Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07 Traffic Impact AnalysisPatton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street PHA Winchester, Virginia 22601 7540.667.2139 Memorandum F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization /Company: Frederick County From: Ron Mislows Date: February 1 200 Project Name /Subject: Artillery Business Park With so many questions coming up about the Traffic Impact Analysis, we thought we would simplify the study to identify only the Artillery Business Park impacts. As you know the background trips in the current TIA include many approved but very future developments. There are: Kemstown Commons 16,851 TPD Cross Pointe 19,130 TPD Volvo Kemstown 782 TPD Russell Stephens City 15,910 TPD Villages at Artrip 6,828 TPD Renaissance Commercial 8,282 TPD While these projects were included in the analysis, it is probable that only two maybe three will be fully developed by the year 2010. The supplement attached predicts the impact of the Artillery generated trips of 5,950 on the existing traffic volumes. We believe this is a more realistic description of the impacts that our development will have in the near term. Again, two scenarios are studied. One with the east /west connector, and one without. As previously, with the east/west connector, our impacts are minima We show a signal required at Rt. 11, but we understand that Renaissance is responsible for that installation. Without the connector, a signal is required at Apple Valley and Shady Elm and we have recognized that in our cash proffer of $250,000. Sometimes, the scope of our project gets lost in the many other trips recognized in the study. We hope this additional analysis helps in your review. FEB - 1 2008 _ Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PHA 540 e st e r, Vi giiniiatr22601 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization /Company: Frederick Gout From: Ron Mislowsk; Date: February 1, 20( Project Name /Subject: Artillery Business Park 40 Memorandum With so many questions coming up about the Traffic Impact Analysis, we thought we would simplify the study to identify only the Artillery Business Park impacts. As you know the background trips in the current TIA include many approved but very future developments. There are: Kemstown Commons 16,851 TPD Cross Pointe 19,130 TPD Volvo Kemstown 782 TPD Russell Stephens City 15,910 TPD Villages at Artrip 6,828 TPD Renaissance Commercial 8,282 TPD While these projects were included in the analysis, it is probable that only two maybe three will be fully developed by the year 2010. The supplement attached predicts the impact of the Artillery generated trips of 5,950 on the existing traffic volumes. We believe this is a more realistic description of the impacts that our development will have in the near term. Again, two scenarios are studied. One with the east /west connector, and one without. As previously, with the east /west connector, our impacts are minima We show a signal required at Rt. 11, but we understand that Renaissance is responsible for that installation. Without the connector, a signal is required at Apple Valley and Shady Elm and we have recognized that in our cash proffer of $250,000. Sometimes, the scope of our project gets lost in the many other trips recognized in the study. We hope this additional analysis helps in your review. Patton Harris Ruso Associates, Inc Engneer Surveyors. Planners. Landscape ArcNtects. 00 PHRA 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 17 l Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax 301.223.6831 • Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Organization /Company: VDOT — Edinburg Residency From: Michael Glickman, PE Date: January 31 2008 Supplemental Analysis to: An Addendum to A TrafTc Intbact Analysis Project Name /Subject: ofi eLvncb- ShadvElmRoadProberty dated leptember 12 2007 PHR +A Project file Number: 14846 -1 -1 For Informational purposes, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this supplemental analysis to: An Addendum to: A Tra�Tc Imbact Analysis o the Lynch -Shady Elm Ro Pro e , by PHR +A, dated September 12, 2007. The purpose of this document is to present the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Development upon the existing traffic volumes. Therefore, growth rates and "other developments" are omitted from this analysis in an effort to differentiate the direct impacts of this project from those created by the background traffic. All other methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned September 12, 2007 memorandum. Accordingly, PHR +A has provided analysis for both build -out scenarios included in the original report. The proposed development trips, as shown in Table 1, were added to the existing conditions traffic volumes to determine the "existing plus development" build -out traffic volumes. Figures 1a and 1b show the "existing plus development" build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 2a and 2b show the corresponding lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table V Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road T.:n (SanRraHnn .6mtm ary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 _ _ Total .. .. ... ......i 669 109 779 —n .� ... i:..a 7=71,'M 127 677 Mr R4R�A 805 5,950 - �Dpeu vnneuni Page 1 of 6 Patton Harris Rusok Associates, Inc Addendum page 2of6 Conclusion Based upon Synchro results, the following details the "suggested improvements" for all intersections located within the study area. Note: Funding for these improvements has yet to he identified. Scenario A: • Shady Elm Road /Aoole Valley Road Signalization will be required. • Shady Elm Road /Soldiers Rest Lane /Site - Drivewav one right -turn lane in northbound direction and 4' leg in westbound direction will be required. Scenario B: • Route 11 /Renaissance Drivewav /Site - Drivewav This is a new intersection. Signalization will be required. NOTE Intersections, where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement, must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors o Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rusa Associates, Inc 10 Addendum Page 3 of 6 Figure la Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects N � b b � N No Scale f I (29 2)]03 (369 )122 S P d i n b C a l a � a _ v (a PyOAP ( � Jl �.���� 1r� 5759 (739) D o' F D'� 0 O Z r ti� Z1ti Z o \ J ` \ 0 tae s �5'Y e S �1 z 0 (0) v1 J SITE ro Ja rD * o r; F! 3 ti h� ti o p 7 0 B � N dv e _ 3 \SSS p ; � N� L 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) pT TP,A Figure la Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rusa Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 4 of 6 No Scale .,'.,' ,'A'verage;IDa�ly�Trpssw :9 Figure lb Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers 9 Surveyors a Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Barris RAs , Associates, Inc i Addendum Page 5 of 6 Signalized "Suggested Inter - section Improvements" LOS =B(C) Signalization U E Signalized G 9 Intersection No Scale dG O overall cos A(C) >C(C) (C)C- p �D Q o � 6 1 D� G Sr ` 9pA ic 11 11 G 1 R Oa d a �e y A �e R � n L y r' 0 C BS "Suggested R Improvements" C B -th Leg N I NB - Right P T 1 sire �C)a SITE s o; u r a JB *` P AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T� +A * Denotes Critical Left-turn Movement Figure 2a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build - out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rusk Associates, Inc i Addendum Page 6 of 6 C Signalized O Intersection 41 Sf 0 ver.11 LOS AM No Scale Q 9 / qe ` 11 11 �e 1� o a � 9 aG i k A(A)* a s r r a "s « ks `ar`P y �P g J SITE Si "Newlnter ew L Q SITE Interection EB & R'B � N Leg 11 7y IJ p (C)C P S dd ° aa * �P AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement TP +/ Figure 2b Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers a Surveyors 9 Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. RA 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 20 PH Addendum Fax: 301. 21.223.6831 .6831 To: Lloyd Ingram Organization /Company: VDOT — EdinburgResidency From: Michael Glickman Date: September 12 2007 An Addendum to: A Traoic Im act Anal sir of the Lynch-Shad Project Name /Subject: Elm Road Pro beity dated November 29 2006 PHR +A Project file Number: 14846 -1 -1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A Tragic Impact Analwis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road P ro p erty, by PHR +A, dated November 29, 2006. The purpose of this document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4. The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of warehousing. PHR +A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29, 2006 report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report PHR +A has provided Tables 1a thm if to summarize the 2010 `other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Page 1 of 18 0 r Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2of18 Table In 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Rep urt dated February, 2006) 435 245 679 7,750 230 310 Hotel 120rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w / Mat. M screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven- Mart w)pumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive -in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w) DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1,738 18,310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 ],459 Total "New Trips "' 452 3S2 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 Pass By trips are fifteen percent ( IJyo) of total retau eevetopmem and Coll Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single - Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse /Condo 200 units IS 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 866 1,669 17,673 Total Tri s 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total lntemal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1,737 1 19 Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Volvo Car Delarship Trio Generation Summary Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects Ll 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3of18 Table ld 2010 "Other Developments' : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Cpnpratiinn SnmmarV Code Land Use Amount In ADI Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Ito Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single- Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse /Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9.098 3 field 2 Total 588 316 904 1 658 995 1,653 15,910 Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Cpnpratiinn SnmmarV Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 210 Single - Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse /Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single - Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Tri s 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,135 Total too, a] 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Tri s' 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments': Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trio Gen ratio Snmmar Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 8282 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Ll Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 4 of 18 No Scale Plata q . y J� Ct r 'Comrs{om4;ylth Q� i{ f � r` 3 � .. 1`� { / � 3 Crasspeinle 4p_ r 1 }Kernst wn y Center ° nCt Com n s i � �y� R seance J y Co Cener Vulvo 0�3y m. / �rebp ���e � BaltonsriBe' 11 `' j�. �• ArtHD yJ /' � ......1 Russell lllf`' PH Figure 1 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects • i Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 5 of 18 No Scale 9 G aw e p P y �8 &J q G �2y� 50(145) � DJ 11 S y o a II S° .z. A N a � N °d P ,, r<aoP (9 6)76 (150)96- (l� i SITE ry , N � e u ti qNo 0 p/ By rJ �aC � 3 n n AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) � \J 1 1� A • T / _ • 1 . p Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6 of 18 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 7 of 18 Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects m n sign��:ea g mtenenion No Scale I i / Overall LOS B(D) L 9A U S A(A)x D y oad Po1O� �\¢ r� a S� a e SigriaBzed 'Sugge led ScJ IntetSectiDn & ml Thru LOS B(S) r- U o � i t r,� e �,Q r b m 0 o qY � SITE tt S eda /c A uad AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) nT TP+n * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 8 of 18 Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects 4 p Bignaliud No Scale 0/ i / 0".11 LOS C(F) y A AC 9A AP I I LSS ` �(A)` a a p *� Signalized, "Suggested S' m Interserlion Improvements" E LOS —B(C7 N8 & 5B ]'item FO t a,: S� S = 11 ^ U Signalized "New lnt anon' Q. FFFVVVSSS .� Q SITE Intersection �B &WB -New Le NB - lthm , I 1-ft j;OS s(Bj. Pigh R SB -1 thrv,l ght o � v Sp - 1f ;. � 'C `ga e eewar {Cj I III ,v p Py e 4 r �J ,PYj AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T P +A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 9ofIS TRIP GENERATION Using the 7� Edition of the Institute of "Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trio Generation Rem PHR +A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trio (3rurration Rnmmary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out 'Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 5,950 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario B, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study. Figures 5a and 5b show the respective revised development- generated AM /PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 2a and 2b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the revised 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and A_M /PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Engineers a Surveyors 9 Planners a Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 10 of 18 CONCLUSION Per HCS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B, except the intersection of Route 11 /Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. • Route 11 /Springdale Road Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during Scenario B. • Route 11 /Apple Valley Road An additional northbound and southbound thin lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11 : Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -mm lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B. • Shadv Elm Road /Site Drive #1 : Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. • Shady Elm Road /Apple Valley Road Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. NOTE Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 11 of 18 No Scale Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors a planners a Landscape Architects 0 L Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 12 of 18 No Scale -!- Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 13 of IS No Scale L 9 a e A �c f�sJ y�v 402(76) r3 m ¢- lr vpgc II Dw,y�bbb �e 3 e �F Sr a 1 � 03)33....* } (203)33 zt B � J z s� II SITE h� Lr I1 ^i ed ab Jj 0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �T Tel+ Figure 5a Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors . Planners o Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 14 of 18 L ' ap oe No Scale /23 V� Y s 1 ~Nl�' 335z fee °l (34)S 9 gpc r � i F S s o � o c S� d. 'P P A� SI E it 1�r u "2 R k aY iaaa � e` k 8� y e 3j b AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) \J 1 A � 1 � • ,P+ Figure 5b Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 15 of 18 9 s No Scale f3J J,9 �50(Ig5 r� l > DJ SCq N b n "r 1� M i�PJ � Lti N d ✓ r2 q� (300 )109 w �,1 (383)129- Z1 1] ` C SITE q S � yq 7 � A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n P +A ' Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 16 of 18 Figure 6b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 0 Patton Barris Rust & Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 17 of 18 S 'Ud 'S gg t d Int s mon I p tr 5 t o LOS C(C) g al ' J 9 A '- C Signalrz d Intersection ai Overall LOS C(E) No ScaleJ �P a U 4 i D�wF \ 5 ,. y p ' O C 11 II G �r y �a V � S(Ap a a QT ¢� 2` 5igoalized ^Suggested - & S LOS--B( NB SB n. I U s ° e ` Ql ' P W ®� ❑gruBied . Suggested I r .iX ..pp.. n an o ¢ 8 y Intcisechon p ve p I Rght & S — g LOS= S guali>aUOn s <� e - err O *QP� SITE �c S cB i 4 D nY ` S Py &V r FJ l - Signalized. "Suggested ]mprov tr' �1 Inlersechon Los• =B(C) s gnm t Q S o " d II AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T P+ A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects E Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 18 of 18 �� si Interudion No Scale Overall LOS B(t) (D)C� } q l 9pd It t� L S o� d a / l �q Stymalrzed Sugµst d lb L A(A). ��7 ]ntersechou L & SB 1 Thru OS B(C) D� rr x Yv V a � Q �P�+ a/ SignaBmd =. "New lntersmim�' » �C SITE inlersectlon EB & WB . New Leg NB -1 Tbru l Left t:os Bs(c) , SB.1n 1RigM k• a :�+' �1 /� "t t v' �c I V 4 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T T +A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7b 3010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris RustoAssociates, Inc Erg veers. Surveyors. Planners, Landscape Architects. P RA 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Wllliamspon, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 Ife Organization /Company: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: PHR +A Project file Number: • FEB - 1 2008 Memorandum', VDOT — Edinburg Residency Michael Glickman, PE 31, 2008 Supplemental Analysis to: An Addendum to: A Traffic ImPact Anafyns of the Lynch - .Shady Elm Road Proper y, dated September 12, 2007 14846 -1 -1 For Informational purposes, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this supplemental analysis to: An Addendum to: A Tra&c 120act Analvri a� the Lyncb - Shady Elm Road Pro e , by PHR +A, dated September 12, 2007. The purpose of this document is to present the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Development upon the existing traffic volumes. Therefore, growth rates and "other developments" are omitted from this analysis in an effort to differentiate the direct impacts of this project from those created by the background traffic. All other methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned September 12, 2007 memorandum. Accordingly, PHR +A has provided analysis for both build -out scenarios included in the original report. The proposed development trips, as shown in Table 1, were added to the existing conditions traffic volumes to determine the "existing plus development" build -out traffic volumes. Figures 1a and lb show the "existing plus development" build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 2a and 2b show the corresponding lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1* Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trio Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount in AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Out Hour Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 5,950 eop�ca vemaum vom: nn naoenwm �o: r ,raroumyn Page 1 of 6 Patton Harris RusAk Associates, Inc r Addendum Page 2 of 6 Conclusion Based upon Synchm results, the following details the "suggested improvements" for all intersections located within the study area. Note: Funding for these improvements has yet to be identified. Scenario A: • Shady Elm Road /Apple Valley Road Signalization will be required. • Shady Elm Road /Soldiers Rest Lane /Site - Drivewav one right -turn lane in northbound direction and 4" leg in westbound direction will be required. Scenario B: • Route 11 /Renaissance Driveway /Site - Drivewav This is a new intersection. Signalization will be required. NOTE Intersections, where Sgnalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement, must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors o Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris Ruslk Associates, Inc Page 3 of 6 No Scale 46 (134) 575 039) rI23 Figure la r Addendum N M � b b � N r Jl � ft 6Q n 11 �� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers o Surveyors o Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris Ru Associates, Inc r Addendum Page 4 of 6 No Scale WAv rage3)a`"ilyrTh R Figure lb Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers o Surveyors 9 Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris R uSIL Associates, Inc 10 Addendum Page 5 of 6 'Siym"alize:: "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS_B(C) Signalizalion U SlgoaBred No Scale °Jj = Intersection Overall LOS A(C) (L)(; ti �e GA G SD t �' 11 Il L a� y o a a� �a D P S� S ei riaip- +: +'D" ''sm"Isled "e Improvements" j °+ WB -4th Leg " t; S'B -1 Right r, 4d S�. C (C / SITE,.��D o, : , L S o °Ra � 11 P R ° an rCB & � J • yyy��� 3 P�/ *` P I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T T+ A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 2a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers o Surveyors o Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris Ru Associates, Inc r Addendum Page 6 of 6 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 2b Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers a Surveyors o Planners a Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc ng neers. Si rvey ETT Planners. Landscape Archiiects. e / \ 10272 Governor Lane Blvd, Sure 1007 g A �l l Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 To: Organ izationlCom pany: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: PHR +A Project file Number: rI L Lloyd Ingram VDOT— Edinburg Residency Michael Glickman September 12, 2007 An Addendum to: A Trafzc Imtract Analyru of the Lynch- Sbad_y Elm Road Prober dated November 29, 2006 14846 -1 -1 Per your request, Patton Harris_ Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A Tragic Impact Analyris of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Propem by PHR +A, dated November 29, 2006. The purpose of this document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4. The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of warehousing. PHR +A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29, 2006 report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PI IR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 ° ' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) 7r Generation Roo PHR +A has provided Tables la thru If to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Page 1 of 18 0 Ll Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2 of 18 Table In 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Repurt dated February, 2006) 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 310 flolel 120 room, 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Convert. Mart w \pumps 4.250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive -in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SP 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SP 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1,738 18,310 *Total Pass By 25 25 50 62 62 124 1.459 Total 'NewTrips": 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 *Pass By tops are fifteen percent (15 %) of total retail development and Convenience Man Table I 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single - Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2.648 28,735 "total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1.737 19 1 Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23.446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3 of 18 Table Id 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single - Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse /Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 658 995 1,653 15,910 Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bav A 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 210 Single - Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single - Family Detached 37 unit, 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 TotalTrips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips' 83 243 326 325 198 523 6 828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments ": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light lndusnial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 2546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 8282 Engineers o Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 4 of 18 No Scale Figure 1 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects u 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 5 of Is No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6 of 18 1 fl N1 Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust $ Associates, Inc w � sl No Scale �� Ivrersectiun Overall 1.05 B(D) "Suggested Impru ents" NB & SB mI Th. 0, �C Q is Addendum Page 7 of 18 SITE 0 I! L: AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects U Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc 41 Addendum Page 8 of 18 m Signalized J1 nter s c No Scale o.erau se t,os e(F) k A(A). d� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 'Suggested D Intrsecbon '-P o elnenis lnt egn— n o' 4 NB &SR 1 fhr Los� E E 11 „. % FFFCCC P ` Signalized: "New I tereect Intersecbon 'F.B &RB New Le 7 .ns��� -LOS B(B)' NB - l thni, Ilefl SR _ I lhru. I Riehl d� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Barris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 9 of 18 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7` Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (1TE) Tin Generalion RePorl PHR +A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Triu Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM In Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Ito Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 5,950 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario B, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study. Figures 5a and 5b show the respective revised development- generated AM /Plvl peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (figures 2a and 2b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the revised 1 .010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects E Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 10 of 18 CONCLUSION Per HCS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B, except the intersection of Route 11 /Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. • Route 11 /S rringdale Road Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during Scenario B. • Route 11 /Apple Valley Road An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Renaissance Driveway /Route 11 : Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B. • Shady Elm Road /Site Drive #1 : Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. • Shady Elm Road /Apple Valley Road Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. NOTE Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 17 of 18 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects -- -n7 4 _ Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) i i Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 12 of 18 L "N 1 t Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Pagc 13 of 18 No oak Hour) t Figure 5a Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 14 of 18 N( t AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5b Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects r� 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 15 of 18 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects F_ 1 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page IG of 1S Figure fib 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 17 of 18 Ne t AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc 0 Addendum Page 18 of 18 SignaBua InterseGiou No Scale Overall LOS B(F) a JtgnalvCtl "suggested VA)- �o� Inte `rsec[Iou Improvements" r'iic n NB & SB 1 Th. ' I a 0 EB &WB - Nc NB -1 Thru, I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors a Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paige Manuel Commercial Realty 440 W. Jubal Early Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engnnes Surveyors. Planners. Lan dscape Ai chi teats. 102 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1002 1 u 9 7301.223.4010- F13011,2236231 November 29, 2006 0 OVERVIEW Report Summary 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development located along the south side of Route 37, cast of Shady Elm Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 326,700 square feet of light industrial and 326,700 square feet of office. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the Year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development, • Distribution and assignment of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development development - generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS +, for existing and future conditions. � A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Pr -1 Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 P l 1 Page 1 0 0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11 /Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley Road/Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane, Prosperity Drive /Route 11 and Springdale Road/Route 11. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 9.0 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road 148 Project Number: 46 -1 -0 46 -1-0 H l November 29, 2006 l t l t Page 2 i No Scale ,1�� /// �� it p4 A Y 4 + oo i 4 3 Comroonv+ealtli ct �< '. Z/ SITE h' 3 r _i� 6artonsvllle 11 '�� o - In t � l uadeg rr P Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, Frederick County, VA P A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 3 0 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _ 1 � Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions P H A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lvnch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 4 0 0 No Scale 1Intersection Signalized ,eerall LOS B(B) I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n u * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A TA T arc Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road PropertvImpact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 P T + November 29, 2006 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 0 Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route I I and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report PHR +A has provided Tables la thru if to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 5a and 5b shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 6a and 6b shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table In 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Stnnmary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 310 Hotel 120 moms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 65,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven. Man wlpumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive -in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1.736 Total 1 477 407 884 1 856 882 ] 738 18310 *Toil Pass By 25 25 50 62 62 124 1.459 Total "New Trips ": 452 382 833 1 794 820 1,614 16,851 Pass By mpi are Lt two percent ll D l) 01 total man oevelopment ana l.onvemence rvJan P � A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -D November 29, 2006 Page 6 0 • Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single - Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 1,653 15,910 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 23 735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 1 435 553 988 890 847 1 19,130 Table lc 2010 "Other Developments ": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary Table Id 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total PM Peak Hour Out 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Table Id 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary P A � Trade Impact Analysis of the Lynch- Shady ect t Number: ber: 14846 -1 -0 Pr Project 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 In Aht Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single - Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 658 995 1,653 15,910 P A � Trade Impact Analysis of the Lynch- Shady ect t Number: ber: 14846 -1 -0 Pr Project 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 0 0 Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 11.20acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 210 Single - Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bus B 210 Single- Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bav C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table IF 2010 "Other Developments ": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light luduslrial 11.20acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 8282 P � A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 8 El l� No Scale O`I`bc,Pl31n112kt rr Y ��1�; �f. tC I t j AIR O � f Camr Ct i s` �j� 4'3 i.� f0t Crossrwinte k! /Ct KerRSln n Center if rl'. �10 Renaissance _ Comm. Center Volvo, rl o h Delarship Cl, � = , �- �Bartonsvl lle � 1 i '• 4 " ' " ♦.,t aotnersetb J UeveloPment Ragland - Russell C aSeatlp Ctr M� - , - P Figure 4 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 P R November 29, 2006 Page 9 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n u Figure 5a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) P R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shadv Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 10 ! • a n ---- Figure 5b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Propem gT� Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 1 + November 29, 2006 // Page 11 0 9 I Signalised a r Intersection NO Scale O verall LOS B(D) D)C , L N U al e pq e U yR 1 ; A(A)♦ L 9 a /' Y D S D �o c �� dSig`nafieJ� "Suggested Sc�D9 Intersection Improvements" NB &SB 1Thru LOS B(a) u yV K­4 f0l L SITE „ s Ry P r RO ay Sigt751 qR 'Suggested Kb )e Intersechoo Improvemen6' r OS R(R) Signalimfion I eRuz � � cr y AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n T Trz +n * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) AA Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lvnch -Shady Elm Road Property Analysis of the Lvnch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 �T T + November P 2006 1 H 1 Page 12 0 0 No Scale A(A). r 9 C f s a Signalized �� t Intersection erall LOS QF) "Suggested Improvements" III & SB - 1 Thru & WB -Nev B -1 thm,I I - I thin. I I t?i:,4Y.:nt Od t OS I"Suggted =B(B)J 3 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement .7 Figure 6b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Project Number ]4846 -1 -0 Lynch -Shady Elm Road 4846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 13 0 TRIP GENERATION 0 Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report' PHR +A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property. Table 2 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In ADI Peak Out Hour Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 326,700 SF 261 36 296 36 267 304 2.339 710 Office 326,700 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 Total 412 56 468 67 417 484 3 562 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips for Scenarios A and B, shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively, were based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development site. Figures 8a and 8b shows the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figures 5a and 5b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 9a and 9b shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and B, respectively. Figures 10a and 10b shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenario A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic lmnactAnalvsis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 R+A November 29, 2006 Page 14 • Figure 7a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) PU 1pY A Traffic Impact Anahsis of the Lynch-Shady t Number: Road Prope 0 l Project 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 15 • • No Scale 0 Figure 7b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 16 0 0 No Scale Hour) Figure 8a Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road 4846 -3-0 Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 R+A November 29, 2006 Page 17 0 0 No Figure 8b Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property PPH RA Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 LJ + November 29, e 18 1 1l Page 18 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 0 0 No Scale � t - xwcs�s: —• .ar Averag e,NIly Figure 9a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) P H A A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 19 0 0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch-Shady Elm t Number: 846 -1 -0 Number: Road 14 4846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 20 0 0 r,.11 , No Scale A(A). "Suggested Improvements" NB &SB - IThru SITE 'a a "Suggested %SignaBied� "` "'- n Im ovements" Intersection R LOS =B(B) S (Tabralion AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement 0 Figure 10a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) P � A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road PronerN Project Number: 14846 -] -0 November 29, 2006 Page 21 0 0 C 1 No Scale , 'Signalizetl: "Suggested A (A)+ liners coon Improvements" _4 vYne °_6iri` NB &' SB -1 Thru L x � � tt I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure IN 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) a *,SignalivedE "Suggested 4846 -1 Project Number. ]4846 -1 -0 Inlersechon Improvements" November 29, 2006 B��iBI Slgnalimfio �C I t�L�OS= Fb 'Y a " YYk � � tt I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure IN 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis o( the L��nch -Shady Elm Road 4846 -1 Project Number. ]4846 -1 -0 P �l l November 29, 2006 l l Page 22 0 0 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all intersections, will maintain overall levels of service "C or better during 2010 build -out conditions during Scenario A and B, respectively. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 9a and 9b. • Route 11 /Springdale Road Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Route 11 /Apple Valley Road An additional northbound and southbound thin lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Renaissance Driveway /Route 11 : Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during Scenario B 2010 background and build -out conditions. P l _ 1 1 + i A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lunch -Shadv Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 23 Patton Harris Rust & A sociates • Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P P ul � Wine e ster, 9 g 22601 H 1 F 540.665.0493 To: Organization /Company: From: Mike Ruddy r T { 00 ` 1 20 Frederick Countv Planning Patrick Sowers Date: September 21, 2007 - - -' Project Name /Subject: Artillery Business Park Please find attached the following documents regarding the Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application: 1. Notarized Proffer Statement dated 9/21/07 2. Revised GDP dated 9/21/07 3. Tlr\ Addendum which analyzes industrial uses at a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio 4. Revised Application which incorporates the proposed industrial square footage. 5. Revised narrative for the impact analysis statement. These documents are intended to replace the materials contained within the rezoning application as previously submitted to your office. Please feel free to call with any questions that you may have. Thank you. PRS • • July 2007 Artilleiv Business Center INTRODUCTION The 58.7 acre Shady Elm Property is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75 -A -1. The Property is located adjacent to Shady Elm Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to the South (See Figury 1). Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned 133 (Industrial Transition) bounding the project site to the East (See Figure 2). The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently, Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Originally, the subject property was located within the UDA. With the adoption of the revised UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but within the SWSA boundary are intended for commercial and industrial uses. This application seeks to rezone the Property from RA (Rural Areas) to the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. in an effort to integrate the site with the surrounding area, particularly those properties along Shady Elm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property from its current residenaal /agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an increasingly viable industrial node that accommodates the County's future land use goals while bolstering the County's tax base. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (F FCI..RLUP) identifies industrial as the intended land use designation for the Property and the surrounding area to the North. The site is also located within the boundary of the Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan does not identify an intended land use for the Property but instead simply indicates its current RA zoning designation. As such, the EFCLRLUP can be considered the guiding document regarding the intended land use for the Property. The proposed Ml (Light Industrial) zoning designation would be in keeping with the intended land use identified by the Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady FSIm Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Elm Road with Route 11 to the South. The majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting Shady Elm Road. The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property that will connect Shady Elm Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow commercial and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to Route 11 from Shady Elm Road. The Applicant has proffered a 50 foot right of wap dedication along the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector roadway from Shady Elm Road to the eastern property boundary to implement the Eastern Road Plan. Said road constriction would be triggered by the construction of a bridge to cross the railroad tracks which bound the Property to the East. The Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Elm Road to be 1 of 3 FIGURE 1 REHHEmit ME July 2007 • • Artillery Business Center a major collector. The Applicant has proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for this improvement. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7` Edition the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 3,562 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA uses two scenarios to analyze the impact of the proposed rezoning on the subject area street system. Both scenarios indicate that background traffic alone necessitates the same improvements as the combination of background traffic and project build out. Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize the northern connection where Shady Elm Road meets Apple Valley Road with the remaining 20 percent of the trips utilizing the Springdale Road — Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep the transportation system operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include the following: - Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at tipple Valley Road. - Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection. Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route 11 as intended by the Easter Road Plan. While this may be the ultimate transportation system utilized for access to the site, it is very likely that such a connection will not a occur for some time until issues regarding additional right of way and a railroad crossing south of the Property are addressed. Under Scenario B, the same improvements found under Scenario A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition, a signal would be needed at the intersection of the new collector road and Route 11. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or wetlands. Verification of wetland data would be provided through a wetland delineation which would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick- Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. Such geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates commercial and industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels. Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on the 58.7 acre site result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See Figure -3). The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site improvements, proffered geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered. 2of3 • • FIGURE 3 July 2007 • • Artillery Business Center SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of the site. The second option is to connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water consumption rate of 500 gpd /acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6" force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Development T e Area (Square ft Waste Generation Total Waste Ibs Office Pack 320,000 .05 lbs /s .ft. 16,000 Warehouse 320,000 .01 lbs/sq ft. 3,200 TOTAL 19,2001bs /day Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at the County landfill. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two older structures within the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651" ( #34- 1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. Figure > includes an up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House (#34-1040). Fi ,gure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the subject Property. The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates that the subject site is located well outside of any core battlefield areas. Figure 7 and Figure S depict the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Elm Road has been modified substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the identified core battlefield for First and Second Kernstown, development of the site would not pose any detrimental impacts to viewslneds or interpretative quality of the battlefields. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick County. 3 of FIGURE 4 • 0 • FIGURE 7 illellasol 0 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paige Manuel Commercial Realty 440 W. Jubal Early Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Enoneers, Surveyors. Planners. Landscape FVchitects. 102 Governor Lane Boulevard suite 1002 Williamsport. Maryland 21795 T 301.223.4010 • F 301,223.6231 November 29, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development located along the south side of Route 37, east of Shady Elm Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 326,700 square feet of light industrial and 326,700 square feet of office. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario Q assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route I I via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the Year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development, • Distribution and assignment of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development development- generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS +, for existing and future conditions. P � A Traffic Impact Analysis oR he Lynch-Shady t Nu Road Pro Project Numbcr. 14846 -I -0 46-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page I EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11 /Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley Road/Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane, Prosperity Drive /Route I I and Springdale Road/Route 11. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 9.0 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P � A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Pr overtv 946 -1-0 Project Number. beer: 14646 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 2 • No Scale 4 '\,. �•. \\ o`F4�Pla(nne��jrlll ,[,[ . A`+ >,% ?k .YCOmmom 4alth Q F �f y Q � v 5 --= �r }�BartonsWlie, 11 x�' 'so. fi•. t! � _ rf F "� ya cki .° - ra r _` ,,.� i 4 ` Lam,,..!`.• r � -: i .. P Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, Frederick County, VA P � A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road ProOerN Pr oject Number 14846 -I-0 November 29, 2006 Page 3 _ Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions PH ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number. 14846 -I -0 Ag November 29, 2006 Page 4 0 0 No Scale Dg..1 AM Peak dour (PM Peak Hour) PH T � l * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figures 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Traffic Impact Analvsis of the Lvneh -Shndv Elm Road Pr opertV Project Number. 14846) -0 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route I I and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR +A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site- driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report PHR +A has provided Tables la thru if to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 5a and 5b shows the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 6a and 6b shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table In 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out 'Colal AllT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 21116) 310 Hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Tkeaterw /Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Closer. Man w \pumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 s0 160 895 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 1 477 407 884 1 856 882 1738 18 *Total Pass By 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New Trips ": 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 ' Pass by trips are Inteen percent (Irsi,) at total renal development and Convenience Matt P � A Trade Lnnact Annlvsis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road P roper Project Number. 14846 -1 -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 6 0 0 Table 16 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single- Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse /Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 1 15,910 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1 737 19 130 Table lc 2010 "Other Developments ": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT AM Peak Hour Out In Out Total In Out Total PM Peak Hour Out 841 C.,Sa1cs 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Table 1d 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Properly Trip Generation Summary PH ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Num ber Propert R+A Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single-Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 unite 10 51 61 48 24 71 1.070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 658 995 1 15,910 PH ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Num ber Propert R+A Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 • Table le 2010 "Other Developments ": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 210 Single - Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 unite 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single- Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments ": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 8282 PW A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Property Project Number. bet: 14846 -1 -0 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 8 No Scale ,i- z -. ai NU rr�hM" f �aY t Commo r alM a - .: S /�•' ti� F 1 a I/` r /�� .z 3 C e Cnte r e r _ j kq��C Rernsm n C pp Ch � �" Commons J � C Re n.!.are /r � a _ Comm Center dolvo A o i� Qi� H uet.mnlp �/' �1 �" - �� n '- Aartonsvllle + :u Artri, " Aavland- f Russell Ca dye 4r P Figure 4 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments PH ATraffic Impact Analysis nfthe Lvne.h-Sha Elm Road P ropert Pro Number 14846 -t -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 9 0 No Scale 9 Ap P ATrat c / /ttp[trt Analvsi.c aftfie Lvnch -Shady Elm Road P ropertv a c 84GI -0 Project Number. I4 -1-0 X8 8 RO rte � s oo J' November 29, 2006 y AL �23C63) Page 10 TDI I I o. `v J I ¢ c _ 0 b` L va 2J " � e a if a SITE e cq Sp' �a yqh 7 � RuJP rV �D Jv � ®p b m q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) ATrat c / /ttp[trt Analvsi.c aftfie Lvnch -Shady Elm Road P ropertv P � 84GI -0 Project Number. I4 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 10 " %--I Figure 5b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) 1Z1� A Traffic bmac tAnuhsiso(theLynch- Shady Pm Project Nu ber: 14846 -I-0 6 -1-0 November 29, 2006 P Page 11 2 i i gnalized No Scale �� Imersectiun Overul11.05 R(D) I`1 a v -Rd,P Signalized "Suggested r �J6, Intersection Imprrr a ent" I OS B(B) S'g" 1 eua AP ,Sp nedsle Ru / C)C w � �P - It ¢ `_ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) P IJ 1 �l l ATraffic Impact Aanlv.ria'ofthe Lvach- Shady E Nu ber: P roperty 846 -1-0 l l Project Number. 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 12 Signalized "Suggested S,ce Interseetion Improvements" LOS =B(B) NB&SB -IThru U 11 �7 (c ♦P , SITE 11 � e v -Rd,P Signalized "Suggested r �J6, Intersection Imprrr a ent" I OS B(B) S'g" 1 eua AP ,Sp nedsle Ru / C)C w � �P - It ¢ `_ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) P IJ 1 �l l ATraffic Impact Aanlv.ria'ofthe Lvach- Shady E Nu ber: P roperty 846 -1-0 l l Project Number. 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 12 0 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) P � A Traffic hnnnct Analvsi,r of the Lcnch -Shady Elm beer Prone1 - 0 Roject Number: 14846 -I -0 November 29, 2006 Page 13 0 TRIP GENERATION 0 Using the 7th Edition of the ln4itute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report PHR +A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the Proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, Table 2 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Out Hour Total In FN1 Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 326,700 SF 261 36 296 36 267 304 2,339 710 Office 326,700 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 Total 412 56 468 67 417 484 3,562 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips for Scenarios A and B, shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively, were based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development site. Figures 8a and 8b shows the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figures 5a and 5b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 9a and 9b shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and B, respectively. Figures 10a and 10b shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service during Scenario A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P � A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Prope Project Number: 14846 -I -0 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 14 0 No Scale U Figure 7a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) P H A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Propertv Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 15 0 0 No Scale Figure 7b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) P A Traffic Impact Analvvis of the Lvmch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846 -1 -0 November 29. 2006 Page 16 0 0 No scale ]our) Figure 8a Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) � A Traffic Imonct Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Pro pertv 1 1 Project Number. 14846 -I-0 6 -1-0 November 29, 2006 P Page 17 Cj No Figure 8b Development- Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lvne /rShady Elm Road Provert R+A Project Number 14846 -1 -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 18 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 0 0 No Scale R Figure 9a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Am reaK flour trivi twK Hour) P � a A Traffic Irnnact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu beer Prope { l Project Number. 14846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 19 0 0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) :e Figure 9b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) PH ATraffic lmonctAnalysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Propertv R+A Project Number. ber: 14846 -1 -0 46 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 20 0 No Scale Signalized 11 / ,! , all tersection LOS B(E) "Suggested Improvements" IB & SB - 1 Thru AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement a Figure 10a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) P � ATrafFe Impact Ana/vsis of the Lynch- Shadv Road -0 Project Nu Number: 14846 -I 4846 -1 -0 November 29, 2006 Page 21 0 0 4 0ve n tersection No Scale rall LOS B(P) .Signalized Impr ac ^Suggea A(A)x esJ IntCrseCtiOn ovemeaGi' _Q r'nc -arr;i NB & SB - I Thru O am .. AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 10b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) a '!Sigiralizedi "Suggested Project Number: 14846 -I -0 Inte[sechon ImprovemenGd' November 29, 2006 LOS =B(B) S�gnvl zut on P s =' am .. AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 10b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lvnch -Shadv Elm Road PronerN P � Project Number: 14846 -I -0 November 29, 2006 Page 22 0 0 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all intersections, will maintain overall levels of service "C or better during 2010 build -out conditions during Scenario A and B, respectively. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 9a and 9b. • Route 11 /Springdale Road Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Route 11 /Apple Valle Road An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Renaissance Driveway /Route 11 : Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during Scenario B 2010 background and build -out conditions. P17 ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch- Shady Elm beer Proper PA Project Number 14846 -I -0 846 -1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 23 • • 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11121, Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 70 89 143 574 307 67 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand. Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH PIT LT TH Adjusted Flow Rate, v 74 94 151 604 323 I R T Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 595 1066 1066 v/c Ratio, X 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.57 0.30 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 24.5 25.0 8.9 11.4 9.3 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.6 25.2 9.2 12.1 9.4 8.0 Lane Group LOS C C A B A A Approach Delay 25.0 11.5 9.2 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Delay 12,5 X� = 0.45 Intersection LOS 8 Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH RT LT TH FIT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 89 166 98 574 653 87 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 M10 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 94 175 103 604 687 92 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 302 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.40 0.34 0.57 0.64 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 24.8 26.4 9.5 11.4 12.3 8.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 25.0 27.0 10.2 12.1 13.6 8.1 Lane Group LOS C C B B B A Approach Delay 26.3 11.8 13.0 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Delay 14,6 X = 0.57 Intersection LOS B Patton Harris Rust Associates Patton Harris Rust Associates Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:23 PM • • 1113012006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onduy cuff nuanppre vdoey Road Agency/Co. PHR +A urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period 1012012006 PM Peak Hour nal sis Year Existing Conditions Patton Harris Rust Associates i t i Pro Descri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road East/West Street: App Valley Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 81 12 63 134 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 0 85 12 66 141 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 1 1 1 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 66 140 C (m) (veh /h) 1496 839 c 0.04 0.17 95% queue length 0.14 0.60 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.5 10.1 LOS A 8 A pproach Delay (s /veh) 10.1 A pproach LOS B Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 I TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Agency/Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 20 2 1 2 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 0 0 3 I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized Northbound 0 1 1 1 0 Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Minor Street 000 Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h) 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 4 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT 000 (veh /h) 1 C (m) (veh /h) 1610 lc 0.00 5% queue length 0.00 .. . Control Delay (s /veh) 7.2 LOS A Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 000 0--0 000 .. . Eastbound Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1113012006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection 01duy " 11 ' nuc«ov ""`" " Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction l Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period J PM Peak Hour Patton Harris Rust Associates i r i Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh /h 2 12 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 2 2 C (m) (veh /h) 1572 954 c 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 8.8 LOS A A A pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.8 A pproach LOS A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year Existing Conditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Volume (veh h 13 Elm Road 11 I. 6 Movement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 13 328 213 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 13 345 0 0 224 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 13 24 C (m) (veh /h) 1332 580 We 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.7 11.5 LOS A 8 pproach Delay (s /veh) 11.5 pproach LOS 8 Copyright @2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:25 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Spring Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year Existinq Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road EasZe Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 5 323 414 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 5 340 0 0 435 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 5 31 C (m) (veh /h) 1107 511 c 0.00 0.06 95% queue length 0.01 0.19 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.3 12.5 LOS A 8 Approach De lay (s /veh) 12.5 pproach LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 96 155 875 642 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 795 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 j12.0 j 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 JG= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 101 163 921 676 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 310 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.16 0.23 0.53 0.86 0.63 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 24.6 25.1 11.0 15.5 12.1 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.39 0.21 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.3 1.7 7.5 1.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.7 25.3 12.7 23.0 13.4 8.0 Lane Group LOS C C B C B A Approach Delay 25.1 21.5 12.8 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 Intersection Delay I 18.6 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • = 0.66 I Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.2 11/30/2006 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 0 • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 180 106 1162 1164 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 JG= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 1 Y= G= 6.0 G= 58.0 JG= JG= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 91.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 101 189 112 1223 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 292 261 199 1273 1154 1009 v/c Ratio, X 0.35 0.72 0.56 0.96 1.06 0.10 Total Green Ratio,g /C 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.70 764 0.64 Uniform Delay, d, 33.7 36.0 21.3 12.4 i6.5 6.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.16 0.47 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.7 9.6 3.6 16.7 44.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.4 45.6 25.0 29.0 60.9 6.4 Lane Group LOS C D C C E A Approach Delay 41.7 28.7 56.9 Approach LOS D C E Patton Harris Rust Associates • Intersection Delay 42.6 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • X = 1.07 I Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.2 11/30/2006 RD Generated: 11/30/2006 346 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Suggested Im Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 96 155 875 642 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 12.O 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1270 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 50.0 1 Y= G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 1 Y= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 ly= 6 Y= 0 IY= 0 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Cap acity, Control Dela and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 101 163 921 676 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 551 492 378 1914 1914 879 v/c Ratio, X 0.15 0.21 0.43 0.48 0.35 0.09 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 22.4 22.8 11.7 12.1 11.1 9.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 22.5 23.0 12.5 12.3 11.2 9.4 Lane Group LOS C C B B B A Approach Delay 22.8 12.3 11.0 Approach LOS C B B Patton Hams Rust Associates • Intersection Delay 12.8 Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • X� = 0.38 I Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.2 11/30/2006 1.1 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 180 106 1162 1164 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 9.0 G= 49.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 ly= IY= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis. T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Confrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 101 189 112 1223 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 247 1998 1688 1346 We Ratio, X 0.19 0.40 0.45 0.61 0.73 0.07 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.85 Uniform Delay, d 26.0 27.8 14.9 13.7 20.2 1.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.29 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.6 1.6 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.2 28.4 16.2 14.2 21.8 1.2 Lane Group LOS C C 8 B C A Approach Delay 27.6 14.4 20.2 Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS C I 8 C Intersection Delay 18,3 X� = 0.66 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +T^^ Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11 /SU /LUUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information It I­ nalyst PHR +A Intersection 011duy can nuanppru vdnuy Road Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10/ 6 A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions A Time Period M P Peak Hour Peak East/West Street: Apple Valley Road Patton Hams Rust Associates Pro'ect Descri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume veh/h) 129 45 173 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 135 47 182 52 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 7 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 7 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 182 48 C (m) (veh /h) 1393 762 c 0.13 0.06 95% queue length 0.45 0.20 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.0 10.0 LOS A B A pproach Delay (s /veh) 10.0 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates . • 1 1 /3 U /'2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onaay r im nae;,Hppfe valey Rdad Agency/Go. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10/ 6 A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions nal sis Time Period PM Peak Peak Hour East/West Street: App Valle Road 1 11 I Pro ect Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: App Valle Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 88 12 63 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 0 92 12 66 152 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 PIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 66 140 C (m) (veh /h) 1488 827 c 0.04 0.17 95% queue length 0.14 0.61 Control Delay (s /veh) 75 10.2 LOS A B A pproach Delay (s /veh) 10.2 A pproach LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3 47 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • . f 1 /SU /2000 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection anauy cum nuaoututurs nest Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period 1012012006 J AM Peak Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions 1 11 1 Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh /h 1 20 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT I TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 4 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 1 6 C (m) (veh /h) 1610 1008 /C 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.2 8.6 LOS A A A pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.6 A pproach LOS A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information If A nalyst PPP +A Intersection o„aur =,,,, nuawrurarc L n naa' Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10/ 6 A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions na�sis Time Period PM Peak eak Hour East West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 Pro'ect Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shady Elm Rd ntersection Orientation: North -South I Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 12 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0nfiguration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 2 2 C (m) (veh /h) 1572 954 c 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 8.8 LOS A A % pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.8 % pproach LOS A copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /3U /LUUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Back round Conditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Orientation: North -South Pro ect Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 13 607 593 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 13 638 0 0 624 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Si gnal 0 1 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 13 24 C (m) (veh /h) 946 266 c 0.01 0.09 95% queue length 0.04 0.29 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.9 19.9 LOS A C A pproach Delay (s /veh) 19.9 A pproach LOS C Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11130/2006 348 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Pro Descri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Fit 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 5 973 920 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 5 1024 0 0 968 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flaw Rate, HFR veh /h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Length,,, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 5 31 C (m) (veh /h) 698 185 lc 0.01 0.17 95% queue length 0.02 0.59 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.2 28.3 LOS B D pproach Delay (s /veh) 28.3 pproach LOS D Copyright m 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11130/2006 348 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 4 13 633 605 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 JG= 0.0 G= G= 1 Y= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 24 680 646 Lane Group Capacity, c 444 2158 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.05 0.32 0.54 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 28.5 8.5 10.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.14 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 10_ X = 0.40 Intersection LOS B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:49 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 r.5U16UU6 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR + A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH T of Lanes 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume (vph) 9 21 5 1029 993 15 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 2 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed /Actuated (P /A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /Hour Bus Stops /Hour 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time Phasing EB Only 02 03 F -- 04 -- F - NS -- Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 IG= 0.0 G IG= I G= 65.0 G IG= IG= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= IY= IY= 6 Y= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 10 1088 1061 Lane Group Capacity 412 2241 1232 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.49 0.86 Green Ratio 0.23 0.65 0.65 Uniform Delay d 29.8 8.9 13.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.39 Incremental Delay d 0.0 0.2 6.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 29.8 9.1 20.4 Lane Group LOS C A C Approach Delay 29.8 9.1 20.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Delay 14.7 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:49 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 9 0 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 69 0 12 2 0 11 26 700 5 30 816 149 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 13.0 G= G= G= 45.0 G= G= I Y= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 73 13 14 27 742 891 157 Lane Group Capacity, c 616 580 235 233 1807 1635 808 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.41 0.54 0.19 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 18.8 18.2 33.2 11.9 14.2 15.5 12.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Control Delay 18.9 18.2 33.3 12.2 14.3 15.8 12.6 Lane Group LOS B B C B B 8 B Approach Delay 18.8 33.3 14.2 15.4 Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Delay 15,2 X c = 0.40 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS.TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:53 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • . 1 1 /301M)b HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr& Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 413 0 73 6 0 36 55 1174 4 23 1087 301 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only I EW Perm 03 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 1 G= 13.0 G= G= I G= 45.0 G= G- G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 435 77 44 58 1240 1168 317 Lane Group Capacity, c 578 580 232 140 1808 1615 808 vie Ratio, X 0.75 0.13 0.19 0.41 0.69 0.72 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 23.9 19.0 33.9 14.2 171 17.6 14.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.28 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.5 0.1 0.4 2.0 1.1 1.6 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 19.1 34.3 16.2 18.2 19.3 14.3 Lane Group LOS C B C B B B B Approach Delay 279 34.3 18.1 18.2 Patton Hams Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS C C 8 8 Intersection Delay 19.9 X c = 0.71 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11130/2006 3:53 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates a t 1/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 131 171 900 695 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 IG= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 1 Y= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 138 180 947 732 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 270 1066 1066 932 We Ratio, X 0.16 0.31 0.67 0.89 0.69 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 24.6 25.7 12.5 15.9 12.8 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.41 0.26 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.4 6.1 9.4 1.9 1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.7 26.1 18.7 25.3 14.6 t80 Lane Group LOS C C 8 C B Approach Delay 25.6 24.2 14.0 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates • Intersection Delay I 20.5 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • X = 0.70 1 Intersection LOS HCS + Version 5.2 11/30/2006 C Generated: 11/30/2006 3:53 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 254 203 1308 1274 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.IN 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 32 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 1 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 63.0 G= 0.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT I TH RT LT I TH RT I LT I TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 101 267 214 1377 1341 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 295 264 83 1267 1267 1108 v/c Ratio, X 0.34 1.01 2.58 1.09 1.06 0.09 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.17 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Uniform Delay, d 33.1 37.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 4.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.7 58.3 744.1 52.3 42.3 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 33.8 95.8 757.6 65.8 55.8 4.4 Lane Group LOS C F F E E A Approach Delay 78.8 158.9 52.2 Approach LOS E F D Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 Intersection Delay 1 105.0 = 2.29 1 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • 0 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #BSuggested Improvements Volume and TimiRq Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 131 171 900 695 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 9.0 G= 49.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity Control Delay and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 138 180 947 732 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 404 1998 1688 1346 We Ratio, X 0.15 0.29 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.06 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.85 Uniform Delay, d 2 5,7 26.8 11.1 12.2 16.5 1.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 25.8 272 11.9 12.3 16.7 1.2 Lane Group LOS C I C B B B A Approach Delay 26.7 12.3 15.2 Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS I C I I B I B Intersection Delay 14.8 X c = 0.47 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates I 0 0 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 254 203 1308 1274 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 10.0 G= 48.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 025 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 101 267 214 1377 1341 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 251 1998 1654 1330 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.56 0.85 0.69 0.81 0.07 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 048 0.84 Uniform Delay, d 26.0 29.5 25.5 14.7 22.1 1.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.16 0.39 0.26 0.35 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 1.5 23.6 1.0 3.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.2 31.0 49.0 15.7 25.3 1.4 Lane Group LOS C C D B C A Approach Delay 29,7 20.2 23.7 Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS C I I C C Intersection Delay 227 1 X = 0.80 I Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 1 1 /3 V/ LUUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st PHR +A ntersection onduy crm nuanppre vauey Road Ag ency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed nal sis Time Period 1012012006 M Peak Hour A nalysis nal sis Year 2010 Background Conditions 1 11 t Pro Des cri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East/West Street: Apple Valle Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V olume veh/h) 164 45 173 66 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 0 172 47 182 69 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- 2 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Up stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 7 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 7 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 182 48 C (m) (veh /h) 1350 720 c 0.13 0.07 95% queue length 0.47 0.21 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.1 10.4 LOS A B A pproach Delay (s /veh) 10.4 A pproach LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TA Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 /SU%LUUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onauy can nuc.nuura varray Road Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed nalysis Time Period 10/20/2006 PM Peak Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Patton Harris Rust Associates t I I Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 162 12 63 242 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 0 170 12 66 254 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 66 140 C (m) (veh /h) 1393 709 c 0.05 0.20 95% queue length 0.15 0.73 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.7 11.3 LOS A B pproach Delay (s /veh) 11.3 pproach LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/3012006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1L)V /LV1-00 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Shady Em, nuraoa ""u" "e" Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed Analysis Time Period 1012012006 M Peak Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions 1 11 1 Project Des cri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 20 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR , Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 4 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 1 6 C (m) (veh /h) 1610 1008 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.2 8.6 LOS A A A pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.6 pproach LOS A Copyright D 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11 /SU /2UUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onauy cum nuaaoururcrs nest Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed Analysis Time Period 1012012006 J PM Pea Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions 1 11 1 Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #8 East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd ntersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 12- 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 2 2 C (m) (veh /h) 1572 954 c 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 73 8.8 LOS A A pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.8 pproach LOS A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Il Intersection I Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A urisdiction l Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 nal sis Year 1 2010 Background Conditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Volume (veh h 13 Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road 1 N01 th /South Street: Rt 11 ntersection Orientation: North -South STudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Movement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 Configuration L T R L T R Volume (veh h 13 633 Southbound Westbound 605 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 13 666 0 0 636 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 (veh /h) 3 Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized 24 0 936 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T 0.09 TR Upstream Signal 0.04 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 1 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 13 24 C (m) (veh /h) 936 255 c 0.01 0.09 95% queue length 0.04 0.31 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.9 20.6 LOS A C pproach Delay (s /veh) 20.6 pproach LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + T M Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • 11/30/2006 I TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Sp ringdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick Count , VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Orientation: North -South Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 5 1029 933 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 5 1083 0 0 982 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 5 31 C (m) (veh /h) 690 177 c 0.01 0.18 95% queue length 0.02 0.62 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.3 29.6 LOS B D Approach Delay (s /veh) 29.6 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road- Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timinq Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 4 12 633 605 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pod / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= I Y= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Cap acity , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 24 679 646 Lane Group Capacity, c 444 2160 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.05 0.31 0.54 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 28.5 8.5 10.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.14 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS I C I I A I B Intersection Delay 10.1 1 X = 0.40 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road- Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 9 21 5 1029 933 15 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 025 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con De la , and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT I LT TH I RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 10 1088 998 Lane Group Capacity, c 448 2172 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.50 0.84 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 28.3 10.0 14.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.37 Incremental Delay, d 0.0 0.2 5.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.3 10.2 19.8 Lane Group LOS C B B Approach Delay 28.3 10.2 19.8 Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS C I I 8 8 Intersection Delay 14.8 1 X = 0.60 1 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2605 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 93 113 278 875 642 196 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm I N Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp J I 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 56.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH RT I LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 98 119 293 921 676 206 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 351 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.23 0.31 0.83 0.82 0.60 0.21 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, d 27.2 27.8 13.4 13.1 10.3 74 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.37 0.36 0.19 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.3 0.5 15.8 4.9 0.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 275 28.2 29.2 179 11.2 7.5 Lane Group LOS C C C B B A Approach Delay 27.9 20.7 10.3 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates • Intersection Delay I 17.4 I X� = 0.69 Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • Intersection LOS HCS + Version 5.2 11/30/2006 r-3 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 221 305 126 1162 1164 114 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pod / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking Al 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 JG= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 8.0 G= 58.0 G= 0.0 1 Y= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 0 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con IDelay and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 233 321 133 1223 1 1225 120 Lane Group Capacity, c 389 348 216 1195 1050 918 We Ratio, X 0.60 0.92 0.62 1.02 1.17 0.13 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.58 0.58 Uniform Delay, d 35.0 38.2 22.8 170 21.0 9.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.19 0.44 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 2 2.6 29.4 5.2 32.1 85.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 376 67.5 279 49.1 106.5 9.6 Lane Group LOS D E C D F A Approach Delay 54.9 471 97.9 Approach LOS D D F Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 Intersection Delay I 69.4 I c X = 1.16 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved r f`J Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.2 11/30/2006 E Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates • 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 93 113 278 875 642 196 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 15.0 G= 37.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 1Y= I Y= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH I RT I LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 98 98 293 921 676 1 185 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 491 1990 1416 1214 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.12 0.60 0.46 0.48 0.15 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, d 24.1 10.9 11.2 11.0 19.4 2.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.3 11.0 13.2 11.1 19.7 2.8 Lane Group LOS C B B B B A Approach Delay 17.6 11.6 16.1 B B B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 13.8 X = 0.52 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PfA Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 221 305 126 1162 1164 114 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 JG= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= I Y= JG= 15.0 G= 37.0 JG= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 233 232 133 1223 1 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 378 1990 1416 1214 We Ratio, X 0.46 0.28 0.35 0.61 0.87 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, d 26.2 12.0 14.3 12.4 24.2 2.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.39 0.11 Incremental Delay, d Z 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 5.9 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.9 12.2 14.8 13.0 30.1 2.6 Lane Group LOS C B B B C A Approach Delay 19.6 13.2 28.0 B B C Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 10 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay z0,4 X� = 0.70 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates /3V /LUUb TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection onauy cull nuanvvly vauay Road Agency/Co. PHR +A urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Perio JAM Peak Hour East West Street: Apple Valley Road 1 11 1 Project Descri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East West Street: Apple Valley Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd ntersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 129 127 420 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 0 135 133 442 52 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 18 73 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 18 0 76 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 442 94 C (m) (veh /h) 1296 441 c 0.34 0.21 95% queue length 1.53 0.80 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.2 15.4 LOS A C A pproach Delay (s /veh) 15.4 A pproach LOS C Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCSJM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 I TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR +A Agency/Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Elm llntersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 88 25 103 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 0 92 26 108 152 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 118 349 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 124 0 367 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 108 491 C (m) (veh /h) 1470 780 c 0.07 0.63 95% queue length 0.24 4.53 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.6 17.1 LOS A C Approach Delay (s /veh) 17.1 A pproach LOS C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 10 0 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onauy cull nunaululers rresr Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed A nalysis Time Period 10 /20 AM Peeak ak Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Patton Harris Rust Associates I Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario NA East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 20 82 329 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 1 21 86 346 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR , Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 0 2 11 0 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 4 0 2 11 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh /h) 1 346 58 6 C (m) (veh /h) 1610 1478 649 323 c 0.00 0.23 0.09 0.02 95% queue length 0.00 0.91 0.29 0.06 Control Delay (siveh) 72 8.2 11.1 16.4 LOS A A B C A pproach Delay (s /veh) 11.1 16.4 A pproach LOS B C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY A nalyst PHR +A Agency/Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 1 3cription Lync Street: Soldier. i Orientation: ✓olumes and Movement 1 2 Configuration L T Volume veh /h 2 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 2 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type C (m) (veh /h) FIT Channelized 1583 c Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay (s /veh) U stream Si gnal 7.4 0 Minor Street Eastboun Movement 7 8 A pproach LOS L T Volume veh/h) 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 2 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized 3 4 R L 13 54 .95 0.9; 13 56 3 Undivided 0 0 0 LTF r . F� Lanes 0 1 Configuration I LTR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LTR LTR (veh /h) 2 56 C (m) (veh /h) 1572 1583 c 0.00 0.04 95% queue length 0.00 0.11 Control Delay (s /veh) 73 7.4 LOS A A A pproach Delay (s /veh) A pproach LOS -0- Copyright 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Buildouf Conditions A nalysis Time Period A M Peak Hour Intersection Orientation: North - South Pro ect Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North - South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 75 607 593 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 78 638 0 0 624 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 22 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 23 0 12 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 78 35 C (m) (veh /h) 928 229 c 0.08 0.15 95% queue length 0.27 0.53 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.2 23.5 LOS A C pproach Delay (s /veh) 23.5 pproach LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10/20/2006 A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Orientation: North -South Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 15 973 920 18 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 15 1024 0 0 968 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V olume veh/h) 30 84 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 31 0 88 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach y N Storage 1 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 15 119 C (m) (veh /h) 696 262 C 0.02 0.45 95% queue length 0.07 2.22 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.3 29.7 LOS B D A pproach Delay (s /veh) 29.7 A pproach LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 22 12 75 607 593 30 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm MON Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 36 718 656 Lane Group Capacity, c 435 2015 1189 vie Ratio, X 0.08 0.36 0.55 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d, 28.7 8.8 10.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.15 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.6 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.8 8.9 11.1 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.8 8.9 11.1 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay M4 1 X c = 0.42 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 1113012006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 30 84 15 973 920 18 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= IG= IG= 63.0 G= JG= G= I Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Del a , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 99 1040 987 Lane Group Capacity, c 419 2153 1194 v/c Ratio, X 024 0.48 0.83 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 29.9 9.8 14.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.36 Incremental Delay, d 0.3 0.2 4.9 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 30.2 10.0 19.2 Lane Group LOS C B B Approach Delay 30.2 10.0 19.2 C B B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 152 1 X, = 0.66 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3 :52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested lm rovements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 92 0 53 2 0 11 32 700 5 30 816 416 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 32 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 12.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 36.0 G JG= Y= 0 IY= 6 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 97 56 7 34 742 891 438 Lane Group Capacity, c 401 563 213 310 1847 1304 1113 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.11 0.40 0.68 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.36 0.13 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.69 Uniform Delay, d, 28.8 19.4 33.9 13.1 13.5 22.3 6.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 1 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.1 19.5 34.0 13.2 13.7 23.8 t62 Lane Group LOS C B C B B C Approach Delay 25.6 34.0 13.7 18.0 C C B B Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 171 X c = 0.44 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 580 0 80 6 0 36 97 1174 4 23 1087 357 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 24.7 G= 10.5 G= G= G= 5.0 G= 33.1 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.3 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SB LT TH I RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 611 84 38 102 1240 1168 376 Lane Group Capacity, c 678 653 196 191 1615 1204 1208 v/c Ratio, X 0.90 0.13 0.19 0.53 0.77 0.97 0.31 Total Green Ratio, g/C 041 0.41 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.39 0.75 Uniform Delay, d 22.3 15.5 33.6 18.5 19.9 25.6 3.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 15.2 0.1 0.5 2.9 2.3 19.1 j 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 37.5 15.6 34.1 21.4 22.2 44.7 L37 Lane Group LOS D B C C C D Approach Delay 34.9 34.1 22.1 34.7 C C C C Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay I 30.1 X = 1.01 ntersection LOS C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 1113012006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 87 134 171 905 797 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp I Phasing I EB Only I 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 56.0 G= 0.0 J G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 IY= IY= 6 Y= 0 IY= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 92 141 180 953 839 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 235 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.21 0.36 0.77 0.85 0.75 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, d 27.1 28.2 12.3 13.6 12.0 6.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.38 0.30 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.6 14.0 6.1 2.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 273 28.8 26.3 19.7 14.7 6.8 Lane Group LOS C C C B B A Approach Delay 28.2 20.8 14.1 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 Intersection Delay 1 18.8 X = 0.71 I Intersection LOS L'1 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS jM Version 5.2 Generated: 11130/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • . 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 180 274 203 1349 1291 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 56.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SIB LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 189 288 214 1420 1359 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 83 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.44 0.74 2.58 1.26 1.21 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, d 28.8 31.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 6.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.7 76 744.1 124.8 101.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 39.0 761.1 141.8 118.7 6.9 Lane Group LOS C D F F F A Approach Delay 35.2 222.9 111.1 Approach LOS D F F Patton Harris Rust Associates • Intersection Delay 152.1 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved • X� = 2.07 I Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.2 11/30/2006 F Generated: 11/30/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 HCS +'° DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 87 134 171 905 797 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 JG= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= I G= 15.0 G= 37.0 G= 0.0 IG= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 92 120 180 953 839 56 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 433 1990 1416 1214 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.15 0.42 0.48 0.59 0.05 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, d 24.0 11.1 11.2 11.1 20.6 2.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.2 11.2 11.9 11.3 21.3 2.6 Lane Group LOS C B B B C A Approach Delay 16.8 11.4 20.1 B B C Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 15,4 1 X = 0.50 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 357 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHA +A Agency or Co. PHA +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 180 274 203 1349 1291 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 20.0 G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB I NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 189 199 214 1420 1359 78 Lane Group Capacity, c 402 734 390 2286 1660 1209 We Ratio, X 0.47 0.27 0.55 0.62 0.82 0.06 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.46 0.66 0.66 0.48 0.76 Uniform Delay, d 36.8 18.1 24.5 10.6 24.4 3.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.36 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.9 0.2 1.6 0.5 3.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 376 18.3 26.1 11.1 27.8 3.3 Lane Group LOS D B C B C A Approach Delay 27.7 13.1 26.4 C B C Patton Harris Rust Associates • R 11/30/2006 LApproach LOS Intersection Delay 1 2 0.3 1 X = 0.74 I Intersection LOS I C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onduy om nuanppre vdrrey Road Agency/Co- PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed Analysis Time Period 1012012006 A M Peak Hour A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions 1 11 1 Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B EdSt/West Street: App Valley Road North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd ntersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 164 127 173 66 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 172 133 182 69 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT , Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 18 53 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 18 0 55 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 182 73 C (m) (veh /h) 1256 616 lc 0.14 0.12 95% queue length 0.51 0.40 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.4 11.6 LOS A B A pproach Delay (s /veh) 11.6 A pproach LOS B Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS. Version 5.2 Generated: 11/3012006 3:58 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information A nalyst PHR +A Agency/Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour lac Orientation: DIUmeS a Valley Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 162 25 63 242 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 170 26 66 254 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 2 Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 118 203 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 124 0 213 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LP (veh /h) 66 337 C (m) (veh /h) 1377 652 /c 0.05 0.52 95% queue length 0.15 2.98 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.7 16.3 LOS A C A pproach Delay (s /veh) 16.3 A pproach LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates . • 1 I /SU /2000 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information I It C/- ...J.. CI... O.JO C..I.J:.. �.. 0..../ nal st PHR +A Intersection "' °. y `" ' u. ' Ln enc /Co. PHR +A Y Frederick County, VA Date Performed nal ysis Time Pe riod 1012012006 M Peak Hour A nalysis nal sis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Patton Harris Rust Associates Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario NB East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln /Site Driveway North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 V ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 1 20 21 82 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 1 21 22 86 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 4 0 2 3 0 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 4 0 2 3 0 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh /h) 1 86 29 6 C (m) (veh /h) 1610 1566 993 772 lc 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 72 7.4 8.7 9.7 LOS A A A A A pproach Delay (s /veh) 8.7 9.7 pproach LOS A A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/3012006 3:58 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection onduy curl nuaoututers nest Ln Agency/Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 Project Descri tion Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B EasUWest Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North /South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 12 3 13 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 2 12 3 13 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 0 0 21 0 188 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h ) 2 0 0 22 0 197 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh /h) 2 13 219 2 C (m) (veh /h) 1572 1603 1047 634 lc 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 0.79 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 73 9.3 10.7 LOS A A A B A pproach Delay (s/veh) 9.3 10.7 A pproach LOS A B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:59 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11/30/2006 I TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection I Springdale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 1 2010 Buildout Conditions A nalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch-Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road North /South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh h 16 639 647 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 16 672 0 0 681 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Up stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 19 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 20 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach y N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh /h) 16 46 C (m) (veh /h) 900 499 lc 0.02 0.09 95% queue length 0.05 0.30 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.1 18.5 LOS A C pproach Delay (s /veh) 18.5 pproach LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS.TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:59 PM Patton Hams Rust Associates 11/30/2006 TWO -WAY STOP CO SUMMARY General Information Site Information A nalyst PHR +A Intersection S rin dale Ro &Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR +A J urisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 A nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions A nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 1127 cent Heavy Vehicles Street: Rt 11 vement 1 2 Movement L T ume veh/h) 26 1071 ik -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 irly Flow Rate, HFR i/h 27 1127 cent Heavy Vehicles 2 Tian Type 0.13 Channelized Control Delay (s /veh) 10.8 es 0 2 itiguration LT T stream Signal Approach LOS 0 for Street Eastbou cement 7 8 L T ime veh/h) 9 ik -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 irly Flow Rate, HFR 1/h 9 0 cent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 cent Grade ( %) 0 ed Approach Y ,torage 1 Channelized es 0 0 figuration LR ay. Queue Lenath. and Level of Service A pproach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT (veh /h) 27 C (m) (veh /h) 649 c 0.04 95% queue length 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.8 LOS B A pproach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS Copyright D 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 3 1 4 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 006 Patton Hams Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 HCS + DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 25 16 639 647 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 1 G= G= 63.0 G= G 1 Y= IG= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT LT TH FIT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 46 690 690 Lane Group Capacity, c 425 2151 1195 v/c Ratio, X 0.11 0.32 0.58 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d, 28.9 8.6 10.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.17 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.0 8.7 11.5 Lane Group LOS C A 8 Approach Delay 29.0 8.7 11.5 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 10,7 1 X c = 0.44 Intersection LOS I 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS + Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 4:00 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates . • 11/30/2006 HCS +" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 9 24 26 1071 1000 15 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm !OIN Buses Stopping, Nis 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 13 1154 1069 Lane Group Capacity, c 437 2131 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.03 0.54 0.90 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 28.3 10.4 15.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.14 0.42 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 9.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.4 10.7 24.8 Lane Group LOS C B C Approach Delay 28.4 10.7 24.8 C B C Patton Hams Rust Associates • . 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 17.5 1 ) � = 0.65 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 4:00 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • Inteoxction: E -W: SP RLE RD NGDA Weatr he Fil Name N -S: ROUTE I I Count B 11 P I nput Ry 77P Loeation WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 1######## 15 Minute EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE I I SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Th. Right Total Left Thm Right Total I <ti Th. Right Total Left Thru Right 'I'otnl E &W Beginin 7:00 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 7 60 0 67 0 17 0 17 89 7:00 7:15 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 55 0 56 0 27 1 28 90 7:15 7:30 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 77 0 79 0 46 3 49 132 7:30 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 88 0 91 0 51 2 53 150 7:45 8:00 6 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 4 96 0 100 0 60 3 63 170 8:00 8:15 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 4 67 0 71 0 56 1 57 134 8:15 8:30 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 56 0 58 0 54 4 58 122 8:30 8:45 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 50 0 47 2 49 105 8:45 A.M.Toml 36 0 10 46 0 0 0 0 24 548 0 572 0 358 16 374 992 A.M.Total 16:00 2 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 70 0 104 2 106 184 16:00 16:15 5 0 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 66 0 92 3 95 175 16:15 16:30 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 71 0 73 0 118 5 123 201 16:30 1645 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 84 0 86 0 97 1 98 188 16:45 17:00 3 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 I 89 0 90 0 98 2 100 200 17:W 1715 4 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 79 0 101 7 108 198 17:15 17:30 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 0 113 2 115 188 17:30 17:45 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 59 0 93 1 94 159 17:45 P.M. Total 20 0 43 63 0 0 0 0 5 586 0 591 0 816 23 839 1493 P.M. Total I Hour EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE I I I How Period N.S. Period Begining Left Thou Right Total Left Thou Right Total Left Thou Right Total Left Thou Right Total E &W Bcgining 7:00 17 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 13 280 0 293 0 141 6 147 461 700 7:15 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 10 316 0 326 0 184 9 193 542 7:15 7:30 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 13 328 0 341 0 213 9 222 586 7:30 7:45 18 0 7 25 0 0 0 0 13 307 0 320 0 221 10 231 576 7:45 8:00 19 0 6 25 0 0 0 0 11 268 0 279 0 217 10 227 531 800 1600 9 0 2 31 0 0 0 0 4 291 0 295 0 411 II 422 748 166 16:15 10 0 23 33 0 0 0 0 5 310 0 315 0 405 11 416 764 16:15 16:30 9 0 21 30 0 0 0 0 5 323 0 3 28 0 414 15 429 787 16:30 1645 10 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 3 320 0 323 0 409 12 421 774 16:45 1700 11 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 1 295 - 0 296 0 405 12 417 745 17 W 1 Hour EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE I I I Hour Period N.S. Period Begirung Left Thou Right Taal Left Thm Right Total Left Thou Right Taal Left Thou Right Total E &W Begining 7:30 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 13 328 11 341 0 213 9 222 586 7:30 A.M. Peuk PHF = 0.82 PHF = PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.88 0.86 A.M. Peak 16:30 9 0 21 30 0 0 0 0 5 323 0 328 0 414 15 429 787 1630 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.68 PHF = PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.87 0.98 P.M. Peak 0 Irlerxction: E -W: SPRINGDALE RD N-5: ROUTIi I I Locafionj WWCHISTFR,VA 0 Fde Name 1/0/1900 Input Ey 11P D's nbufon To /From Paces Ease O.W% West 3.51% North 48.45% Somh 48_0_4% 1 00% ROUTE II A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:30 -830 1222 (49 %) 347 9 213 0 JIL D 22 t (4 %) 19 —� 0 23 0 0 0 4 0 (0 %) 0 - SPRINGDALERD } 1 F 13 328 0 2171 (48 %) 3411 ROU E I I ROUTE II P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:30- 17:30 1 429 (48 %) 332 15 414 0 J I L D 20 (3 %) 9 L 0 30 0 0 0 21 0 (0 %) 0 SPRINGDALE. RD .y 1 F 5 323 O 435 I (48 %) 3281 ROUTE I I D's nbufon To /From Paces Ease O.W% West 3.51% North 48.45% Somh 48_0_4% 1 00% 0 0 ftamwctinu: GW: 12 -DICRS REST LN Weather RAIN Fil Name N -S: SHADY EI.M RD Count B JJP I nPU[ B}' J1P Location WLNCHESTERNA Count Date ### # #### 15 Minute CB: SOLDIERS REST LN WB: NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Leh Thm Right Total E & W Begining 700 1 0 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 3 0 3 12 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 2 6 7:15 7:30 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 7 7:30 7:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 3 0 3 II 7J5 8:00 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 2 0 2 12 8:00 8: 15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 5 8:15 8:30 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 1 4 9 8:30 845 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 8 8:45 A.M. Total 7 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 2 36 0 38 0 19 1 20 70 A.M. Total 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 9 1 10 12 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 16:15 16:30 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 5 1 6 10 16:30 16:45 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 1 7 14 16:45 17:00 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 11 0 11 14 1700 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 10 1 11 13 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 8 0 8 12 17:30 17:45 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 0 5 8 1745 P.M. Total 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 17 0 21 0 62 4 66 91 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: SOLDIERS REST LN WB: NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left That Right Total Left Thm Right Tool Left Thru Right Total Left Thm Right Total E &W Begining 700 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 9 0 9 36 7:00 7:15 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 22 0 8 0 8 36 7:15 7:30 5 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 7 0 7 35 7:30 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 I 20 0 21 0 9 I 10 37 7:45 8:00 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 17 0 10 1 11 34 8.00 16:00 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 II 0 28 3 31 44 16:00 16:15 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 II 0 30 2 32 46 16:15 16:30 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 13 0 32 3 35 51 16:30 1645 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 14 0 35 2 37 53 16:45 17:00 I 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 10 0 34 1 35 47 17:00 I Hour EB: SOLDIERS REST LN WE NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thu Right Total Left Thm Right Total left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total E &W Begining 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 9 1 10 37 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.75 PHF = PFIF = 0.66 PHF = 0.63 0.77 A.M. Peak 16:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 14 0 35 2 37 53 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.50 PHF = PHF = 0.58 PHF = 0.84 0.95 P.M. Peak 0 0 Interaction: E -W: SOLDIERS REST LN K'emher RAIN File Name 1/0/1900 NS! SHADY ELM 1, Coum B 11P Input By 111' Location WINCHESTER VA Count Date #77 SHADY ELM RD A.M. PEAK HOUR 745 - 8:45 1 10 (46 %) 24 1 9 0 `2 J 1 L 0 (11 %) 4 0 6 0 —• 0 0 2 —� �— 0 (0 %) 0 —• SOLDIERS REST LN 1 F 1 2) 0 111 (43 %) 21 1 SHADY ELM RD SHADY ELM RD P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:45 -17:45 1 37 (48 %) 14 2 35 0 J l L 0 �— 4 (690 2 L_ 0 2 0 0 — 0 - 0 ( 0%) 0 SOLDIERS REST LN 1 r 2 12 0 15 1 (46%) 14 1 RD Distribution Tri /From Percent East ON% West 8.24% North 47.03% South 44.73% 100% E 0 Intencctioa: E-W: APPLE VALLF,Y RD Weather RAIN Fil Name N -S: SHADY ELM RD Count B' 7JP I nput By 11P Location WENCHF,S Count Date ## # # #### 15 Minute EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: 15 Mi, Period N,S. Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thru Right Total E &W Begining 7:00 0 14 3 17 31 9 0 40 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 63 7:00 7:15 0 27 6 33 22 10 0 32 3 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 74 7:15 7:30 0 35 7 42 36 5 0 41 1 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 92 7:30 7:45 0 33 19 52 64 17 0 81 1 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 144 745 8:00 0 24 13 37 51 14 0 65 2 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 119 800 8:15 0 22 2 24 19 17 0 36 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 66 8:15 8:30 0 17 1 I8 14 23 0 37 1 0 9 10 0 0 0 0 65 8:30 8:45 0 22 2 24 21 8 0 29 5 0 13 18 0 0 0 0 71 8:45 A.M. Total 0 193 53 247 258 103 0 361 14 0 72 86 0 0 0 0 694 A.M. Total 16:00 0 21 3 24 7 29 0 36 2 0 29 31 0 0 0 0 91 16:00 16:15 0 16 4 20 11 29 0 40 7 0 28 35 0 0 0 0 95 16:15 16:30 0 15 3 18 16 25 0 41 4 0 31 35 0 0 0 0 94 16:30 16:45 0 16 4 20 23 28 0 51 6 0 29 35 0 0 0 0 106 1645 17:00 0 16 5 21 11 40 0 51 IS 0 21 39 0 0 0 0 111 17W 17:15 0 23 2 25 II 33 0 44 6 0 27 33 0 0 0 0 102 17:15 1730 0 26 1 27 18 33 0 51 5 0 22 27 0 0 0 0 105 17:30 1745 0 18 2 20 11 24 0 35 3 0 16 19 0 0 0 0 74 17:45 P.M. Total 0 151 24 175 108 241 0 349 51 0 203 254 0 0 0 0 778 P.M. Total I Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: 1 Hour Period N.S. Period Begining Left Thm Right Totul Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total F & W Begining 7:00 0 109 35 144 153 41 0 194 5 0 30 35 0 0 0 0 373 7:00 7:15 0 119 45 164 173 46 0 219 7 0 39 46 0 0 0 0 429 7:15 7:30 0 114 41 155 170 53 0 223 5 0 38 43 0 0 0 0 421 7:30 7:45 0 96 35 131 148 71 0 219 5 11 39 44 0 0 0 0 394 7:45 8:00 0 85 18 103 105 62 0 167 9 0 42 51 0 0 0 0 321 8:00 1600 0 68 14 82 57 III 0 168 19 0 117 136 0 0 0 0 386 16:00 16:15 0 63 16 79 61 122 0 183 35 0 109 144 0 0 0 0 406 16:15 16:30 0 70 14 84 61 126 0 187 34 0 108 142 0 0 0 0 413 16:30 1645 0 81 12 93 63 134 0 197 35 0 99 134 0 0 0 0 424 16:45 1700 0 83 10 93 51 130 0 181 32 0 86 118 0 0 0 0 392 17:00 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD N13: SHADY ELM RD SB: I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total E & W Begining 7:15 0 119 45 164 173 46 0 219 7 0 39 46 0 0 0 0 429 7:15 A.M. Peak PFIF = 0.79 PHF = 11.68 PHF = 0.68 PHI = 0.74 A.M. Peak 16:45 0 81 12 93 63 134 0 197 35 0 99 134 0 0 0 0 424 1645 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.86 PHF = 0.97 PHF = 0.86 PHF = 0.95 P.M. Peak Intersection: E- W:IAPPLE VALLEY RD Wcalhe,RAIN FtleNantel l0 11900 Count By 1JP Inpm 1, J1P Count Dme kJ "###k 0 A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:15 - 8:15 0 (0 %) 0 0 0 0 JL APPLE VALLEY RD 53 t (25 %) 0 0 167 119 46 219 45 173 (44 %) 158 APPLE VALLEY RD 7 0 39 2181 (3I %) 46 1 SHADY ELM RD 0 P.M. PEAK HOUR 1645- 1745 0 (0 %) 0 0 0 0 J ( L APPLE VALLEY RD 169 (31 %) 0 0 93 81 134 197 12 63 (44 %) 180 APPLE VALLEY RD I F 35 D 99 75 (25 %) 134 1 SHADY ELM RD Dlanbmiou romrotn Peaem East 44.20% Went 28.09% North 0.00% South 27.71% 100% Intersection: E -W: APPLE VALLEY RD Weather Dr Fil Name N -S: ROUTE 11 Coon, B J]P Inp I3y 11P Location WINCIIESTER VA Count Date 1######## 15 Minute EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: NB: ROUTE I I SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thou Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left Una Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Boginin 7:00 30 0 36 66 0 0 0 0 25 89 0 114 0 75 12 87 267 7:00 7:15 16 0 32 48 0 0 0 0 18 106 0 124 0 76 15 91 263 7:15 7:30 18 0 25 43 0 0 0 0 32 144 0 176 0 74 17 91 310 7:30 7:45 15 11 23 38 11 0 0 0 38 148 11 186 0 77 22 99 323 7:45 8:00 20 0 22 42 0 0 0 0 40 144 0 184 0 73 17 90 316 8:00 8:15 17 0 19 36 0 0 0 0 33 138 0 171 0 83 II 94 301 8:15 8:30 11 0 18 29 0 0 0 0 29 135 0 164 0 86 16 102 295 8:30 845 12 0 22 34 0 0 0 0 38 149 0 187 0 94 19 113 334 8:45 A.M. Total 139 0 197 336 0 0 0 0 253 1053 0 1306 0 638 129 767 2409 M.Tota1 16:00 23 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 19 144 0 163 0 179 16 195 406 16:00 16:15 25 0 33 58 0 0 0 0 19 160 0 179 0 161 17 178 415 16:15 16:30 17 0 34 51 0 0 0 0 25 154 0 179 0 155 19 174 404 1630 [17:30 1645 16 0 35 51 0 0 0 0 22 144 0 166 0 158 21 179 396 1645 17:00 22 0 43 65 0 0 0 0 24 143 0 167 0 189 24 213 445 17:00 17:15 34 0 54 88 0 0 0 0 27 133 0 160 0 151 3 174 422 17:15 17:30 27 0 36 63 0 0 0 0 24 132 0 156 0 161 16 180 399 17:45 25 0 25 50 0 0 0 0 17 109 0 126 0 125 12 137 313 17:45 P.M. Total 189 11 285 474 0 0 0 0 177 1119 0 1296 0 1282 148 1430 3200 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: NB: ROUTE I I SB: ROUTE I I 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left That Right Total Left Thar Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Trru Right Total E &W Begining 700 79 0 116 195 0 0 0 0 113 487 U 600 0 302 66 368 1163 700 7:15 69 0 102 171 0 0 0 0 128 542 0 670 0 300 71 371 1212 7:15 7:30 70 0 89 159 0 0 0 0 143 574 0 717 0 307 67 374 1250 7:30 7:45 63 0 82 145 0 0 0 0 140 565 0 705 0 319 66 385 1235 7:45 8:00 60 0 81 141 0 0 0 0 140 566 11 706 0 336 63 399 1246 8:00 1600 81 0 127 208 0 0 0 0 85 602 0 687 0 653 73 726 1621 16:W 16:15 80 0 145 225 0 0 0 0 90 601 0 691 0 663 81 744 1660 16:15 16:30 89 0 166 255 0 0 0 0 98 574 0 672 0 653 87 740 1667 16:30 16:45 99 0 168 267 0 0 0 0 97 552 0 649 0 662 84 746 1662 16:45 17.00 108 11 158 266 0 0 0 0 92 517 0 609 0 629 75 704 1579 17:00 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WE: NB: ROUTE I 1 SB: ROUTE I I I Haur Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thor Right Total Left Than Right Total [Aft Thou Right Total Left Th. Right Total E & W Begining 7.30 70 0 89 159 0 0 0 0 143 574 0 717 0 307 67 374 1250 7:30 A.M. Peek PHF = 0.92 PHF = PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.94 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:30 89 0 166 255 0 0 0 0 98 574 0 672 0 653 87 740 1667 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.72 PHF = PHP = R94 PHF = 0.87 0.94 P.M. Peak 0 0 InIer5 am,,: E -W: APPLE VALLEY RD N -S: ROUTE; I I Location WINCHFSI'ER,VA Ftic Name I /0/1900 Input By JJP APPLE. VALLEY RD I I F 98 574 I 0 819 1 (45%) 672 ROUTE I I Dinribmiaa To /Froi „ Rm'm East 0 W% West 13986 )donh 4140% Sowh 44,62 0 100% ROUTE II A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:30 -8:30 1374 (41%) 644 67 307 0 JlL D 210 t t (15 %) 70 0 159 0 0 0 89 —� �— 0 (0 %) 0 APPLE VALLEY RD F 14 574 0 396 (45%) 7171 ROUTE II ROUTE II P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:30- 17:30 740 (42%) 663 87 653 0 J 1 U B 185 (13%) 89 t i— 0 255 0 0 0 166 —� �— 0 (0 %) 0 APPLE. VALLEY RD I I F 98 574 I 0 819 1 (45%) 672 ROUTE I I Dinribmiaa To /Froi „ Rm'm East 0 W% West 13986 )donh 4140% Sowh 44,62 0 100%