HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201100109 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2011-07-11Philip Custer
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 4:46 PM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: FW: Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis
Phil,
Below are the comments VDOT sent to Stonefield about the internal road lane configurations and 4 -way stop conditions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:50 PM
To: 'Erich Strohhacker'
Cc: 'Mark Graham'; 'Gerald Gatobu'; steets @edensandavant.com; 'Tom Gallagher'; Proctor, Charles C.; Hartmann, William
L.; Perry, Richard; Barron, L. Marshall; Glenn Brooks
Subject: Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis
Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis
Erich,
VDOT North West Regional Operations traffic engineers and Culpeper District Planning and Land Development sections
have reviewed the traffic analysis submitted for the proposed Stonefield development and have the following comments:
1. The three proposed multi -way stops at the intersections of Stonefield Blvd & Main St, Stonefield Blvd & Block C2,
and Stonefield Blvd & Third Street are not warranted in Phase I construction and only the intersection at Stonefield and
Main St may meet any of the warrants in Phase II. VDOT cannot permit the installation of these unwarranted traffic
control devices.
2. Traffic Signal warrant analysis will need to be performed for the locations of Hydraulic Rd. & Stonefield Blvd. and for
the intersection of Rt. 29 & Fourth St. Additionally; the warrants will need to be performed for the different Phases of
build -out to determine when the proposed traffic signal should actually be installed. The traffic signal warrant analysis
should be performed in the Northwest Region format.
3. The assumption that all of the internal capture trips between the residential and commercial component of the
development are pedestrian is not acceptable. However, the development has some (clarify percentage) residential units
integrated into the town center and this could be used to support this assumption if documented The Revised TIA Manual
has guidelines for reduction for pedestrian and bicycle based on the amount and type of facilities included in the
development.
4. Shopping Center ITE code 820 is used for the retail use on the site. This use includes an internal capture reduction
and cannot be reduced further. Consider using ITE Code 820 for the entire non - residential use on the site for determining
the external trips, and the difference between the total and the separate north /south generation as the additional internal
trips between the two commercial areas.
5. It would be helpful to have a legend to accompany the report the type of use for each block so that a more accurate
possible pedestrian use could be reviewed. Such as indicating where the overflow parking is to be located and other land
uses.
6. Please review the lane usage for the southbound approach to Stonefield Blvd. & Block C2. With the number of
southbound PM trips leaving the Sperry Marine office it may be necessary to have two through lanes.
7. Stonefield Blvd. & Fourth St. should terminate at an intersection. This will enable through traffic from /to Rt. 29 to
avoid two additional intersections, and possibly may enhance the movement of traffic within the adjacent parking areas.
8. There appears to be some typos and minor errors on all of the percent distribution figures. Check the in /out volume
for each block make sure they are balanced and the totals are correct.
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.vir4inia.00v