The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP200700053 Correspondence 2008-04-08 04101100 • • • • TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Mr. Juandiego Wade Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 rn Re: St.Anne's-Belfield School Middle School Relocation N Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) Comments "' N Dear Mr. Wade: C We have reviewed your comments and recommendations regarding the traffic impact analysis for s• co the proposed St. Anne's-Belfield (STAB) School Middle School Relocation (shown in italics) and 2 offer the following: — M • o • The traffic distribution identified in the 77A does not appear to be logical. Additional o information is required to support this distribution rate. x Based on the student information provided by STAB — 45% of the student body resides to the (I) west, 30% resides to the east, 15% resides to the north, and 10% resides to the south. Given v in this distribution, the following travel paths were assumed for traffic entering the site: N From the west: 40% will use Route 250 Business EB and turn left onto Route 601. The remaining 5% will use I-64 to 250 Bypass EB, exit onto 250 Business WB and turn right onto o Route 601 (this adjustment was made per VDOT/County request from the 2/5/08 meeting). v' CO From the east: 25% will exit Ivy Road onto Old Ivy Road (near the existing STAB Upper School) and proceed to the lower campus. The remaining 5% will continue straight on Route 250 Business WB and turn right onto 601. E O c From the north: All 15%will exit Route 250 Bypass WB and turn right onto Faulconer Drive. U 0 From the south: All 10% will use 250 Bypass EB, exit onto 250 Business WB and turn right onto E Route 601. 3 u 3 Traffic exiting the site was assumed to follow the same distribution. y 3 10 These percentages correspond with the distribution shown in the submitted traffic impact analysis. — a_ N OC C O1 E: O v 0 d STAB 77A Comment April 8,2008 • •• Page2of4 TIMMONS GROUP • Additional information is required to support the 30% reduction to the estimated trip generation identified on page 12 of the TIA. Staff was under the understanding that applicant would supply information on the location of the students residence (not specific information). The following information was provided by STAB with respect to the 2007-2008 enrollments: • # of families with children in Pre-School to Grade 4(lower campus) = 199 • # of families with children in Grades 5 to 8 (upper campus) = 182 • # of families with children at both lower campus AND upper campus = 53 Given these numbers, 53 families of the 182 will drop off both siblings at the start of the lower school, which occurs prior to the upper school day. These 53 families represent 30% of the upper campus population (assuming only one upper school child per family)that will not be making a drop off during the upper campus peak; thus a 30% reduction to the ITE-based trip generation was applied. • The applicant is not proposing to complete or participant in any improvements identified on pages 33 and 34. Practically all of the traffic at intersections #4 and#5(as noted in the 77A) can be contributed to STAB. Staff recommends for the applicant to participate with their fair share based on impacts on the other intersections studied. The following improvements are listed on page 33 of the STAB middle school TIA: • SB left turn lane at Route 601/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road • SB right turn lane at Route 601/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road • NB left turn lane at Route 601/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road • EB Left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive • SB right turn taper at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US 29 All of aforementioned improvements are warranted by 2010 background traffic volumes; they are not related to the STAB middle school relocation. These improvements are warranted by projected volumes that will exist at these intersections regardless of the middle school's presence and are the responsibility of Albemarle County/VDOT. Two additional improvements are shown on page 34: • SB right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US 29 • WB right turn taper at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive With respect to the right turn lane on Faulconer Drive, capacity analysis indicates the additional turn lane would improve the level of service for SB approach. In reality, given the concentrated traffic flows associated with a school, it is likely that the traffic queue associated with the through movement would not allow for continuous access to a right turn lane. Second, and more importantly, the provision of a right turn lane could compromise the safety of the intersection. Today, drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic exiting US 29/Route 250 that typically travels at a high rate of speed. The addition of a right turn lane will create a situation in which those drivers turning right from Faulconer Drive/STAB would have limited ability to see approaching vehicles (i.e. blocked by vehicles sitting in the through queue). Based on this, I do not recommend that a right turn lane be installed (by either the County or the school). Furthermore, this traffic queue is impacting school traffic only, not the general public. STAB TIA Comment .+�.. Apnl8,2008 ° • •• Page3of4 TIMMONS GROUP At the Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive intersection, estimated middle-school traffic increases are 21 EB rights in the AM peak and 13 EB rights in the PM peak. The VDOT turn lane nomograhphs indicate a right turn taper is recommended for the PM peak volumes. During the PM peak, westbound traffic at this intersection operates at a LOS A with or without the right turn taper, eastbound traffic operates at a LOS A with or without the WB right turn taper, SB traffic operates at a LOS F with or without the WB right turn taper. Essentially, the right turn taper makes no operational improvement to the intersection and should not be installed. • Based on the TIA scoping meeting, the applicant agreed to supply additional information on the Route 250 signal timing p/an. Staff will also need additional information on the ramps. Due to the short distance between the existing traffic signals on Route 250, we recommend this signal timing plan include the intersections of Route 250/601/Canterbury, the Route 29/250 southbound ramp intersection, and the Route 29/250 northbound intersection. Following the February 5th meeting, VDOT was contacted regarding the signal timings at the Route 250 Business/Route 250 Bypass interchange. We were informed that the signals on Route 250 (at Route 601 and the Bypass Ramps) are currently not part of a coordinated system and run in "free" operation, independent of one another; this information was shared with both the County and VDOT. That being said, there currently is no signal timing plan for this corridor to revise. Furthermore, it is not the school's responsibility to create one. In addition, it should be noted the relocation of this school will ultimately decrease traffic on US 250 Business through the interchange. Currently, middle school students from the west (40% of student traffic) proceed through the interchange to reach the Upper Campus. With the relocation, these students will exit at Route 601 and not enter the interchange. It is acknowledged that those students exiting US 250 Bypass EB will turn left as opposed to the right that they are currently making and that an estimated 5% will enter on US 250 Business WB from the City; that being said, a net decrease is still anticipated. Lastly, the table below compares the estimated middle-school related trips to the projected 2010 background volumes that enter(WB, from the interchange) and exit (EB, toward the interchange) the Route 250 Business/Route 601 intersection: Direction STAB MS Traffic Route 250 Business Percentage AM PM AM PM AM PM WB 17 11 681 571 2.5% 2.0% EB 14 12 770 645 2.0% 2.0% This comparison indicates that projected middle school traffic (i.e. less than 20 vehicles per direction during the peak hours) will account for only a 2.0% - 2.5% increase in traffic. Studying the interchange for this amount of traffic is unnecessary. STAB TIA Comment ,.•*. Aped 8,2008 .* a �' Page4of4 TIMMONS GROUP • We recommend including the intersection of Old Ivy Road and the northbound on-ramp to Route 29 located just east of the Route 29 overpass on Old Ivy Road. In addition to this intersection analysis, we recommend providing merge analyses for the ramp merge onto Route 29 northbound. Trip distribution estimates indicate that 15% of the exiting middle school-related traffic will use the northbound on-ramp. This equates to 11 EB vehicles in the AM peak and 9 EB vehicles in the PM peak. Counts collected at the Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive intersection indicate that in 2010 there will be 798 EB vehicles during the AM peak and 513 EB vehicles during the PM peak on Old Ivy Road. This indicates site-related vehicles will account for a 1.4% to 1.8% volume increase to the EB approach of the intersection. Traffic volume increases this minor do not necessitate additional analysis. With respect to the merge analysis, again, it is unnecessary. VDOT counts indicate an ADT of 51,000 on US 29/250 Bypass with an NB directional peak hour flows of approximately 2,000 vehicles. The addition of approximately 10 vehicles to the ramp, or US 29/Route 250 itself, will be undetectable. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to make this submittal, and look forward to continuing our work with you on this project. Respectfully submitted, TIMMONS GROUP /‘./ W. Scott Dunn, A.I.C.P. Project Manager Cc: Juandiego Wade(Albemarle County) Judith Wiegand(Albemarle County) Glenn Brooks(Albemarle County) Joel Denunzio(VDOT) Chuck Proctor(VDOT) Mike True(VDOT) Michael A. Waylett(STAB) Kurt Gloeckner(Gloeckner Engineering)