226 0 0 0 0 44
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 39 324 813 0 830 76
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 11% 2% 7% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 2 7
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 15.9 77.3 50.9 67.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 15.9 77.3 50.9 67.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.70 0.46 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 10.2 10.2 10.3 6.4 6.6 10.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 259 407 482 2285 1561 964
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.01 c0.10 0.25 c0.25 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.10 0.67 0.36 0.53 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 40.6 44.6 6.5 21.1 8.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.04 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.3 0.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 0.0
Delay (s) 51.8 40.7 50.3 7.2 22.4 8.9
Level of Service D D D A C A
Approach Delay (s) 45.2 19.5 20.7
Approach LOS D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 27.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
5: Route 522 & Tasker Road Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
HCM 6th Edition methodology supports red clearance in the range of 0 to 6 seconds.
Queues Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 928 116 92 1167 40 83 65 102 90
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.71 0.10 0.25 0.86 0.03 0.63 0.16 0.76 0.26
Control Delay 2.5 6.7 0.7 3.7 18.7 0.4 61.5 0.9 74.6 1.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.5 6.7 0.7 3.7 18.7 0.4 61.5 0.9 74.6 1.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 108 0 7 445 0 45 0 56 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m3 180 m4 14 #839 3 #121 0 #151 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 737 2471 292 413
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 50
Base Capacity (vph) 213 1330 1164 363 1352 1169 132 398 135 340
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.70 0.10 0.25 0.86 0.03 0.63 0.16 0.76 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
6: Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 & Fairfax Pike Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 854 107 85 1074 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 854 107 85 1074 37 76 0 60 94 0 83
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 928 77 92 1167 27 83 0 2 102 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 272 1323 1121 600 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.73 0.73 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1415 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 928 77 92 1167 27 83 0 2 102 0 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1415 0 1585 1415 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 39.7 0.4 5.0 0.0 0.1 6.2 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 39.7 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.1 6.3 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 272 1323 1121 600 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.70 0.07 0.15 0.86 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 325 1323 1121 622 1356 1150 203 0 137 203 0 137
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.7 3.3 38.7 0.0 36.4 39.2 0.0 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 5.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 11.8 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 2.1 0.1 2.8 14.6 3.3 40.0 0.0 36.4 41.2 0.0 36.4
LnGrp LOS B A A A B A D A D D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 1286 85 104
Approach Delay, s/veh 2.3 13.5 39.9 41.1
Approach LOS A B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 66.0 12.0 7.4 67.6 12.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 60.5 7.5 5.5 60.5 7.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 7.1 2.4 41.7 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.9
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
7: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 2 Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1008 1153 1 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1008 1153 1 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1096 1253 1 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 1254
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 210
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 210
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 27
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 210
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.223
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 27
HCM Lane LOS - - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.8
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
8: Fairfax Pike & Gibson Site Entrance 3 Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 989 1149 6 17 5
Future Vol, veh/h 19 989 1149 6 17 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 1075 1249 7 18 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1256 0 - 0 2370 1253
Stage 1 - - - - 1253 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1117 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 554 - - - 38 210
Stage 1 - - - - 269 -
Stage 2 - - - - 313 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 554 - - - 37 210
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 37 -
Stage 1 - - - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - - 313 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 140.8
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 554 - - - 37 210
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - - - 0.499 0.026
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - - - 175.5 22.6
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.7 0.1
Queues Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2041
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 41 57 2 16 1096 23 1 1067 40
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.11 0.32 0.01 0.05 0.45 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.04
Control Delay 59.7 0.6 46.8 0.0 6.3 9.9 0.2 8.0 9.1 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.7 0.6 46.8 0.0 6.3 9.9 0.2 8.0 9.1 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 37 0 1 0 0 0 111 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 0 73 0 m7 m293 m0 m1 241 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 785 554 2104 1225
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 150 300 150
Base Capacity (vph) 296 491 297 503 401 2456 1148 386 2359 1109
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.45 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.04
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 1008 21 1 982 37
Future Volume (veh/h) 94 0 38 52 0 2 15 1008 21 1 982 37
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 0 2 57 0 0 16 1096 14 1 1067 24
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 193 0 142 191 168 0 366 2393 1067 339 2335 1042
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.66 0.66
Sat Flow, veh/h 1418 0 1585 1415 1870 0 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 0 2 57 0 0 16 1096 14 1 1067 24
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1418 0 1585 1415 1870 0 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 16.0 0.3 0.0 16.2 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 16.0 0.3 0.0 16.2 0.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 0 142 191 168 0 366 2393 1067 339 2335 1042
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.46 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 0 333 374 410 0 492 2393 1067 478 2335 1042
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.1 0.0 45.6 47.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.5 5.9 7.0 9.2 6.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.8 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 0.0 45.7 48.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.5 5.9 7.0 9.9 6.6
LnGrp LOS D A D D A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 104 57 1126 1092
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 48.5 8.5 9.8
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 80.8 20.8 10.2 79.0 20.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.7 10.9 8.3 6.7 * 11
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 52.3 23.1 9.7 51.3 * 24
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 18.0 9.8 2.3 18.2 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.1 0.2 0.0 7.8 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development PM 2041
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 17 1102 2 7 1014
Future Vol, veh/h 6 17 1102 2 7 1014
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 18 1198 2 8 1102
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1765 599 0 0 1200 0
Stage 1 1198 - - - - -
Stage 2 567 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 75 445 - - 577 -
Stage 1 249 - - - - -
Stage 2 531 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 74 445 - - 577 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 183 - - - - -
Stage 1 249 - - - - -
Stage 2 524 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.5 0 0.1
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 183 445 577 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.036 0.042 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 25.4 13.4 11.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 0 -
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
J. VJuST
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 1
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Preliminary VJuST Analysis – Intersections #6 and #9
The VDOT Junction Screening Tool (VJuST) was utilized to consider and screen innovative intersection configurations that
address mobility and safety issues. This analysis is based on the Future with Development (2035) traffic volumes. As shown in
Table 1, Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1/Lake Frederick Entrance (Intersection #6) was evaluated for a conventional traffic
signal, thru-cut signal, roundabout (single lane and hybrid), and two-way stop control. As shown in Table 6, configurations
considered for Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 (Intersection #9) included a conventional traffic signal, unsignalized Continuous
Green-T, unsignalized Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT), and two-way stop control.
Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 show the results for Intersection #6 and Table 7 and Table 8 show the results for
Intersection #9.
Table 1: VJuST Possible Configurations for Intersection #6
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
5 Echelon Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
7 Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link Y
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link Y
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Unsignalized Intersections
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for
guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 2
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 2: VJuST Intersection #6 Results (AM Peak Hour)
Table 3: VJusT Intersection #6 Results for Hybrid Roundabout (AM Peak Hour)
Table 4: VJuST Intersection #6 Results (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.67 48 $$
Thru-Cut -0.65 28 $$
Roundabout -0.78 8 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -1.91 48 $
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Roundabout -0.39 8 $$
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.83 48 $$
Thru-Cut -0.80 28 $$
Roundabout -1.00 8 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -4.02 48 $
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 3
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 5: VJuST Intersection #6 Results for Hybrid Roundabout (PM Peak Hour)
Table 6: VJuST Possible Configurations for Intersection #9
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Roundabout -0.50 8 $$
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Unable to accommodate magnitude of traffic volumes
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link Y
5 Echelon Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
7 Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link Y
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link N
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link N
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Insufficient intersection spacing
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for
guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 4
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 7: VJuST Intersection #9 Results (AM Peak Hour)
Table 8: VJuST Intersection #9 Results (PM Peak Hour)
Two-Way Stop Control
Intersection capacity analysis was performed using Synchro 11 based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 th methodology.
Analysis was performed for the AM and PM peak hours under the Future with Development Conditions (2035) assuming two-
way stop control. Figure 15 of traffic study shows the peak hour volumes for the study intersections. A peak hour factor of 0.92
was used, consistent with VDOT analysis guidelines, for the future study intersections. The uniform PHF by intersection was
used, consistent with TOSAM guidelines. The results of the intersection capacity analysis with two-way stop control are
summarized in Table 9.
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.27 48 $$
Continuous Green-T -0.27 -12*$$
Restricted Crossing U-Turn -0.22 20 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -0.20 48 $
Intersection Results
CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.40 48 $$
Continuous Green-T -0.39 -12*$$
Restricted Crossing U-Turn -0.28 20 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -0.47 48 $
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 5
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 9: Two-Way Stop Control Intersection Capacity Analysis (2035)
As shown in Table 9 , at Intersection #6, the two-way stop control configuration results in LOS F during both the AM and PM
peak hours for the northbound and southbound approaches. At Intersection #9, this configuration operates at LOS E during the
PM peak hour for the eastbound and westbound approaches. With the proposed development program, two-way stop
control is not recommended at Intersection #6 due to the unacceptable levels of service during both peak hours. Lower
density levels or lower trip uses would be necessary for two -way stop control to be further considered at Intersection
#6. Two-way stop control may be further considered for Intersection #9, as its performance is only slightly below
acceptable levels during one peak hour.
Conventional Signal
Intersection capacity analysis was performed using Synchro 11 based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 th methodology.
Analysis was performed for the AM and PM peak hours under the Future with Development Conditions (2035) considering a full-
color, full-movement traffic signal. Figure 15 of the traffic study shows the peak hour volumes for the study intersections. A peak
hour factor of 0.92 was used, consistent with VDOT analysis guidelines, for the future study intersections. The uniform PHF by
intersection was used, consistent with TOSAM guidelines. The results of the intersection capacity analysis with a conventional
signal are shown in Table 10.
Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance
1 & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach
Eastbound Left 150 A 9.6 7.5 B 11.5 5.0
Westbound Approach
Westbound Left 150 B 10.2 5.0 B 11.1 12.5
Northbound Approach F $ 537.5 F $ 1675.9
Northbound Left F $ 949.1 350 F $ 2984.5 285
Northbound Thru/Right C 19.8 32.5 C 18.4 17.5
Southbound Approach F 150.5 F $ 1551.2
Southbound Left 50 F 268.3 75 F $ 2896.2 340
Southbound Thru/Right B 13 5 D 28 40
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4
(E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach C 17.1 E 40.8
Eastbound Left/Thru C 19.8 10 F 52.1 80
Eastbound Right 50 B 10.5 2.5 B 12.8 7.5
Westbound Approach C 20.6 E 39
Westbound Left/Thru C 21.2 5 E 40 37.5
Westbound Right 50 B 10.9 0 B 12.4 0
Northbound Approach
Northbound Left 300 A 9.5 2.5 B 10.7 2.5
Southbound Approach
Southbound Left 300 A 9.5 0 B 10.7 0
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
9
6
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Synchro
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 6
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 10: Conventional Signal Intersection Capacity Analysis (2035)
As shown in Table 11, with a conventional signal, both intersections operate at acceptable levels of service during both peak
hours. Additionally, the queues for the turning movements are anticipated to be accommodated within the proposed storage
lanes. Since the intersections operate acceptably with the conventional signal, this configuration is recommended for
further consideration at both intersections.
Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)
An RCUT alternative was evaluated only for Intersection #9, as insufficient right-of-way and lack of a median preclude this
configuration at Intersection #6. Under this configuration, left-turn movements from the eastbound and westbound approaches
at Intersection #9 are rerouted as right turns followed by U-turns at Intersection #10 and at the intersection of Route 522 and
Highland Corners Road, respectively.
Intersection capacity analysis was performed using Synchro 11 based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 th methodology.
Analysis was performed for the AM and PM peak hours under the Future with Development Conditions (2035) assuming an
RCUT. Figure 1 shows the peak hour volumes for the study intersections. A peak hour factor of 0.92 was used, consistent with
VDOT analysis guidelines, for the future study intersections. The uniform PHF by intersection was used, consistent with TOSAM
guidelines. The results of the intersection capacity analysis with an RCUT are shown in Table 11.
Mitigation: Install a Signal
Lake Frederick Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance
1 & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 7.2 B 10.3
Eastbound Approach A 2.1 A 2.1
Eastbound Left 150 A 4.6 8 m11 B 10.9 2 m6
Eastbound Thru A 2.0 117 122 A 1.9 139 275
Eastbound Right 150 A 0.0 0 m0 A 0.1 0 m5
Westbound Approach A 7.1 B 12.3
Westbound Left 150 A 3.3 5 12 A 2.8 7 14
Westbound Thru A 7.5 185 263 B 13.3 419 #807
Westbound Right 150 A 4.9 0 16 A 3.3 0 3
Northbound Approach D 38.3 D 39.9
Northbound Left D 38.6 67 #136 D 40.0 45 #121
Northbound Thru/Right C 33.5 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
Southbound Approach C 34.4 D 41.1
Southbound Left 50 C 34.5 14 39 D 41.2 56 #151
Southbound Thru/Right C 33.3 0 0 D 36.4 0 0
Mitigation: Install a Signal
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4
(E/W)
Overall Intersection (Signalized)A 4.5 B 11.9
Eastbound Approach D 53.6 D 51.2
Eastbound Left D 53.6 20 49 D 51.3 69 120
Eastbound Thru/Right A 0.0 0 0 D 45.7 0 0
Westbound Approach D 52.5 D 48.5
Westbound Left D 52.5 11 33 D 48.5 37 73
Westbound Thru/Right A 0.0 0 0 A 0 0 0
Northbound Approach A 0.4 A 8.4
Northbound Left 300 A 4.2 3 m3 A 7.0 1 m6
Northbound Thru A 0.2 2 m222 A 8.5 2 m292
Northbound Right 150 A 0.0 0 m6 A 5.9 0 m0
Southbound Approach A 6.3 A 9.6
Southbound Left 300 A 4 0 m2 A 6.9 0 m1
Southbound Thru A 6.4 74 87 A 9.7 105 233
Southbound Right 150 A 5.3 0 1 A 6.6 0 1
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
9
~: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
#: 95th percentile queues (reported from Synchro) exceed capacity; actual queues may be longer. Queues shown are based on the maximum after two cycles.
m: 95th percentile volume and queues (reported from Synchro) are metered by upstream signal.
NOTES:
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
$: Delays (reported from Synchro) exceed 300 seconds in TWSC.
PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
No.Intersection (Movement)
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
AM Peak Hour
Synchro
6
LOS Delay (s)
[2]
50th %
Queue (ft.)
[3]
95th %
Queue (ft.)
[4][5]
Synchro
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 7
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Figure 1: Future with Development Conditions (2035) Peak Hour Volume
Note: Traffic volumes for Highland Corners Road at Route 522 were not collected. Given that it is a low-volume roadway, an estimated 5
vehicles for each movement have been assumed to use this approach for VJuST screening purposes.
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 8
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Table 11: RCUT Capacity Analysis (2035) Intersection #9
As shown in Table 11, with an RCUT configuration, the intersection operates at acceptable levels of service during both peak
hours. Additionally, the queues for the turning movements are anticipated to be accommodated within the proposed storage
lanes. Since the intersection operates acceptably with the RCUT, this configuration is recommended for further
consideration at Intersection #9.
Continuous Green-T
A Continuous Green-T configuration was evaluated for Intersections #9 and #10. For evaluation purposes, the east leg of
Intersection #9 was assumed to be removed, and the intersection was analyzed as operating with only the west leg serving as
the site entrance.
This configuration is not recommended due to spacing constraints. According to the AASHTO Green Book (Chapter 10),
approximately 1,900 feet of acceleration lane would be required along Route 522 . As shown in Figure 2 , the acceleration lane
for Intersection #10 would extend beyond Intersection #9, while the acceleration lane for Intersection #9 would extend beyond
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site
Entrance 4 (E/W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach B 10.9 C 15.5
Eastbound Thru A 0 A 0
Eastbound Right 50 B 10.9 5 C 15.5 30
Westbound Approach B 11.2 B 14.2
Westbound Thru A 0 A 0
Westbound Right 50 B 11.2 2.5 B 14.2 10
Northbound Approach 0.4 0.1
Northbound Left 300 A 9.5 2.5 B 11.0 2.5
Southbound Approach 0 0
Southbound Left 300 A 9.7 0 B 11.2 0
Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site
Entrance 5 (W)
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Westbound Approach B 13 C 18.3
Westbound Left C 18.1 0 D 32.4 2.5
Westbound Right 50 B 11 0 B 13.3 2.5
Northbound Approach
Northbound U-Turn B 12.9 2.5 C 19.6 17.5
Southbound Approach
Southbound Left 300 A 9.5 2.5 B 11.2 0
Route 522 (N/S) & Highland Corner
Road
Overall Intersection (Unsignalized)
Eastbound Approach C 15.1 D 26
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right C 15.1 2.5 D 26 5
Westbound Approach C 16.5 D 25.8
Westbound Left/Thru/Right C 16.5 2.5 D 25.8 5
Northbound Approach
Northbound Left 285 A 9.0 0.0 B 10.9 0
Southbound Approach
Southbound U-Turn/Left 260 B 14 7.5 C 24.6 40
[1]
9
Synchro
Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines.
NOTES:
10
11
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s)95th %
Queue (ft.)No.
Effective Storage
Length (ft.)
[1]
LOS LOSIntersection (Movement)Delay (s)95th %
Queue (ft.)
Synchro
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 9
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
Intersection #10. Therefore, due to these conflicting spacing and functional requirements, this configuration is not
recommended for further consideration.
Figure 2: Continuous Green-T Merge Lane Spacing Evaluation
Thru-Cut Signal
A Thru-Cut configuration was evaluated for Intersection #6; however, it is noted there are identified right-of-way constraints. In
this context, the minor street movements at the site entrance and Lake Frederick entrance would be restricted to right and left
turns only, while the mainline traffic would continue like a conventional intersection. With fewer traffic signal phases, a thru-cut
can be more operationally efficient compared to a conventional traffic signal. Implementation of this configuration would require
the addition of channelized traffic islands, which may not be able to be accommodated within the available right-of-way. On the
north side of the intersection, the proposed Gibson site entrance is in close proximity to the property line, limiting any potential
widening. The south side of the intersection serves the Lake Frederick development and is not controlled by the Applicant. As a
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 10
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
result, the geometric requirements for a Thru-Cut configuration cannot be feasibly achieved at Intersection #6 without acquiring
offsite right-of-way. Because the right-of-way constraints are considered less significant compared to a roundabout, a Thru -Cut
may be further considered for Intersection #6.
Roundabout
A roundabout configuration was evaluated for Intersection #6; however, it is not recommended for further consideration due to
significant right-of-way constraints. Both a single-lane configuration and a hybrid configuration with two lanes on Fairfax Pike
were screened as part of the analysis. Implementation of a roundabout would require significant space to accommodate the
inscribed circle diameter, central island, splitter islands, and appropriate entry and exit geometry. Although the intersection
spacing requirements for a roundabout are anticipated to be met, the roundabout footprint cannot be accommodated within the
available right-of-way. On the north side of the intersection, the proposed Gibson site entrance is in close proximity to the
property line, limiting opportunities for expansion. The south side of the intersection serves the Lake Frederick development and
is not controlled by the Applicant. As a result, the required footprint for a roundabout cannot be feasibly achieved at Intersection
#6 without acquiring significant and costly offsite right-of-way as shown in Figure 3, therefore it is not recommended for further
consideration.
Figure 3: Impacts of installing Roundabout
VJuST Analysis – Gibson Property Appendix J Page 11
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
VJuST Findings Summary
Intersection of Fairfax Pike and Site Entrance #1/Lake Frederick Entrance (Intersection #6):
Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) operates at a significantly higher volume-to-capacity (𝑣/𝑐) ratio than the other alternatives during
both peak hours. However, depending on the ultimate development program and density, the v/c ratio could potentially be lower.
In the AM peak hour, the 𝑣/𝑐 ratios are 0.67 for the conventional signal, 0.65 for the Thru-Cut, 0.78 for the single-lane
roundabout, 1.91 for TWSC, and 0.39 for the hybrid roundabout with 2 lanes on EB-WB direction. Similarly, in the PM peak hour,
the 𝑣/𝑐 ratios are 0.83 for the conventional signal, 0.80 for the Thru-Cut, 1.0 for the single-lane roundabout, 4.02 for TWSC, and
0.50 for the hybrid roundabout. While the conventional signal, thru-cut, and hybrid roundabout all have a lower v/c, the hybrid
roundabout would have significantly higher cost and significantly offsite right-of-way impacts, and was therefore removed from
the recommended alternatives.
The VJuST results for Intersection #6 are presented in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The following intersection types
are recommended for further consideration:
• Conventional Signalized Intersection
• Thru-Cut Signal
• Two-Way Stop Control (under lower density levels or lower trip uses)
Intersection of Route 522 and Site Entrance #4 (Intersection #9):
The conventional signal and Continuous Green-T operate at a slightly higher 𝑣/𝑐 ratio than the other alternatives during the AM
peak hour, with 𝑣/𝑐 ratios of 0.27 for the conventional signal, 0.27 for the Continuous Green-T, 0.22 for the RCUT, and 0.20 for
TWSC. In contrast, during the PM peak hour, the TWSC operates at the highest 𝑣/𝑐 ratio among the alternatives, with 𝑣/𝑐 ratios
of 0.40 for the conventional signal, 0.39 for the Continuous Green-T, 0.28 for the RCUT, and 0.47 for TWSC.
The VJuST results for Intersection #9 are presented in Table 7 and Table 8. The following intersection types are recommended
for further consideration:
• Conventional Signalized Intersection
• Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)
• Two-Way Stop Control
This VJuST analysis was performed as part of this study to screen other potential intersection control types. However, a
comprehensive Signal Justification Report will be prepared during the site plan development process to determine the
appropriate intersection configuration for each intersection.
Project Title:
E-W Facility:
N-S Facility:
Date:
Through Right
Eastbound 806 46 8.00%
Westbound 584 92 12.20%
Northbound 0 97 2.00%
Southbound 0 24 2.00%
Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85
Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85
Through Right Approach
Eastbound 870 50 1007
Westbound 655 103 798
Northbound 0 99 223
Southbound 0 24 53
81
36
122
U-Turn / Left
Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit
Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Left-turn Adjustment Factor
Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection
28
29
87
40
124
1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents
Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Truck to PCE Factor
1600
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Input Worksheet
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
Volume (veh/hr)
2.00
U-Turn / Left
Notes:
U-turn Adjustment Factor
Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
July 8, 2026
Equivalent Passenger Car Volume
Volume (pc/hr)
Traffic Volume Demand
Truck
Percent (%)
Truck to PCE Factor
Critical Lane Volume
Suggested = 2.00
Direction
29
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
5 Echelon Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
7 Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link Y
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link Y
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Unsignalized Intersections
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance.
Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
30
Intersections Direction
TwoDirList
FourDirList
EchelonList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
SingleLoopList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
Interchanges Direction
TwoDirList
N/AN/A
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations
Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional
question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane
configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided.
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
Bowtie
Continuous Green-T
Echelon
Median U-Turn
Partial Displaced Left Turn
Thru-Cut
Single Loop
Split Intersection
N/A
N/A
Partial Median U-Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
Select the roadway where through traffic is permitted from the
drop-down list. See example diagrams.EB-WB
Southbound 1
1
1
1
Base Number of Through Lanes
Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will
populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the
number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be
overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes
must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet.
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
31
U-Turn / Left Through Right
81 806 81 46
36 584 81 92
122 0 81 97
28 0 81 24
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
July 8, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.67 48 $$
Thru-Cut -0.65 28 $$
Roundabout -0.78 8 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -1.91 48 $
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
WB Critical Vol912
NB Critical Vol159
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
No Yes
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
pcph pcph pcph
Shared
?
Shared
?
No 1Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Weight
Crossing 2
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
Merging
Diverging
16
8
8
32
1
Merging 1
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
48
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs)
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 3
Total 9
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging
Conflict Type
Total 655pcph1Shared
?
No
124 116 011071 401 1 0 pcphNo
Shared
?pcph871No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?1No
Shared
?pcph501pcph870S
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?
W E
No
0.67 V / C
1071
pcph pcph pcph
0 28 29
103pcphNo
0 1 1
EB Critical Vol747
1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
No
Shared
?
Shared
?
Yes No
SB Critical Vol147
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
Conventional Conventional
EW Split?FALSENS Split?FALSE
NS Facility:Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.67
N
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Date:July 8, 2026
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399
● Assumes exisƟng two-way stop contol or all-
way stop control
● Are new lanes and/or
pavement needed?
● Cost category 1 if no new pavement needed,
else cost cateogry 2.
Yes
Planning Level Cost
$$$$$2
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
EB-WB
EB Critical Vol
●ChannelizaƟon is needed on the minor street to 1) align both leŌ-turn movements so they can operate concurrently
and 2) physically prevent through movements. This is similar to the channelization at an off-ramp at a single-point
diamond interchange. Channelization may require some minor widening in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.
●The vehicular signal phasing does not accommodate a pedestrian crossing of the major street. A pedestrian phase--
likely pedestrian only--is needed for designs including a major street pedestrian crossing. If the pedestrian phase is
frequently actuated, then the operational benefit of the thru-cut will be diminished.
A thru-cut is a signalized intersection form best suited for location at which minor street through volumes are
relatively low but overall minor street volumes are high enough to warrant a signal. Thru-Cuts are generally
appropriate when the through volume on each minor street leg is less than 100 vehicles (per leg) in peak hour, but
may be appropriate with minor street through volumes if the major street through volume is very high. This will often
occur at locations where land uses served by each of the minor street legs are likely to generate only a small number
of trips between them. VDOT envisions thru-cuts to predominantly be used as relatively low-cost improvements and
not include the implementation of u-turn crossovers to facilitate minor street through movements. Thru-cuts will
generally be implemented in locations where the surrounding road and/or driveway network already supports
alternative routes for minor street through-movement trips. The following are additional design considerations for
thru-cuts:
W
Thru-Cut Thru-Cut
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
NS Facility:Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.65Date:July 8, 2026
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
FALSE
N SB Critical Vol105
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
EW Split?FALSENorth arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet .
S
SB
pcph pcph pcph
E NS Split?pcphEB
24 0 29
1 1
747 No
1043
pcphNo
Shared
?
6
Total
No No
Shared
?pcph87111103pcphShared
?
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
WB Critical Vol655WB
●The original through volumes were split evenly to leŌ-turns and
right-turns.
Assumptions
● Minor street through traffic does not need to re-enter the
intersection from the major street to complete the desired
movement. There are no u-turn crossover intersections on the major
street.
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
912
No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?pcph501No No 87011043 140pcph0.65 V / C
1 1
124 0 99
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
No
pcph pcph pcph
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
NB Critical Vol131
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
NB
Guidance
The benefits of an unsignalized thru-cut are limited. The design would encourage concurrent minor street left turns
and two-stage left turns with a stop in the median, which are not necessarily desirable. Additionally, minor street left-
turn movements would still have conflict points with both directions of the major street.
●Minor street right turns will generally be yield-controlled but could be signalized or stop-controlled.
8
Merging 6
Diverging
Weighted Total Conflict Points
28
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging 1
20
Planning Level Cost
$ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 35
Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout
EQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)
0
0.44
223
pcphV/C RATIONB
0.00092
0.000851420Right2 2
Lane Capacity1036551
2 2 Left 1350
10.50Through lane utilization factor40Left 1420 0.00091
0.000911420Right12
Lane Capacity
0.50
99
111
pcph50Number of
Entry Lanes
Number of
Circulating Lanes Lane A B
1 1 -1380 0.00102
1420 0.00085-21
2
1
NB
Through lane utilization
factorpcph870124099505 124
pcph pcph pcph pcphV/C RATIONo
1
1 0.50pcph
Conflicting flow
986
EBLane Capacity1286V/C RATIO
Number of
Circulating LanesNo
Slip
Lane?
1 Through lane utilization factorNumber of Entry
Lanes
5087087pcph1007V/C RATIO 0.781113V/C RATIO
pcphConflicting flow21110.72V/C RATIO
1
Conflicting flow69798pcphNo
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
0.09
819
0
SB WBConflicting flow
53
1 59924
pcph pcph
V/C RATIOV/C RATIODESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
0.50 Lane Capacity
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 103pcphThrough lane utilization
factor
655pcphProject Name:
NS Facility:29
Enter the lane configurations in the
yellow cells.
Date:
Slip
Lane?
Number of Entry
Lanes
1
Number of
Circulating Lanes
Number of Entry
Lanes 40pcphpcph
24
1
0 29
pcph pcph
WB2
Total 8
Slip
Lane?
Assumptions
SB
Number of Entry
Lanes
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
Diverging 1
1
Diverging 4
4
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
pcph87Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Site Entrance 1
V/C
July 8, 2026
VOLUME /
CAPACITY
RATIO:
0.78
N
1
0.78
W E
S
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 1 0.09
Lane 2 V/CV/C Lane 2
Lane 1 0.72 V/C
Lane 2 V/C
V/C
V/C Lane 1 0.44 V/C
● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal
to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.
● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two
circulating lanes.
● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl
exiting the roundabout.
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are
based on the HCM 6th Edition .
Predicted approach
capacity
Predicted approach
capacity
Slip
Lane?
No
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 2
EBSafety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 0
Merging
8
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing
Lane 1
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from two-way stop control or all-way stop control.
Zone 1
Zone 3 Zone 2
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 36
Priority MVMT Rank
1 EBL 2 1 2 81 1 No 0.08 vc,1 676.00 tc,1 4.18 tf,1 2.27 cp,1 887.90 cm,1 887.90 1 887.90 1 0.09
2 EBT 1 4 2 36 1 No 0.122 vc,4 852.00 tc,4 4.22 tf,4 2.31 cp,4 744.88 cm,4 744.88 2 1800.00 2 0.45
3 EBR 1 7 4 122 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,7 1682.00 tc,7 7.12 tf,7 3.52 cp,7 74.88 cm,7 63.97 0 3 1500.00 3 0.03
4 WBL 2 8 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,8 1716.00 tc,8 6.52 tf,8 4.02 cp,8 89.95 cm,8 77.79 1 4 744.88 4 0.05
5 WBT 1 9 2 97 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,9 806.00 tc,9 6.22 tf,9 3.32 cp,9 381.95 cm,9 381.95 1 5 1800.00 5 0.32
6 WBR 1 10 4 28 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,10 1695.50 tc,10 7.12 tf,10 3.52 cp,10 73.26 cm,10 48.99 0 6 1500.00 6 0.06
7 NBL 4 11 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,11 1670.00 tc,11 6.52 tf,11 4.02 cp,11 96.02 cm,11 83.04 1 7 63.97 7 1.91
8 NBT 3 12 2 24 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,12 584.00 tc,12 6.22 tf,12 3.32 cp,12 511.52 cm,12 511.52 1 8-9 381.95 8-9 0.25
9 NBR 2 --------
10 SBL 4 2 1 806 1 0.08 vc,I,7 968.00 tc,I,7 6.12 10 48.99 10 0.57
11 SBT 3 3 1 46 1 No No 0.08 vc,II,7 714.00 tc,II,7 6.12 11-12 511.52 11-12 0.05
Stops 12 SBR 2 5 1 584 1 0.122 vc,I,8 968.00 tc,I,8 5.52 cp,I,7 305.26 cm,I,7 277.41 cm,7 63.97 --------
2 6 1 92 1 No No 0.122 vc,II,8 748.00 tc,II,8 5.52 cp,II,7 422.28 cm,II,7 383.01 cm,8 77.79
MAJOR MINOR vc,I,10 656.00 tc,I,10 6.12 cp,I,8 332.18 cm,I,8 301.87 cm,10 48.99
EB NB vc,II,10 1039.50 tc,II,10 6.12 cp,II,8 419.69 cm,II,8 399.41 cm,11 83.04
WB SB vc,I,11 656.00 tc,I,11 5.52 cp,I,10 454.44 cm,I,10 432.47
vc,II,11 1014.00 tc,II,11 5.52 cp,II,10 278.36 cm,II,10 188.72
2 cp,I,11 462.15 cm,I,11 439.81
FALSE cp,II,11 316.13 cm,II,11 287.29
FALSE
y7 0.90 cT,7 161.11
y8 0.93 cT,8 176.92
y10 3.70 cT,10 119.25
y11 2.12 cT,11 180.16
p0,1 0.91
p0,4 0.95
a 0.91
p*0,1 0.83 p0,8 1.00 p0,9 0.75
p*0,4 0.93 p0,11 1.00 p0,12 0.95
p"7 0.865 p'7 0.90 fp,7 0.85
p"10 0.865 p'10 0.90 f p,10 0.67
x 1i,1+2 0.45
x 4i,1+2 0.32
Through
Right f8 0.86
f 11 0.86
f7 0.00
f 10 0.00
f I,8 0.91 f II,8 0.95 p0,I,8 1.00
fI,11 0.95 fII,11 0.91 p0,I,11 1.00
f I,7 0.91 f II,7 0.91
fI.10 0.95 fII.10 0.68
Saturation Flow Rates
381.95
511.52
No
Two-Stage Movement Capacities Single-Stage Movement
Capacities
V/C Not Reported for Any
Movements?
Two-Stage Potential Capacities
Mvmt 4, shared left
Mvmt 7, 4-leg
Mvmt 10, 4-leg
One StageRank
1800
150097
1
vph vph
1 0
vph
1
1 1
122 0584vphApproach
Stop
Controlled?
One
NS Major?
Major street lanes
Shared
?No36
1
Stop-controlled approachesNumber of Lanes806No 1Number of Lanes
0
Shared
?vph460Stop-controlled approachesvph01SNumber of LanesStop-controlled approachesvph vph vph
24 0
vph1 1
281
Shared
?811Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Yes
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:
N
Date:July 8, 2026
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
NS Facility:
W E
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 16
Total 32
Diverging 1
Diverging 8
48
Conflict Type Weight
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Merging 1
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Assumptions
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Yes
No Yes
Shared
?
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Shared
?
Planning Level Cost
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons
are based on the HCM, 6th Edition . The calculations are based on
vehicles per hour.
HCM 6 CALCULATIONS
Step 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled
by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.
Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
No
1.91
No
Shared
?
Shared
?Yes No One or two-stage minor
street left and through
movments*?10
1
0Stop-controlled approaches
Movement Capacities Movement V/C
One storage space in median (nm =
1) for two-stage turns
M1 Shared?
M4 Shared?
Mvmt 1, excl left
Mvmt 4, excl left
FALSE
Number of Lanes
1092vphShared
?No
1● Assumes no intersecƟon, but cost of new road is not included
Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)
Intersection V/C
1.91
Shared Movement
Capacities
Movement
Capacities
Potential
Capacities
Follow-Up
HeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?
Stop
controlled?Truck %
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
No
Two Stage0$$ $ $ $1
● Cost Category 1
Mvmt 1, shared left
vph*Assumption:
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 37
U-Turn / Left Through Right
81 806 81 46
36 584 81 92
122 0 81 97
28 0 81 24
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
July 8, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Roundabout -0.39 8 $$
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout
EQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)
0
0.36
223
pcphV/C RATIONB
0.00092
0.000851420Right2 2
Lane Capacity492
1
2 2 Left 1350
23280.50Through lane utilization factorLeft 1420 0.00091
0.000911420Right12
Lane Capacity
0.50
99
12
43521pcph50Number of
Entry Lanes
Number of
Circulating Lanes Lane A B
1 1 -1380 0.00102
1420 0.00085-21
2
1
NB
551
Through lane utilization
factorpcph870124099614 124
pcph pcph pcph pcph522V/C RATIONo
1
1 0.5050pcph435Conflicting flow
435
EBLane Capacity13341334V/C RATIO 0.39Number of
Circulating LanesNo
Slip
Lane?
2 Through lane utilization factor87Number of Entry
Lanes pcph485V/C RATIO 0.361172117210.31V/C RATIO 368pcphConflicting flow211120.37V/C RATIO
11
Conflicting flow69431pcphNo
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
0.07
328
0
103SB WB328Conflicting flow
4053
1 70824
pcph pcph
V/C RATIOV/C RATIODESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
0.50 Lane Capacity
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 103pcphThrough lane utilization
factor
655pcphProject Name:
NS Facility:29
Enter the lane configurations in the
yellow cells.
Date:
Slip
Lane?
Number of Entry
Lanes
2
Number of
Circulating Lanes
Number of Entry
Lanes 40pcphpcph
24
2
0 29
pcph pcph
WB2
Total 8
Slip
Lane?
Assumptions
SB
Number of Entry
Lanes
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
Diverging 1
1
Diverging 4
4
Number of
Circulating Lanes
2
pcph87Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Site Entrance 1
V/C
July 8, 2026
VOLUME /
CAPACITY
RATIO:
0.39
N
1
0.39
W E
S
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 1 0.07
Lane 2 V/C0.36 V/C Lane 2
Lane 1 0.31 V/C
Lane 2 V/C
V/C
V/C Lane 1 0.36 V/C
● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal
to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.
● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two
circulating lanes.
● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl
exiting the roundabout.
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are
based on the HCM 6th Edition .
Predicted approach
capacity
Predicted approach
capacity
Slip
Lane?
No
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 2 0.37
EBSafety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 0
Merging
8
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing
Lane 1
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from two-way stop control or all-way stop control.
Zone 1
Zone 3 Zone 2
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
Project Title:
E-W Facility:
N-S Facility:
Date:
Through Right
Eastbound 834 107 6.40%
Westbound 1049 37 5.00%
Northbound 0 60 2.00%
Southbound 0 83 2.00%
Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85
Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85
Through Right Approach
Eastbound 887 114 1036
Westbound 1101 39 1229
Northbound 0 61 139
Southbound 0 85 181
33
85
76
U-Turn / Left
Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit
Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Left-turn Adjustment Factor
Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection
94
96
35
89
78
1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents
Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Truck to PCE Factor
1600
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Input Worksheet
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
Volume (veh/hr)
2.00
U-Turn / Left
Notes:
U-turn Adjustment Factor
Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
July 8, 2026
Equivalent Passenger Car Volume
Volume (pc/hr)
Traffic Volume Demand
Truck
Percent (%)
Truck to PCE Factor
Critical Lane Volume
Suggested = 2.00
Direction
29
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
5 Echelon Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
7 Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link Y
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link Y
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Unsignalized Intersections
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance.
Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
30
Intersections Direction
TwoDirList
FourDirList
EchelonList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
SingleLoopList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
Interchanges Direction
TwoDirList
N/AN/A
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations
Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional
question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane
configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided.
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
Bowtie
Continuous Green-T
Echelon
Median U-Turn
Partial Displaced Left Turn
Thru-Cut
Single Loop
Split Intersection
N/A
N/A
Partial Median U-Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
Select the roadway where through traffic is permitted from the
drop-down list. See example diagrams.EB-WB
Southbound 1
1
1
1
Base Number of Through Lanes
Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will
populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the
number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be
overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes
must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet.
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
31
U-Turn / Left Through Right
33 834 33 107
85 1049 33 37
76 0 33 60
94 0 33 83
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
July 8, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.83 48 $$
Thru-Cut -0.80 28 $$
Roundabout -1.00 8 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -4.02 48 $
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
WB Critical Vol981
NB Critical Vol182
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
No Yes
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
pcph pcph pcph
Shared
?
Shared
?
No 1Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Weight
Crossing 2
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
Merging
Diverging
16
8
8
32
1
Merging 1
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
48
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs)
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 3
Total 9
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging
Conflict Type
Total 1101pcph1Shared
?
No
78 72 011320 891 1 0 pcphNo
Shared
?pcph351No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?1No
Shared
?pcph1141pcph887S
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?
W E
No
0.83 V / C
1320
pcph pcph pcph
0 100 96
39pcphNo
0 1 1
EB Critical Vol1138
1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
No
Shared
?
Shared
?
Yes No
SB Critical Vol173
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
Conventional Conventional
EW Split?FALSENS Split?FALSE
NS Facility:Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.83
N
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Date:July 8, 2026
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399
● Assumes exisƟng two-way stop contol or all-
way stop control
● Are new lanes and/or
pavement needed?
● Cost category 1 if no new pavement needed,
else cost cateogry 2.
Yes
Planning Level Cost
$$$$$2
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
EB-WB
EB Critical Vol
●ChannelizaƟon is needed on the minor street to 1) align both leŌ-turn movements so they can operate concurrently
and 2) physically prevent through movements. This is similar to the channelization at an off-ramp at a single-point
diamond interchange. Channelization may require some minor widening in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.
●The vehicular signal phasing does not accommodate a pedestrian crossing of the major street. A pedestrian phase--
likely pedestrian only--is needed for designs including a major street pedestrian crossing. If the pedestrian phase is
frequently actuated, then the operational benefit of the thru-cut will be diminished.
A thru-cut is a signalized intersection form best suited for location at which minor street through volumes are
relatively low but overall minor street volumes are high enough to warrant a signal. Thru-Cuts are generally
appropriate when the through volume on each minor street leg is less than 100 vehicles (per leg) in peak hour, but
may be appropriate with minor street through volumes if the major street through volume is very high. This will often
occur at locations where land uses served by each of the minor street legs are likely to generate only a small number
of trips between them. VDOT envisions thru-cuts to predominantly be used as relatively low-cost improvements and
not include the implementation of u-turn crossovers to facilitate minor street through movements. Thru-cuts will
generally be implemented in locations where the surrounding road and/or driveway network already supports
alternative routes for minor street through-movement trips. The following are additional design considerations for
thru-cuts:
W
Thru-Cut Thru-Cut
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
NS Facility:Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.80Date:July 8, 2026
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
FALSE
N SB Critical Vol101
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
EW Split?FALSENorth arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet .
S
SB
pcph pcph pcph
E NS Split?pcphEB
85 0 96
1 1
1138 No
1283
pcphNo
Shared
?
6
Total
No No
Shared
?pcph3511139pcphShared
?
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
WB Critical Vol1101WB
●The original through volumes were split evenly to leŌ-turns and
right-turns.
Assumptions
● Minor street through traffic does not need to re-enter the
intersection from the major street to complete the desired
movement. There are no u-turn crossover intersections on the major
street.
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
981
No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?pcph1141No No 88711283 189pcph0.80 V / C
1 1
78 0 61
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
No
pcph pcph pcph
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
NB Critical Vol145
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
NB
Guidance
The benefits of an unsignalized thru-cut are limited. The design would encourage concurrent minor street left turns
and two-stage left turns with a stop in the median, which are not necessarily desirable. Additionally, minor street left-
turn movements would still have conflict points with both directions of the major street.
●Minor street right turns will generally be yield-controlled but could be signalized or stop-controlled.
8
Merging 6
Diverging
Weighted Total Conflict Points
28
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging 1
20
Planning Level Cost
$ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 35
Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout
EQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)
0
0.28
139
pcphV/C RATIONB
0.00092
0.000851420Right2 2
Lane Capacity3911011
2 2 Left 1350
10.50Through lane utilization factor89Left 1420 0.00091
0.000911420Right12
Lane Capacity
0.50
61
111
pcph114Number of
Entry Lanes
Number of
Circulating Lanes Lane A B
1 1 -1380 0.00102
1420 0.00085-21
2
1
NB
Through lane utilization
factorpcph88778061489 78
pcph pcph pcph pcphV/C RATIONo
1
1 0.50pcph
Conflicting flow
1018
EBLane Capacity1143V/C RATIO
Number of
Circulating LanesNo
Slip
Lane?
1 Through lane utilization factorNumber of Entry
Lanes
11488735pcph1036V/C RATIO 0.911230V/C RATIO
pcphConflicting flow11311.00V/C RATIO
1
Conflicting flow1851229pcphNo
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
0.48
1268
0
SB WBConflicting flow
181
1 37985
pcph pcph
V/C RATIOV/C RATIODESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
0.50 Lane Capacity
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 39pcphThrough lane utilization
factor
1101pcphProject Name:
NS Facility:96
Enter the lane configurations in the
yellow cells.
Date:
Slip
Lane?
Number of Entry
Lanes
1
Number of
Circulating Lanes
Number of Entry
Lanes 89pcphpcph
85
1
0 96
pcph pcph
WB2
Total 8
Slip
Lane?
Assumptions
SB
Number of Entry
Lanes
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
Diverging 1
1
Diverging 4
4
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
pcph35Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Site Entrance 1
V/C
July 8, 2026
VOLUME /
CAPACITY
RATIO:
1.00
N
1
0.91
W E
S
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 1 0.48
Lane 2 V/CV/C Lane 2
Lane 1 1.00 V/C
Lane 2 V/C
V/C
V/C Lane 1 0.28 V/C
● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal
to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.
● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two
circulating lanes.
● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl
exiting the roundabout.
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are
based on the HCM 6th Edition .
Predicted approach
capacity
Predicted approach
capacity
Slip
Lane?
No
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 2
EBSafety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 0
Merging
8
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing
Lane 1
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from two-way stop control or all-way stop control.
Zone 1
Zone 3 Zone 2
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 36
Priority MVMT Rank
1 EBL 2 1 2 33 1 No 0.064 vc,1 1086.00 tc,1 4.16 tf,1 2.26 cp,1 626.10 cm,1 626.10 1 626.10 1 0.05
2 EBT 1 4 2 85 1 No 0.05 vc,4 941.00 tc,4 4.15 tf,4 2.25 cp,4 716.46 cm,4 716.46 2 1800.00 2 0.46
3 EBR 1 7 4 76 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,7 2179.00 tc,7 7.12 tf,7 3.52 cp,7 33.24 cm,7 20.31 0 3 1500.00 3 0.07
4 WBL 2 8 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,8 2156.00 tc,8 6.52 tf,8 4.02 cp,8 47.74 cm,8 39.86 1 4 716.46 4 0.12
5 WBT 1 9 2 60 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,9 834.00 tc,9 6.22 tf,9 3.32 cp,9 368.04 cm,9 368.04 1 5 1800.00 5 0.58
6 WBR 1 10 4 94 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,10 2202.50 tc,10 7.12 tf,10 3.52 cp,10 31.97 cm,10 23.37 0 6 1500.00 6 0.02
7 NBL 4 11 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,11 2226.00 tc,11 6.52 tf,11 4.02 cp,11 43.10 cm,11 35.98 1 7 20.31 7 3.74
8 NBT 3 12 2 83 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,12 1049.00 tc,12 6.22 tf,12 3.32 cp,12 276.35 cm,12 276.35 1 8-9 368.04 8-9 0.16
9 NBR 2 --------
10 SBL 4 2 1 834 1 0.064 vc,I,7 900.00 tc,I,7 6.12 10 23.37 10 4.02
11 SBT 3 3 1 107 1 No No 0.064 vc,II,7 1279.00 tc,II,7 6.12 11-12 276.35 11-12 0.30
Stops 12 SBR 2 5 1 1049 1 0.05 vc,I,8 900.00 tc,I,8 5.52 cp,I,7 333.13 cm,I,7 315.57 cm,7 20.31 --------
2 6 1 37 1 No No 0.05 vc,II,8 1256.00 tc,II,8 5.52 cp,II,7 203.81 cm,II,7 125.68 cm,8 39.86
MAJOR MINOR vc,I,10 1219.00 tc,I,10 6.12 cp,I,8 357.26 cm,I,8 338.43 cm,10 23.37
EB NB vc,II,10 983.50 tc,II,10 6.12 cp,II,8 242.83 cm,II,8 214.02 cm,11 35.98
WB SB vc,I,11 1219.00 tc,I,11 5.52 cp,I,10 220.45 cm,I,10 194.30
vc,II,11 1007.00 tc,II,11 5.52 cp,II,10 299.23 cm,II,10 237.24
2 cp,I,11 252.92 cm,I,11 222.91
FALSE cp,II,11 318.53 cm,II,11 301.74
FALSE
y7 4.08 cT,7 71.59
y8 2.12 cT,8 123.87
y10 1.33 cT,10 88.40
y11 1.03 cT,11 116.73
p0,1 0.95
p0,4 0.88
a 0.91
p*0,1 0.90 p0,8 1.00 p0,9 0.84
p*0,4 0.72 p0,11 1.00 p0,12 0.70
p"7 0.835 p'7 0.87 fp,7 0.61
p"10 0.835 p'10 0.87 f p,10 0.73
x 1i,1+2 0.46
x 4i,1+2 0.58
Through
Right f8 0.83
f 11 0.83
f7 0.00
f 10 0.00
f I,8 0.95 f II,8 0.88 p0,I,8 1.00
fI,11 0.88 fII,11 0.95 p0,I,11 1.00
f I,7 0.95 f II,7 0.62
fI.10 0.88 fII.10 0.79
Saturation Flow Rates
368.04
276.35
No
Two-Stage Movement Capacities Single-Stage Movement
Capacities
V/C Not Reported for Any
Movements?
Two-Stage Potential Capacities
Mvmt 4, shared left
Mvmt 7, 4-leg
Mvmt 10, 4-leg
One StageRank
1800
150060
1
vph vph
1 0
vph
1
1 1
76 01049vphApproach
Stop
Controlled?
One
NS Major?
Major street lanes
Shared
?No85
1
Stop-controlled approachesNumber of Lanes834No 1Number of Lanes
0
Shared
?vph1070Stop-controlled approachesvph01SNumber of LanesStop-controlled approachesvph vph vph
83 0
vph1 1
941
Shared
?331Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Yes
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Site Entrance 1 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:
N
Date:July 8, 2026
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
NS Facility:
W E
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 16
Total 32
Diverging 1
Diverging 8
48
Conflict Type Weight
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Merging 1
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Assumptions
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Yes
No Yes
Shared
?
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Shared
?
Planning Level Cost
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons
are based on the HCM, 6th Edition . The calculations are based on
vehicles per hour.
HCM 6 CALCULATIONS
Step 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled
by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.
Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
No
4.02
No
Shared
?
Shared
?Yes No One or two-stage minor
street left and through
movments*?10
1
0Stop-controlled approaches
Movement Capacities Movement V/C
One storage space in median (nm =
1) for two-stage turns
M1 Shared?
M4 Shared?
Mvmt 1, excl left
Mvmt 4, excl left
FALSE
Number of Lanes
1037vphShared
?No
1● Assumes no intersecƟon, but cost of new road is not included
Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)
Intersection V/C
4.02
Shared Movement
Capacities
Movement
Capacities
Potential
Capacities
Follow-Up
HeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?
Stop
controlled?Truck %
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
No
Two Stage0$$ $ $ $1
● Cost Category 1
Mvmt 1, shared left
vph*Assumption:
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 37
U-Turn / Left Through Right
33 834 33 107
85 1049 33 37
76 0 33 60
94 0 33 83
Gibson Property
Fairfax Pike
Site Entrance 1
July 8, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Roundabout -0.50 8 $$
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout
EQUATION: A x exp(-B x Q)
0
0.23
139
pcphV/C RATIONB
0.00092
0.000851420Right2 2
Lane Capacity718
1
2 2 Left 1350
25510.50Through lane utilization factorLeft 1420 0.00091
0.000911420Right12
Lane Capacity
0.50
61
12
44421pcph114Number of
Entry Lanes
Number of
Circulating Lanes Lane A B
1 1 -1380 0.00102
1420 0.00085-21
2
1
NB
575
Through lane utilization
factorpcph88778061598 78
pcph pcph pcph pcph479V/C RATIONo
1
1 0.50114pcph444Conflicting flow
444
EBLane Capacity12001200V/C RATIO 0.40Number of
Circulating LanesNo
Slip
Lane?
2 Through lane utilization factor35Number of Entry
Lanes pcph558V/C RATIO 0.461281128110.50V/C RATIO 640pcphConflicting flow113120.46V/C RATIO
11
Conflicting flow185590pcphNo
Number of
Circulating Lanes
1
0.37
551
0
39SB WB551Conflicting flow
89181
1 48385
pcph pcph
V/C RATIOV/C RATIODESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
0.50 Lane Capacity
EW Facility:Fairfax Pike < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600 39pcphThrough lane utilization
factor
1101pcphProject Name:
NS Facility:96
Enter the lane configurations in the
yellow cells.
Date:
Slip
Lane?
Number of Entry
Lanes
2
Number of
Circulating Lanes
Number of Entry
Lanes 89pcphpcph
85
2
0 96
pcph pcph
WB2
Total 8
Slip
Lane?
Assumptions
SB
Number of Entry
Lanes
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
Diverging 1
1
Diverging 4
4
Number of
Circulating Lanes
2
pcph35Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Site Entrance 1
V/C
July 8, 2026
VOLUME /
CAPACITY
RATIO:
0.50
N
1
0.40
W E
S
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 1 0.37
Lane 2 V/C0.46 V/C Lane 2
Lane 1 0.50 V/C
Lane 2 V/C
V/C
V/C Lane 1 0.23 V/C
● The number of circulaƟng lanes in one quadrant is assumed to be equal
to the number of exiting lanes in the next quadrant.
● The roundabout is limited to a maximum of two entry lanes and two
circulating lanes.
● All leŌ-turning vehicles are assumed to stay in the innermost lane unƟl
exiting the roundabout.
● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons are
based on the HCM 6th Edition .
Predicted approach
capacity
Predicted approach
capacity
Slip
Lane?
No
Predicted approach
capacity
Lane 2 0.46
EBSafety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 0
Merging
8
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing
Lane 1
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
● Assumes conversion from two-way stop control or all-way stop control.
Zone 1
Zone 3 Zone 2
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
Project Title:
E-W Facility:
N-S Facility:
Date:
Through Right
Eastbound 0 11 2.00%
Westbound 0 1 2.00%
Northbound 712 53 9.30%
Southbound 611 92 16.10%
Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85
Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85
Through Right Approach
Eastbound 0 11 39
Westbound 0 1 16
Northbound 778 58 875
Southbound 709 107 818
July 10, 2026
Equivalent Passenger Car Volume
Volume (pc/hr)
Traffic Volume Demand
Truck
Percent (%)
Truck to PCE Factor
Critical Lane Volume
Suggested = 2.00
Direction
1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents
Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Truck to PCE Factor
1600
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Input Worksheet
Gibson Property
Site Entrance 4
Rte. 522
Volume (veh/hr)
2.00
U-Turn / Left
Notes:
U-turn Adjustment Factor
Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
27
15
36
U-Turn / Left
Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit
Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Left-turn Adjustment Factor
Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection
2
2
28
15
39
29
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Unable to accommodate magnitude of traffic volumes
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link Y
5 Echelon Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
7 Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link Y
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link N
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link N
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Insufficient intersection spacing
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance.
Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
30
Intersections Direction
TwoDirList
FourDirList
EchelonList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
SingleLoopList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
Interchanges Direction
TwoDirList
Base Number of Through Lanes
Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will
populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the
number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be
overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes
must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet.
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound 2
2
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NB-SB
N/A
N/A
Select the roadway with the U-turns from the drop-down list.
N/A
All
Bowtie
Continuous Green-T
Echelon
Median U-Turn
Partial Displaced Left Turn
Thru-Cut
Single Loop
Split Intersection
N/A
N/A
Partial Median U-Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn
N/AN/A
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations
Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional
question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane
configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided.
N/A
EB
Question
N/A
Select the direction associated with the "stem" of the T-
intersection from the drop-down list. See example diagrams.
31
U-Turn / Left Through Right
27 0 27 11
15 0 27 1
36 712 27 53
2 611 27 92
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Gibson Property
Site Entrance 4
Rte. 522
July 10, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.27 48 $$
Continuous Green-T -0.27 - 12* $$
Restricted Crossing U-Turn -0.22 20 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -0.20 48 $
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
● Assumes exisƟng two-way stop contol or all-
way stop control
● Are new lanes and/or
pavement needed?
● Cost category 1 if no new pavement needed,
else cost cateogry 2.
Yes
Planning Level Cost
$$$$$2
Conventional Conventional
EW Split?FALSENS Split?FALSE
NS Facility:Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.27
N
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Date:July 10, 2026
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
No
Shared
?
Shared
?
No No
SB Critical Vol391
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
S
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?
W E
No
0.27 V / C
426
pcph pcph pcph
107 709 2
0pcphYes
1 2 1
EB Critical Vol30 No
Shared
?pcph280No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?1Yes
Shared
?pcph00pcph131pcph1Shared
?
No
39 778 581426 151 2 1 pcph1
Merging 1
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
48
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs)
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 3
Total 9
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging
Conflict Type
Total
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Weight
Crossing 2
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
Merging
Diverging
16
8
8
32
WB Critical Vol29
NB Critical Vol396
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
No No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
pcph pcph pcph
Shared
?
Shared
?
No 1Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
EB
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
3
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 1
S
W
Merging 1
Crossing 2
North arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet.
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
3890.27 V / C
WeightConflict Type
E
N
Total 9
0.24 V / C
425
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
Diverging
1
Shared
?1No
28 0 11
pcph pcph pcph
425 39pcph2778pcph1NS Split?
Site Entrance 4 < 1200
TRUE
NB Critical Vol396pcph0EW Split?pcph7092DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
NS Facility:Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.27Date:July 10, 2026
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
Step 1: Enter the
lane configurations
in the yellow cells.
Continuous
Green Movement
V/C
NB
FALSE
0.24
Continuous Green-T Intersection Continuous Green-T Intersection
EB Critical Vol29
No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
SB Critical Vol0 pcph0pcph107No
EB
SB
Shared
?
1
No
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
Continuous
Green Movement
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 35
NB-SB
$ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 3
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
pcph pcph pcph
EB pcph0--No28
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
--
1
EB Critical Vol5 NB Critical Vol403pcph
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Diverging 8
Total
Control Type
(Zones 3 + 4)
Control Type
(Zone 2)
Unsignalized
2
39 778 58
Planning Level Cost
Shared
?111
Crossing
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
2
--
0.17 V / C 1pcphChannelized w/
Rcv Lane?No
Conflict Type Weight
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Date:July 10, 2026
107
0.20 V / C
W E
S
North arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet.Shared
?
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
SB
--
--
--
0.20
Unsignalized
1 2
V / C No
Unsignalized
SB
Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.22
18
20
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
pcph
Assumptions
● This worksheet uses the CLV methodology for calculaƟons at
signalized zones. These calculations are based on passenger
cars per hour.
● This worksheet uses the HCM, 6th Edition methodology for
calculations at unsignalized zones. These calculations are based
on vehicles per hour.
NB
0.22 V / C
pcph --28
1--
Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
NS Facility:
WB Critical Vol17
N
No
Control Type
(Zone 1)
1
15
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?0pcphpcph
107 724
2
1
pcph pcph
pcph
SB Critical Vol405
Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection
No
11pcph15pcphpcph pcph
709 2
2
WB
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
1
39
806 58
pcph NB
No
pcph
2
pcph
Zone 3
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 36
Priority MVMT Rank
7 EBL 4 1 2 2 1 No 0.161 vc,1 765.00 tc,1 4.42 tf,1 2.36 cp,1 757.72 cm,1 757.72 1 757.72 1 0.00
8 EBT 3 4 2 36 1 No 0.093 vc,4 703.00 tc,4 4.29 tf,4 2.29 cp,4 843.38 cm,4 843.38 2 3600.00 2 0.17
9 EBR 2 7 4 27 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,7 1043.00 tc,7 7.54 tf,7 3.52 cp,7 183.58 cm,7 303.25 0 3 1500.00 3 0.06
10 WBL 4 8 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,8 1452.00 tc,8 6.54 tf,8 4.02 cp,8 129.42 cm,8 243.05 1 4 843.38 4 0.04
11 WBT 3 9 2 11 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,9 305.50 tc,9 6.94 tf,9 3.32 cp,9 690.46 cm,9 690.46 1 5 3600.00 5 0.20
12 WBR 2 10 4 15 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,10 1093.50 tc,10 7.54 tf,10 3.52 cp,10 168.57 cm,10 263.45 0 6 1500.00 6 0.04
4 NBL 2 11 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,11 1491.00 tc,11 6.54 tf,11 4.02 cp,11 122.52 cm,11 232.25 1 7 303.25 7 0.09
5 NBT 1 12 2 1 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,12 356.00 tc,12 6.94 tf,12 3.32 cp,12 640.41 cm,12 640.41 1 8-9 690.46 8-9 0.02
6 NBR 1 --------
1 SBL 2 2 1 611 2 0.161 vc,I,7 615.00 tc,I,7 6.54 10 263.45 10 0.06
2 SBT 1 3 1 92 1 No No 0.161 vc,II,7 428.00 tc,II,7 6.54 11-12 640.41 11-12 0.00
Stops 3 SBR 1 5 1 712 2 0.093 vc,I,8 615.00 tc,I,8 5.54 cp,I,7 445.24 cm,I,7 444.07 cm,7 176.97 --------
2 6 1 53 1 No No 0.093 vc,II,8 837.00 tc,II,8 5.54 cp,II,7 575.16 cm,II,7 549.75 cm,8 123.57
MAJOR MINOR vc,I,10 784.00 tc,I,10 6.54 cp,I,8 480.48 cm,I,8 479.21 cm,10 160.16
NB EB vc,II,10 309.50 tc,II,10 6.54 cp,II,8 380.14 cm,II,8 363.92 cm,11 116.98
SB WB vc,I,11 784.00 tc,I,11 5.54 cp,I,10 352.44 cm,I,10 337.40
vc,II,11 707.00 tc,II,11 5.54 cp,II,10 675.51 cm,II,10 662.99
4 cp,I,11 402.19 cm,I,11 385.02
FALSE cp,II,11 436.29 cm,II,11 435.14
FALSE
y7 0.72 cT,7 303.25
y8 1.49 cT,8 243.05
y10 0.38 cT,10 263.45
y11 0.95 cT,11 232.25
p0,1 1.00
p0,4 0.96
a 0.91
p*0,1 1.00 p0,8 1.00 p0,9 0.98
p*0,4 0.93 p0,11 1.00 p0,12 1.00
p"7 0.955 p'7 0.97 fp,7 0.96
p"10 0.955 p'10 0.97 f p,10 0.95
x 1i,1+2 0.34
x 4i,1+2 0.40
Through
Right f8 0.95
f 11 0.95
f7 0.00
f 10 0.00
f I,8 1.00 f II,8 0.96 p0,I,8 1.00
fI,11 0.96 fII,11 1.00 p0,I,11 1.00
f I,7 1.00 f II,7 0.96
fI.10 0.96 fII.10 0.98Two Stage1$$ $ $ $1
● Cost Category 1
Mvmt 1, shared left
vph*Assumption:
● Assumes no intersecƟon, but cost of new road is not included
Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)
Intersection V/C
0.20
Shared Movement
Capacities
Movement
Capacities
Potential
Capacities
Follow-Up
HeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?
Stop
controlled?Truck %
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
Yes
M1 Shared?
M4 Shared?
Mvmt 1, excl left
Mvmt 4, excl left
FALSE
Number of Lanes
011vphShared
?Yes
1● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons
are based on the HCM, 6th Edition . The calculations are based on
vehicles per hour.
HCM 6 CALCULATIONS
Step 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled
by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.
Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Yes
0.20
No
Shared
?
Shared
?No No One or two-stage minor
street left and through
movments*?11
0
1Stop-controlled approaches
Movement Capacities Movement V/C
One storage space in median (nm =
1) for two-stage turns
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Assumptions
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
No
No No
Shared
?
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Shared
?
Planning Level Cost
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 16
Total 32
Diverging 1
Diverging 8
48
Conflict Type Weight
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Merging 1
Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
No
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:
N
Date:July 10, 2026
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
NS Facility:
W E
S
Number of LanesStop-controlled approachesvph vph vph
92 611
vph0 0
21
Shared
?271Shared
?No15
0
Stop-controlled approachesNumber of Lanes0Yes 1Number of Lanes
712
Shared
?vph111Stop-controlled approachesvph10 Rank
1800
150053
1
vph vph
2 1
vph
2
0 0
36 10vphApproach
Stop
Controlled?
Two
NS Major?
Major street lanes
Saturation Flow Rates
690.46
640.41
No
Two-Stage Movement Capacities Single-Stage Movement
Capacities
V/C Not Reported for Any
Movements?
Two-Stage Potential Capacities
Mvmt 4, shared left
Mvmt 7, 4-leg
Mvmt 10, 4-leg
One StageZone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 37
Project Title:
E-W Facility:
N-S Facility:
Date:
Through Right
Eastbound 0 38 2.00%
Westbound 0 2 2.00%
Northbound 988 21 7.50%
Southbound 947 37 5.80%
Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85
Suggested U - 0.8 L - 0.95 0.85
Through Right Approach
Eastbound 0 39 135
Westbound 0 2 55
Northbound 1062 23 1101
Southbound 1002 39 1042
July 10, 2026
Equivalent Passenger Car Volume
Volume (pc/hr)
Traffic Volume Demand
Truck
Percent (%)
Truck to PCE Factor
Critical Lane Volume
Suggested = 2.00
Direction
1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents
Conversion of U-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Truck to PCE Factor
1600
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Input Worksheet
Gibson Property
Site Entrance 4
Rte. 522
Volume (veh/hr)
2.00
U-Turn / Left
Notes:
U-turn Adjustment Factor
Conversion of left-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
94
52
15
U-Turn / Left
Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit
Right-turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right-turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles
Left-turn Adjustment Factor
Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection
1
1
96
53
16
29
#Intersections Information Consider?Justification
1 Conventional -Y
2 Bowtie Link N Unable to accommodate magnitude of traffic volumes
3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
4 Continuous Green-T Link Y
5 Echelon Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
7 Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns
10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link Y
15 Single Loop Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
16 Split Intersection Link N Right-of-way restrictions identified
17 Thru-Cut Link N
18 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
19 75 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
20 Roundabout Link N
21 Two-Way Stop Control -Y
#Interchanges Information Consider?Justification
22 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
23 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
24 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
25 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
26 Double Roundabout Link N Insufficient intersection spacing
27 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
28 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
29 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
30 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type
Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for guidance.
Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.
Possible Configurations
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
30
Intersections Direction
TwoDirList
FourDirList
EchelonList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
SingleLoopList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
TwoDirList
Interchanges Direction
TwoDirList
Base Number of Through Lanes
Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will
populate on each non-roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the
number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be
overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes
must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet.
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound 2
2
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Question
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NB-SB
N/A
N/A
Select the roadway with the U-turns from the drop-down list.
N/A
All
Bowtie
Continuous Green-T
Echelon
Median U-Turn
Partial Displaced Left Turn
Thru-Cut
Single Loop
Split Intersection
N/A
N/A
Partial Median U-Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn
N/AN/A
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Directional Questions and Base Lane Configurations
Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional
question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the lane
configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided.
N/A
EB
Question
N/A
Select the direction associated with the "stem" of the T-
intersection from the drop-down list. See example diagrams.
31
U-Turn / Left Through Right
94 0 94 38
52 0 94 2
15 988 94 21
1 947 94 37
Volumes (veh/hr)
Eastbound
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound
VDOT Junction Screening Tool
Results Worksheet
Intersection Results
Project Title:
EW Facility:
NS Facility:
Date:
General Information
Gibson Property
Site Entrance 4
Rte. 522
July 10, 2026
General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption of one exclusive
lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified the lane configurations on each
worksheet.CongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Conventional
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Conventional -0.40 48 $$
Continuous Green-T -0.39 - 12* $$
Restricted Crossing U-Turn -0.28 20 $$
Two-Way Stop Control -0.47 48 $
*The continuous green-T is the only three-legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green-T to other innovative intersections, conflicts
corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three-legged and four-legged conventional
intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.
32
Interchange ResultsCongestionPedestrianSafetyPlanning Level CostsNotes
Type Dir
Maximum
V/C
Accommodation
Compared to
Traditional
Diamond
Weighted Total
Conflict Points
Planning Level
Cost Category
Congestion
Pedestrian
Safety
Planning Level Costs Cost category estimates for each intersection/interchange alternative. Some alternatives have choices that affect the resulting cost category
(e.g. requirement of a new bridge) that can be configured on the individual input worksheets.
Information
The maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.
Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is qualitatively defined as
better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (-) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond interchange.
Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts
33
● Assumes exisƟng two-way stop contol or all-
way stop control
● Are new lanes and/or
pavement needed?
● Cost category 1 if no new pavement needed,
else cost cateogry 2.
Yes
Planning Level Cost
$$$$$2
Conventional Conventional
EW Split?FALSENS Split?FALSE
NS Facility:Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.40
N
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
Date:July 10, 2026
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
No
Shared
?
Shared
?
No No
SB Critical Vol532
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
S
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
Shared
?
W E
No
0.40 V / C
635
pcph pcph pcph
39 1002 1
0pcphYes
1 2 1
EB Critical Vol103 No
Shared
?pcph960No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?1Yes
Shared
?pcph00pcph462pcph1Shared
?
No
16 1062 231635 531 2 1 pcph1
Merging 1
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
48
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram (Three Legs)
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 3
Total 9
Conflict Type Weight
Crossing 2
Merging 1
Diverging
Conflict Type
Total
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Weight
Crossing 2
Conflict Type Count
Crossing
Merging
Diverging
16
8
8
32
WB Critical Vol102
NB Critical Vol518
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
No No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
pcph pcph pcph
Shared
?
Shared
?
No 1Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 34
EB
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
Planning Level Cost $ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 2
3
Weighted Total Conflict Points
12
Diverging 1
S
W
Merging 1
Crossing 2
North arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet.
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
5310.39 V / C
WeightConflict Type
E
N
Total 9
0.33 V / C
619
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 3
Merging 3
Diverging
1
Shared
?1No
96 0 39
pcph pcph pcph
619 16pcph21062pcph1NS Split?
Site Entrance 4 < 1200
TRUE
NB Critical Vol518pcph0EW Split?pcph10022DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
NS Facility:Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.39Date:July 10, 2026
Project Name:Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
Step 1: Enter the
lane configurations
in the yellow cells.
Continuous
Green Movement
V/C
NB
FALSE
0.33
Continuous Green-T Intersection Continuous Green-T Intersection
EB Critical Vol101
No
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
SB Critical Vol0 pcph0pcph39No
EB
SB
Shared
?
1
No
Zone 5
Zone 5
Back to Results
Continuous
Green Movement
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 35
NB-SB
$ $$ $ $2
● Cost Category 3
● Assumes conversion from conventional signal.
pcph pcph pcph
EB pcph0--No96
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
--
1
EB Critical Vol142 NB Critical Vol544pcph
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Diverging 8
Total
Control Type
(Zones 3 + 4)
Control Type
(Zone 2)
Unsignalized
2
16 1062 23
Planning Level Cost
Shared
?391
Crossing
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
2
--
0.26 V / C 1pcphChannelized w/
Rcv Lane?No
Conflict Type Weight
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram
Conflict Type Count
Date:July 10, 2026
39
0.27 V / C
W E
S
North arrow directions will
appear once the directional
question has been answered
on the Input Worksheet.Shared
?
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?
SB
--
--
--
0.27
Unsignalized
1 2
V / C No
Unsignalized
SB
Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:0.28
18
20
Diverging 1
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Merging
pcph
Assumptions
● This worksheet uses the CLV methodology for calculaƟons at
signalized zones. These calculations are based on passenger
cars per hour.
● This worksheet uses the HCM, 6th Edition methodology for
calculations at unsignalized zones. These calculations are based
on vehicles per hour.
NB
0.28 V / C
pcph --96
1--
Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
Enter the lane
configurations in the
yellow cells.
NS Facility:
WB Critical Vol64
N
No
Control Type
(Zone 1)
1
53
Channelized w/
Rcv Lane?0pcphpcph
39 1055
1
1
pcph pcph
pcph
SB Critical Vol580
Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection
No
12pcph53pcphpcph pcph
1002 1
2
WB
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
1
16
1158 23
pcph NB
No
pcph
2
pcph
Zone 3
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 4
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 36
Priority MVMT Rank
7 EBL 4 1 2 1 1 No 0.058 vc,1 1009.00 tc,1 4.22 tf,1 2.26 cp,1 660.08 cm,1 660.08 1 660.08 1 0.00
8 EBT 3 4 2 15 1 No 0.075 vc,4 984.00 tc,4 4.25 tf,4 2.28 cp,4 665.07 cm,4 665.07 2 3600.00 2 0.26
9 EBR 2 7 4 94 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,7 1473.00 tc,7 7.54 tf,7 3.52 cp,7 88.26 cm,7 198.07 0 3 1500.00 3 0.02
10 WBL 4 8 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,8 1988.00 tc,8 6.54 tf,8 4.02 cp,8 60.24 cm,8 170.99 1 4 665.07 4 0.02
11 WBT 3 9 2 38 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,9 473.50 tc,9 6.94 tf,9 3.32 cp,9 537.18 cm,9 537.18 1 5 3600.00 5 0.27
12 WBR 2 10 4 52 1 No Yes 0.02 vc,10 1493.50 tc,10 7.54 tf,10 3.52 cp,10 85.20 cm,10 180.72 0 6 1500.00 6 0.01
4 NBL 2 11 3 0 1 Yes 0.02 vc,11 2004.00 tc,11 6.54 tf,11 4.02 cp,11 58.86 cm,11 166.40 1 7 198.07 7 0.47
5 NBT 1 12 2 2 0 Yes Yes 0.02 vc,12 494.00 tc,12 6.94 tf,12 3.32 cp,12 520.90 cm,12 520.90 1 8-9 537.18 8-9 0.07
6 NBR 1 --------
1 SBL 2 2 1 947 2 0.058 vc,I,7 949.00 tc,I,7 6.54 10 180.72 10 0.29
2 SBT 1 3 1 37 1 No No 0.058 vc,II,7 524.00 tc,II,7 6.54 11-12 520.90 11-12 0.00
Stops 3 SBR 1 5 1 988 2 0.075 vc,I,8 949.00 tc,I,8 5.54 cp,I,7 279.93 cm,I,7 279.51 cm,7 86.31 --------
2 6 1 21 1 No No 0.075 vc,II,8 1039.00 tc,II,8 5.54 cp,II,7 504.50 cm,II,7 491.22 cm,8 58.79
MAJOR MINOR vc,I,10 1018.00 tc,I,10 6.54 cp,I,8 337.14 cm,I,8 336.63 cm,10 77.72
NB EB vc,II,10 475.50 tc,II,10 6.54 cp,II,8 305.86 cm,II,8 298.96 cm,11 57.44
SB WB vc,I,11 1018.00 tc,I,11 5.54 cp,I,10 254.07 cm,I,10 248.34
vc,II,11 986.00 tc,II,11 5.54 cp,II,10 539.09 cm,II,10 500.19
4 cp,I,11 312.91 cm,I,11 305.86
FALSE cp,II,11 323.94 cm,II,11 323.45
FALSE
y7 0.48 cT,7 198.07
y8 1.16 cT,8 170.99
y10 0.42 cT,10 180.72
y11 0.99 cT,11 166.40
p0,1 1.00
p0,4 0.98
a 0.91
p*0,1 1.00 p0,8 1.00 p0,9 0.93
p*0,4 0.95 p0,11 1.00 p0,12 1.00
p"7 0.976 p'7 0.98 fp,7 0.98
p"10 0.976 p'10 0.98 f p,10 0.91
x 1i,1+2 0.53
x 4i,1+2 0.55
Through
Right f8 0.98
f 11 0.98
f7 0.00
f 10 0.00
f I,8 1.00 f II,8 0.98 p0,I,8 1.00
fI,11 0.98 fII,11 1.00 p0,I,11 1.00
f I,7 1.00 f II,7 0.97
fI.10 0.98 fII.10 0.93Two Stage1$$ $ $ $1
● Cost Category 1
Mvmt 1, shared left
vph*Assumption:
● Assumes no intersecƟon, but cost of new road is not included
Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC)
Intersection V/C
0.47
Shared Movement
Capacities
Movement
Capacities
Potential
Capacities
Follow-Up
HeadwaysCritical HeadwaysConflicting FlowsPriority Flow Rates Lanes Shared?
Stop
controlled?Truck %
DESIGN AND RESULTS DATA INPUT AND CONFIGURATION
Project Name:
Yes
M1 Shared?
M4 Shared?
Mvmt 1, excl left
Mvmt 4, excl left
FALSE
Number of Lanes
012vphShared
?Yes
1● This worksheet does not use the CLV methodology. The calculaƟons
are based on the HCM, 6th Edition . The calculations are based on
vehicles per hour.
HCM 6 CALCULATIONS
Step 1: Identify which approaches are stop-controlled
by selecting "Yes" from the drop-down box.
Step 2: Enter the lane configurations in the yellow cells.
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Yes
0.47
No
Shared
?
Shared
?No No One or two-stage minor
street left and through
movments*?11
0
1Stop-controlled approaches
Movement Capacities Movement V/C
One storage space in median (nm =
1) for two-stage turns
Safety - Conflict Point Diagram Assumptions
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
No
No No
Shared
?
Note: This diagram does not reflect the actual lane configuration of the intersection
Shared
?
Planning Level Cost
Conflict Type Count
Crossing 16
Total 32
Diverging 1
Diverging 8
48
Conflict Type Weight
Weighted Total Conflict Points
Crossing 2
Merging 8
Merging 1
Gibson Property Critical Lane Volume Sum
No
Approach
Stop
Controlled?
Rte. 522 VOLUME / CAPACITY
RATIO:
N
Date:July 10, 2026
EW Facility:Site Entrance 4 < 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600
NS Facility:
W E
S
Number of LanesStop-controlled approachesvph vph vph
37 947
vph0 0
11
Shared
?941Shared
?No52
0
Stop-controlled approachesNumber of Lanes0Yes 1Number of Lanes
988
Shared
?vph381Stop-controlled approachesvph10 Rank
1800
150021
1
vph vph
2 1
vph
2
0 0
15 10vphApproach
Stop
Controlled?
Two
NS Major?
Major street lanes
Saturation Flow Rates
537.18
520.90
No
Two-Stage Movement Capacities Single-Stage Movement
Capacities
V/C Not Reported for Any
Movements?
Two-Stage Potential Capacities
Mvmt 4, shared left
Mvmt 7, 4-leg
Mvmt 10, 4-leg
One StageZone 5
Back to Results
VDOT JUNCTION SCREENING TOOL
Ver 1.0 37
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development AM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 38 0 0 16 36 739 53 2 626 92
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 38 0 0 16 36 739 53 2 626 92
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 300 - 150 300 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 41 0 0 17 39 803 58 2 680 100
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 340 - - 402 780 0 0 861 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 656 0 0 598 833 - - 776 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 656 - - 598 833 - - 776 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 11.2 0.4 0
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 833 - - 656 598 776 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - - 0.063 0.029 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 10.9 11.2 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0.1 0 - -
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development AM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 15 734 6 17 703
Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 15 734 6 17 703
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 310 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 5 16 798 7 18 764
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1248 399 764 0 0 805 0
Stage 1 830 - - - - - -
Stage 2 418 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 6.44 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.52 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 165 601 470 - - 815 -
Stage 1 388 - - - - - -
Stage 2 632 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 156 601 470 - - 815 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 276 - - - - - -
Stage 1 375 - - - - - -
Stage 2 618 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13 0.3 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBU NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) 470 - - 276 601 815 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - - 0.008 0.009 0.023 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 - - 18.1 11 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 0 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
11: Route 522 & Highland Corner Rd Future with Development AM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 7 AM to 8 AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 791 5 27 5 627 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 791 5 27 5 627 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 285 - 150 - 260 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 860 5 29 5 682 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1193 1628 344 1279 1625 430 687 0 0 860 865 0 0
Stage 1 753 753 - 870 870 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 440 875 - 409 755 - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 6.44 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.52 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 142 101 652 123 101 573 903 - - 408 774 - -
Stage 1 368 416 - 313 367 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 566 365 - 590 415 - - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 131 92 652 114 92 573 903 - - 437 437 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 254 203 - 226 211 - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 366 383 - 311 365 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 558 363 - 538 382 - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 16.5 0.1 0.7
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 903 - - 366 324 437 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.03 0.034 0.08 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 15.1 16.5 14 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0.3 - -
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
9: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 4 Future with Development PM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 132 0 0 54 15 1082 21 1 999 37
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 132 0 0 54 15 1082 21 1 999 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 300 - 150 300 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 143 0 0 59 16 1176 23 1 1086 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 543 - - 588 1126 0 0 1199 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 484 0 0 452 616 - - 578 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 484 - - 452 616 - - 578 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.5 14.2 0.1 0
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 616 - - 484 452 578 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.296 0.13 0.002 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - - 15.5 14.2 11.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - C B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.2 0.4 0 - -
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
10: Route 522 & Gibson Site Entrance 5 Future with Development PM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 17 52 1082 2 7 979
Future Vol, veh/h 6 17 52 1082 2 7 979
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - - None - None
Storage Length 0 50 310 - 150 300 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 18 57 1176 2 8 1064
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1838 588 1064 0 0 1178 0
Stage 1 1290 - - - - - -
Stage 2 548 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 6.44 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.52 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 67 452 302 - - 589 -
Stage 1 222 - - - - - -
Stage 2 543 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 54 452 302 - - 589 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 138 - - - - - -
Stage 1 180 - - - - - -
Stage 2 535 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 18.3 0.9 0.1
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBU NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) 302 - - 138 452 589 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 - - 0.047 0.041 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.6 - - 32.4 13.3 11.2 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - D B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 0.1 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC Gibson Property
11: Route 522 & Highland Corner Rd Future with Development PM 2035-RCUT
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Gorove Slade Timing Plan: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 1014 5 94 5 1027 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 1014 5 94 5 1027 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 285 - 150 - 260 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 1102 5 102 5 1116 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1894 2450 561 1884 2447 551 1121 0 0 1102 1107 0 0
Stage 1 1333 1333 - 1112 1112 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 561 1117 - 772 1335 - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 6.44 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.52 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 43 31 471 43 31 478 619 - - 285 626 - -
Stage 1 162 221 - 223 282 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 480 281 - 358 221 - - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 30 19 471 30 19 478 619 - - 290 290 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 113 79 - 114 90 - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 161 139 - 221 280 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 471 279 - 222 139 - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 26 25.8 0.1 2.1
HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 619 - - 182 184 290 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.06 0.059 0.371 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 - - 26 25.8 24.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - D D C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.2 1.6 - -
Gibson Property Technical Appendix
4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595
goroveslade.com
K. Turn Lane Warrant Tables and Graphics
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)
Advancing
Vol.
(VPH)
Left Turn
Vol.
(VPH)
Left Turn %
Minimum
Opposing
Threshold
(VPH)
VDOT RDM F Figure Treatment
Intersection 6: EBL AM Peak 712 933 81 8.68% 0 Fig. 3-11 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 6: EBL PM Peak 1,171 974 33 3.39% 0 Fig. 3-10 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 8: EBL AM Peak 715 930 48 5.16% 0 Fig. 3-11 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Intersection 8: EBL PM Peak 1,130 988 19 1.92% 0 Fig. 3-10 Full-width Lane and Taper Warranted
Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Gibson Property TIA
Intersection 6: Madison Site Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Gorove Slade
2035 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
Input VDOT Calculated Thesholds
Intersection 8: Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance 3 (E/W)
Gorove Slade
Intersection 6: EBL PM Peak
Intersection 8: EBL PM Peak
y = -5E-06x3 + 0.0092x2 - 7.3406x + 2241.7
R² = 0.9997
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH)
VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-10
Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways
at 50-mph & <5% Left Turns
Not Warranted
Warranted
Intersection 6: EBL AM PeakIntersection 8: EBL 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
RDM Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Four-Lane Roadway
Background:
Project Information:
Project:
Project ID:
Intersection(s) and Movement(s):
Scenario:
Analysis:
Assessment Summary:
Study Scenario Median
Opposing
Vol. (VPH)
Advancing
Vol.
(VPH)
Left Turning
Vol.
(VPH)
Left Turn % Treatment
Intersection 9: NBL AM Peak Divided 705 801 36 4.5%Full-width Turn Lane and Taper Warranted (for Undivided and Divided)
Intersection 9: NBL PM Peak Divided 985 1,024 15 1.5%Not Warranted
Intersection 9: SBL AM Peak Divided 801 705 2 0.3% Not Warranted
Intersection 9: SBL PM Peak Divided 1,024 985 1 0.1%Not Warranted
Intersection 10: SBL AM Peak Divided 740 720 17 2.4%Not Warranted
Intersection 10: SBL PM Peak Divided 1,084 986 7 0.7% Not Warranted
2035 Total Future
Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Four-Lane Highways
Warrants for left-turn storage lanes on four-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3-3 in Appendix F of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT)
Road Design Manual (RDM). The figure provides a graphical representation for determining the necessity of a left turn lane for divided and undivied roadway conditions by
comparing the left turning volumes of a given approach and the respective opposing traffic volume.
Intersection 9: Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4/Gibson Site Entrance 5 (E/W)
Intersection 10: Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 6 (W)
Gibson Property TIA
Gorove Slade
ResultInput
Intersection 9: NBL AM Peak
Intersection 9: SBL AM Peak
Intersection 9: SBL PM Peak
Intersection 10: SBL AM Peak
Intersection 10: SBL PM Peak
Intersection 9: NBL PM Peak
y = -0.0425x3 + 3.1819x2 - 118.75x + 1750.2
R² = 0.9982
y = -0.0039x3 + 0.5494x2 - 46.92x + 1778.3
R² = 0.9991
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Opposing Volume (vph)Left Turning Volume (vph)
VDOT Road Design Manual Figure 3-3
(Left Turn Warrant for 4 Lane Highways)
No Left-Turn Lane Required
WarrantFour-Lane Undivided Warrant Four-Lane Divided
At-Grade, Unsignalized Intersections
Gorove Slade
Transportation Engineers and Planners
Intersection 9: NBL AM Peak
Intersection 9: NBL PM Peak
Intersection 9: SBL AM Peak
Intersection 9: SBL PM Peak
Intersection 10: SBL AM Peak
Intersection 10: SBL PM Peak
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Opposing Volume (vph)Left Turning Volume (vph)
VDOT Road Design Manual Figure 3-3
(Left Turn Warrant for 4 Lane Highways)No Left-Turn Lane Required
At-Grade, Unsignalized Intersections
S = Storage Length Required
RDM Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Two-Lane Highway
Background:
Project Information:
Project:
Project ID:
Intersection(s) and Movement(s):
Scenario:
Analyst:
Study Scenario Approach
Volume
Right Turn
Volume
Minimum Right
Turn Taper
Threshold
Minimum Right
Turn Full Lane
Threshold
Treatment
Intersection 6: WBR AM Peak 712 92 20 40 Full-width Lane and Taper Required
Intersection 6: WBR PM Peak 1,171 37
20 40 Taper Required
Intersection 7: WBR AM Peak 702 3 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 7: WBR PM Peak 1,129 1 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 8: WBR AM Peak 715 14 20 40 Not Warranted
Intersection 8: WBR PM Peak 1,130 6 20 40 Not Warranted
2035 Total Future
Gorove Slade
Warrants for right-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3-26 in Appendix F of the Virginia
Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Road Design Manual (RDM). This figure provides a graphical representation for determining the
necessity of a right turn lane and / or taper by comparing the total volumes of a given approach with their respective right turn volumes.
Gibson Property TIA
Intersection 6: Madison Site Entrance/Gibson Site Entrance 1 (N/S) & Fairfax Pike (E/W)
Intersection 7: Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance 2 (E/W)
Intersection 8: Fairfax Pike (S) & Gibson Site Entrance 3 (E/W)
Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Two-Lane Highways
Based on NCHRP Report 279 / VDOT RDM Appendix F
"Intersection Channelization Guide"
Taper Required
Full-width Turn Lane and Taper
Required
Intersection 6: WBR AM Peak
Intersection 6: WBR PM Peak
Intersection 7: WBR AM Peak
Intersection 7: WBR PM Peak
Intersection 8: WBR PM Peak
Intersection 8: WBR PM Peak
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200PHV Right Turns, Vehicles Per HourPHF Approach Total, Vehicles Per Hour
Right Turn Lane Warrant for 2-Lane Highways
(VDOT RDM Appendix F Figure 3-26)
Not Warranted
Gorove Slade
Transportation Engineers and Planners
RDM Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Four-Lane Highway
Background:
Project Information:
Project:
Project ID:
Intersection(s) and Movement(s):
Scenario:
Analyst:
Study Scenario Approach
Volume
Right Turn
Volume
Minimum Right
Turn Taper
Threshold
Minimum Right
Turn Full Lane
Threshold
Treatment
Intersection 9: NBR AM Peak 801 53 16 69 Taper Required
Intersection 9: NBR PM Peak 1,024 21 10 53 Taper Required
Intersection 9: SBR AM Peak 705 92 19 75 Full-width Lane and Taper Required
Intersection 9: SBR PM Peak 985 37 10 55 Taper Required
Intersection 10: NBR AM Peak 740 6 18 73 Not Warranted
Intersection 10: NBR AM Peak 1,084 2 10 48 Not Warranted
2035 Total Future
Gorove Slade
Intersection 9: Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 4/Gibson Site Entrance 5 (E/W)
Intersection 10: Route 522 (N/S) & Gibson Site Entrance 6 (W)
Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment
Four-Lane Highways
Based on NCHRP Report 279 / VDOT RDM Appendix F
"Intersection Channelization Guide"
Warrants for right-turn storage lanes on four-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3-27 in Appendix F of the Virginia
Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Road Design Manual (RDM). This figure provides a graphical representation for determining the necessity
of a right turn lane and / or taper by comparing the total volumes of a given approach with their respective right turn volumes.
Taper Required
Full-width Turn Lane and Taper
Required
Intersection 9: NBR AM Peak
Intersection 9: NBR PM Peak
Intersection 9: SBR AM Peak
Intersection 9: SBR PM Peak
Intersection 10: NBR AM Peak
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200PHV Right Turns, Vehicles Per HourPHF Approach Total, Vehicles Per Hour
Right Turn Lane Warrant for 4-Lane Highways
(VDOT RDM Appendix F Figure 3-27)
Not Warranted
Gorove Slade
Transportation Engineers and Planners