Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100009 Study Traffic Impact 2021-07-19 Old Ivy Residences Traffic Impact Analysis Albemarle County, Virginia �'�����T H OFG! � �� JU I 1 J 2 O 2 1 U�THOMAS BO WNE RUFF � Y � Lt�.xo. ossoss �o ��IR�ao2► �,� ��SS��NAL ��G`� Prepared For: Greystar Real Estate Partners . . . TIMMONS GROUP � ••••�� roua visior+ ncNieveo rHaoucN ouas. • �' ` PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................I APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................III LISTOF FIGURES...........................................................................................................................N 1 EXECUTNE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1 1.Z PROJECT SCOPE .............................................................................................................1-Z 1.3 STUDY FINDINGS............................................................................................................1-3 1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................1-4 2 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDIfIONS....................................................................................2-1 Z.1 CAPACITY ANALYSES........................................................................................................Z-1 Z.Z EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................Z-3 Z.3 ZOZ1 EXISiING CONDITIONSANALYSIS.................................................................................Z-4 3 ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONDITIONS.............................................................................3-1 3.1 ZOZS BACKGROUNDTRAFFIC GROWTH .................................................................................3-1 3.Z ZOZS BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ...........................................................................3-1 4 SIfE TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION........................................................................4-1 4.1 TRIP GENERATION ..........................................................................................................4-1 4.Z SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................................4-1 4.3 SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT....................................................................................................4-1 5 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WIfH DEVELOPMENT....................................................5-1 S.1 ZOZSTOTALTRAFFICVOLUMES..........................................................................................5-1 S.Z ZOZS FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS...................................................................................5-1 S.3 YEAR-TO-YEARANALYSISCOMPARISON.................................................................................5-3 6 TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS............................................................................................6-1 6.1 ZOZS FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS...................................................................................6-1 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................7-1 �.1 STUDY FINDINGS............................................................................................................�-1 J.Z RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................J-Z i TIMMONS GROUP ,•••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A APPENDICES Appendix A —Traffic Counts Appendix B — Synchro Analysis for 2021 Existing Conditions Appendix C — Synchro Analysis for 2025 Background Conditions Appendix D — Synchro Analysis for 2025 Total Future Conditions ii TIMMONS GROUP ,•••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON...................................................................................1-1 TABLE 2-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS...................................................................................2-1 TABLE 2-2: SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ..........................2-2 TABLE 2-3: LOS, DELAY, AND QUEUE LENGTH SUMMARY 2021 EXISTING CONDIfIONS.............................2-5 TABLE 3-1: LOS, DELAY, AND QUEUE LENGTH SUMMARY 2025 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS........................3-2 TABLE 4-1: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY.......................................................................................4-1 TABLE 5-1: LOS, DELAY, AND QUEUE LENGTH SUMMARY 2025 FUTURE CONDITIONS...............................5-2 TABLE 5-2: LOS, DELAY, AND QUEUE LENGTH SUMMARY 2025 FUTURE CONDITIONS...............................5-4 iii TIMMONS GROUP ,•••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1: VICINIIY MAP FIGURE 1-Z: CONCEPTUAL PLAN FIGURE 1-3: STUDYINTERSECTIONS FIGURE Z-1: ZOZI EXISTING VOLUMES FIGURE Z-Z: ZOZI ADJUSTED EXISTING VOLUMES FIGURE Z-3: EXISTING GEOMETRY FIGURE 3-1: ZOZS BACKGROUND VOLUMES FIGURE 4-1: GLOBALTRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4-Z: TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4-3: GENERATED TRIPS FIGURE S-1: ZOZS FUTURE VOLUMES FIGURE S-2: FUTURE GEOMETRY FIGURE 6-1: ZOZS FUTURE VOLUMES-AM PEAK, LEFf TURN WARRANT EB OLD IVY ROAD AT PROPOSED S1TE ENTRANCE FIGURE 6-Z: ZOZS FUTURE VOLUMES-PM PEAK, LEFf TURN WARRANT EB OLD IW ROAD AT PROPOSED SifE ENTRANCE FIGURE 6-3: ZOZS FUTURE VOLUMES, RIGHT TURN WARRANT W B OLD IVY ROAD AT PROPOSED SITE ENTRANCE iv TIMMONS GROUP ,•••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis—Albemarle County, �A 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Old Ivy Residences residential development in Albemarle County, Virginia. The TIA has been prepared in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Tra�c Impact Analysis Regulations and the Tia�cOperationsandSafetyAnalysisManual, versionLO(TOSAM). A scoping meeting with Albemarle Counry, the City of Charlottesville, and VDOT was held on April 29, 2021, to determine the scope of the TIA. It was determined that, based on the size of the proposed development, a VDOT Chapter 527 TIA was not required. However, Albemarle Counry requested the completion of a TIA to determine the impacts of the proposed site entrance and the surrounding roadway network to the site entrance. 1.1 PRO]ECT OVERVIEW The proposed development is located north of Old Ivy Road, south of Leonard Sandridge Parkway, east of US Route 29/Route 250, and west of Harvest Drive as shown in Figure 1-1 (all figures are located at the end of their respective chapter). The proposed development will consist of 80 single family detached homes, 60 single family detached duets, 335 units of multi-family housing, and 50 units of multifamily housing townhomes; this is the maximum development allowed under zoning. Access to the site will be provided via one (1) entrance on Old Ivy Road. The conceptual site plan can be found in Figure 1-2. When complete, the proposed development will generate a total of 4,326 average daily trips, 284 AM peak hour trips (67 in and 217 out), and 349 PM peak Hour trips (220 in and 129 out), as shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Trip Generation Comparison W EEKDAY AM PFAK HOUR PM PFAK HOUR IAND USE CfE CODE AMOUNi UNCfS AQT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUi TOTAL Sin le-Famil Detached Housi 210 80 Rvelli Unitr 847 15 47 62 52 30 82 Sin le-Famil Detached Housin -Duetr 210 60 Rvelli Unitr 650 12 35 47 39 23 62 Multi-Famil Fbusin Low-Rise -A artrnen6 220 335 Rvellin Unitr 2,492 35 116 150 109 64 ll3 Multi-Famil Fbusin Low-Rise -Townhomes 220 50 Rvellin Unitr 337 6 19 25 20 12 32 TOTAL 525 Dwellin UnRs 4,326 67 2ll 284 220 129 349 SOURCE Institute afTransportation Ergineers'TripGenera[ion Manuol 10[h Edition(20ll) As agreed upon during the scoping meeting with Albemarle County and VDOT, the study limits include the following existing intersections (see Figure 1-3): 1. Ivy Road and Canterbury Road/Route 846 (signalized) 2. Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/Route 250 Off-Ramp (unsignalized) 3. Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Drive (unsignalized) 4. Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/Route 250 On-Ramp (unsignalized) 5. Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road (signalized) 6. Proposed Site Entrance and Old Ivy Road (unsignalized) — 2025 Build Conditions Only For purposes of this analysis, the development was assumed to be complete and occupied by 2025. 1-1 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis—Albema�le County, �A It is specifically noted that this study was prepared during the COVID-19 pandemic and tra�c patterns and volumes were arypical. In order to accommodate for the discrepancy, a 10% adjustment factor was applied to the field counts. Based on the 2018 VDOT STARS study for US Route 250 (Ivy Road) there are several proposed improvements regarding signal timings, median improvements, and pavement striping. As of July 2021, none of the proposed improvements had been implemented and no funding has been identified. It is not anticipated that the proposed improvements will be implemented prior to the development of the site (i.e. 2025). L.Z PRO]ECT SCOPE Per the scope of services, the following steps were taken to determine the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project: 1. Data Collection—Peak hour(7-9 AM and 4-6 PM)directional turning movement counts were perFormed on Thursday, May 6, 2021, at five (5) intersections within the study area. The raw data collected has been included in Appendix A. 2. Background Traffic Growth —A 1% growth rate was applied to the existing 2021 volumes to reach the background 2025 volumes. 3. Trio Generation —Traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated using the lOth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. 4. Traffic Distributions—The distribution of trips generated by the proposed development was based on the existing traffic volumes, the nature of the use, the surrounding roadway network, and local knowledge of traffic patterns in the area. 5. Tra�c Proiections — Future tra�c volumes were determined using the existing tra�c counts, a 1% background growth rate, and the trips generated by the proposed site. 6. Operational and Oueuinq Analvsis— Level of service, delay, and queuing calculations were completed at the study intersedions for 2021 existing, 2025 background, and 2025 future conditions using SYNCHRO Version 10 with SimTrafFic. The 95�h percentile queue lengths (SYNCHRO) and maximum queues (SimTra�c) were reviewed at the study intersections. 1-2 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 1.3 STUDY FINDINGS Based on the operational analyses the following is offered: • Under the 2021 existing and 2025 background conditions: o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road operates at an overall LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM, with queues in both mainline approaches and the southbound approach that create accessissuesto nearby entrances and intersedions. o At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, the combination of queues from the Ivy Road/Canterbury Road signal and the high volume from the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp block access for the eastbound and westbound movements of Old Ivy Road, efFectively creating a 4-way stop intersection. The US Route 29/250 Off Ramp experiences queues that extend to mainline US Route 29/250. o The unsignalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road sees queuing issues for southbound tra�c attempting to make a left onto Old Ivy Road during both peak hours. The queues at Old Ivy Road extend downstream into the US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, which could create safety and operational issues on the ramp. o The unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp does not have any operational or queuing issues of note, with maximum queues of approximately 300' in the EB direction which do not interFere with other intersections or access points. o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road operates at an overall LOS B in both the AM and PM peak. The only queuing issues noted are for through movement queues blocking access to nearby commercial entrances. o On either end of the study corridor, there are narrow railroad bridges over Old Ivy Road that severely limit the ability to widen the roadway and sometimes require vehicles to operate as if there were only a single lane. This constraint impacts the intersections of Old Ivy Road at Ivy Road, Old Ivy Road at US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, and Ivy Road at Canterbury Road. • Under 2025 total future conditions with the traffic from the proposed Old Ivy Road Development: o Overall, all existing intersections see an increase in delays and queuing with the addition of the proposed site traffic. o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road continues to create operational issues for the US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, Old Ivy Road, and Faulconer Road. Without improvements to the signalized intersection or the ofF-ramp, operations on Old Ivy Road will not improve. o At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, the additional site tra�c does not significantly increase delays along Old Ivy Road. o At the signalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road, the increased traffic volumes do not significantly change the operations of the existing signal. o The proposed site entrance does not introduce any queueing or delays for mainline Old Ivy Road and the proposed turn lanes can fully accommodate the site-generated traffic. 1-3 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS In order to accommodate the increased traffic volumes associated with the proposed Old Ivy Residences residential development, the following operational and capacity improvements are recommended: 1. Install an eastbound left turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance, minimum 100' storage and 100'taper. 2. Install a westbound right turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance, minimum 100' storage and 100'taper. 3. Install a westbound right turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 on-ramp. All recommended improvements are on Old Ivy Road across the frontage of properry controlled by the development of Old Ivy Residences. The proposed improvements are expected to be constructable within existing right-of-way and along the development frontage. 1-4 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s ��.,. � T`� d�,* t % �'��y�N+�" y '�?? ��,� ; r!7R� �r ,�� �&-irl- `�,�Li,���4a*� F'� ( �A4 r'( . �r�, ;�� � ��« � v�1 {i.a. ,1 �, �'�^Ma ���e �' � �,G� {�.�� , ?�� . sAa'�' e! ��1.� 3 ��� +�►N' �p'�4'�-�� ' i � .� �.�s _ I .-���'.� �a��',�,;;�� ����� �ir'.�� ' �,, �:t- � ';. ���� � ���� .. .'� �' �. 1�." � °�''` � �v F�,� � `� ^1 ,� t � ` ..� ' { H lla,:r� 111F' � - �' r �,s� � �aYx�..... t �� � � T ����.� � � 4�� R� �w �' l 7� � as A°y}y .�. is�� 3 1 r' J • �„,. ��� � �*` � t ' , � � ��� �• A ��R• { ` � • : � � R �,�, �. r - ; \1 ! .�\.��i��� 4.� �• � � ! � ; A� �� �-��4� ��+�� `�� . �. �� �; � � ��3. , ,���y +� ,�+�� ; � .. , , `��� i� b '��� t�l I� : . d�� ���±, F��� ',� ��I 'k�� ' � �y��^ Q, .� � io - id,{f A� �� � �4 �`' � � � .P - -�' „ x 1�''"''� 'f�"����-��� ti. _�` �'�x.a � '"�:�,#'a• f� ��: '�':�, ,::� �F� ��,�. s, ���r 'yi "'1► :� 1.� . Q ; �� f ._ ���lsy� f� �� - �.�;�� ��y �,� �:7 � `�� .�� ��� � � Y���'�'C�`Y,. �-� � �� '� ������ '�� ���,/�' I����A�W�., �9"W, � �*' ��..J A �f �'�` ���+w , �.�l, i � ,.2 � F�! �, . °R.r �� � a�+ � .�$'R�� 'Y�x �: '�'},°� i� . � `� �4 � � '.�,�'i � � i/"f. '�� � � � ��. f.q`�r?" 6 ia� ��.,�i --ri. ..r.;�n� �� , � 7 p�w�• L .',� 'RI� s,.. � ���• � "�V'i, . ! Y� �"\ " � '�•;. �C�� . ;y ;yy ; .. y 1-��^.. � -��i � + � [.+',,,,.�� � •y«_. .,'?l�'{�� � fi . a,`` . `.,��,�A4..1S.� yx� i� y r "� • . �;�y,� 4� W J P� �`�,f �a�! � �fi . .� ��. 4 �Ae p �J�IfSi � ` 1�,� L.. � 'ws� . . y. � y �F�'��, a'� � J� � � 1 } ��'�� :�_ �;l ', � ,I t I�+♦ � . ' ��,,, - �y � . � � � � � „� . ° � .�. '�� , „ ����` `;f�, _ � a+-,� ` � , �k� �� „� ; W� ,�.�_ �,.� � 1 � �� ; r , � �lA � / ��l. t l �� .�i � .nw��-. t _ �_�'� 4�.,�'` � :� � �r,� S � `n�}r'. -, � � � - � t '�� at'�.'� �` , �i �,'' �1, �im,,����+i.." r P#,aL",.�r,�,���:;� ' ��:��-.; �'A/�" � `M � �an +es++� -� � ����� x�� � � L � �a� s s,� s � � l. s a ' - ' �'� �.,�., . ,: . . � i��+�� � .. �.� � �.^�d��jA�^��.��_�t p�� � C �� �#��:� ,�����;` ��Jst �� A� • ' �� �,1� �" �ti�.c3 "- �L[e �'T'' � ��f. � . � , �� � �e•; � r� � '� �� �c' , � �.� '�-/ .� , z �`r � LEGEND: � � � � � � � . i/IM� � ��fi a� . v� ♦ � T , ' .a �' Jy� .. . . .� � +-ry �� *t����;' �' - � � w , -� y / �d� �., � y- = Proposed Entrance/Road .I I -5 > .iy � 1 A•iJ' i ��� � l � �� " �!M 'n���e"�� • ,t• "Ar� • � � r„ g� �i_; � � .it.i'w:ir� 2':�:{SiY..��atri'' � :�9: �.��. ..� i `s� .,,.. _ NOT TO SCALE . � � � • Vicinity Map ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 1-1 -_� �-�—! -- -- �� NOT TO SCALE i �, � � �� . � ' .. - ... \. . � , USROUT ...... —_� � __ .�"r�._�_,� F �\ � :. --�..� ... 9iqoGrF ... / �/�� � � ,._ , ��� �` ���`� ���BYpAS � � • � "__ ._. \ , I ` ` � � � . � — I �..L�1L7� i � . � e � � , , / I L � � _�_� �11, � '! i _ `� , . - � ,. / , ��\ � �, , _ � , _ � � � _ , �� � - � � _ � � % ��� �� � '� . , , � � � o � � � � ,� _ : e� . , .� , , ; � , �� � - - --- , , , �_ � _ - , V� �� a � _ , � � � o �� r����e���,i — r - , , ��. d i �' �� _ _ s������ —r.� � � , � I ii � ! fT �--- ri C� I� / i� � � � � 'i ii �' . � ;, �: '�� .� �IIL L[IIL �� ,� - � ��'�� t - _ -T- I TTi I , . , . �� _ � -� N - �� _ _ � ��,� � ��������� � � � �������,� � �,�� �� �� ����, � `. � � � �� _ I � � r ����� �=1 - � _ „ � - � � ;�� � � . „ � � ��� _ — L = _ .� � 11 � _ / - �� --_ -_- - ---- z �, � o ��s �ary_ ��, �� �! �Ap rt 1 284Ju(3bltlgsx48dueacM1�,261tlgsx60du) ��� � _ � ' SFD30 501 P. 48tlu ' —SFD 40 ]�I P. 29 tlu � `r\ � �Ouet60x601oP. 58tlu�291o�sJ � / If'� TH2Tx35�. C3tlu / � To�al. E424u � ���.. Parking Summary: � Apartmenls' 400spaces (RatIv.152spaceYOu) ;/�:'� SFD/DueVTH'. 285spaces (Ralio:160spaces/tlu) To�al' 685spaces(Ratio:1.55spacesldu) �N/ISdXA3NNVf aOdOLlSIM31A0 � /�� ���� "q . ^^'^° `""•°,°" OLDIVYROAD CONCEPTUALPLANNWG �? _ SITESTUDV APTSREVISED . � � � � Conceptual Layout ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 1-2 ��.,. � T`� d�,* t % �'��y�N+�" y '�?? ��,� ; r!7R� �r ,�� �&-irl- `�,�Li,���4a*� F'� ( �A4 r'( . �r�, ;�� � ��« � v�1 {i.a. ,1 �, �'�^Ma ���e �' � �,G� {�.�� , ?�� . sAa'�' e! ��1.� 3 ��� +�►N' �p'�4'�-�� ' i � .� �.�s _ I .-���'.� �a��',�,;;�� ����� �ir'.�� ' �,, �:t- � ';. ���� � ���� .. .'� �' �. 1�." � °�''` � �v F�,� � `� ^1 ,� t � ` ..� ' { H lla,:r� 111F' � - �' r �,s� � �aYx�..... t �� � � T ����.� � � 4�� R� �w �' l 7� � as A°y}y .�. is�� 3 1 r' J • �„,. ��� � �*` � t ' , � � ��� �• A ��R• { ` � • : � � R �,�, �. r - ; \1 ! .�\.��i��� 4.� �• � � ! � ; A� �� �-��4� ��+�� `�� . �. �� �; � � ��3. , ,���y +� ,�+�� ; � .. , , `��� i� b '��� t�l I� : . d�� ���±, F��� ',� ��I 'k�� ' � �y��^ Q, .� � io - id,{f A� �� � �4 �`' � � � .P - -�' „ x 1�''"''� 'f�"����-��� ti. _�` �'�x.a � '"�:�,#'a• f� ��: '�':�, ,::� �F� ��,�. s, ���r 'yi "'1► :� 1.� . Q ; �� f ._ ��lsy � �� - �.�;�� ��y �,� �:7 � `�� .��y�,, ��r.air. . .hy J ` .,- � �� � � ��'�X�'#�'.. �.�' �i ,��'��,�i�A!Ws., !�9'�• �,q,^�!.[ Y��.�.r .. s 0� 1'I�F�Y � T T � j �� �. .��c��.qr _� .� � .e A � a�� .�6''R�� 4` �; fi'`�" : � � . �, . b � � A ..,� �� µ �,st . t � ���_�.. o � ' � ♦ r ,• . � \ P�w�• `L �r?" 6 ..*.� � i � ,�:�n. � . 'r ' � ��,. "�V'u ` .� . � ��� � �.+�; . 7 �Y� �� �,f � � �w � i ' ° � r '�, ��sq}J�u ;,��'�i"j� .�° .... �`y�y��A4..�1!\� �� ��, �� • ,� � '�;. , jL � 7�4,a�f Y+�'Ti'�e �'�1..�Aa .�A��. �S� ^ �� yyyy ._ J+RS�� 'S1' L.. � '� � _ .' � 4� � � �:�j � � �� �a ' V � `� . ;y � �A � � ... :� .�e:�. 1 � ��.'1f I' t � _ + �l�v3. +a �.... �?�," .�i�\ " � �ti �� � ���+�t� � . .:�, �� � ` ° / ", �. � ' y � ��o�'� � ,y y l� ��k ,,.p �� /{ . s � �� " . '�' ��" � �!f . .'Ry,.$ '-.-¢_. �➢r�.� * �.?F'� U i � ,.� �� ^ "R: _ � , i}Y+° �� 'A7 ql'�.� , , ,p � ' '�, • t.�$�a��+ja.'` { W.�.ay'�.!^ja� �' S'°; • ''�-a�w�It-.: ..{��� ��� '6 �r •an .rt-_t� - • . ., 4 �` � ' �'��� � �"'� '�.`'-1�� �a�,�'' ,������� �,,, � � a� � i s � �^ �C �i44 ��"�� � ��� �i,�,�� RYre�.����� � �,�t ���—� '�t. '4'v)y. �.� ' ' ��� n +� ie �y. y : ��..,�� `}��y+.` w fs,�.. ��.�e..; �-�. . • - _ ,xI - _ �! �/�"�;_� .;� � , :7tm`� �'*g ,!'�� r. j � � \ : �W . i��,�y �''�':��"�' � . ..�;y . Y�,� LEGEND:�� � � � � _. �� _"�� _ ��y �F +��,,. f�'", • y . i� �j �" . , . '.. . ��. . � � �`- '- # ��j ,�•.. '� ' � ''��1� � .:,,y �`.�a�Q�� ."� � Existing Study Intersections - �"` �e i�` �. � ', ,I�vd, . '� � 3 ' a ' _��'/��� �� '��.��,�> '� � ��� ,,,y Proposed Site Entrance � , �„ ��," �,1,"e:� ' . ��.. � . �,} �,�y ,�y[ p�+� ' •, �'i�ir� 2'::�Y .��F�tri'' �J . . �- ���: �m+'-i�^w'��1r':i� �f�i , 'r;�iric� NOT TO SCALE . • � � � Study Intersections ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y 1-3 Albemarle County, Virginia July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 1-s TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 2 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Z.1 CAPACifY ANALYSES Capacity analysis allows traffic engineers to determine the impacts of tra�c on the surrounding roadway network. The Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) methodologies govern how the capacity analyses are conducted and how the results are interpreted. There are six letter grades of Levels of Service (LOS) from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst operating conditions. Table 2-1 shows in detail how each of these levels of service are interpreted. Table 2-i: Level of Service Definitions Level of RoadwaySegments or . l� Service Controlled Access Highways Intersections /� A Freeflow,lowtraffic Novehidewaitslongerthan � densiry. onesignalindication. � p B Delayisnotunreasonable, Onarareoccasionmotorists ��/ � stabletrafficflow. waitthroughmorethanone � signalindication. � C Stablerondition, Intermittentlydriverswait movementssomewhat throughmorethanonesignal . /� . restrictedduetohigher indication,andoccasionally �� �V� � � volumes,butnot backupsmaydevelopbehind ��� ��� objectionableformotorists. lekturningvehides,traffic �� �j flowstill stableand �� a ccepta bl e. �� D Movementrmorerestricted, Delaysatintersectionsmay � queuesanddelaysmay becomeextensivewithsome, occurduringshortpeaks, espe�iallyleft-turning butlowerdemandso¢ur vehideswaitingtwoormore often enough to permit signal indications,but � . � , , dearing,thuspreventing enoughcydeswithlower excessivebackups. demandoccurtopermit periodicdearance,thus E� �� preventingexcessivebackups. . b� E Actualcapaciryofthe Verylongqueuesmaycreate roadwayinvlovesdelayto lengthlydelays,especiallyfor allmotoristsdueto le&tumingvehides. � mngestioa � F Forcedflowwithdemand Backupsfromlocations . ,. t �- � volumesgreaterthan downstreamrestrictor ' f capacityresultingin preventmovementofvehides �� - � mmpletecongestion. outofapproachcreatinga ,,,,���� Volumesdroptozeroin storagearesduringpartor � aYA �� extremecases. allofanhour. � S� SOURCE:"A Palicy on Design of Design of Urban Highways and Arterial � Streets"-A0.5HT0,1973 based upon material published in "Highwoy � Capocity Monuol",National Academy of Sciences,1965. 2-1 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis—Albema�le County, �A For signalized and unsignalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of delay, a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 2-2 summarizes the delay associated with each LOS category: Table 2-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersedions Level of Control Delay per Level of Average Control Service vehicle (sec/veh) Service Delay(sec/veh) A <_ 10 A Oto10 B > lOto <_ 20 B > lOto <_ 15 C > 20to <_ 35 C > 15to <_ 25 D > 35to <_ 55 D > 25to <_ 35 E > 55to <_ 80 E > 35to <_ 50 F > 80 F > 50 Source: Exhibit 16-2 and Exhibit 17-2 from TRB's 'Highway Capacity Manual 2000" Generally, the standard acceptable minimum for the overall intersection is LOS D, while the standard acceptable minimum for an individual tra�c movement is LOS E. Capacity analyses were performed to assess existing (2021), background (2025), and future (2025) operational conditions. The signalized and unsignalized intersections were analyzed using SYNCHRO Version 10 based on HCM 2000 methodologies with the following assumptions: • Levelterrain; . 12-foot lane widths; • No parking adivity or bus stops; . Existing peak hour factor as determined by the traffic counts (by intersection) for existing scenario; . The higher of the existing peak hour factor as determined by traffic counts (by intersection) or a peak hour fador of 0.92. . Heavy vehicle percentage as determined by the tra�c counts (by movement); and . Traffic signals timing data provided by VDOT. HCM 2000 methodologies were utilized for analysis as opposed to the latest HCM Sixth Edition or HCM 2010 methodologies. This selection is due to the non-standard NEMA phasing that is present at all of the signalized intersections. The HCM Sixth Edition and HCM 2010 methodologies only provide measures of effectiveness for signalized intersections following strict NEMA phasing. Queuing analysis allows traffic engineers to identify where vehicles queues are not adequately accommodated by existing storage bays and impact adjacent travel lanes. Z-z TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis—Albema�le County, �A Queuing analyses were conducted using both the HCM 2000 methodology (as calculated by SYNCHRO) and SimTra�c simulations. The Synchro 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue for a particular lane within a lane group considering 95�h percentile tra�c volumes. The SimTra�c maximum queues are the average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. Note that it is possible for the 95th percentile queue to be higher than the SimTraffic maximum queue due to the method in which each software calculates its respective value. The 95th percentile queue is based on an HCM formula while the SimTraffic maximum queue varies based on simulation results. 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing count data was obtained from directional turning movement (DTM) counts at the five (5) study intersections: 1. Ivy Road and Canterbury Road/Route 846 (signalized) 2. Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/Route 250 Off-Ramp (unsignalized) 3. Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Drive (unsignalized) 4. Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/Route 250 On-Ramp (unsignalized) 5. Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road (signalized) The turning movement counts were collected on Thursday, May 6, 2021, between 7—9 AM and 4—6 PM. The data collection provided pedestrian counts for the entire duration and heavy vehicles by movement for the peak hours. The 2021 existing volumes are shown on Figure 2-1 (all figures located at the end of the chapter). The complete count data for the turning movement counts is provided in Appendix A. It is noted that this study was prepared during the COVID-19 pandemic and traffic patterns and volumes were atypical. In order to accommodate for the discrepancy, a 10% adjustment factor was applied to the field counts. The 2021 adjusted existing volumes are shown on Figure 2-2. The existing roadways within the study area include the following: • Old Ivy Road is a two-lane, undivided major collector with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According to 2019 VDOT count data, Old Ivy Road services 8,300 vehicles per day. • Iw Road (US Route 250) is a two-lane, undivided minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According to 2019 VDOT count data, Ivy Road services 13,000 vehicles per day between Dick Woods Road and US Route 29 and 58,000 vehicles per day between US Route 29 and the Charlottesville city limits. • Falconer Drive is a two-lane, undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. According to 2019 VDOT count data, Faulconer Drive services 1,300 vehicles per day. The existing roadway geometry for eadi study intersection can be found on Figure 2-3. Per a 2018 STARS study for Ivy Road there are several proposed improvements regarding signal timings and pavement striping. As of May of 2021, none of the proposed improvements have been implemented and it is not anticipated that they will be implemented prior to the development of the site. Due to software limitations, to accurately model intersections with significant spillback, a three-way stop geometry was utilized for SimTraffic and the field conditions geometry was used for LOS conditions for the intersection of Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp. 2-3 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A 2.3 ZOZL EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table 2-3 summarizes the 2021 existing intersection LOS, delay, and queues based on the 2021 adjusted existing tra�c volumes shown on Figure 2-2 and the existing intersection geometry and tra�c controls shown on Figure 2-3. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix B. Level of service calculations for the five (5) existing intersections within the study area were performed using the methodology described above. To evaluate the impacts of the tra�c generated by the proposed development, analyses were completed for the AM and PM peak hours: 1. Weekday AM peak hour of the adjacent street (8:00 AM — 9:00 AM); and 2. Weekday PM peak hour of the adjacent street (4:30 PM — 5:30 PM). The signalized intersection of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road operates at an overall LOS E in the AM with a delay of 72.8 seconds/vehicle and at LOS F in the PM peak with a delay of 86.5 seconds/vehicle. There are multiple movements that operate at LOS E and F during both peak hours. The maximum queue for the eastbound left is 460 feet in the AM peak and 531 feet in the PM peak. In the westbound through- right approach the maximum queue in the AM peak is 850 feet and the maximum queue in the PM peak is 821 feet. The queues for the mainline through and turning movements extend beyond the existing storage length and may create operational issues with other intersections along Ivy Road. The southbound approach has queues in excess of 350 feet during both peak hours, which indicates that queues from Ivy Road are impacting Old Ivy Road on the western end. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp, the eastbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM peak with 873 seconds/vehicle of delay and LOS D in the PM peak with 27.5 seconds/vehicle delay. The westbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and LOS E in the PM peak with a delay of 167.7 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak and 47.1 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak. Although the southbound approach operates at LOS A during both peak hours, the maximum queue is 1,160 feet in the AM peak and 1,151 feet in the PM peak due to the operations of the Ivy Road at Canterbury Road signal. At the unsignalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road, the southbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM peak and LOS C in the PM peak with a delay of 349.1 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak and 20 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak. In the AM peak, the maximum queue in the southbound direction is 326 feet and 122 feet in the PM peak. The eastbound and westbound approaches of Old Ivy Road operate at LOS A during both peak hours. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, the mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS A during both peak hours. The northbound approach operates at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, the maximum queue on the northbound approach during either peak hour is 21 feet, or approximately 1 vehicle. There are no queuing issues at this intersection. The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road operates at an overall LOS B in both the AM and PM peak with a delay of 13.3 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak and 13.2 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak. All movements and approaches operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. The only queuing issues noted at this intersection are the through maneuvers blocking access to entrances along Ivy Road. 2-4 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A Table 2-3: LOS, Delay, and Queue Length Summary 2021 Existing Conditions Effective AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK FIOUR Tum SYNCHRO �SYNCHRO � Intersec[ion and Movement and ��e 95� SimTraffc � 95� _SimTraffic Type of Control Approach ce�aY LOS' Pertentile Maximum Delay LOS`I Pe¢entile = Mabmum Smrage �seU�eh) Queue (sec/veh) ! Queue �ft� Queue �ngth(ft) � Queue 'Length(R) Len th ft '-Len ih ft ' 1.Iry Road(E-W)at EB LeR 67.2 E #460 414 64.5 � E #517 ` 531 Cantebury Road/Route 846(N-5) EBThru 19.5 B 477 350 193 B 464 433 ,,,� �,,,��,,,��,,,��„ Sig�u/ized EB Right 450 10.9 B 0 26 10.9 B 0 32 EBApproath 3Z6 D -- -- 36.9 D -- -- WBLeR 200 20.6 C 17 184 21.0 C 23 200 WBThru-Right 76.2 E #850 630 76.6 E #821 618 WBApproath 74.3 E -- -- 736 E -- -- NB Left-Thru SSR E 59 78 55.2 E 51 79 NB Right 180 53.8 D 0 56 53.9 D 0 62 NBApproath 54.7 D -- -- 54.5 D -- -- SBThru-Left 50.7 D 132 212 511 D 116 212 SB Right 75 139.8 F #378 75 205.6 F #417 75 SBApproath IUI F -- -- 186.3 F -- -- Overa� 728 E -- -- 86.5 F -- -- Z.OId Iry Road(E-W)at EBThru-Right 873 F 123 116 Z7.5 D 26 100 29 Off Ramp/Route 846 (f�FS) EBApproach 8Z3 F -- - US D -- -- Unsignalized WBLeR-Thru 167J F 98 82 471 E 83 154 WBApproath 167.7 F -- -- 47.1 E -- -- NB L-T-R 0.7 A 2 74 0.9 A 3 71 NBApproath OJ A -- -- 0.9 A -- -- SB L-T-R 190 1.5 A 2 1160 0.3 A 1 1151 SBApproath I.5 A -- -- 0.3 A -- -- 3.OId Iry Road(E-W)at EB LeR-Thru 2.6 A 9 96 O7 A 2 50 Faulmner Road/Commercial Ent EB Right 150 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 Unsignalized EBApproath Z6 A -- -- OJ A -- -- WBL-T-R 0.0 A 0 1 0.0 A 0 0 WBApproath 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- -- NB L-T-R 253 D 2 28 11.7 B 1 28 NBApproath ZS3 D -- -- IIJ B -- -- SB Left-Thru 3491 F 506 326 20.0 C 45 122 SB Right 190 0.0 A 0 102 0.0 A 0 30 SBApproath 3491 F -- - Z0.0 C -- -- 4.Old Iry Road(E-W)at EB L-T-R 7.4 A 46 176 8.8 A 52 262 ......... ............. . . . . ........... . . . ......... ........... ....... . .......... ......f. .................. Route 29 On-Ramp/ EBApproach Z4 A -- -- 8.8 A -- ! -- Commercial Entrance(N-S) WB LeR-Thru 0.0 7 0 0.0 T 0 3 ...................................................................................... ...................................... .................................................... ......................................�............................. Unsig�ulized WBRight 50 0.0 A 0 44 0.0 A 0 49 WBApproath 0.0 t -- -- 0.0 t -- -- NB L-T-R 0.0 t 0 57.5 t 1 21 NBApproath 0.0 A -- -- SZS F -- -- S.Iry Road(E-W)at EB LeR 90 7.9 A 43 81 8.0 A 32 70 Old Ivy Road(N-S) EBThru 133 B #421 219 10.1 B 253 170 Sig�u/ized EBApproach IL7 B -- -- 9.9 A -- -- WBThm 9.2 A 169 175 14.5 B #467 334 WBRight 7.6 A 29 67 7.5 A 39 80 WbApproath 8.8 A -- -- IZS B -- -- NB L-T-R 32.7 C 20 40 28.5 C 0 45 NBApproath 32J C -- - Z8.5 C -- -- SB L-T-R 237 C 98 182 23.8 C 82 169 SBApproath'�' Z37 C '- - Z38 ? C ; " '- Overall 133 B -- -- 13.2 B -- -- 2-5 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . E s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 2-6 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s n O N E C p_ 2 � � O � > O � 16 L � � � �� � � I ti � O O� ti O'y '"V' PP� L3418 "o" � ) t87(203) ^�"^Q �15(50) � � � �37(92) F 72(114) Old Garth .� 1 �. �`za cso) Old I T �o�o> �o�o� � � oa �32>s9� � Road �z9� �os s .� t �. � (19)30� � � (420)426� m o (416)383� � ♦ � (141)236� � � tiP (1)10� �oV (0)1� o0o H -a � N^ " o^a -o m O � � v Q s � � �0/ LL O N � 5 P� v�� L 93(62) �1 ^ Q�� �494(561) r � L lll(238) Ivy Road .� 1 �. � j-"23(36) Ivy Road � �z92(603) 0 0 (382)341� � � � � (36)60� � � t � (570)543� (431)545� �ti o �18�y� ..�N N O 1�1 �m�i V LEGEND: �' Existing Road 7 � ———� Proposed Road N �y � p �G Signalized Intersection U � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location j' Lane Configuration 00 AM Peak Hour Volumes (00) PM Peak Hour Volumes . � � � . 2021 Existing Volumes ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 2-1 n O N E C p_ 2 � � O � > O � 16 o m � � � d' �LL � p C � � �m '"oo �V°� P P� L 37 20 � ) L 96(223) °;�� �i��ss� •� 1 �• �ai�ioil ��9�izs� Old Garth .� 1 �. �`31(55) Old I T �o�o� �o�o� � � Od (35)65� � Road (32) 117� � * � i (21)33� � � (462)469� i c4ss>azi� � f � �o (155)260� � o P (1)11� `�o� (0)1� o 0 o H -a � N�, " �"� -o m O �° '^ O � 1 v � � 0 � � O �m ��� 5 �� �n P O �O`�� L 1�2�68� rv�R� �+�m �543(617) r y L 129(262) Ivy Road .1 j �. � j—25(40) Ivy Road � �321(663) 0 0 (420)375' � � � � (40)66� � � t � (627)597� (474)600� o..o (20)10� ..�.mry .�'.00�i n m v " LEGEND: � Existing Road � �y—� Proposed Road � -- � p �G Signalized Intersection U � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location j' Lane Configuration 00 AM Peak Hour Volumes (00) PM Peak Hour Volumes . � � � . 2021 Adjusted Existing Volumes ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 2-2 n � N E °' O o � O > > O °+.,' � � �m o � � o � rn � O .. in `� t S'=50' Old Garth � � Old I �� � � � � oa � h Road � � � � .i,. s'=iso' � � -� � O � 1 � _ � -� � � � O o � � �� � '^' t LMT Ivy Road J �' . �S'=200' Ivy Road o � S'=250' -} ° S�=qp�-� ° S'=450' � `� � � '�' 0 � .. ii in LEGEND: �, y� Existing Road � y� Signalized Intersedion � � � Stop Controlled Intersedion UO f Stop Sign Location S' Effedive Storage (in feet)* LMT Lane Must Turn j' Lane Configuration * Per TOSAM guidelines, effective storage equals the full width storage length + �/z the taper length . � � � . Existing Geometry ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y 2_3 Albemarle County, Virginia July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 2-10 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 3 ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 3.1 ZOZS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH The background 2025 volumes were analyzed assuming the existing intersection geometry in conjunction with projected background tra�c volumes. The background traffic volumes were developed based on a 1% annual growth rate. The growth rate was compounded annually for the 4-year period from 2021 to 2025. The resulting 2025 existing volumes plus background growth are shown on Figure 3-1. 3.2 ZOZS BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table 3-1 summarizes the 2025 background intersection LOS, delay, and queues based on the 2025 background traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1 and the existing intersection geometry and traffic controls shown on Figure 2-3. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix C. The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road continues to operate at an overall LOS E or worse in both peak hours with a delay of 87.4 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak and 108.9 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak. The mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS D or worse during both peak hours with queues that are in excess of 500 feet during both peak hours. The southbound approach has queues in excess of 400 feet during both peak hours, which indicates that queues from Ivy Road are impacting Old Ivy Road on the western end. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp the eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS F during both peak hours with queues in excess of 100 feet during both peak hours. Although the southbound approach operates at LOS A during both peak hours, the maximum queue is 1,165 feet in the AM peak and 1,146 feet in the PM peak due to the operations of the Ivy Road at Canterbury Road signal. At the unsignalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road the southbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM peak and LOS D in the PM peak with a delay of 85.7 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak and 25.1 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak. In the southbound direction the maximum queue is 208 feet in the PM peak and 122 feet in the AM peak. The eastbound and westbound approaches of Old Ivy Road operate at LOS A during both peak hours. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, the mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS A during both peak hours. The northbound approach operates at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, the maximum queue on the northbound approach during either peak hour is 41 feet, or approximately 2 vehicles. There are no queuing issues at this intersedion. The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road operates at an overall LOS B in both the AM and PM peak hours. All movements and approaches operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. The only queuing issues noted at this intersection are the through maneuvers blocking access to entrances along Ivy Road. All operational and queuing issues noted in the 2021 existing conditions are found to be equal or worse under the 2025 background conditions. 3-1 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A Table 3-1: LOS, Delay, and Queue Length Summary 2025 Background Conditions Effective AM PEAK HOUR PM PFAK HOUR Intersection and Movement and Tum SYNCHRO '�, '�,SYNCHRO '�� SimTraffic SimTraffc Type of Control Approach ��e ce�aY LOS` Pecet hle � Mabmum Delay� LOS���.Pece hle , Maximum Smr�age �sec/veh) queue Queue (seU�eh) '�, Queue ''� Queue O Len ih ft ��9��R� �'. �'...Len ih ft ���.'.,.Lengih(ft) 1.Ivy Road(E-W)at EB Left 67A E #481 460 68J '��. E '��. #549 '��. 574 Cantebury Road/Route 846(N-S) EBThm 20.0 B 499 403 199 B ��. 493 452 Signalized EBRight 450 10.9 B 0 29 109 B 0 '� 29 EBApproath 3Z8 D -' " 39.0 D...�:.....-- ... -- WBLeft 200 21.1 C 18 187 21.4 C 23 200 WBThru-Right 91.3 F #885 636 94.5 F #872 621 WBApproath 88J F -- -- 90.6 F -- -- NB LeR-Thru 55.4 E 60 86 55.2 E 51 68 NB Right 180 53.8 D 0 43 53.9 D 0 60 NBApproath 54.7 D -- -- 54.5 D -- -- SBThru LeR 51.1 D 135 213 51 2 D 119 209 SBRight 75 184.5 F #417 76 278.6 F #470 75 SBApproath 165.4 F -- -- Z50.5 �'�. F �'�. -- -- Overall 87.4 F -- -- 10&9 �'�.. F �'�.�- -- 2.OId by Road(E-W)at EB Thm-Right 69.8 F 105 141 30.2 D 30 85 29 Off Ramp/Route 846 (N-S) EBApproach 69.8 F -- -- 302 D -- -- Unsigna/ized WBLeft-Thm 1081 F 77 81 587 F 101 150 WBApproath 108.1 F -- -- .SB.7 F -- -- ..______ _'_ _'__'__'__'_ _'__'__'__' _ ____ NB L-T-R 0.7 A 2 70 0.9 A 3 74 NBApproath 0.7 A -- -- 0.9 A -- -- SBL-T-R 190 1.5 A 5 1165 03 A 1 1146 SBApproath 1.5 A -- -- 0.3 A -- -- 3.OId by Road(E-W)at EB Left-Thru 2.3 A 7 83 0.8 A 2 68 Faulconer Road/Commercial Ent EB Right 150 0 0 A 0 1 0 0 A 0 0 Uin'igna/ized EBApproath L3 A -- -- 0.0 A -- -- WBL-T-R 0.0 A 0 6 0.0 A 0 2 WBApproath 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- -- NB L-T-R 19.4 C 1 26 123 B 1 26 NBApproath 19.4 C -- -- IL3 B -- -- SBLeR-Thru 85.7 F 221 208 25.1 D 65 122 SBRight 190 0.0 A 0 73 0.0 A 0 30 SBApproath 857 F -- -- 25.1 D -- -- 4.Old Ivy Road(E-W)at EB L-T-R 7.0 A 39 168 91 '��. A '��. 57 '�� 293 ........... . . . ........... . . ......... ........... ........... ..:....... ........... ........... Route290o-Ramp/ EBApproach ZO A -- -- 9.1 ', A ', -- '� -- Commercial Entrance(N-S) WB Left-Thm 0.0 A 0 5 0 0 t �' 0 5 Unsignalized WBRight 50 0.0 A 0 0 0.0 A 0 45 WBApproath 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 t -- -- NB L-T-R 0.0 A 0 41 64.8 t 1 15 NBApproath 0.0 A -- -- 64.8 F -- -- S.Ivy Road(E-W)at EB Left 90 7.9 A 46 89 83 A 34 63 OldbyRoad(N-S) EBThm 13J B #452 243 103 B� �'��� �260 173 Signalized EBApproach 13.1 B -- -- 102 B -- -- WBThru 9.2 A 178 159 15.1 B #481 326 WBRight 7.6 A 29 73 77 A 41 91 Wb Approath 8.8 A -- -- 13.0 B -- -- NB L-T-R 33.9 C 20 50 28.6 C 0 51 NBApproath 339 C -- -- 28.6 C -- -- SBL-T-R 24.5 C 103 183 23.8 C 83 161 SBApproath 24.5 C -' " 23.8 C -- '� -- Overall 13.6 B -- - 13.5 B ��� -- 3-2 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s n O N E C p_ 2 � � O � > O � 16 o m � � � a' �.LL � p C .�'. � � � .�'+o� �o " a` ti�� V P N �-o P I I L 39(22) L 100(232) Q`O'^ �18(57) � + `� �43(113) F 82(130) Old Garth .� 1 �. �`32(57) Old I T �o�o� �o�o� � � Od (36)68� � Road (36) 122� ♦ (22)34� � � (515)488� � I � (477)438� � ♦ � ti o (161)271� � � ^P (1)11� �o V (0)1� o 0 o H -p � om " ati,o -� f0 O � V� � � 1 v � � 0 � O m m�� �� ��� � '° L ios c�i� M1 mI ���+ �565(642) r y L 134(273) Ivy Road .1 j �. � j-"26(41) Ivy Road � �334(690) 0 0 (437)390' � � � � (42)69� � � t � (652)622� (493)624� o..o (21)10� '^mN .�'.00�i nm�n ..�.�•�• LEGEND: � Existing Road � �y—� Proposed Road � -- � p �G Signalized Intersection U � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location j' Lane Configuration 00 AM Peak Hour Volumes (00) PM Peak Hour Volumes . � � � . 2025 Background Volumes ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 3-1 July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 3-4 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 4 SITE TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 4.1 TRIP GENERATION The site-generated traffic volumes shown in Table 4-1 were estimated using the lOth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE) Trip Generation Manualand were calculated using the number of dwelling units as the independent variable. Table 4-1: Trip Generation Summary W EEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IAND USE ITE CODE AMOUNi UNLfS qp7 IN OIJ� TOTAL M Olf� TOTAL Sin le-Famil Detached Housin 210 HO Drvellin Units 847 15 47 62 52 30 82 Sin le-Famil Detached Fbusin -Due6 210 60 Drvellin Units 650 12 35 47 39 23 62 Multi-Famil Fbusin Low-Rise -A artments 220 335 Drvellin Units 2492 35 116 150 109 69 173 Multi-Famil Fbusin Low-Rise -Townhomes 220 50 Drvellin Units 337 fi 19 25 20 12 32 7dfAL 525 Dwellin UnRs 4,326 67 2ll 289 2ID 129 349 SOURCE:InstiNte of Transportation Engineers'Trip Genemtion Manuol 10[h Edition(ID17) When complete, the proposed development will generate a total of 4,326 average daily trips, 284 AM peak hour trips (67 in and 217 out), and 349 PM peak Hour trips (220 in and 129 out), as shown in Table 4-1. 4.Z $ITETRIPDISTRIBUTION The distribution of site trips generated by the proposed residential development was based on the existing tra�c volumes, the nature of the use, the surrounding roadway network, and local knowledge of traffic patternsin the area. The global trip distributions are shown on Figure 4-1 and the proposed trip distributions by study intersection are shown on Figure 4-2. 4.3 SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT The trip distribution percentages for the site trips were applied to the trip generation volumes shown in Table 4-1 to calculate the site trips for the surrounding roadway network. The resulting site generated trips are shown on Figure 4-3. 4-1 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 4-2 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s ��.,. � T`� d�,* t % �'��y�N+�" y '�?? ��,� ; r!7R� �r ,�� �&-irl- `�,�Li,���4a*� F'� ( �A4 r'( . �r�, ;�� � ��« � v�1 {i.a. ,1 �, �'�^Ma ��� �' � �,G� {�.�� , ?�� . sAa'�' e! ��1.� 3 ��� +�►N' �p'�4'�-�� ' i � .� �.�s _ I .-���'.� �a��',�,;;�� ����� �ir'.�� ' �,, �:t- � ';. ���� � ���� .. .'� �' �. 1�." � °�''` � �v F�,� � `� ^1 ,� t � ` ..� ' { H lla,:r� 111F' � - �' r �,s� � �aYx�..... t �� � � T ����.� � � 4�� R� �w �' l 7� � as A°y}y .�. is�� 3 1 r' J • �„,. ��� � �*` � t ' , � � ��� �• A ��R• { ` � • : � � R �,�, �. r - ; \1 ! .�\.��i��� 4.� �• � � ! � ; A� �� �-��4� ��+�� `�� . �. �� �; � � ��3. ��}r � ; .. , , `���, �� � '��� t�l ,��y� ,�+� � I : d�� �`v� ,�°�+ !M� '� �I 'k�i , � y�y^ a ,� � is� �d{t� K � � Y. ,�` ''�� � p4 '�� .. ���'� � • �'�'_ ��.� � ►`�"� 30% �` � �`�i s `.,�1 � c � `� s ��� � } . . . . ; � 's�,�, - . - � :♦ � ti.. �..iv,� - 1 �•Iwlry �� - �.����,� �; �` '` .,yal+�lf x�i...-a'.�. "'� ' � ;� ���r���'$�.. ,'� `� ���'������FM,., �, q � �;:g,��.. ��� n.•, "a _ n ..� ��{���..,,� a-,���`.�¢''Rj,l�� 4s �; .�'�; � � � • F R, A �.� '2 � +��� * � Y �. � .,f w��i�, -�a 3.K..k<�` ��i --fF rr::�n. � a�' (.—".'f, �� ?� � `�.,f; �,� � �7 � �~. �; ,e'S F� *� - � • �. � -�1S s ' M � . 'i{, 0 �G ..�N�� J1 t ' '� .`� ��i ��F"`_,. . � � - ��\ '�,;. � '� 15 /o ��( /'�� , a - / ,� . y . , y � + y P � �g�f� 'y� q �� •B Y� �/��` . �y�t ��J �Jf y���{� -� }:"� •"�'~� ���� '� ��Y.]' .l � /�O� �_ ' .... � � � A�L Y�0 J� . �7+Ifsi���q�`� � E � r �' . 60/o : o � �!�i�.�s. / t ?�' :«iYl�� � �'' �{' �' � o= � '+�! ' � .' � � J ' p�� '.� �'��.e 5 � \[S'" \�= '_ 1 '"' y l� k 4� �� �k ���`/ � � i:� j � � "..S�Tb.� +� " . � �a� , .�$ � ,� � � .; _ f�y�����, ��w`+ u �'' � � ��� �i �"� � • ��` � ?Y'°�. Y� �� ql�.`� , ,p �'' .�M � ` t_�_ �'�'�"'��'� { �?��,!�yP��. �' a ��. ;�-.; _�.j��� i� ,'� ... +�� . . .- . !. . 4 / / f .r.+" A L a� � a s =n rtp^_tw.._� •l. s a � �4.�^i �. �abs��^ �l�� � �� 'R �t. ,� '. I� 1 m� � �),� �,1'1� ��� � f� ����� �_��� _ � �� t' '�f. '4' * �.� � ��� � n s t ° 9C�:k. ,a �� P '' �c. J� 3s �'�,�}��i` � Js� '��'#n- � A� � > _ rz�x`_ � �� ,_. .: + '�' 4 . i�� ����,u � a�. . Y ,� LEGEND: � � � r ....,��'�� . _ �, Y ,�* � 0� '; a fi ; # y " ',� ',� ���,�'ti'��1�'� : ,y �`.� k �` '� �"� � � Existing5tudyIntersections - .�"`+ �e i�` �� � ,_ 1��;/^r �' �d i- � �Ms��� / � Q 1 �1 '-.Y �� �r� � !�,.�� �' r '� �s , N �,� ' QC ,, Proposed Site Entrance � j , Y,�„ ��;°, � e:� � . ���. �� ��y �y i � �+'�w���:��� . ' 1: ��ia�i�� d': '�Y .��a��� . . a = ���: ;w. , '����ric� NOT TO SCALE . • � � • Global Trip Distribution . ' � •� Figure TIMMONS GROUP Old Ivy Residences — Traffic Impact Analysis Albemarle County, Virginia 4-1 rn n a� � � 0 0 � o � "_ � � �,� _ � o �Iw �e oo � ao � �� �c3o�,> � �. Old Garth �` (so��> Old I T � (so��> �(so�i> T , t ao�i � i oa h �. Road so�i� so�i� � eo�i� a � � � � � -a m O v O � 0 � 5 0 � � � Ivy Road J � , t�s�� Ivy Road � . t--40°, 0 0 is�i 1 0 0 Z. LEGEND: 7 � Existing Road � o Signalized Intersection U � � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location � Lane Configuration 00% Entering Peak Hour Trips (00%) Exiting Peak Hour Trips . � � � • Trip Distribution ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 4-2 rn n a� � � � 0 � o � "_ � � �,� _ o = �,�w � � o � �� �I v"I I a� 65(39) T F 65 39 �65(39) �T Old Garth �` Q�d I � � �65(39) t--27(88) � � oa h Road (66)20� � i (132)40� � (132)40-� � o � � O � � -p f0 � � s � � �0/ O� p� LL O N � n m Ivy Road � � � L 10(33) Ivy Road � • t-z�csa� 0 0 (33)10� O O Z. LEGEND: 7 � Existing Road � o Signalized Intersection U � � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location � Lane Configuration 00 AM Peak Hour Trips (00) PM Peak Hour Trips . � � � � Generated Trips ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y 4-3 Albemarle County, Virginia July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 4-6 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 5 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT 5.1 ZOZSTOTALTRAFFICVOLUMES To complete the analysis of the 2025 future conditions (with the proposed development), the estimated site trips were added to the background 2025 volumes. The projected total future (background + site) volumes were then used to complete the capaciry analysis. To generate the 2025 total future traffic volumes, the site trips shown on Figure 4-1 and the background 2025 traffic volumes shown in Figure 3-1 were combined. The resulting 2025 total future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5-1. 5.2 ZOZS FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table 5-1 summarizes the 2025 future intersection LOS, delay, and queues based on the 2025 future tra�c volumes shown on Figure 5-1 and the future intersection geometry and traffic controls shown on Figure 5-2. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix D. The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road continues operates at an overall LOS F in both peak hours. The mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS D or worse during both peak hours with queues that are in excess of 500 feet during both peak hours. The southbound approach has queues in excess of 400 feet during both peak hours, which indicates that queues from Ivy Road are impacting Old Ivy Road on the western end. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp, the eastbound and westbound approaches continue to operate at LOS F during both peak hours with queues in excess of 100 feet during both peak hours. Although the southbound approach operates at LOS A during both peak hours, the maximum queue is 1,163 feet in the AM peak and 1,149 feet in the PM peak due to the operations of the Ivy Road at Canterbury Road signal. At the unsignalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road, the southbound approach operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peaks. In the southbound direction the maximum queue is 336 feet in the AM peak and 221 feet in the PM peak. The eastbound and westbound approaches of Old Ivy Road operate at LOS A during both peak hours. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, the mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS A during both peak hours. The northbound approach operates at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, the maximum queue on the northbound approach during either peak hour is 16 feet, or approximately 1 vehicle. There are no queuing issues at this intersedion. The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road operates at an overall LOS B in both the AM and PM peak hours. All movements and approaches operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. The through maneuver queues will continue to block access to entrances along Ivy Road. At the proposed site entrance, the southbound approach operates at a LOS B in the AM peak and LOS C in the PM peak. In the eastbound direction, there is a maximum queue of 38 feet in the AM peak and 72 feet in the PM peak. The mainline movements along Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance are not adversely impacted by the introduction of the site tra�c and the queues will not impact through tra�c. 5-1 TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Table 5-1: LOS, Delay, and Queue Length Summary 2025 Future Conditions EffeRive AM PEAK HOIIR PM PEAK HOOR Turn '-SYNCHRO iSVNCHR03 Ntersectionan� MovemeMand � ; SimTraffc =SimTraffic TypeofControl Approach ��e �`lay' ILOS�IPecet[ile Maximum Delay� LOS' Perrenhle Manmum Smrage �sec/veh)i Queue ���/veh) Queue (ft� i � Queue Queue i Len th ft Length(ftJ � � R Lergih(R) 1.Ivy Roa�(EWJ a[ EB Left 66.1 I E ': #999 918 SBb F #611 633 Can[eburyRoad/Route846(N-5) EBThm 20.0 i B ' 999 380 19.9 B 493 481 Signa/ized EB kght 450 10.9 B 0 26 10.9 B 0 29 EBAPPI�d+ 31.8 D -- -- 43.0 O "" "" WBLeR 200 llb C 18 IDO 21.9 C 23 200 WBThru-Right IM.O F #909 640 113J F #930 623 WBApproach 101.0 F -- -- IL�.9 F -- -- NBLeR-Thru 55.4 E 60 68 55.2 E 51 J2 NBkgM 180 53.8 D 0 92 53.9 D 0 5] NBAPPI�d+ 54.1 D -- -- 54.5 O "" "" SBThru-LeR 59b E #196 212 53.8 D 191 2I1 SBkgM ]5 265.0 i F � #980 ]6 329.3 F #504 ]6 SBAPPI�d+ 228.9 � F ; -- - 289J F "" "" Overa� 111.0 F � -- -- 129.2 F -- -- 2014Ivy Roa�(EWJ a[ EBThru-Right ]SJ F 110 119 34.9 O I 35 93 290ff Ramp/Route 846 (N-5) EBApproach 15.1 F -- -- 34.4 O ''�. -- -- Unsignalized WBLeR4hru 5942 F 285 15J 1901 F I 205 186 WBAPPIoach 5422 F -- _ 140.1 F '.. "" "" NB UT-R OJ A 2 92 0.9 A 3 ]8 NBAPPI�d+ O.l A -- -- 0.9 A "" "" SBL-T-R 190 1.5 A 5 1163 03 A 1 1199 SBApproach 1.5 A -- -- 0.3 A -- -- 3.OId lvy Roae(EW)a[ EB Left4hm 2.3 A 8 122 OJ A '�. 2 104 Faulroner Road/Commercial En[ EB kght 150 0.0 A 0 14 0.0 A ''�. 0 0 Unsi9nalized EBAPPI�d+ 23 A -- -- O.l A I "" "" WBL-T-R 0.0 A 0 2 0.0 A '�� 0 2 WBApproach 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- -- NB L-T-R 21.8 C 0 25 132 B 1 ffi NBApproach 21.8 C -- -- 13.2 B -- -- SBLeft-Thm V6.1 i F � 1 DO 62l F 183 221 SBkgM 190 0.0 A i 336 91 0.0 A 0 89 SBAPPI�d+ 116.1 F i -- -- 62.1 F "" "" 4.Old lry Roa�(EW)a[ EB L-T-R ]J A � 4) 205 9.4 A 64 313 Route290n-Ramp/ EBApproach Zl A ! 94 A CommerdalEnVanre(N-5) WBLeft4hru 0.0 � A ; 0 0 0.0 A 0 2 !/nsigw/ized WBkght 250 0.0 A � 0 28 0.0 A 0 42 WBAPProad+ 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A "" "" NB L-T-R 0.0 A 0 0 931 F 2 16 NBAPPI�d+ 0.0 A i -- -- 93.1 F "" "" S.Ivy Roa�(EWJ a[ EB LeR 250 42 A � 48 90 A2 A 38 89 ._._._____________________________ _ ..._____..._....._......................._....._..._._._..._._._._.................... OIdlryRoad(N-5) EBThru 16.6 B i #9]5 305 1L2 B ffi5 25] Signa/ized EBApproach 15.8 B i -- -- 11.1 B -- -- WBThru 10.8 B 189 l92 16.8 B #519 3J6 WBkght 8.9 A 34 ]0 8.6 A 50 119 WbApproach 10.2 B -- -- 14.0 B -- -- NB L-T-R 39.5 C 21 94 29.5 C 0 45 NBAPPI�d+ 34.5 C -- - 29.5 C "" "" SBL-T-R 289 C 166 235 25.1 C 11] 188 ..SBAPPI�d+ ... 28.9 C -- - 25.1. ..C .. "" "" Overall I6.8 B -- -- 14.8 B -- -- A.Old lvy Roa�(EWJ a[ EB Left 150 ].8 A � 3 38 BJ A 11 R Site En[rance(NJ EBThru 0.0 A i 0.0 A Unsignalized EBApproach 1.0 A 39 A WBThru OD + 0 0 0.0 T 0 0 WBkght 150 0.0 + 0 0 0.0 T 0 12 WBApproach 0.0 � t '; -- -- 0.0 t -- -- ......... . .............. .. ......:. .. ._._.. .. ............ .............. ................. SBLeftRight 195 ; B : 45 109 lfl2 C 32 99 SBApproach 145 � B I -- -- 162 C -- -- 5-z TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A S.3 YEAR-TO-YEAR ANALYSIS COMPARISON Table 5-2 provides a comparison of the 2021 existing, 2025 background, and 2025 future intersection LOS and delay, as provided throughout the report. At the signalized intersection of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road, the overall intersection operates with multiple issues and delays under all 3 analyzed conditions. The additional site traffic will add delay to the southbound approach, the westbound through-right movement, and the eastbound left turn movement. Overall, this intersedion operates poorly today and in background conditions and the introdudion of site tra�c will only marginally increase delays. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and the US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, the volume of traffic on the southbound approach from the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp overwhelms all other movements at the intersection. Under existing and background conditions, the Old Ivy Road eastbound and westbound approaches operate with high delays and limited opportunities to enter the intersection. The addition of site traffic increases the delays for westbound Old Ivy Road to access Canterbury Road and the adjacent signal to US Route 250 (Ivy Road). At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road, mainline Old Ivy Road in both directions operates well under all analyzed conditions. The northbound approach of Faulconer Road operates well but experiences much lower volumes, which contribute to the acceptable operations. The southbound approach of Faulconer Road experiences major delays during both the AM and PM peak hour during all 3 analyzed conditions. The heavy volume of traffic using the US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp and then traveling to Old Ivy Road via Faulconer Road are in conflict with the high through volumes on Old Ivy Road. The queues and delays for the southbound approach have the potential to create queuing and safety issues for the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp under all 3 analyzed conditions. At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, all 3 analyzed conditions show acceptable levels of service and minimal delays. The addition of site traffic does not impact the operations of the Old Ivy Road mainline approaches. The northbound approach from the parking lot of an adjacent development currently operates with a level of service F and continues to do so under background and future conditions. However, this approach has less than 5 vehicles, which is the basis for the high delay on that approach. At the signalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road, there are no operational issues under existing, background, or future conditions. The addition of site traffic will not adversely afFect the signal operations and there are minimal to no queuing issues observed. The signal will continue to operate with acceptable levels of service and delay under all analyzed conditions. 5-3 TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A Table 5-2: LOS, Delay, and Queue Length Summary 2025 Future Conditions 2021 Evisting Canditians 2025&3ckgmund Conditions 2025 Tatal Conditions Intersection and Movement and qM PEAK HOUR PM PFAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PFAK HOUR AM PFAK HOUR PM PFAK HOUR Type of Cantrol Approach pelay� Dzlay� � Delay� Delay� � Delay' Delay� � (sec/veh) LOS` �sec/veh)iL05� (sec/veh) LOS' �se4veh)� �� (se4veh) LOS' (sec/veh)i LOS� LlvyRoad(E-W)at EBLek fi]2 E 69.5 ' E fi]A E 66J E 66.1 E 88b F Cantebury Road/Route 89fi(N-5) EBThru 19.5 B 193 B 20.0 B 19.9 8 20.0 B 19.9 B Sig�lized EB Right 10.9 B 10.9 B 10.9 B 10.9 8 10.9 B 10.9 B EeAppoach 3Z6 D 36.9 O 3Z8 O 39.0 O 3Z8 D 48.0 O WBLeR 20.6 C 21.0 C 21.1 C 21.4 C 21.6 C 21.4 C WBThm-Right ]62 E ]6b E 913 F 99.5 F 109A F 113J F WeApproach ]4.3 E ]36 E 88J F 90.6 F IOI.O F 1089 F NB LeR-Thru 55.4 E 55.2 E 55.4 E 55.2 E 55.4 E 55.2 E ........_...__...__............._...."'_"'_""_, _.........................__..."'_""_,_ ...__...__... _..._...__... .'_""___ __...__..._....__...___.___................................... NB Right 53.8 D 53.9 D 53.8 D 53.9 D 53.6 D 53.9 D NHApproach 54J D 54.5 O 54J O 54.5 O 54J D 54.5 O SBThm-LeR SOJ D 511 D 51.1 D SL2 D 59.6 E 53.8 D SBRight 1398 F 205b F 1845 F U8b F 265A F 3293 F .......... ... ... .__ ,.... .. . ......... ............... ,.. ,.. ,.. ,. ............. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,...,.. ,.. ,.. ,.... . ,,, ,.. ,__......... SeApproach I1Zl F 186.3 F 165.4 F 250.5 F 2289 F 189J F Overall ]2.8 E 86.5 F S].4 F 108.9 F 111.0 F 129.2 F 2.OId Ivy Road(E-W)at EBThm-Right 8]3 F D.5 D fi9B F 302 O ]SJ F 34.4 O 290flRamp/Raute846 (N-5) EeApproach 8Z3 F 2Z5 O 69B F 301 O �SJ F 34.4 � l/nsig�/ized W B LeR Thm 16]] F 4]1 E 100 1 F 56] F 5942 F 140 1 F .._____�___. ___. WHAppoach I6ZJ F 4Zl ; E 108.1 F 58J F 5441 F 140.1 F NBL-T-R OJ A 0.9 A OJ A 0.9 A OJ A 09 ��A�� NeApproach OJ A 0.9 A OJ A 0.9 A OJ A 0.9 �A� ........... . . . ......._. . ._._........ ............... . .__..._ . ............... .. ...._.... ................ ................ SBLTR 15 A 03 A 15 A 03 A 1.5 A 03 A __ _ SHAppoach LS A 0.3 ; A 1.5 A 0.3 A LS A 0.3 ; A 3.OId Ivy Road(E-W)at EB Lek-Thm L6 A OJ ; A L3 A 0.8 A 23 A OJ ; A . ..__ _.._. ..__.. Faulmner Raad/Commercial Ent EB Right 0.0 A 0.0 i A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A OA i A . ..__ _.._. ..__.. l/nsig�/ized EeAppoach L6 A OJ j A L3 A 0.0 A 2.3 A OJ ' A WBL-T-R 0.0 A O.OW�,,,�y�,A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A WeAppoach 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A NBL-T-R 253 D llJ B 19.4 C 123 8 21.6 C 132 B NeApproach 15.3 D IIJ B 19.4 C l23 8 LB C 131 B SBLeR-Thru 3491 F ID.0 C 85J F 251 D ll61 F fiLl F SBRight 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A SeApproach 349.1 F 20.0 C 85.] F 251 O I]61 F 611 F 4.Old Ivy Road(E-W)at EB L-T-R ].4 A 8.8 A ].0 A 91 A ]J A 9.4 A Route290n-Ramp/ EHApproach ].4 A 8.8 A ZO A 9.1 A ]� A 9.4 A Commercial Entrance(N-5) WB LeR-Thm 0.0 i 0.0 t 0.0 A 0.0 t 0.0 A 0.0 A Unsignalized WBRiqM 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A WeApproach 0.0 t 0.0 t 0.0 A 0.0 t 0.0 A 0.0 A NB L-T-R 0.0 i 5].5 t 0.0 A 69.8 t 0.0 A 931 F NeApproach 00 A 5�5 F 00 A 648 F 0.0 A 931 F ilvyRoad(E-W)at EBLek ].9 A 8.0 A ].9 A 83 A 42 A 42 A Old Ioy Raad(N-5) EBThru 133 B 101����� B 13J B 103 B 16.6 B 112 B Sig�lized EeApproach I1J H 9.9 A 131 B I01 8 IS8 H 11.1 B WBThm 42 A 14.5 B 42 A 151 B 10.6 B 1fi.8 B WBRi9M ].6 A ].5 A ].6 A ]J A 6.9 A 8.6 A WbApproaM 8.8 A I25 B 8.8 A I30 B I01 H 14.0 B NB L-T-R 32J C 26.5 C 33.9 C 26b C 34.5 C 29.5 C NeApproach 32J C 285 C 339 C 28.6 C 345 C 29.5 C SBL-T-R 23J C 23.8 C 24.5 C 23.8 C 26.9 C 25.1 C SeApproach 13J C 238 C 24.5 C 238 C 289 C 25.1 C Overall 13.3 B 13.2 B 13.6 B 13.5 B 16.8 B 14.8 B 5-4 TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� rn n a� O o � O m � O � a,' O yl� � �� � o � �Iw ,� �s" � O �N .�r�� QQM �v --o P L 39(22) L 165(271) m I L 27(88) P�O°1 �18(57) � � � �108(152) F 147(169) � � r 204(315) Old Garth •� 1 �• �`e��9e> Old I T �o�o> �°c0� T , � � oa (36)68� Road (22)34� � � � (592)512� � (477)438� � (132)40--� * (293)311� � � � (161)271� � ^� (1)11� � I � (0)1� o 0 o H -a � o� o�o -Q f0 O � .:o V � v � s � � 0 � � o�� �� �D n R) P "v L 116(104) 1 I M N ��^ �565(661) r y L 161(361) Ivy Road .� 1 �. � j-"26(41) Ivy Road � �334(690) 0 0 (470)400� � � � � (42)69� � � t � (652)622� (493)624� o..o (21)10� '^mN �or'�i nm�n ..�.�•" Z. LEGEND: 7 � Existing Road � o Signalized Intersection U � � Stop Controlled Intersection f Stop Sign Location � Lane Configuration 00 AM Peak Hour Volumes (00) PM Peak Hour Volumes . � � � . 2025 Future Volumes ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 5-1 L O C � � N 2 N � C °' � �3 v 4 " @ �A � L i L ? � y C � � p�j � � O �Iw �--i II I i� Y i' � Old Garth � � Old I � �S'=25o' � � S'=15o' T I ' I I oa � h Road � � � � S'=150'� '�'' '�' '�' v O � 1 � � � � O � � �� 5 0 � � r�. � ,�,, � Ivy Road , �S'=200' I Road • � o � o S'=460'7 0'� f. S'=85'� o 0 � '. II LEGEND: in Existing Road �' ---� Proposed Road � �� Signalized Intersedion a� � m � Stop Controlled Intersection �V O U � Stop Sign Location S� Effedive Storage (in feet)* T Taper Length (in feet) ` Lane Configuration * Per TOSAM guidelines, effective storage equals the full width storage length + �/z the taper length . � � � . Future Geometry ` �� Old I Residences — Traffic Im act Anal sis Figure TIMMONS GROUP � p y Albemarle County, Virginia 5-2 July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A 6 TURN LANE WARRANTANALYSIS 6.1 ZOZS FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Using 2025 future traffic volumes on Figure 5-1 and the appropriate turn lane warrant nomographs from Appendix F of the VDOT RoadDesign Manual, a turn lane warrant analysis was completed for the proposed site entrance on Old Ivy Road. The turn lane warrants were completed for the eastbound left and the westbound right turning movements from Old Ivy Road into the proposed site entrance. Under 2025 future conditions, both an eastbound left and a westbound right turn lane are warranted on Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance. The left and right turn lane warrants can be found in Figures 6-1 through 6-3. Based on the posted speed limit (35 MPH) and the functional classification of Old Ivy Road (urban collector), a minimum taper of 100'and a minimum storage of 100' is required for both turn lanes per the VDOT Road Design Manual. 6-1 TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A PAGEINTENTIONALLY BLANK 6-z TIMMONS GROUP .,••s•�� July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albema�le County, �A 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J.1 STUDY FINDINGS Based on the operational analyses the following is offered: • Under the 2021 existing and 2025 background conditions: o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road operates at an overall LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM, with queues in both mainline approaches and the southbound approach that create access issues to nearby entrances and intersedions. o At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp, the combination of queues from the Ivy Road/Canterbury Road signal and the high volume from the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp block access for the eastbound and westbound movements of Old Ivy Road, efFectively creating a 4-way stop intersection. The US Route 29/250 Off Ramp experiences queues that extend to mainline US Route 29/250. o The unsignalized intersedion of Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Road sees queuing issues for southbound tra�c attempting to make a left onto Old Ivy Road during both peak hours. The queues at Old Ivy Road extend downstream into the US Route 29/250 Off-Ramp, which could create safety and operational issues on the ramp. o The unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp does not have any operational or queuing issues of note, with maximum queues of approximately 300' in the EB direction which do not interFere with other intersections or access points. o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Old Ivy Road operates at an overall LOS B in both the AM and PM peak. The only queuing issues noted are for through movement queues blocking access to nearby commercial entrances. o On either end of the study corridor, there are narrow railroad bridges over Old Ivy Road that severely limit the ability to widen the roadway and sometimes require vehicles to operate as if there were only a single lane. This constraint impacts the intersections of Old Ivy Road at Ivy Road, Old Ivy Road at US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, and Ivy Road at Canterbury Road. • Under 2025 total future conditions with the traffic from the proposed Old Ivy Road Development: o Overall, all existing intersections see an increase in delays and queuing with the addition of the proposed site traffic. o The signalized intersedion of Ivy Road and Canterbury Road continues to create operational issues for the US Route 29/250 OfF-Ramp, Old Ivy Road, and Faulconer Road. Without improvements to the signalized intersection or the ofF-ramp, operations on Old Ivy Road will not improve. o At the unsignalized intersection of Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 On-Ramp, the additional site tra�c does not significantly increase delays along Old Ivy Road. o At the signalized intersection of Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road, the increased traffic volumes do not significantly change the operations of the existing signal. o The proposed site entrance does not introduce any queueing or delays for mainline Old Ivy Road and the proposed turn lanes can fully accommodate the site-generated traffic. �-1 TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tra�c Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A �.Z RECOMMENDATIONS In order to accommodate the increased traffic volumes associated with the proposed Old Ivy Residences residential development, the following operational and capacity improvements are recommended: 1. Install an eastbound left turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance, minimum 100' storage and 100'taper. 2. Install a westbound right turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the proposed site entrance, minimum 100' storage and 100'taper. 3. Install a westbound right turn lane on Old Ivy Road at the US Route 29/250 on-ramp. All recommended improvements are on Old Ivy Road across the frontage of properry controlled by the development of Old Ivy Residences. The proposed improvements are expected to be constructable within existing right-of-way and on the development frontage. �-z TIMMONS GROUP •••••� . � s July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Appendix A Traffic Counts July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Canterbury and Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 1 Grou s Printed-Passen er Veh-Tmcks Old Garth Iry Canterbury Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ "['lme Right Th�u Left Peds npp_ioul Right Thru Left Peds app_iowl Rfght Thm Left Peds app.ioul Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_io�al Int Total 07 00 AM 71 1 19 0 91 12 49 2 0 63 0 1 1 0 2 0 82 39 0 121 277 07:15AM 59 0 16 0 75 IS 59 0 0 74 2 1 0 0 3 0 80 65 0 145 297 07 30 AM 84 1 9 0 94 27 115 2 0 144 1 2 1 0 4 1 130 93 0 224 466 07 45 AM 140 3 8 0 I51 24 129 3 0 I56 4 2 2 0 8 3 145 94 0 242 557 Total 354 5 52 0 411 78 352 7 0 437 7 6 4 0 17 4 437 291 0 732 1597 OS 00 AM I 113 2 30 0 145 32 117 6 0 I55 3 3 3 0 9 2 175 101 0 278 587 OS_15 AM 127 3 27 0 157 26 117 2 0 145 6 6 1 0 13 0 128 94 0 222 537 OS 30 AM 128 1 9 0 138 Ib 122 5 0 143 5 5 6 0 16 2 101 59 0 162 459 OS 45 AM 128 6 5 0 139 19 138 10 1 I68 8 2 1 0 11 5 139 87 0 231 549 Total 496 12 71 0 579 93 494 23 1 611 22 I6 11 0 49 9 543 341 0 893 2132 04 00 PM 146 2 26 0 174 20 157 4 0 I81 4 1 2 0 7 2 163 84 1 250 612 04_15 PM 132 3 11 0 146 9 133 2 0 144 7 4 5 0 16 5 135 82 0 222 528 04 30 PM 126 5 10 0 141 12 140 7 0 159 8 2 2 0 12 4 141 IIS 0 260 572 04 45 PM 133 1 li 0 149 20 128 9 0 157 6 1 4 0 11 2 136 98 0 236 553 Total 537 11 62 0 610 61 5�8 22 0 641 25 8 13 0 46 13 575 379 1 968 2265 OS 00 PM 101 3 16 0 120 IS 149 IS 0 182 9 3 5 0 17 7 I51 70 1 229 548 05:15 PM 152 6 17 0 175 12 144 5 0 Ibl 8 2 4 0 14 5 142 99 0 246 596 OS 30 PM � 115 3 5 0 123 7 129 8 0 144 7 3 5 1 16 2 122 95 0 219 502 05:45 PM 139 2 14 0 I55 14 92 6 0 112 2 3 4 0 9 0 100 70 0 170 446 Total 507 14 52 0 573 �1 514 34 0 599 26 II IS 1 �6 14 515 334 1 864 2092 Grand Total � 1894 42 237 0 2173 283 1918 86 1 2288 80 41 46 1 168 40 2070 1345 2 3457 8086 Apprch% 87.2 1.9 10.9 0 124 83.8 3.8 0 476 244 274 0.6 1.2 59.9 38.9 0.1 Total% 234 0� 29 0 269 35 237 1_I 0 283 1 OS 06 0 2_I 0� 2�6 166 0 428 Passengec Veh 1848 42 231 0 2121 280 1856 84 I 2221 77 41 45 1 164 40 2023 1312 2 3377 7883 /Passen er Veh 97.6 100 97.5 0 97.6 98.9 96.8 97J 100 97.1 96 2 100 97.8 100 97 6 100 97J 97.5 100 97] 97� Trucks 46 0 6 0 52 3 62 2 0 67 3 0 1 0 4 0 47 33 0 80 203 %T�ucks � 24 0 25 0 24 1_I 32 23 0 2.9 38 0 22 0 24 0 23 25 0 23 25 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Canterbury and Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 2 Old Garth Iry Canterbury Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ Start Time Right Thcu Left Peds npp.r��ml Right Thru Left Peds app_Toml Rfght Thm Left Peds a��.roiai Rfght Thm Left Peds npp_ro�al Int Total Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 07 00 AM to 11 45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inteaection Begfns at 07 30 AM 07.30 AM 84 1 9 0 94 27 115 2 0 144 1 2 1 0 4 1 130 93 0 224 466 07 45 AM 1411 3 8 0 I51 24 129 3 0 156 4 2 2 0 8 3 145 94 0 242 557 OS 00 AM 113 2 30 0 145 32 117 6 0 I55 3 3 3 0 9 2 175 101 0 278 587 OS_15 AM 127 3 27 0 157 26 117 2 0 145 6 6 1 0 13 0 128 94 0 222 537 Total Volume 464 9 74 0 547 109 478 13 0 600 14 13 7 0 34 6 578 382 0 966 2147 %A _Total 84_8 1 6 13 5 0 I8 2 79 7 2 2 0 41 2 38 2 20 6 0 0 6 59 8 39 5 0 PHF .829 J50 .617 .000 .871 .852 .926 .542 .000 .962 .583 .542 .583 000 .654 .500 .826 .946 .000 .869 .914 Passengec Veh 449 9 72 0 530 108 446 13 0 567 13 13 7 0 33 6 563 374 0 943 2073 �aassenge.veh 96.8 100 973 0 96.9 99.1 933 100 0 94.5 92.9 100 100 0 97.1 100 97 4 97.9 0 97 6 96 6 Trucks � li 0 2 0 17 I 32 0 0 33 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 8 0 23 74 %Tmcks � 32 0 2J 0 3.1 09 6] 0 0 5� 7.1 0 0 0 2.9 0 2.6 2.1 0 24 3A Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Canterbury and Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 3 Old Garth Out In Total 495 530 1025 9 17 26 soa iasi aas s �z a is a z a asa s �a a �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data �ynoin nmm�� � A F¢1rA C) M J ���J� �NAdp ` t�hp VI m � NOf�fl C)C'I(O �[1`ir(I L� ~i J W A T���� � Peak Hour Begins al W:30 AM � �v m � �o�o., owm''� o� PassengerVeh r o w� � � y Trucks ��w o w -�ova pm rn o00 � �^ y m cn�w a '�'" o 0 0 `n � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls 7 13 13 0 a o i o 7 13 14 0 28 33 61 a i i 28 34 62 Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Canterbury and Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 4 Old Garth Iry Canterbury Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ '['lme Right Th�u Left Peds npp_roul Right Thru Left Peds app_io�al Rfght Thm Left Peds app.ro�l Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_ro�al 1ntTotal Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 uf 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inteaection Begfns'at 04 30 PM 0430PM � 126 5 10 0 141 12 140 7 0 159 8 2 2 0 12 4 141 I15 0 26U 572 0445PM � 133 1 li 0 149 2U 128 9 0 157 6 1 4 0 11 2 136 98 0 236 553 OS 00 PM 101 3 16 0 120 IS 149 15 0 182 'J 3 5 0 17 7 151 70 1 229 548 OS_75 PM 152 6 U 0 US 12 144 5 0 Ibl 8 2 4 0 14 5 142 99 0 246 596 Total Volume 512 15 58 0 585 62 561 36 0 659 31 8 IS 0 54 18 570 382 1 971 2269 %A .Total 87.5 2.6 9.9 0 94 85.1 5.5 0 574 14.8 27.8 0 1.9 58.7 39.3 0.1 PHF .842 .625 .853 .000 .836 .775 .941 .600 .000 .905 .861 667 ]50 000 J94 .643 .944 .830 250 .934 .952 Passenger Veh 504 15 56 0 575 62 555 35 0 652 29 8 14 0 51 18 562 371 1 952 2230 /Passenger Veh 98 4 100 96 6 0 98 3 100 98 9 97 2 0 98 9 935 100 93 3 0 94 4 100 98 6 9Z l 100 98 0 983 Trucks 8 0 2 0 10 0 6 I 0 7 2 0 1 0 3 0 8 11 0 19 39 %Tmcks 16 0 3.4 0 IJ 0 l.l 2.8 0 LI 6.5 0 6J 0 56 0 1.4 2.9 0 2.0 1] Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Canterbury and Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 5 Old Garth Out In Total aai s�s iais ii io zi asz ioa� soa is ss a s a z a siz is sa a �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data mNnN n�mC�' 1 A FO O Ct (+l J I � NON fmT�mO mo � NOMh ^ `O�'�^ � rn� `�i v�i P� �� �n rn �m�m � Peak Hour Begins al 04:30 PM � o'�U >— a' .� — mom.. <n c°'ii' � o� PassengerVeh � ��^� n`� ¢ y Trucks ����N po o �o� � �^ vtD a �� 'n" o 0 0 `P`°`° � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls 14 8 29 0 1 � 2 0 15 8 31 0 68 51 119 1 3 4 69 54 123 Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Cantebury and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 1 Grou s Printed-Passen er Veh-Tmcks 29 250 SB Off Ramp/Cantecbury Old Ivy Canterbury Old Gar[h From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ "['lme Right Th�u Left Peds npp_ioul Right Thru Left Peds app_iowl Rfght Thm Left Peds app.io�zl Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_io�al IntTotal 07:00 AM 1 84 2 0 87 0 1 5 0 6 54 0 3 0 57 5 3 0 0 8 158 07:15 AM 1 70 3 0 74 0 0 7 0 7 78 0 2 0 80 2 9 0 0 11 172 07 30 AM 0 85 7 0 92 0 0 3 0 3 118 0 3 0 121 4 12 0 0 Ib 232 07:45 AM 5 148 6 0 159 0 I 3 0 4 116 0 4 0 120 5 12 0 0 17 300 Total 7 387 18 0 412 0 2 IS 0 20 366 0 12 0 37R 16 36 0 0 52 862 OS 00 AM 10 127 35 0 172 0 3 8 0 11 138 0 2 0 140 7 19 0 0 26 349 OS_15 AM 16 146 11 0 173 0 7 7 0 14 116 0 9 0 125 10 10 0 0 20 332 08:30AM 5 124 1 0 130 0 4 8 0 12 77 0 4 0 81 4 14 0 0 IS 241 OS 45 AM 4 133 0 0 137 0 1 5 0 6 100 0 3 0 103 9 16 0 0 25 271 Total 35 530 47 0 612 0 IS 28 0 43 431 0 IS 0 449 30 59 0 0 89 1193 04:00 PM I 10 147 3 0 I60 0 5 10 0 15 101 0 9 0 110 5 7 0 0 12 297 04:15PM 5 140 1 0 146 0 5 10 0 15 86 0 6 0 92 7 8 0 0 IS 268 0430PM 3 124 1 0 128 0 IS 13 0 31 121 0 9 0 130 3 7 0 0 10 299 0445PM 0 137 3 0 140 0 12 13 0 25 113 0 5 0 118 5 10 0 0 IS 298 Total 18 548 8 0 574 0 40 46 0 86 421 0 29 0 490 20 32 0 0 52 1162 05:00 PM I 2 114 4 0 120 0 7 I S 0 25 81 0 9 0 90 2 6 0 0 8 243 OS_75PM 8 154 0 1 163 0 13 6 0 19 102 0 3 0 105 9 9 0 0 IS 305 OS 30 PM � 8 125 1 0 134 0 7 7 0 14 103 0 3 0 106 4 4 0 0 8 262 05:45 PM 5 132 2 0 139 0 10 11 0 21 84 0 7 0 91 4 4 0 0 8 259 Total 23 525 7 1 556 0 37 42 0 79 370 0 22 0 392 19 23 0 0 42 1069 Grand Total 83 1990 80 1 2154 0 94 134 0 228 1588 0 81 0 1669 85 I50 0 0 235 4286 Apprch% 3 9 92.4 3J 0 0 41 2 58.8 0 95.1 0 4.9 0 36 2 63.8 0 0 Total% 19 464 19 0 503 0 22 3_I 0 53 3Z1 0 19 0 389 2 35 0 0 55 Passenger Veh 82 1944 80 1 2107 0 94 128 0 222 15�9 0 81 0 1640 83 I50 0 0 233 4202 /Passen er Veh 98.8 97J 100 100 97.8 0 100 955 0 97 4 98 2 0 100 0 98 3 97.6 100 0 0 99.1 98 Tmcks 1 46 0 0 47 0 0 6 0 6 29 0 0 0 29 2 0 0 0 2 84 %Tmcks � 1 2 23 0 0 22 0 0 4.5 0 2b 1.8 0 0 0 1] 2.4 0 0 0 0.9 2 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Cantebury and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 2 29 250 SB Off Ramp/Can[erbury Old Ivy Canterbury Old Gar[h From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ SlartTime Right Thcu Left Peds npp_ro�al Right Thru Left Peds app_Toml Rfght Thm Left Peds a��.ro�i Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_ro�al [ntTotal Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 07 00 AM to 11 45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inte�section Begfns at 07 45 AM 07�A5 AM 5 148 6 0 159 0 1 3 0 4 116 0 4 0 120 5 12 0 0 17 300 OS 00 AM 10 127 35 0 172 0 3 S 0 11 138 0 2 0 140 7 19 0 0 26 349 OS_15 AM 16 146 11 0 173 0 7 7 0 14 116 0 Y 0 125 10 10 0 0 20 332 0830AM 5 124 1 0 130 0 4 8 0 12 77 0 4 0 81 4 14 0 0 IS 241 Total Volume 36 545 53 0 634 0 IS 26 0 41 447 0 19 0 466 26 55 0 0 81 1222 %A _Total 5 7 86 8 4 0 0 36 6 63 4 0 95 9 0 4_l 0 32_7 67 9 0 0 PHF .563 .921 .379 .000 .916 .000 .536 .813 .000 .732 .810 000 .528 000 .832 .650 ]24 000 .000 .779 .875 Passenger Veh 36 527 53 0 616 0 IS 24 0 39 438 0 19 0 457 26 55 0 0 81 1193 /Passen�erVeh 100 967 100 0 972 0 100 923 0 95_7 980 0 100 0 98_I 100 100 0 0 100 976 Tmcks 0 18 0 0 IS 0 0 2 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 29 %Tmcks 0 33 0 0 2.8 0 0 7] 0 49 20 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 24 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Cantebury and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 3 29250 SB OH Ramp/Canter�ury Out In Total � 616 616 0 18 18 0 634 36 527 53 0 a is a a 36 545 53 0 �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data o� o00 �� � �s ? � �' J ^O O O f�T A O N O V� � NOf�FI <T tp O> O� N h � m � �� Peak Hour Begins al W:45 AM ~� �,o�, O DS _n N�Nt r �N� � � o�-� PassengerVeh 0 0 0 � + Trucks ��m N p -�n r 000 � �o � y m ��m w a '�'" o 0 0 `n � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls 19 � 438 0 a o s o is o aa� o sn as� ioaa zo s zs ss� ass iasa Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Cantebury and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 4 29 250 SB Off Ramp/Can[erbury Old Ivy Canterbury Old Gar[h From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ '['lme Right Th�u Left Peds npp_roul Right Thru Left Peds app_io�al Rfght Thm Left Peds app.ro�l Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_ro�al IntTotal Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 uf 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inte�section Begfns'at 04 00 PM 04 00 PM � 10 147 3 0 16U 0 5 10 0 15 101 0 Y 0 110 5 7 0 0 12 297 04:15 PM � 5 140 1 0 146 0 5 10 0 15 86 0 6 0 92 7 8 0 0 15 268 0430PM 3 124 1 0 128 0 IS 13 0 31 121 0 9 0 130 3 7 0 0 10 299 0445PM 0 137 3 0 140 0 12 13 0 25 113 0 5 0 118 5 10 0 0 IS 298 Total Volume 18 548 8 0 574 0 40 46 0 86 421 0 29 0 450 20 32 0 0 52 1162 %A _Total 3_I 955 14 0 0 465 535 0 936 0 64 0 385 61S 0 0 PHF 450 .932 .667 .000 .897 .000 .556 .885 .000 .694 .870 000 .806 000 .865 J14 .800 000 .000 .867 .972 Passenger Veh 18 547 8 0 573 0 40 45 0 85 413 0 29 0 442 20 32 0 0 52 1152 /PassengerVeh 100 99_8 100 0 998 0 100 9Z8 0 988 98_I 0 100 0 982 100 100 0 0 100 99_I Tmcks 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 1 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 %Tmcks 0 0.2 0 0 02 0 0 22 0 1 2 1.9 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Cantebury and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 5 29250 SB OH Ramp/Canter�ury Out In Total � 573 573 a i i a s�a ia sa� s a a i a a ia sas s a �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data ��om o00 ? � � �s � � �' J =000 ; �° o N , NOMn m w 0 � � � � ��� Peak Hour Begins a104:00 PM ~� o 0 0 � D � _o ooryL r rn�c�'ii .� � o� PassengerVeh V�o W � y Trucks ����N m p o00 � � N^ v tD a H000 �mmv � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls 29 � 413 0 0 � 8 0 29 � 421 0 siz aaz iasa z a ia sia aso iasa Out In Total Data Collection Group 757.478.6761 LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and Faulconer Site Code : 00033668 Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 1 Grou s Printed-Passen er Veh-Trucks Faulconer Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From East From South From Wesl Start Time Right Thm Left Peds Ppp.To�al Right Thru Lefl Peds App Total Right Thru Left Peds App.Total Right Thm Left Peds Ppp.To�al InL Total 07:00 AM 0 1 8 0 9 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 2 0 61 78 07:15 AM 0 1 12 0 13 5 7 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 82 7 0 90 115 07:30 AM 1 0 7 0 8 10 5 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 1 3 90 36 0 129 153 07:45 AM 0 3 37 0 40 17 6 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 87 51 0 140 203 Total 1 5 64 0 70 34 24 0 0 58 1 0 0 0 1 6 318 96 0 420 549 08:00 AM 2 1 57 0 60 22 8 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 2 129 64 0 195 285 08:15 AM 0 2 72 0 74 5 15 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 97 30 0 131 225 08:30 AM 1 1 32 0 34 5 10 0 0 15 0 0 3 0 3 3 87 8 0 98 150 08:45 AM 1 0 30 0 31 2 4 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 1 113 4 0 118 156 Total 4 4 191 0 199 34 37 0 0 71 0 1 3 0 4 10 426 106 0 542 816 "'BREAK"' 04:00 PM 1 0 52 0 53 6 12 1 0 19 3 0 4 0 7 0 101 12 0 113 192 04:15 PM 0 0 45 0 45 3 16 0 0 19 3 0 0 0 3 2 90 4 0 96 163 04:30 PM 2 0 25 0 27 2 32 0 1 35 2 0 0 0 2 0 115 4 0 119 183 04:45 PM 3 0 23 0 26 5 22 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 1 1 111 7 0 119 173 Total 6 0 145 0 151 16 82 1 1 100 8 0 5 0 13 3 417 27 0 447 711 05:00 PM 6 0 33 0 39 7 19 0 0 26 3 0 0 0 3 0 93 6 0 99 167 05:15 PM 1 0 42 0 43 4 19 0 0 23 0 0 0 1 1 0 101 12 0 113 180 05:30 PM 1 1 26 0 28 3 11 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 104 4 0 108 151 05:45 PM 3 0 33 0 36 6 19 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 1 0 84 6 0 90 152 Total 11 1 134 0 146 20 68 0 0 88 5 0 0 1 6 0 382 28 0 410 650 Grand Totall 22 10 534 0 566 104 211 1 1 317 14 1 8 1 24 19 1543 257 0 1819 2726 Apprch% 3.9 1.8 94.3 0 32.8 66.6 0.3 0.3 58.3 42 33.3 42 1 84.8 14.1 0 Total% 0.8 0.4 19.6 0 20.8 3.8 7.7 0 0 11.6 0.5 0 0.3 0 0.9 0.7 56.6 9.4 0 66.7 PassengerVeh 22 10 525 0 557 102 204 0 1 307 14 1 7 1 23 19 1505 256 0 1780 2667 %PassengerVeh 100 100 98.3 0 98.4 98.1 967 0 100 96.8 100 100 87.5 100 95.8 100 97.5 99.6 0 97.9 97.8 Trucks 0 0 9 0 9 2 7 1 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 38 1 0 39 59 %Trucks 0 0 1.7 0 1.6 1.9 3.3 100 0 32 0 0 12.5 0 4.2 0 2.5 0.4 0 2.1 22 Data Collection Group 757.478.6761 LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and Faulconer Site Code : 00033668 Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 2 Faulconer Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From East From South From Wesl Slart Time Ri ht Thru Left Peds P.pp.To�al Ri ht Thru Lefl Peds App.Total Ri ht Thru Left Peds App.Total Ri ht Thm Left Peds App.Total InL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 0730 AM I 1 0 7 0 8 10 5 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 7 3 90 36 0 129 153 07:45 AM I 0 3 37 0 40 17 6 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 87 51 0 140 203 08:00 AM I 2 1 57 0 60 22 8 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 2 729 64 0 195 285 08:15 AM 0 2 72 0 74 5 15 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 97 30 0 131 225 Total Volume 3 6 173 0 182 54 34 0 0 88 1 0 0 0 1 11 403 181 0 595 866 %A .Total 1.6 3.3 95.1 0 61.4 38.6 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.8 67.7 30.4 0 PHF .375 .500 .601 .000 .615 .614 .567 .000 .000 .733 250 .000 .000 .000 250 .688 .781 .707 .000 .763 .760 PassengerVeh 3 6 168 0 177 53 32 0 0 85 1 0 0 0 1 11 393 181 0 585 848 /Passenger Veh I 100 100 97.1 0 97.3 98.1 94.1 0 0 96.6 100 0 0 0 100 100 97.5 100 0 98.3 97.9 Trucks I 0 0 5 0 5 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 18 %Tmcks I 0 0 2.9 0 27 1.9 5.9 0 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 17 2.1 Data Collection Group 757.478.6761 LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and Faulconer Site Code : 00033668 Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 3 FaNconer Oul In Tolal 23 177 411 1 5 fi 23 417 3 fi 168 Q 0 0 5 Q n Righl Thru LeIft� Petls � 1 Y Peak Hour Data �� m� �� T � � Ol0 �J ���W JUNO �o North � ���� � �r� Peak Hour Begins at o7:30 A ~c' �v v O �o�L m a�n O � o.-� Passenger Veh y °"^'�' � V�ry� '� + Trucks �^000 `� o 0 O ~ a A �'��'m '� O O O (n W J— � I � Left Thru Ri ht Petls 0 o i o 0 0 0 0 0 o i o 17 1 18 0 0 0 n i is Oul In Tolal Data Collection Group 757.478.6761 LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and Faulconer Site Code : 00033668 Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 4 Faulconer Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From East From South From Wesl Start Time Right Thm Left Peds App.Total Right Thru Lefl Peds App Total Right Thru Left Peds App.Total Right Thm Left Peds App.Total InL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM� 1 0 52 0 53 6 12 1 0 19 3 0 4 0 7 0 101 72 0 113 192 04:15 PM I 0 0 45 0 45 3 16 0 0 19 3 0 0 0 3 2 90 4 0 96 163 0430 PM I 2 0 25 0 27 2 32 0 1 35 2 0 0 0 2 0 NS 4 0 119 183 04:45 PM 3 0 23 0 26 5 22 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 1 1 111 7 0 119 173 Total Volume 6 0 145 0 151 16 82 1 1 100 8 0 5 0 13 3 417 27 0 447 711 %A .Total 4 0 96 0 16 82 1 1 61.5 0 38.5 0 0.7 93.3 6 0 PHF .500 .000 .697 .000 .712 .667 .641 .250 .250 .714 .667 .000 .313 .000 .464 .375 .907 .563 .000 .939 .926 PassengerVeh 6 0 145 0 151 15 81 0 1 97 8 0 4 0 12 3 405 26 0 434 694 %PassengerVeh I 100 0 100 0 100 93.8 98.8 0 100 97.0 100 0 80.0 0 92.3 100 97.1 96.3 0 97.1 97.6 Trucks I 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 1 0 13 17 %Tmcks I 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 12 100 0 3.0 0 0 20.0 0 7] 0 2.9 3] 0 2.9 2.4 Data Collection Group 757.478.6761 LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and Faulconer Site Code : 00033668 Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 5 FaNconer Oul In Tolal 41 151 192 2 0 2 43 194 fi Q 145 Q 0 0 0 0 ia Righl Thru LeIft� Petls � 1 Y Peak Hour Data ���a ����� T �� J �^m�`n owaO North � o�� � ���+�� � �r� PeakHourBeginsato4:40P ~c' v W O _v _ O �o V passenger Veh � �'^'�_� V� �� Tmcks �=��o °' o 0 a � � O � m �� a o oa<n— � � � Left Thru Ri ht Petls 4 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 3 12 15 1 1 2 4 13 17 Oul In Tolal Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and 29-250 NB On Ramp Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 1 Grou s Prin[ed-Passen er Veh-Tmcks 29/250 On Ramp Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ "['lIpe Right Thm Left Peds npp_Toul Right Thru Left Peds app_iowl Rfght Thm Left Peds app.ioial Rfght Thm Left Peds npp_To�al IntTotal 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 52 0 68 85 07_75 AM 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 0 23 0 0 1 0 1 3 21 64 0 88 112 0730 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 14 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 77 0 98 118 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 23 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 78 0 116 156 Total 0 0 0 0 0 43 57 0 0 100 0 0 1 0 1 5 94 271 0 370 471 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 33 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 64 120 0 I85 239 OS_75 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 20 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 104 0 174 2li OS 30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 75 0 118 155 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 84 0 143 170 Total 0 0 0 0 0 87 72 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 1 236 383 0 620 779 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 56 19 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 I 19 0 U2 227 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 33 17 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 102 0 140 190 0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 46 35 0 0 81 0 0 0 1 1 0 26 127 0 153 235 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 48 29 0 0 77 0 1 0 0 1 0 26 109 0 135 213 Total 0 0 0 0 0 183 100 0 0 283 0 1 0 1 2 0 127 453 0 �80 865 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 64 26 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 85 0 129 219 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 45 24 0 0 69 0 0 0 1 1 0 45 95 0 140 211 OS 30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 49 14 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 103 0 131 194 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 42 24 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 80 0 118 184 Total 0 0 0 1 1 200 88 0 0 288 0 0 0 1 1 1 154 363 0 �IS 808 Grnnd Total � 0 0 0 1 1 513 317 0 0 830 0 1 1 2 4 7 611 1470 0 2088 2923 Apprch% 0 0 0 100 61.8 382 0 0 0 25 25 50 03 29.3 704 0 Total% 0 0 0 0 0 176 108 0 0 284 0 0 0 0_l 0_I 02 209 503 0 714 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 1 1 508 311 0 0 819 0 1 0 2 3 6 600 1445 0 2051 2874 �aassen�e.veh 0 0 0 100 100 99 98.1 0 0 98J 0 100 0 100 75 SSJ 982 98.3 0 982 983 Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 1 11 25 0 37 49 %Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 1 3 0 0 100 0 25 14.3 1.8 IJ 0 L8 1] Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and 29-250 NB On Ramp Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 2 29/250 On Ramp Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ SlartTime Right Thm Left Peds npp.i��ml Right Thru Left Peds app_i��ml Rfght Thm Left Peds a��.io�i Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_io�al IntToral Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 07 00 AM to 11 45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inteaection Begfns at OS 00 AM OS�.00AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 33 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 64 120 0 185 239 OS_75 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 20 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 104 0 174 2li OS 30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 75 0 118 155 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 84 0 143 170 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 87 72 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 1 236 383 0 620 779 %A _Total 0 0 0 0 547 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 38_l 618 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 000 .906 .545 .000 .000 .736 000 000 000 000 .000 250 .843 ]98 .000 .838 .815 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 86 68 0 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 1 227 377 0 605 759 �aassenge.veh 0 0 0 0 0 98.9 94 4 0 0 96.9 0 0 0 0 0 100 96 2 98 4 0 97 6 97 4 Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 IS 20 %Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 l.l 56 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 1.6 0 24 26 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Old Ivy and 29-250 NB On Ramp Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 3 29/250 On Ramp Out In Total 4fi3 � 463 7 0 7 a�o a�a a a a a a a a a a a a a �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data ���m ��m� ? p lO (O C) (+l J� � W M � F ,�.v�� W N nm�o � NOMh m`°�" e� � ����� ��� Peak Hour Begins al�8:00 AM ~� v p� 4 O '�`=o�-� Passenger Veh � ��^� � m Q ry ¢ y Trucks ��o 0 0 V`� r o00 a � �o � y m ��m w a H000 <na�_ � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls a o 0 0 a o 0 0 a o 0 0 � o � a o 0 i o i Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Old Ivy and 29-250 NB On Ramp Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 4 29/250 On Ramp Old Ivy Driveway Old Ivy From North From Eas[ From South From Wes[ S'taC[ '['lme Right Th�u Left Peds npp_roul Right Thru Left Peds app_io�al Rfght Thm Left Peds app.ro�zl Rfght Th�u Left Peds npp_ro�al 1ntTotal Peak Hour Analysis Fmm 12:00 PM to 06:00 PM-Peak 1 uf 1 Peak Hour for Entim Inte�section Begfns at 04 30 PM 0430PM � 0 0 0 0 0 46 35 0 0 81 0 0 0 1 1 0 26 127 0 153 235 04:45 PM � 0 0 0 0 0 48 29 0 0 77 0 1 0 0 1 0 26 109 0 135 213 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6J 26 0 0 ')U 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 85 0 129 219 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 I 45 24 0 0 69 0 0 0 1 1 0 45 95 0 140 211 Total Volume 0 0 0 1 1 203 114 0 0 317 0 1 0 2 3 0 141 416 0 �57 878 %A .Total 0 0 0 100 64 36 0 0 0 333 0 66] 0 25.3 74J 0 PHF .000 .000 000 250 250 J93 .814 .000 .000 .881 000 250 000 .500 J50 .000 ]83 .819 .000 .910 .934 Passengec Veh 0 0 0 1 1 202 113 0 0 315 0 1 0 2 3 0 141 408 0 549 868 /Passenger Veh 0 0 0 100 100 99 5 99_I 0 0 99 4 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 98_l 0 98 6 98 9 Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 10 %Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.9 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 1 4 l.l Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Old Ivy and 29-250 NB On Ramp Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 5 29/250 On Ramp Out In Total 611 1 612 9 � 9 62� 621 a a a i a a a a a a a i �ht ThIm Left Petls I IY i Peak Hour Data �� mm� .{ � _`" r o c�' 1 '�'iv o m <o v v w I v p F � � ^W�N p A.. o� NOMh �' ��mr � � ' �� � � � `�� Peak Hour Begins al 04:30 PM ~� p�w O — w w5o � o 0 o L passengerVeh � � o�-� � N� � iy�a ¢ y Trucks ��o 0 0 ti p� 000� � � N� a 'n" 000 `nn'm— � � � Left Thru Ri hl Petls a i o z a o 0 0 a i o z � 3 � a o 0 a a a Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Ivy and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 1 Grou s Printed-Passen er Veh-Tmcks Driveway Ivy Saint Annes Ivy Old Iry From North From Eas[ From Sou[h From Wes[ From Nor[hwest Sta[tTime �� kieM Thm Left ecds Kghc e� Thm Left vcds , Ki�hi Thm ,,, LeR Pcds , eieh� Thru Left ,�,. ecds � 1° � ,,,. ,� 2cd _��� m��m� 0]OOAM 0. 0 0 0 1 0 lo�l 0 0.10 33 0 0 P'iI 1 0 0 0 0 'XI 0 ]I 1 6 0 � ]fi ��i P�0 R L 0 0 r 12 133 0]_ISAM I 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 51 0 0 6i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]0 0 5 0 ]5 0 0 19 0 0 IY 159 0]�OAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 ]5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 122 0 5 0 12] 2 0 IS 0 0 1] 220 0]65AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 � 0 0 9fi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13i 0 20 0 13i i 0 ?9 0 0 33 2B3 loiel I 0 0 I 0 2 0 R2 196 0 0 2)8 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 39] 1 3i 0 iI2 10 0 ]I 0 0 RI 995 OB:OOAM I 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 9] 0 0 I.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13� 0 2i 0 IM1O ] 0 lJ 2 0 i3 331 OBJSAM l 0 0 0 0 3 0 2R �fi 0 0 Ai 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 119 0 It 0 IIM1 9 0 SJ 1 0 6i 2AA OB:lOAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3i fi9 0 0 IOl 0 0 1 3 0 i 0 13d 0 8 0 li2 9 0 ll 0 0 R 291 0&JSAM 0 0 0 0 5 ]0 0 0 9i 0 0 0 0 0 it 0 0 0 M1] 0 l8 2 0 ii 33 loiel � 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 292 0 0 J09 0 0 I 9 0 10 0 �ii 0 60 0 M109 IO 0 ti9 9 0 19i I.'I OJLOYM 0 0 0 1 3 0 IIM1 0 0 191 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1@ 0 4 0 111 10 0 lM1 2 0 iR l9i OJiSYM I I 0 0 1 3 0 52 IIM1 0 0 188 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 IIt 0 ] 0 12i 10 0 'M1 2 0 3R 39i OJ l0 YM I I 0 0 i 6 0 60 122 0 0 183 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 100 0 ] 0 10] L 0 l0 i 0 i6 3i2 OJJSYM I I 0 0 0 $ 1 6d lI] 0 0 .0: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 109 0 13 0 122 ] 0 '] I 0 3t 3M1� �lolel 5 ] 0 0 6 14 1 231 71 0 0 )6] 1 0 0 i 0 � 0 i]R 0 3fi 0 i6i I9 0 119 II 0 169 1415 OSf10YFf l 1 0 1 1 M1 0 fi� IM1I 0 0 ..8 3 0 0 9 0 12 0 119 0 4 0 12A li 0 '4 1 0 ii ilA OSiSYFf I I 0 0 0 2 0 iR IA1 0 0 '.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 ] 0 110 11 0 'M1 1 0 3R 3]9 OS]OYM I 0 0 0 1 2 0 �0 12M1 0 0 I]M1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4] 0 6 0 99 fi 0 2 0 33 312 OSJSYM 0 0 0 0 2 0 �2 109 0 0 IM1I 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 86 1 6 0 93 fi 0 IJ I 0 23 2fl3 loiel 5 J 0 I 2 1. 0 219 9]9 0 0 ]4J 3 0 0 IS 0 IA 0 i01 1 2R 0 il0 I] 0 4J ] 0 13A I142 GmndTolel Ifi "1 0 2 R 33 1 645 159E 0 0 2214 S 0 I 29 0 35 0 1"191 2 IS6 0 1931 116 0 143 23 0 582 4ffi5 Appmh% 4E5 212 0 6J 242 0 2�9 912 0 0 143 0 29 829 0 0 919 OJ �2 0 199 0 "16J 4 0 Tocel% 03 0_I 0 0 02 09 0 134 33_I 0 0 465 0.1 0 0 0_6 0 0."1 0 369 0 33 0 40 24 0 92 OS 0 12_I �ea.4,�,vm ioo ioo o iro iw ioo ioo 983 975 0 0 977 L00 0 100 100 0 100 0 9R2 100 100 0 984 100 0 98 100 0 985 98_I Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 40 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 9 0 0 9 91 %Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] 2.5 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.8 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 1.5 1.9 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Ivy and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 2 Driveway Ivy Saint Annes Ivy Old Ivy From North From Eas[ From Sou[h From Wes[ From Nor[hwest Sta[tTime ° kieM Th�u LeR vcds .,o Righ� °` Thru Left vcds .,, Ri�ht Thru ., LeR vcds aieM Thru Left ,e,. 2cS _,o, 16 ' ,i. �� Pcds _i�� m�imzi YmkHourAnel�Siskrom0]OOAMNIIO�AM-H2klofl x.ro n.iv n�m Ymk Hourfoo Cn�ioc I�mcwe�io�13cew e�OB 00 AM °�W. � ° ° ° ° ° ,° 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 , 0 160 7 0 34 0 43 331 O8_ISAM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 28 56 0 0 84 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 119 0 17 0 136 9 0 54 1 0 64 288 O8 30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 69 0 0 103 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 134 0 8 0 142 9 0 33 0 0 42 291 O8 45 AM I 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 70 0 0 95 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 157 0 10 0 167 5 0 38 2 0 45 313 ro�ivoi�m� 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 117 292 0 0 409 0 0 1 9 0 10 0 545 0 60 0 605 30 0 159 5 0 194 1223 o n .�ro�i 100 0 0 0 0 0 28 6 71 4 0 0 0 0 10 90 0 0 90.I 0 9 9 0 IS.S 0 82 2 6 0 PHF A❑ .000 000 000 000 417 000 BW .T3 000 000 805 000 000 .ti0 .450 000 500 000 868 000 b00 .000 906 N33 000 736 62S D00 TS 924 v��eGv�, 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 112 282 0 0 394 0 0 1 9 0 10 0 537 0 60 0 597 30 0 152 5 0 187 1193 ����,v�, ioo 0 0 0 o ioo 0 9y7 966 0 0 963 0 0 100 100 0 100 0 9ftS 0 100 0 987 100 0 95b 100 0 964 975 Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 7 30 %Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 34 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IS 0 0 0 13 0 0 44 0 0 36 25 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Ivy and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 3 Oltl Iry a� Driveway o` Out In Total � b 'j6,�, 5 5 10 .�1� 0 0 0 �c 01 �p 5 10 J\ ^ "p'a yp ¢a5 � �� c� Q 5 0 0 0 0 � h,j ,�5�' ,aa 0 0 0 0 0 �.� ^yo�` 'Z'�,z�� 5 0 0 0 0 O ea �rtl �ht Thru Left Petls o pa 0yy�� RI ht I � t j `�Q ez �. �O a P� �a� �,� ?°� ���a�s Peak Hour Data � omm� =J ? =000 0 r 000�� A� m� � Norih R� m ' �"'`°" ^'1 J U N n m� m o n m v> > Peak Hour Begins al�8:00 AM � T C�[1 (p � p (p > VIF� ~INON �(liA � PassengerVeh 0 0 0 o L Tmcks � o�-� ti p'"'`"' tt i ��000 �wmw 000 ,� � wow— v t° a 'n" 000 � �a� T r Left Lefl Thru Ri ht Petls s i o o a o a o o a s i o o a � io ia a o 0 a io ia Out In Total Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Ivy and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 4 Driveway Ivy Sain[Annes Ivy Old Iry From North From Eas[ From Sou[h From Wes[ From Nor[hwes[ $t3[[TIrtIZ ° RieM Thm I,CFt PrAs Right e� Thm IREt Pcds ,„ Ri�ht Thru .i I.E$ Pcds RieM Thru I.CFt mi. Peds � °i � „i. ei Pcds � m��oial Ytak Hou�Anelysiv k[om 1200 NM lo OS'i5 NM-Yeak 1 of 1 Yezk Hnm loo Cmim I�mw�o�io�13ce6n e�Oi30 NM ^•��� � , 0 0 0 60 122 0 0 182 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 100 0 7 0 107 12 0 4 0 46 342 04 45 PM 1 1 0 0 0 2 L 64 137 0 0 202 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 109 0 13 0 122 7 0 27 3 0 37 365 OS 00 PM 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 65 163 0 0 228 3 0 0 9 0 12 0 119 0 9 0 128 14 0 29 1 0 44 418 OSISPM 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 48 ISL 0 0 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 7 0 110 11 0 26 1 0 38 379 -ro�ivoi�m� 6 4 0 1 5 16 1 237 603 0 0 841 3 0 0 12 0 IS 0 431 0 36 0 467 44 0 112 9 0 165 1504 %n .'lo�l 375 25 0 62 312 0_I 282 717 0 0 20 0 0 80 0 0 923 0 77 0 267 0 679 55 0 PHF S00 �� 000 250 313 667 250 912 .533 000 000 918 250 000 .000 333 000 313 000 905 000 .692 .000 912 786 000 933 S63 000 _897 900 vna��e�,v�n 6 4 0 1 5 16 1 235 597 0 0 833 3 0 0 12 0 IS 0 424 0 36 0 460 44 0 112 9 0 165 1489 ����,v�, ioo ioo o iro iw iw iw 992 990 0 0 990 100 0 0 100 0 100 0 9ftA 0 100 0 98� 100 0 100 100 0 100 990 Tmcks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 IS %Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 1 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCol IectionG roup.net File Name : Ivy and Old Ivy Site Code : Start Date : 5/6/2021 Page No : 5 Oltl Iry a� Driveway o` Out In Total � Dp'�, 1� 16 26 a o 0 ��6y °� °o io zs $ °65 eo ¢a5 o �� � Q s a o i s �' ^9 ,�'.0 �,a� 0 0 0 0 0 ry ,��, �,z� 6 4 0 1 5 O "ea� �rtl �ht Thru Left Petls p 0 y�� RI h� � � t oP`Q e¢'°.c� pp a P� �a� �,� ?°� ;��a�s Peak Hour Data � ���� =J � N �, ? _,o, r� 000�� A� J p0 J NOf�FI � ry J N N J O orr �� � a�� Peak Hour Begins a104:30 PM � >—� v vF� �� o m n w''� PassengerVeh ` w�� m w n�� 000L Tmcks � ti p� � K� �'�000 W�Jd OOOr� � W(l�W- L � a 'n" 000 � �a� T r Left Lefl Thru Ri ht Petls 12 0 � 3 0 o a o o a iz o o a o � is is a o 0 a is is Out In Total July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Appendix 6 Synchro Analysis for 2021 Existing Conditions July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ 1 /' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 412 656 11 27 709 33 26 100 600 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.58 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.26 0.08 0.50 1.02 Control Delay 65.2 18.9 0.0 11.4 69.8 58.6 0.5 59.5 55.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 65.2 18.9 0.0 11.4 69.8 58.6 0.5 59.5 55.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 261 345 0 7 -613 25 0 74 -150 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #460 477 0 17 #850 59 0 132 #378 InternalLink Dist(k) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 449 1130 1047 392 712 147 338 199 588 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.92 0.58 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.22 0.08 0.50 1.02 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infnite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � � � ~ � � 1 � `► l � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►� T � ►� � � � «� � TrafficVolume(vph) 375 597 10 25 543 102 12 18 24 78 13 546 Future Volume(vph) 375 597 10 25 543 102 12 18 24 78 13 546 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1845 1615 1736 1760 1863 1538 1761 1553 Flt Permitted 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 136 1845 1615 759 1760 1863 1538 1761 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 412 656 11 27 597 112 13 20 26 86 14 600 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 25 0 0 412 Lane Group Flow(vph) 412 656 6 27 704 0 0 33 1 0 100 188 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 0% 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% 5% 4% 0% 4% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 50.3 47.0 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Effective Green,g (s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 50.3 47.0 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.39 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 436 1062 929 345 689 100 83 199 176 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.36 0.00 c0.40 c0.02 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.43 0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.12 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.62 0.01 0.08 1.02 i 0.33 0.02 0.50 1.07 Uniform Delay, d1 38.1 16.8 10.8 20.6 36.5 54.7 53.7 50.0 53.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 29.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 86.6 Delay(s) 67.2 19.5 10.9 20.6 76.2 � 55.4 53.8 50.7 139.8 Level of Service E B B C E E D D F Approach Delay(s) 37.6 74.2 54.7 127.1 Approach LOS D E D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 72.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. r{ .�. r� TrafficVolume(vehm) 0 65 33 31 17 0 20 0 474 52 583 39 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 65 33 31 17 0 20 0 474 52 583 39 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 76 39 36 20 0 24 0 558 61 686 46 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX,platoon unblocked 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 � vC,conflicting volume 1168 1437 709 1235 1181 279 732 558 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1119 1428 709 1196 1134 99 732 � 419 - tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free°/a 100 30 91 29 88 100 97 94 cM capacity(veh/h) 137 109 438 51 163 839 882 1003 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 115 56 582 793 Volume Left 0 36 24 61 Volume Right 39 0 558 46 cSH 146 67 882 1003 Volume to Capacity 0.79 0.83 0.03 0.06 Queue Length 95th(ft) 123 98 2 5 Control Delay(s) 87.3 167.7 0.7 1.5 Lane LOS F F A A Approach Delay(s) 87.3 167.7 0.7 1.5 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 13.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � .�. .�. r{ � TrafficVolume(vehm) 117 469 11 0 41 37 3 1 0 210 4 4 Future Volume(Veh/h) 117 469 11 0 41 37 3 1 0 210 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly flow rate(vph) 163 651 15 0 57 51 4 1 0 292 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 108 666 1066 1085 651 1060 1074 82 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 108 666 � 1066 1085 651 1060 1074 82 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 89 100 98 99 100 0 97 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 1495 933 180 195 472 184 197 983 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 814 15 108 5 304 Volume Left 163 0 0 4 292 Volume Right 0 15 51 0 6 cSH 1495 1700 933 183 187 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.03 1.63 Queue Length 95th(ft) 9 0 0 2 506 Control Delay(s) 2.6 0.0 0.0 25.3 349.1 Lane LOS A D F Approach Delay(s) 2.6 0.0 25.3 349.1 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 87.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .�. r{ � .�. TrafficVolume(vehm) 421 260 1 0 79 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 421 260 1 0 79 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 520 321 1 0 98 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 217 322 1460 1578 322 1460 1460 98 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 217 322 � 1460 1578 322 1460 1460 98 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 62 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1353 1249 75 67 719 75 79 958 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 842 98 119 0 Volume Left 520 0 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 119 0 cSH 1353 1249 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.00 0.07 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 46 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 7.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 72 652 349 140 12 232 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.63 0.34 0.15 0.07 0.58 Control Delay 9.0 14.5 9.8 2.8 27.0 17.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.0 14.5 9.8 2.8 27.0 17.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 8 108 47 0 3 28 Queue Length 95th(ft) 43 #421 169 29 20 98 Internal Link Dist(k) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 599 1075 1055 947 611 676 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.61 0.33 0.15 0.02 0.34 Intersection Summary # 95th percen6le volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � .�. r� TrafficVolume(vph) 66 600 0 0 321 129 10 1 0 180 0 33 Future Volume(vph) 66 600 0 0 321 129 10 1 0 180 0 33 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1881 1845 1553 1781 1726 Flt Permitted 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 1048 1881 1845 1553 1781 1726 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 72 652 0 0 349 140 11 1 0 196 0 36 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 108 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 72 652 0 0 349 71 0 12 0 0 124 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 29.5 29.5 _ 29.5 29.5 0.9 9.1 Effective Green,g (s) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 0.9 9.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 528 948 930 783 27 268 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.19 c0.01 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.69 i 0.38 0.09 0.44 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 7.7 11.0 8.9 7.5 28.6 22.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 2.3 0.3 0.1 4.2 1.3 Delay(s) 7.9 13.3 � 9.2 7.6 32.7 � 23.7 Level of Service A B A A C C Approach Delay(s) 12.7 8.8 32.7 23.7 ApproachLOS B A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 58.5 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2021 Existing AM Peak 05/26/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 414 350 26 184 630 78 56 212 75 Average Queue(ft) 209 161 3 33 469 26 13 186 74 95th Queue(ft) 350 300 17 131 720 61 37 250 79 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 23 21 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 136 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 42 32 37 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 11 173 33 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 116 82 74 1160 Average Queue(ft) 47 30 19 1128 95th Queue(ft) 89 65 57 1162 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 98 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT LTR LTR LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 96 1 28 326 102 Average Queue(ft) 15 0 3 115 8 95th Queue(ft) 57 1 18 278 62 Link Distance(ft) 299 332 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) 5 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) + 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 12 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2021 Existing AM Peak 05/26/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB Directions Served LTR R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 176 44 Average Queue(ft) 65 13 95th Queue(ft) 132 40 Link Distance(ft) 332 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 81 219 175 67 40 182 Average Queue(ft) 15 75 74 30 11 91 95th Queue(ft) 58 173 142 57 34 152 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 3 Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty:357 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2 Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ 1 �' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 442 660 21 42 721 27 36 85 593 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.59 0.02 0.11 0.99 0.23 0.11 0.45 1.08 Control Delay 64.3 19.6 0.1 11.1 68.6 58.1 0.7 58.9 74.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 64.3 19.6 0.1 11.1 68.6 58.1 0.7 58.9 74.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) -299 338 0 10 -557 20 0 63 -191 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #517 464 0 23 #821 51 0 116 #417 InternalLink Dist(k) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 471 1125 1027 387 726 139 337 187 551 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.59 0.02 0.11 0.99 0.19 0.11 0.45 1.08 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infnite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � � � ~ � � 1 � `► l � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►� T � ►� �. � � «� j� TrafficVolume(vph) 420 627 20 40 617 68 17 9 34 64 17 563 Future Volume(vph) 420 627 20 40 617 68 17 9 34 64 17 563 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1881 1615 1752 1855 1757 1524 1786 1583 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 138 1881 1615 764 1855 1757 1524 1786 1583 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 Adj. Flow(vph) 442 660 21 42 649 72 18 9 36 67 18 593 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 9 0 3 0 0 0 34 0 0 386 Lane Group Flow(vph) 442 660 12 42 718 0 0 27 2 0 85 207 HeavyVehicles(%) 3% 1% 0% 3% 1% 0% 7% 0% 6% 3% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 50.0 45.5 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Effective Green,g (s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 50.0 45.5 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 470 1081 928 355 703 93 81 187 166 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.35 0.00 c0.39 c0.02 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.42 0.01 0.04 0.00 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.61 0.01 0.12 1.02 i 0.29 0.02 0.45 1.25 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 16.7 10.9 20.9 37.2 54.6 53.8 50.5 53.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.9 2.6 0.0 0.1 39.4 0.6 0.0 0.6 151.9 Delay(s) 64.5 19.3 10.9 21.0 76.6 � 55.2 53.9 51.1 205.6 Level of Service E B B C E E D D F Approach Delay(s) 36.9 73.6 54.5 186.3 Approach LOS D E D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 86.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. r{ .�. r� TrafficVolume(vehm) 0 35 21 55 55 0 29 0 459 9 582 14 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 35 21 55 55 0 29 0 459 9 582 14 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 37 22 59 59 0 31 0 488 10 619 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX,platoon unblocked 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 � vC,conflicting volume 982 1196 626 993 960 244 634 488 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 896 1146 626 909 870 35 634 � 319 � tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free°/a 100 78 95 65 75 100 97 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 177 165 478 168 240 895 959 1073 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 59 118 519 644 Volume Left 0 59 31 10 Volume Right 22 0 488 15 cSH 219 198 959 1073 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.60 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 26 83 3 1 Control Delay(s) 27.5 47.1 0.9 0.3 Lane LOS D E A A Approach Delay(s) 27.5 47.1 0.9 0.3 Approach LOS D E Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � � � .;. «� � TrafficVolume(vehm) 32 462 1 0 101 20 1 0 6 135 0 13 Future Volume(Veh/h) 32 462 1 0 101 20 1 0 6 135 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 33 481 1 0 105 21 1 0 6 141 0 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 126 482 670 673 481 668 664 116 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 126 482 � 670 673 481 668 664 116 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 98 100 100 100 99 61 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 1473 1091 362 371 589 363 375 942 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 514 1 126 7 155 Volume Left 33 0 0 1 141 Volume Right 0 1 21 6 14 cSH 1473 1700 1091 541 399 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.39 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 1 45 Control Delay(s) 0.7 0.0 0.0 11.7 20.0 Lane LOS A B C Approach Delay(s) 0.7 0.0 11.7 20.0 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road o�iosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .�. r{ � .�. TrafficVolume(vehm) 458 155 0 0 125 223 0 1 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 458 155 0 0 125 223 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 492 167 0 0 134 240 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 374 167 1285 1525 167 1286 1285 134 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 374 167 � 1285 1525 167 1286 1285 134 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 58 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1184 1423 96 70 877 95 96 915 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 659 134 240 1 Volume Left 492 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 240 0 cSH 1184 1423 1700 70 Volume to Capacity 0.42 0.00 0.14 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 52 0 0 1 Control Delay(s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 57.5 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay(s) 8.8 0.0 57.5 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 44 527 737 291 17 208 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.50 0.69 0.28 0.06 0.55 Control Delay 10.4 10.7 15.3 2.4 0.5 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 10.4 10.7 15.3 2.4 0.5 15.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 5 76 125 1 0 22 Queue Length 95th(ft) 32 253 #467 39 0 82 Internal Link Dist(k) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 247 1058 1068 1031 691 685 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.50 0.69 0.28 0.02 0.30 Intersection Summary # 95th percen6le volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road miosi2o2� � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � .�. r� TrafficVolume(vph) 40 474 0 0 663 262 13 0 3 134 0 53 Future Volume(vph) 40 474 0 0 663 262 13 0 3 134 0 53 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1863 1881 1599 1781 1764 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 435 1863 1881 1599 1781 1764 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 44 527 0 0 737 291 14 0 3 149 0 59 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 136 0 17 0 0 110 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 44 527 0 0 737 155 0 0 0 0 98 0 HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.4 30.4 _ 30.4 30.4 0.7 8.2 Effective Green,g (s) 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 0.7 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 226 971 980 833 21 248 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.39 c0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.54 i 0.75 0.19 0.01 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 7.4 9.3 11.0 7.4 28.5 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.8 3.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 Delay(s) 8.0 10.1 � 14.5 7.5 28.5 � 23.8 Level of Service A B B A C C Approach Delay(s) 9.9 12.5 28.5 23.8 ApproachLOS A B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 58.3 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2021 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2021 Existing PM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 531 433 32 200 618 79 62 212 75 Average Queue(ft) 273 182 5 49 490 24 17 201 74 95th Queue(ft) 521 390 23 162 733 62 45 223 84 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 25 33 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 217 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 45 45 53 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 18 254 43 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 100 154 71 1151 Average Queue(ft) 35 57 18 1107 95th Queue(ft) 76 112 54 1245 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 93 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB NB SB SB Directions Served LT LTR LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 50 28 122 30 Average Queue(ft) 6 5 49 12 95th Queue(ft) 30 22 95 35 Link Distance(ft) 299 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) = 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2021 Existing PM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB WB NB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 262 3 49 21 Average Queue(ft) 116 0 29 2 95th Queue(ft) 220 3 51 13 Link Distance(ft) 332 2715 193 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 70 170 334 80 45 169 Average Queue(ft) 10 48 144 41 12 78 95th Queue(ft) 39 125 261 70 37 136 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 3 1 Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty:537 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2 July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Appendix C Synchro Analysis for 2025 Background Conditions July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ 1 /' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 424 676 11 28 729 34 27 103 617 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.60 0.01 0.07 1.04 0.27 0.08 0.52 1.06 Control Delay 65.6 19.4 0.0 11.5 81.2 587 0.5 60.1 68.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 65.6 19.4 0.0 11.5 81.2 58.7 0.5 60.1 68.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 272 362 0 7 -645 26 0 76 -188 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #481 499 0 18 #885 60 0 135 #417 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 450 1130 1047 381 701 147 338 199 582 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.60 0.01 0.07 1.04 0.23 0.08 0.52 1.06 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically inf nite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 /' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � '�. � � .a � Traffc Volume(vph) 390 622 10 26 565 106 13 18 25 81 14 568 Future Volume(vph) 390 622 10 26 565 106 13 18 25 81 14 568 IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1845 1615 1736 1761 1862 1538 1762 1553 Flt Permitted 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 138 1845 1615 745 1761 1862 1538 1762 1553 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 424 676 11 28 614 115 14 20 27 88 15 617 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 26 0 0 406 Lane Group Flow(vph) 424 676 6 28 723 0 0 34 1 0 103 211 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 0% 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% 5% 4% 0% 4% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 49.5 46.2 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Effective Green,g(s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 49.5 46.2 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.39 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 448 1062 929 334 677 100 83 199 176 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.37 0.00 c0.41 c0.02 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.43 0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.64 0.01 0.08 1.07 i 0.34 0.02 0.52 1.20 Uniform Delay,d1 38.2 17.0 10.8 21.0 36.9 54.7 53.7 50.1 53.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 54.4 0.7 0.0 0.9 131.3 Delay(s) 67.0 20.0 10.9 21.1 91.3 � 55.4 53.8 51.1 184.5 Level of Service E B B C F E D D F Approach Delay(s) 37.8 88.7 54.7 165.4 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 87.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.4% ICU Level of Service F - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. .� �. �. Traffc Volume(veh/h) 0 68 34 32 18 0 21 0 493 54 607 41 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 68 34 32 18 0 21 0 493 54 607 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 74 37 35 20 0 23 0 536 59 660 45 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 � vC,conflicting volume 1124 1382 682 1188 1137 268 705 536 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1066 1364 682 1140 1081 78 705 � 387 - tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 38 92 46 89 100 97 94 cM capacity(veh/h) 150 118 453 64 175 856 902 1024 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 111 55 559 764 Volume Left 0 35 23 59 Volume Right 37 0 536 45 cSH 157 83 902 1024 Volume to Capacity 071 0.66 0.03 0.06 Queue Length 95th(ft) 105 77 2 5 Control Delay(s) 69.8 108.1 0.7 1.5 Lane LOS F F A A Approach Delay(s) 69.8 108.1 0.7 1.5 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .� � �. �. .a � Traffc Volume(veh/h) 122 488 11 0 43 39 3 1 0 219 4 4 Future Volume(Veh/h) 122 488 11 0 43 39 3 1 0 219 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 133 530 12 0 47 42 3 1 0 238 4 4 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 89 542 868 885 530 864 876 68 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 89 542 � 868 885 530 864 876 68 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 91 100 99 100 100 6 98 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1519 1037 253 261 553 254 264 1001 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 663 12 89 4 246 Volume Left 133 0 0 3 238 Volume Right 0 12 42 0 4 cSH 1519 1700 1037 255 258 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.95 Queue Length 95th(ft) 7 0 0 1 221 Control Delay(s) 2.3 0.0 0.0 19.4 85.7 Lane LOS A C F Approach Delay(s) 2.3 0.0 19.4 85.7 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 22.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �, � � �. Traffc Volume(veh/h) 438 271 1 0 82 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 438 271 1 0 82 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 476 295 1 0 89 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 198 296 1336 1446 296 1336 1337 89 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 198 296 � 1336 1446 296 1336 1337 89 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queuefree% 65 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1375 1277 95 86 744 95 100 969 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 772 89 109 0 Volume Left 476 0 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 109 0 cSH 1375 1277 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.00 0.06 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 39 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 7.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 678 363 146 12 240 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.65 0.35 0.16 0.07 0.60 Control Delay 9.3 15.2 9.9 2.7 27.3 17.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.3 15.2 9.9 2.7 27.3 17.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 9 117 50 0 3 31 Queue Length 95th(ft) 46 #452 178 29 20 103 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 567 1044 1024 927 593 660 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.65 0.35 0.16 0.02 0.36 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � �. �. Traffc Volume(vph) 69 624 0 0 334 134 10 1 0 187 0 34 Future Volume(vph) 69 624 0 0 334 134 10 1 0 187 0 34 IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1881 1845 1553 1781 1727 Flt Permitted 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 1022 1881 1845 1553 1781 1727 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 75 678 0 0 363 146 11 1 0 203 0 37 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 108 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 678 0 0 363 75 0 12 0 0 132 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.6 30.6 _ 30.6 30.6 0.9 9.3 Effective Green,g(s) 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 0.9 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 522 962 944 794 26 268 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.20 c0.01 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.70 i 0.38 0.09 0.46 0.49 Uniform Delay,d1 7.7 11.2 8.9 7.5 29.2 23.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 2.5 0.4 0.1 4.7 1.4 Delay(s) 7.9 13.7 � 9.2 7.6 33.9 � 24.5 Level of Service A B A A C C Approach Delay(s) 13.1 8.8 33.9 24.5 Approach LOS B A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.8 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background AM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 460 403 29 187 636 86 43 213 76 Average Queue(ft) 239 162 3 33 534 28 12 186 74 95th Queue(ft) 405 306 17 129 745 67 33 254 82 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 34 22 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 147 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 50 30 37 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 13 170 36 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 141 81 70 1165 Average Queue(ft) 52 34 21 1131 95th Queue(ft) 107 66 58 1155 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 100 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 83 1 6 26 208 73 Average Queue(ft) 13 0 0 4 90 6 95th Queue(ft) 51 1 3 19 167 41 Link Distance(ft) 299 332 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 150 + 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background AM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB WB Directions Served LTR LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 168 5 41 Average Queue(ft) 66 0 14 95th Queue(ft) 131 5 42 Link Distance(ft) 332 2715 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 89 243 159 73 50 183 Average Queue(ft) 16 92 73 31 11 94 95th Queue(ft) 62 205 132 62 35 155 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 6 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 4 Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty:371 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2 Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ 1 /' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 460 686 22 43 751 27 37 87 617 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.61 0.02 0.11 1.05 0.23 0.12 0.47 1.13 Control Delay 68.0 20.2 0.0 11.2 83.0 58.1 0.7 59.3 96.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 68.0 20.2 0.0 11.2 83.0 58.1 0.7 59.3 96.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) -336 358 0 11 -631 20 0 64 -240 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #549 493 0 23 #872 51 0 119 #470 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 480 1125 1027 376 717 139 337 187 545 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.96 0.61 0.02 0.11 1.05 0.19 0.11 0.47 1.13 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically inf nite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 /' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations ►� � r ►� �. q � .a � Traffc Volume(vph) 437 652 21 41 642 71 17 9 35 66 17 586 Future Volume(vph) 437 652 21 41 642 71 17 9 35 66 17 586 IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1881 1615 1752 1855 1757 1524 1785 1583 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 140 1881 1615 746 1855 1757 1524 1785 1583 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow(vph) 460 686 22 43 676 75 18 9 37 69 18 617 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 9 0 3 0 0 0 35 0 0 379 Lane Group Flow(vph) 460 686 13 43 748 0 0 27 2 0 87 238 HeavyVehicles(%) 3% 1% 0% 3% 1% 0% 7% 0% 6% 3% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 49.4 44.9 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Effective Green,g(s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 49.4 44.9 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 479 1081 928 344 694 93 81 187 166 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.36 0.00 c0.40 c0.02 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.42 0.01 0.05 0.00 c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.63 0.01 0.12 1.08 i 0.29 0.02 0.47 1.43 Uniform Delay,d1 37.8 17.1 10.9 21.3 37.5 54.6 53.8 50.5 53.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.9 2.8 0.0 0.1 57.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 224.9 Delay(s) 68.7 19.9 10.9 21.4 94.5 � 55.2 53.9 51.2 278.6 Level of Service E B B C F E D D F Approach Delay(s) 39.0 90.6 54.5 250.5 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 108.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.5% ICU Level of Service F - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. � �. �. Traffc Volume(veh/h) 0 36 22 57 57 0 30 0 478 9 606 15 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 36 22 57 57 0 30 0 478 9 606 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 38 23 61 61 0 32 0 509 10 645 16 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 � vC,conflicting volume 1022 1246 653 1034 1000 254 661 509 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 937 1201 653 950 910 32 661 � 332 - tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 75 95 60 73 100 97 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 160 151 462 151 225 889 937 1051 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 61 122 541 671 Volume Left 0 61 32 10 Volume Right 23 0 509 16 cSH 203 181 937 1051 Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.68 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 30 101 3 1 Control Delay(s) 30.2 58.7 0.9 0.3 Lane LOS D F A A Approach Delay(s) 30.2 58.7 0.9 0.3 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .� � �. �. .a � Traffc Volume(veh/h) 36 515 1 0 113 22 1 0 7 151 0 15 Future Volume(Veh/h) 36 515 1 0 113 22 1 0 7 151 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 38 536 1 0 118 23 1 0 7 157 0 16 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 141 537 750 753 536 748 742 130 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 141 537 � 750 753 536 748 742 130 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 97 100 100 100 99 51 100 98 cM capacity(veh/h) 1455 1041 318 332 549 319 337 926 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 574 1 141 8 173 Volume Left 38 0 0 1 157 Volume Right 0 1 23 7 16 cSH 1455 1700 1041 503 351 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.49 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 1 65 Control Delay(s) 0.8 0.0 0.0 12.3 25.1 Lane LOS A B D Approach Delay(s) 0.8 0.0 12.3 25.1 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. � � �. Traffc Volume(veh/h) 477 161 0 0 130 232 0 1 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 477 161 0 0 130 232 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 513 173 0 0 140 249 0 1 0 0 0 0 PedesUians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 389 173 1339 1588 173 1340 1339 140 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 389 173 � 1339 1588 173 1340 1339 140 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queuefree% 56 100 100 98 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1170 1416 85 61 871 84 86 908 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 686 140 249 1 Volume Left 513 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 249 0 cSH 1170 1416 1700 61 Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.00 0.15 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 57 0 0 1 Control Delay(s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 64.8 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay(s) 9.1 0.0 64.8 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 536 750 297 18 211 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.51 0.70 0.29 0.07 0.55 Control Delay 11.0 10.9 15.8 2.5 0.5 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.0 10.9 15.8 2.5 0.5 15.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 5 78 129 1 0 22 Queue Length 95th(ft) 34 260 #481 41 0 83 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 233 1056 1066 1029 690 684 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.51 0.70 0.29 0.03 0.31 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 05/27/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � �. �. Traffc Volume(vph) 42 493 0 0 690 273 14 0 3 139 0 55 Future Volume(vph) 42 493 0 0 690 273 14 0 3 139 0 55 IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1863 1881 1599 1783 1764 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 412 1863 1881 1599 1783 1764 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 46 536 0 0 750 297 15 0 3 151 0 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 18 0 0 110 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 536 0 0 750 160 0 0 0 0 101 0 HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.4 30.4 _ 30.4 30.4 0.7 8.4 Effective Green,g(s) 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 0.7 8.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 214 968 977 830 21 253 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.40 c0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.55 i 0.77 0.19 0.01 0.40 Uniform Delay,d1 7.6 9.5 11.2 7.5 28.6 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.9 3.9 0.2 0.1 1.0 Delay(s) 8.3 10.3 � 15.1 7.7 28.6 � 23.8 Level of Service A B B A C C Approach Delay(s) 10.2 13.0 28.6 23.8 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.5 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/06/2021 2025 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background PM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 574 452 29 200 621 68 60 209 75 Average Queue(ft) 292 182 4 45 530 24 16 201 74 95th Queue(ft) 517 375 21 157 727 57 42 224 82 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 35 33 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 225 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 50 43 53 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 20 249 44 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 85 150 74 1146 Average Queue(ft) 34 58 21 1115 95th Queue(ft) 69 113 59 1229 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 97 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT LTR LTR LT R Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 68 2 26 122 30 Average Queue(ft) 8 0 6 52 13 95th Queue(ft) 38 2 23 98 36 Link Distance(ft) 299 332 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) = 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) � 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background PM Peak 05/27/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB WB NB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 293 5 45 15 Average Queue(ft) 126 0 30 1 95th Queue(ft) 240 5 50 9 Link Distance(ft) 332 2715 193 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 50 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Ma�cimum Queue(ft) 63 172 326 91 51 161 Average Queue(ft) 11 53 145 45 15 78 95th Queue(ft) 42 128 261 73 41 132 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty:542 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2 July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Appendix D Synchro Analysis for 2025 Total Future Conditions July 2021 Old Ivy Residences Tiaffic Impad Analysis-Albemarle County, �A Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ 1 /' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 435 676 11 28 740 34 27 139 653 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.60 0.01 0.07 1.07 0.27 0.08 0.70 1.12 Control Delay 65.1 19.4 0.0 11.5 91.6 58.7 0.5 70.4 90.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 65.1 19.4 0.0 11.5 91.6 58.7 0.5 70.4 90.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 283 362 0 7 -663 26 0 105 -247 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #499 499 0 18 #904 60 0 #196 #480 InternalLink Dist(k) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 461 1130 1047 376 689 147 338 199 582 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.60 0.01 0.07 1.07 0.23 0.08 0.70 1.12 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infnite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►� T � ►� � � � «� � TrafficVolume(vph) 400 622 10 26 565 116 13 18 25 114 14 601 Future Volume(vph) 400 622 10 26 565 116 13 18 25 114 14 601 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1845 1615 1736 1758 1862 1538 1756 1553 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 140 1845 1615 745 1758 1862 1538 1756 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 435 676 11 28 614 126 14 20 27 124 15 653 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 26 0 0 406 Lane Group Flow(vph) 435 676 6 28 734 0 0 34 1 0 139 247 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 0% 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% 5% 4% 0% 4% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 48.7 45.4 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Effective Green,g (s) 80.2 69.1 69.1 48.7 45.4 6.5 6.5 13.6 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 460 1062 929 329 665 100 83 199 176 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.37 0.00 c0.42 c0.02 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.42 0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.64 0.01 0.09 1.10 i 0.34 0.02 0.70 1.40 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 17.0 10.8 21.5 37.3 54.7 53.7 51.2 53.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.7 0.0 8.3 211.8 Delay(s) 66.1 20.0 10.9 21.6 104.0 � 55.4 53.8 59.6 265.0 Level of Service E B B C F E D E F Approach Delay(s) 37.8 101.0 54.7 228.9 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 111.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.1% ICU Level of Service F - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. � .�. r� TrafficVolume(vehm) 0 68 34 97 18 0 21 0 513 54 607 41 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 68 34 97 18 0 21 0 513 54 607 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 74 37 105 20 0 23 0 558 59 660 45 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX,platoon unblocked 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 � vC,conflicting volume 1136 1404 682 1200 1148 279 705 558 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1077 1389 682 1151 1091 82 705 � 406 - tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free°/a 100 35 92 0 88 100 97 94 cM capacity(veh/h) 146 114 453 60 171 847 902 1002 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 111 125 581 764 Volume Left 0 105 23 59 Volume Right 37 0 558 45 cSH 151 67 902 1002 Volume to Capacity 0.73 1.87 0.03 0.06 Queue Length 95th(ft) 110 285 2 5 Control Delay(s) 75.7 544.2 0.7 1.5 Lane LOS F F A A Approach Delay(s) 75.7 544.2 0.7 1.5 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 49.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � r� .�. r{ � TrafficVolume(vehm) 122 512 11 0 108 39 3 1 0 239 4 4 Future Volume(Veh/h) 122 512 11 0 108 39 3 1 0 239 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 133 557 12 0 117 42 3 1 0 260 4 4 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 159 569 965 982 557 962 973 138 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 569 � 965 982 557 962 973 138 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 91 100 99 100 100 0 98 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1433 1013 216 228 534 217 231 916 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 690 12 159 4 268 Volume Left 133 0 0 3 260 Volume Right 0 12 42 0 4 cSH 1433 1700 1013 219 220 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.02 1.22 Queue Length 95th(ft) 8 0 0 1 336 Control Delay(s) 2.4 0.0 0.0 21.8 176.1 Lane LOS A C F Approach Delay(s) 2.3 0.0 21.8 176.1 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 43.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .�. r{ � .�. TrafficVolume(vehm) 438 311 1 0 147 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 438 311 1 0 147 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 476 338 1 0 160 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 339 339 1450 1630 338 1450 1451 160 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 339 339 � 1450 1630 338 1450 1451 160 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 61 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1220 1231 76 62 704 76 80 885 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 815 160 179 0 Volume Left 476 0 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 179 0 cSH 1220 1231 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.00 0.11 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 47 0 0 0 Control Delay(s) 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 7.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 678 363 175 12 335 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.69 0.37 0.19 0.08 0.71 Control Delay 10.7 17.8 11.5 2.9 28.9 22.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 10.7 17.8 11.5 2.9 28.9 22.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 11 144 61 0 4 60 Queue Length 95th(ft) 48 #475 189 34 21 166 Internal Link Dist(k) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 523 988 969 898 561 632 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.69 0.37 0.19 0.02 0.53 Intersection Summary # 95th percen6le volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � .�. r� TrafficVolume(vph) 69 624 0 0 334 161 10 1 0 274 0 34 Future Volume(vph) 69 624 0 0 334 161 10 1 0 274 0 34 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1881 1845 1553 1781 1730 Flt Permitted 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 995 1881 1845 1553 1781 1730 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 75 678 0 0 363 175 11 1 0 298 0 37 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 103 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 75 678 0 0 363 85 0 12 0 0 232 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.5 30.5 _ 30.5 30.5 1.0 12.4 Effective Green,g (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 1.0 12.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 482 912 894 753 28 341 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.20 c0.01 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.74 i 0.41 0.11 0.43 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 9.0 13.0 10.4 8.8 30.7 23.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.5 0.4 0.1 3.8 5.5 Delay(s) 9.2 16.6 � 10.8 8.9 34.5 � 28.9 Level of Service A B B A C C Approach Delay(s) 15.8 10.2 34.5 28.9 ApproachLOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 62.9 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Old Ivy Road & Site Entrance 07/01/2021 � � ~ � �S r Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � M TrafficVolume(vehm) 40 271 204 27 87 130 Future Volume(Veh/h) 40 271 204 27 87 130 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 43 295 222 29 95 141 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 251 603 222 vC1,stage 1 conf vol _ vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 251 _ 603 222 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) _ tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 97 79 83 cM capacity(veh/h) 1314 447 818 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 43 295 222 29 236 Volume Left 43 0 0 0 95 Volume Right 0 0 0 29 141 cSH 1314 1700 1700 1700 613 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.17 0.13 0.02 0.39 Queue Length 95th(ft) 3 0 0 0 45 Control Delay(s) 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay(s) 1.0 0.0 14.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 8 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Total AM Peak 07/01/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 418 380 26 200 640 68 42 212 76 Average Queue(ft) 228 153 3 35 562 27 12 190 74 95th Queue(ft) 372 291 16 138 728 60 32 249 82 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 43 25 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 182 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 54 36 36 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 14 217 46 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Maximum Queue(ft) 119 157 92 1163 Average Queue(ft) 50 67 24 1129 95th Queue(ft) 98 125 67 1149 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 100 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 122 14 2 25 270 41 Average Queue(ft) 24 0 0 4 121 6 95th Queue(ft) 77 15 2 18 242 44 Link Distance(ft) 299 332 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 150 + 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 7 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Total AM Peak 07/01/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB Directions Served LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 205 28 Average Queue(ft) 88 6 95th Queue(ft) 162 21 Link Distance(ft) 332 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Maximum Queue(ft) 90 305 192 70 44 235 Average Queue(ft) 17 109 86 35 11 125 95th Queue(ft) 61 236 152 62 35 205 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 9 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 6 Intersection: 6: Old Ivy Road & Site Entrance Movement EB SB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue(ft) 38 104 Average Queue(ft) 7 50 95th Queue(ft) 29 84 Link Distance(ft) 414 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 150 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty:467 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2 Queues 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ 1 /' 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 495 686 22 43 785 27 37 107 637 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.61 0.02 0.11 1.10 0.23 0.12 0.58 1.17 Control Delay 85.7 20.2 0.0 11.2 99.5 58.1 0.7 64.2 110.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Delay 85.7 20.2 0.0 11.2 99.5 58.1 0.7 64.2 110.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) -394 358 0 11 -687 20 0 80 -273 - Queue Length 95th(ft) #611 493 0 23 #930 51 0 141 #504 InternalLink Dist(k) 843 543 551 203 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 200 180 75 Base Capacity(vph) 480 1125 1027 376 714 139 337 186 545 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.03 0.61 0.02 0.11 1.10 0.19 0.11 0.58 1.17 Intersection Summary - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infnite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►� T � ►� � � � «� � TrafficVolume(vph) 470 652 21 41 642 104 17 9 35 85 17 605 Future Volume(vph) 470 652 21 41 642 104 17 9 35 85 17 605 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 � 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1881 1615 1752 1845 1757 1524 1780 1583 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 140 1881 1615 746 1845 1757 1524 1780 1583 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 Adj. Flow(vph) 495 686 22 43 676 109 18 9 37 89 18 637 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 35 0 0 379 Lane Group Flow(vph) 495 686 13 43 780 0 0 27 2 0 107 258 HeavyVehicles(%) 3% 1% 0% 3% 1% 0% 7% 0% 6% 3% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 4 3 Actuated Green, G(s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 49.4 44.9 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Effective Green,g (s) 81.3 69.0 69.0 49.4 44.9 6.4 6.4 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 479 1081 928 344 690 93 81 186 166 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.36 0.00 c0.42 c0.02 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.45 0.01 0.05 0.00 c0.16 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.63 0.01 0.12 1.13 i 0.29 0.02 0.58 1.55 Uniform Delay, d1 38.6 17.1 10.9 21.3 37.5 54.6 53.8 51.2 53.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.0 2.8 0.0 0.1 76.1 0.6 0.0 2.7 275.6 Delay(s) 88.6 19.9 10.9 21.4 113.7 � 55.2 53.9 53.8 329.3 Level of Service F B B C F E D D F Approach Delay(s) 48.0 108.9 54.5 289.7 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 129.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 27.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations �. r{ .�. r� TrafficVolume(vehm) 0 36 22 96 57 0 30 0 544 9 606 15 Future Volume(Veh/h) 0 36 22 96 57 0 30 0 544 9 606 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 38 23 102 61 0 32 0 579 10 645 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 283 pX,platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 � vC,conflicting volume 1057 1316 653 1068 1034 290 661 579 vC1,stage 1 conf vol - vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 967 1279 653 981 940 44 661 � 392 - tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) � � tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free°/a 100 71 95 25 71 100 97 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 147 133 462 136 211 858 937 979 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 61 163 611 671 Volume Left 0 102 32 10 Volume Right 23 0 579 16 cSH 182 157 937 979 Volume to Capacity 0.34 1.04 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 35 205 3 1 Control Delay(s) 34.4 140.1 0.9 0.3 Lane LOS D F A A Approach Delay(s) 34.4 140.1 0.9 0.3 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � .�. .�. r{ � TrafficVolume(vehm) 36 592 1 0 152 22 1 0 7 217 0 15 Future Volume(Veh/h) 36 592 1 0 152 22 1 0 7 217 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 38 617 1 0 158 23 1 0 7 226 0 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � 8 Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 181 618 870 874 617 870 864 170 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 181 618 � 870 874 617 870 864 170 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 97 100 100 100 99 14 100 98 cM capacity(veh/h) 1407 972 263 282 494 264 286 880 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 655 1 181 8 242 Volume Left 38 0 0 1 226 Volume Right 0 1 23 7 16 cSH 1407 1700 972 445 282 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.86 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 1 183 Control Delay(s) 0.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 62.1 Lane LOS A B F Approach Delay(s) 0.7 0.0 13.2 62.1 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary Average Delay 14.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations r� rj � .�. TrafficVolume(vehm) 477 293 0 0 169 271 0 1 0 0 0 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 477 293 0 0 169 271 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 513 315 0 0 182 291 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) � Median type None None Median storage veh) _ Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 473 315 1523 1814 315 1524 1523 182 vC1,stage 1 conf vol � vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 473 315 � 1523 1814 315 1524 1523 182 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) � tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 53 100 100 98 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1089 1257 61 42 725 60 62 861 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 828 182 291 1 Volume Left 513 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 291 0 cSH 1089 1257 1700 42 Volume to Capacity 0.47 0.00 0.17 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 64 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 93.1 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay(s) 9.4 0.0 93.1 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 5 Queues 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � ~ t 1 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 536 750 392 18 268 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.52 0.72 0.37 0.07 0.63 Control Delay 12.8 12.2 17.7 2.8 0.5 18.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.8 12.2 17.7 2.8 0.5 18.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 6 87 145 2 0 39 Queue Length 95th(ft) 38 285 #519 50 0 117 Internal Link Dist(k) 1062 920 247 459 Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 Base Capacity(vph) 212 1026 1035 1049 674 672 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.52 0.72 0.37 0.03 0.40 Intersection Summary # 95th percen6le volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road 07/01/2021 � � 7 � ~ t `� 1 �' �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations � � � � .�. r� TrafficVolume(vph) 42 493 0 0 690 361 14 0 3 191 0 55 Future Volume(vph) 42 493 0 0 690 361 14 0 3 191 0 55 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 0.96 � 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1863 1881 1599 1783 1774 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 386 1863 1881 1599 1783 1774 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 46 536 0 0 750 392 15 0 3 208 0 60 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 186 0 18 0 0 107 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 46 536 0 0 750 206 0 0 0 0 161 0 HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 2 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 30.5 30.5 _ 30.5 30.5 0.7 10.0 Effective Green,g (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 0.7 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.01 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 195 943 952 810 20 294 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.40 c0.00 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.57 i 0.79 0.25 0.01 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 8.3 10.3 12.2 8.4 29.4 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 1.00 + 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.0 4.6 0.2 0.1 2.1 Delay(s) 9.2 11.2 � 16.8 8.6 29.5 � 25.1 Level of Service A B B A C C Approach Delay(s) 11.1 14.0 29.5 25.1 ApproachLOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.2 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B - Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' - Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Old Ivy Road & Site Entrance 07/01/2021 � � ~ � �S r Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ►� T T � ►� TrafficVolume(vehm) 132 161 315 88 52 77 Future Volume(Veh/h) 132 161 315 88 52 77 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 143 175 342 96 57 84 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 438 803 342 vC1,stage 1 conf vol _ vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 438 _ 803 342 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) _ tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°/a 87 81 88 cM capacity(veh/h) 1122 308 701 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 143 175 342 96 141 Volume Left 143 0 0 0 57 Volume Right 0 0 0 96 84 cSH 1122 1700 1700 1700 462 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.06 0.31 Queue Length 95th(ft) 11 0 0 0 32 Control Delay(s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 3.9 0.0 16.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA 05/O6/2021 2025 Total Future PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Timmons Group Page 8 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Total Future PM Peak 07/01/2021 Intersection: 1: Cantebury Road /Route 846 & Ivy Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 633 481 29 200 623 72 57 211 76 Average Queue(ft) 343 176 5 53 587 22 16 202 74 95th Queue(ft) 598 377 22 172 690 57 41 214 84 i Link Distance(ft) 882 882 586 575 201 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 59 33 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 239 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 450 200 180 75 � Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 59 47 47 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 24 286 48 Intersection: 2: Route 846/Route 29 Off-Ramp & Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served TR LT LTR LTR Maximum Queue(ft) 93 186 78 1149 Average Queue(ft) 33 84 27 1122 95th Queue(ft) 69 159 67 1146 Link Distance(ft) 394 299 201 1106 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 99 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: Commercial Entrance/Faulconer Driver & Old Ivy Road Movement EB NB SB SB Directions Served LT LTR LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 104 28 221 89 Average Queue(ft) 10 6 99 17 95th Queue(ft) 57 24 186 60 Link Distance(ft) 299 171 352 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 190 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Total Future PM Peak 07/01/2021 Intersection: 4: Commercial Entrance/Route 29 On-Ramp & Old Ivy Road Movement EB WB WB NB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR Maximum Queue(ft) 313 2 42 16 Average Queue(ft) 147 0 11 1 95th Queue(ft) 266 2 32 9 Link Distance(ft) 332 566 194 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 5: Commerical Entrance/Old Ivy Road & Ivy Road Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR LTR Maximum Queue(ft) 84 257 376 119 45 188 Average Queue(ft) 21 74 170 55 13 99 95th Queue(ft) 66 216 304 92 37 158 Link Distance(ft) 1037 956 956 277 420 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 90 Storage Blk Time(%) 2 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 12 2 Intersection: 19: Old Ivy Road & Site Entrance Movement EB WB SB Directions Served L R LR Maximum Queue(ft) 72 12 94 Average Queue(ft) 31 1 44 95th Queue(ft) 62 6 75 Link Distance(ft) 592 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Nelwork wide Queuing Penalty: 614 Greystar Old Ivy Road TIA SimTraffc Report Timmons Group Page 2