HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201000017 Study 2012-03-08 (5)EPR ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES, P.C.
3205 WATTS STATION DRIVE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2291 1
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins, P.E.
From:Bill Wuensch, P.E., PTOE
CC: Kirsten Munz, P.E., AICP
Date: 7/18/2011
Re: Redfields
The following provides a summary of additional analyses conducted for the Redfields development
application. The supplemental analyses are in response to additional information requested based on
the County /VDOT review of the initial traffic study document.
Methodology
In the initial study, the traffic from this phase of Redfields was applied to the background traffic
counts conducted in Spring of this year. The operating assumption at that time was that there is only a
minor difference in the counted volumes from what might have been there had UVA been in normal
class schedule session, and the background growth in traffic was primarily the new Redfields traffic.
Since all levels of service were in the A to B range, no additional factoring of the traffic was included.
The initial analyses included three intersections with Sunset Avenue Extended (Mountainwood,
Redfields, Country Green).
For the new analyses, we have taken a more conservative (higher volume factoring) approach to the
volume development, pushed out the analysis year to 2019, and also considered three additional
intersections along Old Lynchburg Road, including Mountainwood, Country Green, and Sunset Ave.
For the development of the new volumes, additional factors were considered. Two tables are
provided on the following pages that show how the new volume sets were developed. For the initial
three intersections (along Sunset Ave.), additional steps were taken including:
1. Growing the existing counts by 2% per year to year 2019.
2. Accounting for additional Woodlands development, doubled the traffic turning to and from
Mountainwood (from Sunset) that did not originate or travel to Redfields.
3. Adding in the new Redfields traffic site trips.
1
4. Increasing existing AM traffic by 15% and PM traffic by 50 %. This was derived by comparing
the Biscuit Run ingress /egress volumes for 2006 with that ingress /egress intersection traffic at
Country Green / Sunset Ave. as counted this year.
am pm
total egress 2006 compares the vols at OLR /Sunset and OLR Country Green
337 281 with the recent count at Redfields / Country Green /Sunset
total egress 2011
293 138
Conclusion — current
counts are:
AM - about 13% less, and distribution is different
PM - about 50% less, and distribution is more towards OLR /5th St.
5. Summing up these trips ( existing + background growth + Woodlands + new Redfields +
additional traffic for UVA)
6. Then redistribution of the Sunset / Redfields traffic based on inspection of the Biscuit Run
counts. At present, there is a higher distribution going to the Old Lynchburg Road (5 Street
Extended end) than was present in the Biscuit Run study. This might be due to the JPA bridge
being out of service.
For the Old Lynchburg Road intersections, the following adjustments were made to the Biscuit
Run counts to account for recent growth and the new site traffic.
1. Factored the 2006 counts by 2% per year to year 2019 for background growth.
2. Added in trips for additional 156 Woodlands residences.
3. Added in the new Redfields Trips
4. Summed to a new 2019 total.
See the following table that summarize the traffic volume buildup process.
2
14 :'...*-
4..
it,
4
4 ""
1,_
4"
4 '
4"= ".
1.' " ,
I.
f0i
7
m
or1G ,, ,,,„:::,,,,,,,
7
44 .
4 - , ..:,,,„ ...,..
4,. ,---, ,,-.
1 ,_,:;.,-;
ii,, , ,
i-
4 .
z,,,
k-,,,: !,
4: - .
ze
741`-
61'
1
r4C ; '
iP ,' " '
Atil ?,..*,
tiff* ,
rt
u11.
0 -
4 , '
i0: -
r-
r.: -
giW '...'' . --:, '="',"
ez`'';
0 "'"
V'' :
i-
v'',
t'':
44
4.:
Iv' ,
r , ,
i —,,
r,
E
al
Lo
N
r
i- :
r ' -
g ; '
r ' '
c -
1
a
1
r
g - r -
c .
19
c
n
m
F :0
m ' . °
cl_
01
NJ
r-
I ,...,
e-
I ,__,
1" "
N1
NI
m
In
01
r.„...
10.
cni
Iii
o
0
Cs1
00
3a)a.
1
e
0_
rn
m
cn
0
NI
ISI
M
VD
1-
1
1-
1
NI '
0
40
ul
t
L,
1
c .-
1
E
Cn
LC1
1-
1
u-,<-
1m
0 ,-
1
kroko.--
ir
rs,
4
1 -
0
t.,
0
E
0
ra
z...
E
0
0
s
0 .
0
0 ,
0
N' ,
LC)
IN
0 (-
NI
0
t.
17
43
cn
a.'
47.
o
a
IN
a,cc3
roE
0
0
4
0
c"-
I
0
0
N-
1
0
CO
1-
1
rsj
r" - .
N
u") (-
4
0
kip
0 ( -
N
J
ac
v) ,..,
c
o
a
E
m
1-
1-
m
cu -a
C'
c
cn
o
a
ns
0
0D
N
u
0
W
O
raE
cn
co
cr ,
cn
00
LID
in
cr
co '
A'-' ,..,,
rs,
r4)
cn
to
c4
m
m
to ,-
1
00
1---
r-,
d-
00
1 .-
i
rsi
to
IN •
0
01
L-
e-.
I
C
DO
0
i
r,
U
0.
co ,_,
Ln
1-
N
d'
Cr
IN
1---
N
3
2
E
cn
Li-)
co
up
r ,
Ln
cr
m ,--
4 ',
I?,
u .,
0
L.
0 ,,-
8
0
w ,c
o _
Lt) <-+
r-...
L.
0
4.
0
3"
N
r ,
L-
I
r
t ...,
r4
u
0
ej
0
113
vl
4
0 •••
Y.
1eN
4'
s0
N
LO
L--
I
C
D <
11:
1 ,..,
fa.
13
C
7
c
1
t'
coo0..
0
4-
LAUP
co
v-,
in
C
C
5
5
v
tr,
C
C
0.
CI
tn
tr,
c
c
5
5
O
5
0
I .
4.
00
0)CD
00 ..,
E'
0)
4, ,
c_
c
0
0-.
1
E
0
0)
0
0
0
ar
00
u
cc
u
0
Ne ... .
4-
4-
Z
CU
0
0
u
0
0
as
0 _
o ,,-
I
to
Va)
0
a)
0) .
1.-• -
CI .
1
1-
1 ..
4-,
0
VI
Lo
4.
C
C
0
0 ....
71i
2
c)
2
1
3 -
m
ta.
ttj-, :- --', --
i ,
T .,
1 '-.
24 :'
t : ',, ,
i.
ll, ,
1. -,
A.- , , '.?""'
1:! -
A'' .. .
iii ',..
4r
i.
1,„', '"
8 ,
t; .
4 '
1," ,,::, .
Y '
X,'" ..+" : -
r ' '
Ci ' ';,,,,
i: ,' ,' , .
t ',.... - -
V;
14 : __, , ...
i' ' , , :',-.,,
g'''
E '-
r.
t--'
IN
L
co
dr -
1
71c, ,
r-- -
4
in „
ii, •-•
v.
w
c4
r"
CY)
J0 . ..
t::
0
0 '
0 '
0
1
4o -; :, ,
0
A
i .,.,„,-:, --:-.*--,.. ,,,,,,,, .
9
Cci ,,,, . "!.. '-;-,
t
al -
0 -
Vr ,
0 ',: ,'"
ki, ‘, : ,,',"' `
1,
al
AK,,
r
1st,.
i.".:....;,
44,'" ,
4 '
2.
l'':
T
e -, ', ,..
0
1L. -,-:,,,,. ,
it' ,, ,
r , - '- :.,:, ,
4
r ' "-,', ' ,
r „,,, , ,,
4
to
a
n
y ,
ty....
1;
A^.
g.„ -
tyw_,,,
h,
to
43 .,
4
4-
i „._.,
T
CS1
c
o
01
ID
i
0
0 .
0 - ,
0 ,
0
0 ,
m .
40
14 '
fsr
01 -
0 ' '-"'
41 )"
1
P -
c9
ii.
1 "
m "
ty
I
tIrl
n11'
CSi
m
vi '
I-
4
1-
t
rl
AN,
Irs''
a , -
7r,
0 ,
i -,,.-
m
m -
I -
i
CT1
lif
13
c
r=
4-• -
0C
CU
EC
z
E
1
1
1
1 -
1 -
1
o
o
o
Lt)
CO
T-
I
T-
1
CV
40 -
0
o
co
m
rs1
0
a
0
r73
E
E
0 =Ln
o
E
Ln
d'
LC)
Cr
2
0
1 ,--
4
Lo
m
cs
ISCO
04-
C•
1
fll
Cr)
CD
0
0.
en
l.
D
LI1
csi
1
CT1
rn
m
cr,
r--
00
cr
Lo
cr
CO
c
1
C
CT
T-1
2
o
0.
0
N
CO
VD
in
LD
f`
J
tID
Y
E
efl
T %-/
Cr)
l..
0
if)
Cr)
0
Cr)
01
0
CO
rn
CV
dr
co
m ,-
1
co
cr)
l.
0
LC)
o
7r
c-
I
tt,
CO
T-
I
T-
1
T-
I
T-
1
N1
m
m
st
E .,
8
co
m
9
N
1)
m,
i-
o
m
c
c,
o
Ln
1-
cr,
N
CO
CO
l.
0
f \
I
Cs1
NT-
1
N
0
L
0
in
o
m
Cr •
Cr
I
cs,
r...
1
IN
T-
1
CV
T-
1
T-
1
CN
1-
CNI
T-
1
T-
1
T-
1
01
CN
0
0
0CV
CO
m
Cfl
l0
0
0
E
N ,--
i
c0
In
al
CC)
0
0
N
0
ts)
0
1-
r
T-
1
0
0
1
N
in
IN
in
dr
CV
L0 .
0"
Cr)
0'
CNI
T-
1
CO
al
c-
i
T-
1
T-
1
T-
1
TcJ -
Cli
T-
1
T1
1-
1
CV
CV
01
I-
1
01044,
4 - ,
4
4-
1-
4-• — — '.--
4 _,
y_
4 . —
1.-
TD :
8 -
8
C
C
CU
CU
CU
Ln
v)
C
C
Q1
Q)
v
tn
C
C
CU
CD
v)
C (
1)
5
5
5
01..)
Im
t
n >.
C
CO
13
0
l0
0
CC
n
tr)
Q.)
o
47 ,
1
o
0
J
0.,
0
o
tn
CO
4.
E
c° (
7)
2
cu4,
0
4
9''
T"..
CZ
m
QJ >
C
C
CD
w
c
o
cc
o ....,
L ,
cu
o ---..
p....
4- (
o
Gi ."-'
1
T
0
0
CC
CO
0
o.
2
c
L.
9
e-,
CO
E
C
Tz,
v)
LO
V)
0
CD
0 °
M
0
c
0
4_,
0
0
0
2
NI
U
N
NI
1./
1 ---..
dr
1.
11
1,
0
Findings
At each of the intersections analyzed, each movement operates at LOS A, B, or C in the future
with the exception of the following movements. (see the Synchro outputs in the appendix for the
specific delays and LOS)
1. Mountainwood at Old Lynchburg Road — in the PM the westbound left turn, which has only 9
vehicles, operates at LOS D.
2. Sunset Avenue at Old Lynchburg Road —the Sunset Avenue approach functions at LOS E in the
future AM peak hour. The approach volume is projected to be 336 VPH, the average delay is
39 seconds and the 95 percentile queue is projected to be 200 feet (about eight vehicles).
The projected volume could meet the peak hour signal warrant, but the four hour volume
warrant, and eight hour volume warrants would not be satisfied. Since there are multiple
ways for this traffic to flow, including accessing the intersection of 5 Street Extended /Old
Lynchburg Road via Country Green Road, there may be a shift over to that intersection
depending on the eventual delays and travel times between intersections.
Conclusion
Based on the findings, the intersection of Sunset Avenue at Old Lynchburg Road is the only
intersection that was analyzed that might experience a significant increase in delays and
queuing in the AM peak hour of the day in the future years. The option of separating out the
left turns from the right / throughs was examined, though there was little difference in
queuing and delay since the right turn and through volumes are minimal.
Recommendation
This intersection of concern should be monitored in the future relative to safety concerns
for the left turning vehicles onto Old Lynchburg Road.
Strategies for mitigating this situation could range from signalization, if warranted after
conducting a signal warrant study — which at this point does not appear to be likely, or
through reconstructing the median opening to restrict that outbound left turn movements.
This would force all of that traffic (336 vehicles per hour) over to the Old Lynchburg Road
intersection to the north, which would likely force the issue for signalization.
END OF MEMORANDUM
5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
3: Country Green & Sunset
I
7/18/2011
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)1 28 85 4 104 311
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)1 30 92 4 113 338
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)32 97 451
Volume Left (vph)1 0 113
Volume Right (vph)30 4 0
Hadj (s)0.54 0.01 0.08
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.4 4.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.04 0.12 0.52
Capacity (veh /h)703 786 848
Control Delay (s)7.7 8.0 11.6
Approach Delay (s)7.7 8.0 11.6
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Delay 10.8
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
5: Redfields & Sunset 7/18/2011
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 I
Volume (veh /h)9 237 62 53 180 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)10 258 67 58 196 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 391 199 202
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 391 199 202
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %98 69 95
cM capacity (veh/h)583 842 1370
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 267 125 202
Volume Left 10 67 0
Volume Right 258 0 7
cSH 829 1370 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.32 0.05 0.12
Queue Length 95th (ft)35 4 0
Control Delay (s)11.4 4.4 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s)11.4 4.4 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
7: Mountainwood & Sunset
I
7/18/2011
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations r 4
Volume (veh /h)14 25 46 9 57 168
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0%0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)15 27 50 10 62 183
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 361 55 60
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 361 55 60
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %98 97 96
cM capacity (veh /h)612 1012 1544
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 42 60 245
Volume Left 15 0 62
Volume Right 27 10 0
cSH 820 1700 1544
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.04 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)4 0 3
Control Delay (s)9.6 0.0 2.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s)9.6 0.0 2.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.7%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
12: country green & olr 7/18/2011
f 4/
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 9 t
Volume (veh /h)64 42 79 146 133 33
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)70 46 86 159 145 36
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 493 162 180
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 493 162 180
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %86 95 94
cM capacity (veh /h)502 882 1395
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 115 86 159 180
Volume Left 70 86 0 0
Volume Right 46 0 0 36
cSH 606 1395 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.06 0.09 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)17 5 0 0
Control Delay (s)12.3 7.7 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s)12.3 2.7 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
15: Mountainwood & OLR 7/18/2011
4
I 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+4+1 4+
Volume (veh /h)120 0 73 9 0 8 34 166 25 3 118 37
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)130 0 79 10 0 9 37 180 27 3 128 40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 418 436 148 489 429 180 168 208
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 418 436 148 489 429 180 168 208
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 %75 100 91 98 100 99 97 100
cM capacity (veh /h)528 499 898 437 503 862 1409 1363
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1
Volume Total 210 18 37 180 27 172
Volume Left 130 10 37 0 0 3
Volume Right 79 9 0 0 27 40
cSH 626 569 1409 1700 1700 1363
Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)37 3 2 0 0 0
Control Delay (s)13.6 11.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.2
Lane LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s)13.6 11.5 1.2 0.2
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections AM
19: Sunset & OLR /5th St Extd 7/18/2011
c 1- 44 't
Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4
Volume (veh /h)336 10 21 10 10 20 36 349 10 20 202 68
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)365 11 23 11 11 22 39 379 11 22 220 74
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh)1 1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 558 732 110 645 800 195 293 390
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 263 263 463 463
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 295 468 182 337
vCu, unblocked vol 558 732 110 645 800 195 293 390
tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free %22 97 98 97 97 97 97 98
cM capacity (veh /h)471 413 923 422 395 813 1265 1165
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 399 43 39 253 137 22 110 110 74
Volume Left 365 11 39 0 0 22 0 0 0
Volume Right 23 22 0 0 11 0 0 0 74
cSH 482 543 1265 1700 1700 1165 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.83 0.08 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)202 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
Control Delay (s)39.1 12.2 7.9 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS E B A A
Approach Delay (s)39.1 12.2 0.7 0.6
Approach LOS E B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build AM Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
3: Country Green & Sunset 7/18/2011
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)33 344 121 23 83 164
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)36 374 132 25 90 178
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)410 157 268
Volume Left (vph)36 0 90
Volume Right (vph)374 25 0
Hadj (s)0.50 0.06 0.10
Departure Headway (s)4.5 5.3 5.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.52 0.23 0.39
Capacity (veh /h)754 621 644
Control Delay (s)12.3 9.8 11.6
Approach Delay (s)12.3 9.8 11.6
Approach LOS B A B
intersection Summary
Delay 11.6
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
5: Redfields & Sunset 7/18/2011
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 T,
Volume (veh /h)9 133 221 72 111 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)10 145 240 78 121 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 683 124 127
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 683 124 127
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %97 84 84
cM capacity (veh /h)347 927 1459
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 154 318 127
Volume Left 10 240 0
Volume Right 145 0 7
cSH 838 1459 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.16 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft)17 15 0
Control Delay (s)10.3 6.3 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s)10.3 6.3 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1 %ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
7: Mountainwood & Sunset 7/18/2011
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations f 4
Volume (veh /h)17 109 127 17 25 99
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0%0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)18 118 138 18 27 108
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 309 147 157
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 309 147 157
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %97 87 98
cM capacity (veh /h)670 900 1423
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 137 157 135
Volume Left 18 0 27
Volume Right 118 18 0
cSH 860 1700 1423
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.09 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)14 0 1
Control Delay (s)10.0 0.0 1.7
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s)10.0 0.0 1.7
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
12: country green & olr 7/18/2011
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh /h)164 55 37 180 290 174
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)178 60 40 196 315 189
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 686 410 504
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 686 410 504
tC, single (s)6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %55 91 96
cM capacity (veh /h)398 642 1060
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 238 40 196 504
Volume Left 178 40 0 0
Volume Right 60 0 0 189
cSH 440 1060 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.54 0.04 0.12 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft)79 3 0 0
Control Delay (s)22.4 8.5 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s)22.4 1.5 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
15: Mountainwood & OLR 7/18/2011
4\t 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 4+4,
Volume (veh /h)62 0 58 34 0 6 102 272 17 5 397 15
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)67 0 63 37 0 7 111 296 18 5 432 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 974 986 440 1031 976 296 448 314
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 974 986 440 1031 976 296 448 314
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 %68 100 90 79 100 99 90 100
cM capacity (veh /h)211 222 617 175 225 744 1112 1246
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1
Volume Total 130 43 111 296 18 453
Volume Left 67 37 111 0 0 5
Volume Right 63 7 0 0 18 16
cSH 309 197 1112 1700 1700 1246
Volume to Capacity 0.42 0.22 0.10 0.17 0.01 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)50 20 8 0 0 0
Control Delay (s)24.9 28.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.1
Lane LOS C D A A
Approach Delay (s)24.9 28.3 2.2 0.1
Approach LOS C D
intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Redfields 2019 Intersections
19: Sunset & OLR /5th St Extd 7/18/2011
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL ' WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+4+11 i t+r
Volume (veh /h)127 10 33 10 10 20 30 216 10 20 281 24
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)138 11 36 11 11 22 33 235 11 22 305 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type Raised Raised
Median storage veh)1 1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 559 660 153 543 680 123 332 246
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 349 349 305 305
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 210 311 238 375
vCu, unblocked vol 559 660 153 543 680 123 332 246
tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free %71 98 96 98 98 98 97 98
cM capacity (veh /h)476 450 866 476 437 905 1225 1317
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4
Volume Total 185 43 33 157 89 22 153 153 26
Volume Left 138 11 33 0 0 22 0 0 0
Volume Right 36 22 0 0 11 0 0 0 26
cSH 519 607 1225 1700 1700 1317 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)40 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
Control Delay (s)15.7 11.4 8.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C B A A
Approach Delay (s)15.7 11.4 0.9 0.5
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Redfields - 2019 Derived Volumes 7/18/2011 Build Synchro 7 - Light: Report
Page 6
E & R od U
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Redfields Phase 5 Residential Development
Albemarle County, VA
11,w2G"Prepared for:
67R Collins Engineering
col i, i.,
Cel c 44_, a/m 41. tom a ai 5 da
Prepared by:
Charles Smith, PE, PTOE
Bill Wuensch, PE, PTOE
Engineering & Planning Resources
Charlottesville, VA
June 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Overview
2.0 Background
3.0 Future Year Traffic Volumes
4.0 Intersection Capacity Analyses
5.0 Summary
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 3 Year 2013 No Build Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 4 Traffic Distribution Percentages
Figure 5 Site Trip Generation
Figure 6 Year 2013 Build Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 7 Year 2013 Build LOS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Site Generated Traffic
Table 2 LOS & Delay Thresholds
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Plan
Appendix B Traffic Count Data
Appendix C Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets — Existing Scenario
Appendix D Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets — Year 2013 Build Scenario
2
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This technical memorandum summarizes the work effort undertaken by Engineering & Planning
Resources, P.C. (EPR) for Collins Engineering (Collins) to document the traffic impacts of the
Redfields Phase 5 residential development. The proposed development is located just south of I-
64 (between Exit 118 and Exit 120), off of Sunset Avenue Ext. As proposed, the site includes 39
single family homes and 87 townhomes. The site is proposed as an additional phase of the
current residential development served by Redfields Road; therefore. Redfields Road will
provide access to this new phase as well. Figure 1 shows the site location and a vicinity map.
The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate traffic distribution and potential traffic impacts at
three adjacent intersections along Sunset Avenue (Mountainwood Road, Redfields Road and
Country Green Road) near the proposed development.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The proposed development is located just south of I -64, off of Sunset Avenue, as part of the
existing residential community served by Redfields Road. Sunset Avenue, Mountainwood Road,
Redfields Road and Country Green Road are all two lane roads serving primarily residential
uses. All three of the study intersections are '`T" intersections. At Mountainwood Road and at
Redfields Road, the side street is controlled by a STOP sign. The Sunset Avenue and Country
Green intersection is All Way STOP controlled. Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the project area. A
site plan (from Collins) is provided in Appendix A.
Traffic Volumes
Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the three study intersections on
Wednesday, June 1. 2011 and Thursday, June 2. 2011. The counts were performed during the
AM peak period (7:00 AM — 9:00 AM) and during the PM peak period (4:OOPM — 6:00 PM).
The existing peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 2. The turning movement count data
sheets are provided in Appendix B. It is important to note that the counts were performed after
immediately after the end of the spring semester, thus the counts might be slightly lower than
would have been with the University in session. The larger of the peak hours summed up to 399
vph, which would translate to 4,433 vpd assuming a "k'" factor of .09, or 3990 assuming a "k'"
factor of .1. The VDOT traffic count database indicates that the 2009 ADT for Sunset Avenue
is 4,600 vpd (no "k " factor listed). By comparison, the project TMCs may be between 4% and
13% lower than would have been with the University in session. Also worth noting is that the
JPA bridge is out of service, therefore the distribution of traffic could have been skewed away
from Old Lynchburg Road (into the City) with more traffic traveling to and from 5 Street
Extended.
3
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
E & •TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
j
n1 4 r ' ` 4
f c, h
a > "'t Y
j
Yx s'"
M
y(
L,
3 'a E y 'wa;iy
0'a E`w,r i %t fi r Na r; + ,, -,-
n
Vi „...,-
4.3r.
4' ,.
r
a i
4
A.
AKI.70 1 .'. .. ,,,( :-.„,yrkt, ..' ,
y ; „ v.,,,,,,,,,,:%,,,,,,,. '.- . I mo
0:At
1,2,€.% 101 'e.. - .-,7
aarl e,a szs,ame ",f
1 R ' iB 'tltield xs
rcA .ba ,
seilw
p ttiAr. c, .:,..,,,....
43:1=,,,,:-.,„
4*'` t '' ao 2 d o d z Sh Manor _
cy > , 3 idK f, Villan Ridpe` Condas ' ,
l '''. 4 : , '' '‘. ' ''
Alt ' ',
5
t .,:i.,1c,, iii,... IF $01400/40,1 ..t.,,,‘ 4, : .,..., : . .,,,,
7v
o
q
Airy C":1 '`
t. 'f" ^J
t x
m.2 zon o r ntti o i s
L3Qa7, v nn.'°'cuno
zeal
m.aerr.o r Ei si o,.a°'i9sa`'2a00 40 78314 20 W a.. _ m n erP S € oy
N
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
4
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
E & R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
59) (15)
127 43 19 (65)
L
7 (7)
Mountainwood
i r
35 6
76) 8)
3) (64) 2,
4 133
up
i i
Redfields
5) 6 41 1
70) 159
40
116)
41
79)
Site
270 23 t 18 (54)
1
1 ( 20
Country Green
i r'
62 3
N
207) 14)
I Figure 2
I
Existing Year 2011 xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
Not to Scale
Peak Hour Volumes 5
3.0 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Background Traffic
For the purpose of this study, the build year was assumed to be year 2013. Given that there are
no other new developments proposed in the study area, though there will be continued in -fill
from an adjacent development, and there are no roadway connections that would generate
background traffic growth, it can be assumed that any traffic volume growth would be very
modest. As a conservatively high estimate, it was assumed that the background traffic would
increase two percent per year to build year 2013. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting year 2013 no
build traffic volumes in the study area.
Proposed Site Trip Generation
The trip generation potential of the proposed development was determined using data published
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (8 Edition). The
resulting number of trips estimated to be generated by the proposed development is identified in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
Site Generated Traffic
Vehicles Per Hour)
ADT AM PEAK PM PEAK
LOCATION IN OUT IN OUT
39 Single Family 437 9 28 28 17
Land Use Code 210)
87 Townhomes 570 8 38 36 18
Land Use Code 230)
TOTAL NEW TRIPS 1007 17 66 64 35
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual
Traffic Distribution
The projected traffic volumes generated by the proposed development were assigned to the
immediate adjacent roadway network by examination of the existing traffic patterns in the study
area. The current directional distribution into and out of Redfields Road was utilized for the site
ingress and egress trips (as all site trips will utilize Redfields Road). The current turning
percentages at Mountainwood Road and Country Green Road were then also applied to the site
trips. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the resulting trip distribution percentages and site generated
trips. Figure 6 illustrates the projected year 2013 build traffic volumes.
6
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
E ° R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
61) (16) t
132 45 20 (68)
7 (7)
Mountainwood
T
raCtd 7 6 /
36 6
C firlecr;i+,79) 8)
iarelq
4 ' 138'nceA s' f caw-et/woecaw-et/woe ve nfieh,
Redfields
5) 6 41 1
73) 165
121)
43 82)
Site
44€ Are
127) (17)3e4/
281 24 t 19 (56)o re
1 (21)
Country Green
Tr
65 3
N
215) 15)
Figure 3DI
No Build Year 2013 xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
Not to Scale
7
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
Et R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
strewle. prop eat fl /A4)
9% (3 %)
Mountainwood
4%
a)
22
9%
Redfields
7 %) 4%
0
93 %) 96%
97 %)
Site
83 %) (11 %)
89% 8% t 21% (20 %)
1
Country Green
71%
77 %)
N
Figure 4
r Traffic Distribution % o xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
Or Distribution Percentage
Not to Scale 8
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
E & • R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
i— 1 (1)
Mountainwood
1
r
1)
1)
1
cn
4,1]
Redfields
1) 1 41
16) 27
8
27)
Site
14) (2)
25 2
1
L 2 (6)
Country Green
1
6
N
22)
J Figure 5
V ( I
4 Site Trips xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
Not to Scale
9
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
Et R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
61) (16) t
132 45 20 (68)
8 (8)
Mountainwood
Tr
36 7
79) 9)
4) (67)
5 138 2
Redfields
6) 7 1 1
89) 192
148)
51 4(2 (
82)
Site
141) (18)
306 26 t 21 (62)
1 L.
1 ( 21
Country Green
71 3
N
237) 15)
Figure 614CI
Build Year 2013 xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
Not to Scale
10
Background + Site)
3
ie.rt rs saet.de Jr eir
4.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
The intersection capacity analyses were performed using Synchro (version 6) per the
methodology documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) (Transportation
Research Board, Special Report #209, Revised 2000). The HCM based calculations are reported
in this report.
Capacity analyses are utilized to determine a Level of Service (LOS) for a given intersection
operating under either signalized or unsignalized control. The LOS is based on estimated delay
and range from LOS A, the best, to LOS F, the worst. In general LOS A and LOS B indicate
little or no delay, LOS C indicates average delay, LOS D indicates delay is increasing and
noticeable, LOS E indicates the limit of acceptable delay and LOS F is characteristic of over
saturated conditions. The actual delays associated with these levels of service are identified in
Table 2.
TABLE 2
LOS and Delay Thresholds
UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED
INT. DELAY INT. DELAY
LOS secs)secs)
A 0 — 10 10
B 10— 15 10 -20
C 15 -25 20 -35
D 25 -35 35 -55
E 35 -50 55 -80
F 50 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual
Capacity analyses were conducted for each of the study intersections for existing conditions and
year 2013 build conditions. All three of the study intersections are expected to operate
satisfactorily with all movements operating at LOS A or LOS B during both peak hours given the
build scenario. The build level of service is illustrated in Figure 7 on the following page.
The HCM based intersection capacity analysis worksheets from Synchro are provided in the
Appendix (existing in Appendix C and build 2013 in Appendix D).
Also note that the traffic volumes for this study were collected after the University of Virginia
had completed the spring semester. However, the capacity analysis results indicate that there is
ample capacity remaining at the study intersections to account for any missing University related
trips. Likewise, by inspection of the intersection/approach levels of service, if there is a shift in
11
the travel pattern resulting from re- opening of the JPA bridge, we would not expect to see a
significant decrease in levels of service for any of the movements at the various intersection
approaches.
5.0 SUMMARY
Based on the analyses conducted, the proposed development will not have significant traffic
impacts and no improvements are recommended.
Regarding the distribution of new site trips across the immediate roadway network, as shown in
Figure 4, it is anticipated that the site trips will replicate existing travel patterns and therefore the
majority of the site trips will utilize Sunset Avenue out to Old Lynchburg Road (5 Street
Extended) versus Mountainwood or Country Green. If the travel patterns shift with the
reopening of the JPA bridge, since there is an abundance of available intersection capacity as
demonstrated in the intersection analyses, we would not expect to see an overall adverse affect
on any of the intersections considered in this study.
12
REDFIELDS PHASE 5
E 'R TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
A)
A 1_ A (A)
1 -1*Mountainwood
N
A
A)
a>
Q
A)Ti,
A
Redfields
A) B
A
A)
Site
A)
A
A (A)
Country Green
t— j— 1 —
A
N
B)
II Figure 7
Y '''
Build Year 2013 xxx(xxx) = am(pm) Peak Hour Volumes
LOS Summary
Not to Scale
13