HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700054 Study Special Use Permit 2008-03-25 Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis
for SOCA at Belvedere
Prepared For:
Stonehaus
Prepared By:
Bill Wuensch, P.E., PTOE
Renaissance Planning Group
200 6th Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434) 296-2554
December 18, 2007
•
Revised March 25, 2008
-Ai RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
I. Purpose and Introduction
II. Belvedere Traffic Estimates
III. Belvedere plus SOCA Traffic Volumes
IV. Routing and Cut-through Potential
V. Traffic Control Needs at Belvedere Blvd. and Rio Road
VI. SOCA Parking Requirements
VII. Conclusions
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Build Condition Weekday Volume Estimates (from Project Traffic Study)
Figure 2 Weekday Traffic Volume Estimates (select links)
Figure 3 Weekday Traffic Volume Estimates (SOCA Traffic Only)
Figure 4 Weekday Traffic Volume Estimates (Belvedere + SOCA Average Daily
Traffic)
Figure 5 Weekday Traffic Volume Estimates (Belvedere+ SOCA PM Peak Hour
Traffic)
Figure 6 Aerial Image of Development Area
Figure 7 Aerial Image of Development Area
Figure 8 Travel Pattern Analysis Routing Analysis
Figure 9 Travel Pattern Analysis—Distribution of SOCA Participants
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A SOCA Previous Traffic and Parking Analysis (From SOCA - updated)
Appendix B Traffic Signal Warrant Study (12/07)
• 1
Purpose and Introduction
The purpose of this study is to:
• Project new traffic associated with the SOCA uses at Belvedere
• Provide an analysis of the impact to traffic volumes within the Belvedere
development resulting from the SOCA facilities traffic
• Identify parking needs for the SOCA facilities
A traffic study was previously prepared to identify expected traffic volumes on roadway
links internal to the Belvedere Development. This data was used primarily for determination
of pavement designs and roadway design requirements. Since that study was completed, the
SOCA organization and Stonehaus have proposed to include the SOCA facilities into the
Belvedere development.
The SOCA facilities will be constructed in phases as follows:
• First Phase - Indoor 30,000 s.f. facility that will include a lighted all-weather playing
field. These facilities will be located along Belvedere Blvd north of the Village
Green circle. Construction for these facilities should commence in fall of 2008.
• Second Phase—Four to five practice fields to be located to the north on the northwest
end of the Belvedere properties in the flood plain area. It is estimated that
construction for these facilities should start in spring of 2009.
Estimated Usage Characteristics
The facilities constructed in the first phase will be used year round. It is expected that there
will be two practice sessions held two to three times per week in the evenings after school
hours. On the weekends, there may be as many as 4 games spread throughout the day. Uses
on Sunday will be less than weekday or Saturday. Practice sessions during the week will
occur after school hours and into early evening. On weekends, the fields will be used
throughout the day.
The facilities constructed in the flood plain area will be used eight to ten weekends per
spring, summer, and fall sessions. The heaviest use will be on Saturdays with lesser use on
Sundays. There will be almost no use of those fields in the winter. Practice sessions during
the week will occur after school hours and into early evening. On weekends, the fields will
be used throughout the day.
2
II. Belvedere Traffic Estimates
An analysis of traffic to be generated by the Belvedere development was conducted to
determine internal roadway link volumes as needed for site planning and pavement design
purposes. A graphic (Figure 1) was produced which showed the 24 hour volumes expected
along each link of the development.
It is typically estimated that the peak hour traffic volumes occur during the AM and PM
commute hours. Also, typically the peak hour volumes are approximately 10 percent of the
overall all day traffic (vehicles per day). Within Belvedere, we would expect this to be the
case. Weekend volumes would be expected to be considerably less than weekday volumes due
to the mix of development types that will be present at full site buildout.
See Figures 1 and 2 of this document for an illustration of the projected weekday daily traffic
volumes. The weekday traffic volumes are used for design purposes as those are generally
higher than the weekend volumes for this type of development.
III. Belvedere plus SOCA Traffic Volumes
Appendix A attached to this document includes an estimate of traffic volumes and parking
requirements as prepared by SOCA. These estimates are based on observations of past usage
and can be considered reliable for the proposed site since the usage patterns will be similar.
The expected traffic volumes for SOCA related uses, and the combined new total Belvedere
traffic projections are shown in Figures 3 through 5. Figure 3 shows the expected SOCA traffic
during the weekday. Figure 4 shows the combined (Belvedere + SOCA) total vehicles per day
(representing average daily traffic—ADT). Note that Figure 5 is the projected PM peak hour of
the day in vehicles per hour.
The weekday ADT (average daily traffic) estimates are not significantly changed with the
addition of the SOCA traffic, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Note that these roads were designed
per a Code of Development, as approved by the County, that allows for design variances from
that of the typical VDOT criteria. The Village Green Circle (one way traffic) road width is 22'
with chokers (18' in width)provided at the intersections.
IV. Routing and Cut-through Potential
To address the concern regarding cut through traffic, reference the Figures 6 through 9. The
figures summarize an effort at estimating what percentage of SOCA traffic might be tempted to
use the Dunlora road network to access the soccer fields. It is assumed that only the traffic
3
passing the Dunlora entrance might have an interest in using this alternative route.
Figures 6 and 7 are provided as a reference view of the existing road network. These aerials
show how that the Dunlora Drive alignment is relatively curvey, both horizontally and
vertically.
Figure 8 attempts to discern differences in travel distances using the Belvedere Blvd. route vs
using the Dunlora Route. In the two dimensional plane, it appears that the Dunlora route is
longer than using Belvedere Blvd.
Figure 9 was developed as an effort to discern what percentage of the SOCA participants would
be arriving from the east along Rio Road. Through inspection of the youth enrollment, which is
tracked by school district, it would appear that approximately 25% of those participants might
use east Rio Road to access the SOCA facilities. The remainder would arrive from the west
along Rio Road. Therefore, we might expect 25%of all arrivals (youth and adult)to follow that
same trend. Per this set of assumptions and analysis, of the 320 weekday trips (160 ingress and
160 egress), there might be as many as 80 trips (40 ingress and 40 egress) passing by Dunlora
Drive on the way to Belvedere Blvd. and the SOCA fields. However,per Figures 6 through 8, it
would appear that the routing with the lesser travel time might still be Belvedere Blvd,
particularly the egress movement. See the following section for a discussion of traffic control
needs at Rio Road relative to signalization.
Regarding traffic volumes on Rio Road, relative to Figure 9 it appears that the increase in traffic
for Rio Road due to the SOCA facilities will primarily occur west of Belvedere Blvd. Those
who will use Rio Road approaching from the east are likely already using that route for travel to
Polo Grounds Road. Thus, it is likely that there will be little if any increase in traffic, due to
SOCA facilities, along Rio Road east of Belvedere Blvd. However, traffic from the north,
south, and west, will use Rio Road approaching from the west. This will be new traffic on that
section(4 lane)of Rio Road.
V. Traffic Control Needs at Belvedere Blvd and Rio Road
Rio Road currently has an average daily traffic (ADT) of approximately 25,000 vehicles per
day. The new Belvedere Blvd is expected to have an ADT of approximately 10,500 vehicles
per day. These traffic volumes will require signalization at the intersection. See the Appendix
for a traffic signal warrant analysis as completed in December of 2007.
Once signalization is provided at the subject intersection, using this route to access SOCA
facilities will become that much more attractive, versus the uncontrolled intersection with
Dunlora Drive.
4
VI. SOCA Parking Requirements
As reported the document attached as Appendix A, it is suggested that the flood plain fields
should provide parking stalls for up to 216 vehicles. This will require approximately 1.5 to two
acres or parking area, assuming a rule of thumb parking allowance of 300 s.f. per space
(inclusive of drive aisles).
While not explicitly stated in those calculations, it appears that the all weather field facility will
require room (on-street or otherwise) to park approximately 50 vehicles at peak usage times.
Assuming a 20' length per on street parking stall, this would require approximately 1000' of
parking stalls. This volume of cars could be parked on-street adjacent to the travel lanes.
5
...VW
C '3
Q ffi II 5
a Er,
-i. -'Aigetl,
g>,9, P-.. o`'`-!•,.=
'a
-0 a) 0_
d ICI 10,Wtt.i'vg.
> L. 0. Q
CD (_)
— > 1 111 sef,81,,' 9"e,
0 to 1,g,,,, 15.iit3at
Lc)
> c) 0 C) z
c\r > 0 0 1 1 1 4,
0 N-
)
0 _
c\i
4 -
rAF-
1:3
lit\ • 1 ?,d /8% (S
.Ode
,:gils, 2i1
00,1si*.
. ..\
o
> \..c. -,,, ,,,k ... 0 §
c.i
LO g g
466 ,e,,,41 , 41111y ,ir,, , ; i,k,,,:-..),,14.4,b',s, :;'
, \„,..\.,J...cr7 1' ''-% r''' .;
_...
4-.
-0 v- -10 cti ct
ca. i ip ,t, ---, ° .,. _ -
\-,, ‘ - '`...,,--fiatr -\ , > 47, 46 ZS
0 0 — =
8 ,;_,,,\ \ ,_:,,0 it ,,,_ c = 4-I
Lo =- „ - * 141, _ , 1.0 > 0)
V.:le"..'''' -- ,t ,NNilo-
0_ CNI a) 0 o
, _ i , > E 2 ta=
17' l".''''''''t. ' 41---__ iN ' ' —0 ...1 : 0 C5
a) 0 — L.
i to -7
> 1 ,_ , .._ __ .... .
.....
> --- - , ,i.. .—1, = .., CU so
0 c i,°• ':-.-V
0
--- q CL LO - • LJ- = 0 •
"0 LO 11 ... 5.
CL I s' P -.-, 4,
CU 0 1_
> / li •-•';'f 0 k
‘" CD ----- „-----'i-— .41' ‘ V'
c) , .., 'c, '11,/ co '' •,, -0
a -a > 1-
C0
'
.‘f:'\::::4\‘',:'/\.:'\9/1't
> 0
.- ..."
, 1
.
WO le/7r
CO 1.•
616
.., 0 , •- I,. .,-- ‘ 0.-
3
C.• -• :''' ',
16 \
, 0
,
..
_ -
,,......
....-
.31w.a8W,
i>,1:0Pri;.,1
8 2gtwitIg§.
; biG-, !,02;gwil
D 0 73
C1. a
Z E agit8V-`fi'.
> 1-
11.1 1 1
Cla I I i > 246. ,-glui
CD 0 c)
-1 I LI E!„,pgiElg
8 0 8
I
a
>
(-4 >
' > p2.01 .Eg
0
_
f,it, _ gw`6.
o
!dip,i,r.8610:1
o
$
(frO0g,
,.ggc,..svo
C\1
1 u
§ <
a.
d .... A. es
/%Ilk/ ‘3t96%/7
0
•-'11114,*
t; liiik
Fit3
(1/4//bX
Pcp',1
i ///1. ,-1, 0001
-- --„,"?..-•
03 1! „4......
CD
- >7 4/ 15 I
+4 ‹.... <
H-,.' ,s."2- 'Ilik /' ''ll
E
\0....4.4;7"" 1 'i
)t, \ Z__...,,‘. ..,, • ,__It:t 746,40. ,,i‘i:0/74,
i '2>--
fa' _CD 0
n, = C/)
•-'1'1 M.,}..1' rilikA ttisir, ,A i .-.4"".
‘i4:
661 > >,
k ,
_,.L.
-k s'‘,''\ 'N. •It ..--s L. i i;
,1 \ ' I , •,..01:\, ` ,, , - •, ,.
61) 2 -°
.- z .0
C4 =
0 CD
_
'''' i t 1\....------- — e 4tv,.°`• ' ,
%
ED. o T.: -5
1, , --1,, ,. —NWT,• 'I/ '
, , ----„;,"7 "--- ' • ,i. __Ai
, ,,...
.27,-,-,--.,,,, > al 0
.
CU cp >1
L. 1,_ =
I— 0 CO
>,-a 13
:'--,..;,', :'-'''''
C13 w c
CD ,'*;.--,‘„\ 1/
> W
CI \
::-/*
0 :1,-,
in) -a — 4.,
0 0
-;)
;;'i co 0_
a)
'4 0 ' r4.' ' P ' \ i 7— s" (-/•*:.,,./>,'N ;;'i 0.
§ C)
-1 V,,,, A.\;,„‘,.\„:91/ leo
',.. :7",, -2x. ‘„A...,...„
•—
=••
\\ 7-, i.
1 ' i \
‘‘ i 4,,,,,,-...,11‘/.. 4.1\'`'''
›ki,:i
,,‘ /`-' - ' '4';'" ' ,."'
f
-" A 1---- .:r•s' ', , ''
,t'‘ . ,,,s\ '
', ..---.....,{' i
,, \-',,'.,,\<",''„ <-- --- I 4.4‘—s ''''''''''';'"Vf ‘,.,,
Ce/ \ '.. ..
k'1.
\---
2.0t,
E;r. -11 : 4 ' --, •
8158
. ,
**--"s„---„----. ---. ....-
m
\ ,
'.*••1'.',...-e.''',
E
6
6'
F.. 1.
CM f
0 v' e` 1i
t
.+`o > \ 0 "0 >, cro c0 • a)
D �fjwaLO OI— Q id ,
Q U
/ §
= Q. ,,,,,,,4 -49. 0 liu, W,`Lnig13-g•> c) Z
O ..7 II
' 1 1 II m'U.Y a II
_ I I a
co ClMaa0. �j a
j COL L N a O L ,,,,,.g.1 ,..-t,„4
0
i,. k „.„---......,,,,
L/� CCCJJJf�{yt,,, ‘• -..,\100, e 6_, • oz
Fi qi w -6.-4.
r
CD CD
R ` ' Aa too)
1
r
X it ,�r,,; ,lir t --r.:y �:�# y •u •En
a �4c Z\ U U
M * � .,...f rte.. �...- Q" co
0
a) L a$
c.
—� u' � as a) ca a)
•i „) ,,. —tato. y;. ' ,-, ---,,..,:-/ d 5 U U
L, 0 LC) -
-..:�s I d. :.2 - O co Q c
{{l'L�+�ti n __ 1 Jill • •
1 y'I •: O
to
��, ` ff d
7-41t ;, `;, tel,
1 , ,,
/.1.:--„2,,,,,,co
W
i a
1,
}pr, , h
rrx
.+ L' \ > ;
arc, 40 7'�. _ 4----4\
O
tel.
.....,
.o g
-0 cn
-"IVYvg8,4_,
> . 2
c) r=
N 0
cr) --
Q) $8 21 i?g&I';`,4
-cs
ittr, ''2_°Aelqt"
a_Tj -C3
Li- i
t;,-s, 0
> I- a
i r to tkr>,,• .tge,
.-
CD- CN
> CO 0 N
0 po/z4 : 1 >i 241E1,111'!,
0 N >
CO
-1 I 1
N - I II
I I -0 FA -Clel
$
I I
P.i.ei %',I141
u
..
K
pa 6
• .49,,, AJC/8, -6'1 ,9, 1-',,,
'.-.i
HP:Itill;bs
0) , -tittio
\ , -- .. /
‘,, 1 -..,.----' --
4 ik;i4 0 'CI)
...4,._ 7.s.v
+.,
igli '6',„ 9 ' 73?',,..
CU
to a.
LU >
P:< .E
A
1 \....,c v .. .,.., .._ ,....... i
1
0, 0 1_
,'-
ç
< 0
.4. 0 Cl) <
: .: ' ,, ,_,........----
'..; ,--, " , * -'," " ',' -----'''', ' 0 E +
::: ,..,,k,.. —late' s>.,7".---- 4."7 --- —7
= CD
\. ._-›.,:-:-.:1-- 14,::-...„ '"t '
= _ 1...
, , _i____—•-.
, a) 0 a) 7i
it -0 .— > -0
, =
a) .4
‘ , A,.I - • 11 jtr,', ,
-0 ,
0 > c
,i 1 -- 47, c) -*-----,,, E- IT
> ‘ , i i
so c) ‘ ' r, •• 1-'7-
s. 0
p .• t ,
I-- s-
>. w
go LO
i / \\Ks.
tli ce
-, •.>,.....,,f, •13
cD
i ---. ..,r.. ,„;,,
c.2Ac \ > %' .„ /
' \ ' \:, • , 4\ .--4 , ---..., , ,
tiii *1;e tr,
S g \
\
kt,,,
„Af.
,.<
\
t2
8P' CX '. -,' ix .=. \ „••••"' \ \ ''',.,'‘z,„ (:).
R z -7 - -
. g
. c•-' '-=',,,,.. ',---- - c'-' -, -.- ':.----1__/ N, ,'''', 1 d),
..,-
\ e
i,,,-;'. .'"..`• Je, s
Q n
az b6
til rF55
> a)
Q �- 'I•., "aca
Q � Q .� g.!.. 2-7.,t--8:?
Ft
c�=
ma a + 3 'wz
II g
Vri
in o
I
m> r sN � �\ VQ z v O 7 LC) O a ( > °-"s CV i iu 1s b . zOa aN > 4a'a(b° zq A,� O 'g b / Sei aasns
fs
•
It
,� Ni ‘ ..0.0r.r,.. ‘ l/CCI /-1 1°/01) I
Eq
2 _.,:,,,_„„,..._,..//,,, i �,., �4
hI
U V\ (., ....c. l ''' ••• - Y , W Q O to >
.,111P.:,,,, � 1 • V Z .0 CU
-' r ' ' �Gp-"' rr°' t 1 - .q
• CO CU .1e
i t t, --;,---...--tr tt- kk-1 >
i
Itl _ct
L Y a ! L 12.2
C
O >, >A .0 O r +
\ \ I '4 1,3k> , 0.
,.,/ i ,,,,,sx,,,4e,t,..,,,,,,,, 1 c441— :Tr ,„4
i -,•;. N
, ,. is ....t4 S. ,5 4 - .
I
Co, a 4Ua
o-° \:bgt i 1'
o
ti�
c
i
Q
E
- a
t0 T ++
w >
L
LL O d
(L) >
cn
co ca
L .
. 3
a) o
a �
0
ca
ca
0
g
4E, 0
(11
Cti
CD •n
Q L
_Of 0
LL 0
as 03
-
CO
•
•r.' 3
a �
EI a
fir+
N )
'y t4
03 X
L Q. d
� 03
��
E
0 as
S _ O L �.
co
U V
c�;• 'MC LV L 0307C
LL r4
x �. ,,
0
�; to adz vOel c
1 N t
el 0
I E C
Ys� ma " Cm •,73'R d L
L
fJ( >.A. RI 01
C`a€ Y, , t mOO y, 'O s r ''t iy iG,
yy
CO ii =
W L c
N
0 0 - O
O
E N c O
P.
OL o 2 L
v
LI-
70. ci
O d
L 2 Lip E
Q 0 N
O
{ W L L
' Ea� 0
*3 0 c
N
N
•>%O C
0.
, r1z rn
O d
Z0 Q�0�~ d O> O �II LI, j
>,o..rc) dQ, "imd�- Qo •O o �, .r w1
LLi ''''.5-'''<-'.:::t',-,',X,,,',4;,:-(i) .,'.:-.,`..' -- .:- ''', ' '( le.:-',''';': ,,,,',;,, '"/ -., ''''',-,.D
•(] J N�IY .QlbpS 'i _ • X45:
'Sr' ..of Q
/! I
CO = °-' es ,
{ Sj
J
fI y{ Y
",'.4',,'49/,,,
� � � ` �� '.� Jae til f1 1 i! I U,,/,-'::,� ' zW
}
S
0• 00.
1 o
.rX • O
`�: � 0
= in
v tIS N
L.
4-
,.:, O >,
N
co M 1,=> cEc
CD
-a > 0 rr C
0 M d X 'a
W Q I rn O
Ta '43 C o
0
c d m Q�
r p i C6 O
0
O C
++ d — W 11/)) i�
tt T C• tic +O+ 0 C
G> II 'LLJ CD
a .a 'C I2)U
r N ;C y
(73
U O V p Q
E ,� CO s X cu
O T p ' G1 G) �' N
o
ti � � c-.3'F.:.7.• Q• OCQ � �
'i E — N Y C K O O O 0 E
Q .Q .0 is) ��y O p o V W V .0 O
O O vM —.- O U t7 0 i i N
To � � = v >, > .Q V J W J .t..-
a)
d C C -a - C 4-, O .7 A !- H to c ._
d fg fA c' U >- (J). 1- I— cff
VII. Conclusions
In terms of traffic volume impact, given that Belvedere will have an extensive internal roadway
network, the internal roadway links all have relatively low volumes. The Village Green traffic
circle, without the SOCA traffic, is expected to have 2000 vehicles per day, which translates to
approximately 200 vehicles per hour in the peak hour of the day. With the addition of SOCA
traffic, we might expect to see the average daily traffic around the Village Green Circle to
increase to 2300 vehicles per day with approximately 360 vehicles per hour in the PM peak
hour. The change from 200 to 360 vehicles per hour is nearly a doubling, however in terms of
capacity the volume is still relatively light.
Relative to cut-through traffic for Dunlora, it appears to be more likely that the cut-through
traffic will be Dunlora residents bound for the Belvedere development commercial uses and
SOCA uses, versus outside trips. Furthermore, it appears through inspection of the development
plan and aerial imagery that there would not be a travel time savings in using the more
circuitous Dunlora road network. Once signalization is constructed at Rio/Belvedere, this route
will be more attractive for both ingress and egress vehicles.
Relative to parking concerns, there is sufficient space in the floodplain area to meet the parking
demand for those fields. For the all-weather field, it appears that the peak parking demand can
be accommodated on-street in the Village Green area or along the nearby roadway links.
Weekend usage of the fields will generate higher all-day volumes, however the traffic
throughout Belvedere will generally be lighter during those periods, relative to the evening peak
hour periods throughout the week. Therefore,we would expect the resulting aggregate (site and
SOCA) volumes to be relatively low in the weekends. Thus we would not expect to see any
concerns with capacity or safety during those periods.
15
Appendix
16
A. Traffic and Use Estimates from SOCA
(w/updated information)
�.r
William Wuensch
From: Bill Mueller-SOCA[bill.mueller@socaspot.org]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:26 PM
To: William Wuensch
Cc: Justin Mallory; Chris Schooley; nathan brown; 'Eugene Ryang'
Subject: SOCA Parking counts
Bill W:
In response to the draft memo from the county staff dated March 10, 2008 I offer the following:
Engineering Comments
Item 3.c.
SOCA does not have documented counts or records describing the carpooling and
ridesharing. I believe the statement should read:
"SOCA has observed a higher degree of carpooling and ridesharing during the week. The
calculations provided are based upon SOCA staff experience and observation."
Item 3.d.
We do not have actual traffic counts at our existing facility. The traffic calculations provided
are based upon SOCA staff experience and observation.
Regards,
Bill
William Mueller
SOCA Executive Director
434-975-5025, ext 12
bill.mueller(a7socaspot.org
www.SOCAspot.org
SOCA at Belvedere SOURCE: Steven Von Storch(SOCA)
Parking analysis:
South Fork Soccer Park:
SOCA opened South Fork Soccer Park (SFSP)in 2000. The parking provided at
the park has proven to be a good fit for actual use. We therefore propose a
matching parking strategy for the SOCA facilities at Belvedere with minor
adjustments based on current team sizes:
The parking at SFSP was approved per the information provided to Bill Fritz in a
letter dated June 26, 1998. The following parks the fields at maximum use. The
75% modifier accounts for ride sharing.
• We said each full size field = 2 teams x 15 players/team x .75 cars/player
x 2 game overlap = 45 cars/field.
• For a U10 field: 2 teams x 10 players/team x .75/cars player x 2 game
overlap = 30 cars/field.
• Our approved plan called for 4 full size + I U10 +:six.cars for referees
(4x45)+30+6=216 spaces.
Belvedere parking requirement:
Based on revised team sizes since 1998 and what we know from recent
observation, I would revise the calculations for our current project as follows:
• Full size field: 2 teams x 16 players/team x .75 cars/player x 2 game
overlap = 48 cars/field.
• U10 field: 2 teams x 11 players x .75 cars/player x 2 game overlap= 33
cars/field.
Proposed parking:
• 3 full fields x 48 cars +.2 U10 fields x 33 cars = 210. plus 6 spaces for
referees for a total of 216.
Traffic Analysis:
Based on experience at SFSP the traffic generated by SOCA programs at
Belvedere is expected to be:
FLOOD PLAIN FIELDS: WEEKEND (Typical maximum is Saturday with lesser
use on Sunday)
3 full fields x 3 games/day x 24 cars/field=216 round trips/day
2 U10 fields x 3 games/day x 17 cars/field=102 round trips/day
Referee estimate=11 round trips/day
TOTAL = 329 round trips/day
FLOOD PLAIN FIELDS: WEEKDAY (Typical heavy days are Tues. Wed. Thurs)
3 full fields x 2 teams/field x 16 players/team x .67 cars/player x 1
practice/evening = 65 round trips/day
2 U10 fields x 2 teams/field x 11 players/team x .67 cars/player x 1
practice/evening = 30 round trips/day
TOTAL = 95 round trips/day
ALL-WEATHER SYNTHETIC FIELD: WEEKEND
1 full field x 4 games/day x 24 cars/field=96 round trips/day
Referee estimate=6 round trips/day
TOTAL = 102 round trips/day
ALL-WEATHER SYNTHETIC FIELD: WEEKDAY
1 full field x 2 teams/field x16 players/team x .67 cars/player x 3
practices/evening
TOTAL = 65 round trips/day
•
The cars/player multiplier used for weekday practices is lower than that used for
weekend games (.67 vs .75) because we have observed a higher degree of
carpooling and ridesharing during the week. The calculations are confirmed by
empirical, historical evidence.
The calculations apply to an approximately 12 week period in both the fall and
spring season. Summer and winter use will be less. Winter use will be almost
nothing on the grass fields and much reduced on the synthetic field. Summer
use will vary from virtually nothing to more active use, but should be typically
within the maximum calculations shown above.
B. Traffic Signalization Warrant Study
Signal Warrant Evaluation
for Belvedere Boulevard at Rio Road
Prepared For:
STNEHAET
Prepared By:
Bl Wuensch, P.E., PTD
Renaissance Planning Group
200 6th Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434)296-2554
aember 19, 2007
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
�.r
I. Introduction
II. Traffic Volumes
III. Future Roadway Geometry
IV. Warrant Analysis
V. Conclusions
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Year 2004 Etkground Traffic Volumes
Figure 2 Year 2013 Site plus Etkground Traffic
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Future Roadway Geometry for Rio Road
MUCl3ignal Warrant Forms
Synchro Runs for Future Peak Hours with and without Signal
1
I. Introduction
Renaissance Planning Group has conducted a signal warrant analysis of the primary site
entrance Vlvedere &ulev ard) of the proposed Elvedere development in
Charlottesville, VA. Specifically, the intersection of Elvedere &ulevard and Rio Road
was analyzed using the signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on hiform Traffic
Control aices M1<1CP A summary of the data, methodology, and conclusions
follows.
II. Traffic Volumes
Rio Road is a two-lane major artery which runs along the southwest edge of the proposed
Hvedere development. Traffic volumes for Rio Road were obtained in April 2004
using an automated traffic recorder. ID ily volumes were found to be 12,817 northbound
and 12,785 southbound, for a two-way total of 25,602. The year 2006 traffic count data
available online from VID indicates an av erage daily traffic volume of 25,000 vehicles
per day between Pen Park fine and Gasolin e Alley. Indicating zero growth in traffic
volumes during the preceding 2 years, which is of no surprise given the capacity
constraints of the two lane facility. From the 2004 count, the morning peak hour volumes
were 991 northbound towards Route 29)an d 908 southbound towards the City)
Afternoon peak hour volumes were 1,121 northbound and 1,166 southbound.
To determine the traffic volumes at the site entrance, site-generated trips were estimated
based on standard methodology provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(TE) Peak hour site-generated trips are summarized in Table 1.
1
Table 1: Site-Generated Trips
Weekday AM AM PM PM
Category/hnd kit Total Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
Residential
Single Family l;3ached—261 units 2,498 49 147 166 98
Carriage Houses— 146 units 981 15 60 59 32
Condo Townhouse—88 units 517 29 114 113 61
Apartments—280 units 1,882 7 32 31 15
Residential Total 5,877 100 353 369 206
Commercial
!Ice—28,500 spare feet 502 43 8 13 46
Retail—64,500 spare feet 5,792 176 157 226 239
Services— 14,000 sure feet 3,037 277 266 196 186
Commercial Total 9,331 496 430 435 490
Overall Total 15,208 596 783 804 676
Internal Capture Rate Reduction 43%) 1,977 89 117 121 101
Final Total 13,231 507 665 683 574
Source:Trip Generation,7`h ed.,2003
Traffic volumes were distributed onto the internal roadway network based on review of
the site plan. Eted on this distribution, it is estimated that approximately 80% of the
total site-generated trips will use the primary site entrance onto Rio Road during each
peak hour. These traffic volumes were used to conduct the signal warrant analyses. The
remaining 20% might be expected to use the Free State Bdge and Iihlora entrances.
See Figures 1 and 2 for an illustration of the background and background plus site traffic
volumes. For the year 2013, it was assumed that the through volume would increase
since additional capacity will be constructed with the Meadowcreek Parkway project. A
growth rate of 2.5% per year between 2004 and 2013 was applied to the background
traffic as a means to account for potential latent demand that may be occurring in the
system but unmet by existing capacity. fle th e additional capacity is constructed along
Rio Road, it is expected that the volume might increase in the short term
disproportionately to recent historical growth. In all actuality, the warrants would be
satisfied without growing the background traffic, so any debate regarding background
traffic is purely academic and will not affect the finding and recommendations put forth
at the end of this document.
III. Future Roadway Geometry
Currently, Rio Road is a two lane One lane in each direction) facility. However, as part
of the Meadow Creek Parkway project, it is expected that Rio Road will become a four
lane facility in the vicinity of dvedere &ulevard. A graphic of the proposed road
improvement is attached in the appendix of this document. Elvedere &ulevard will
include one lane for ingress traffic and two lanes for egress traffic consisting of a right
turn and left turn lane.
2
'�-1004 i 124)
Q197$44 -0-
<S!fi
•
o-16o
aQ.
North
Year 2004 Etkground Traffic—AM (M)Peak Hour
Eivedere Figure 1
Schematic-Not to Scale
N_ N
� AL
M M 276(331)
i12300377)
@52)231
0466)1034 —i
0
-k,0
4)0
aQ.
North
0 Year 2013 Site plus htkground Traffic—AM fM)Peak Hour
avedere Figure 2
Schematic-Not to Scale
IV. Warrant Analysis
Since volume projections for future developments are only accurately predictable for the
peak hours of the day, the peak hour volumes were compared to the peak hour warrant
and the four hour volume warrant. From observation. and knowledge of the Rio Road
corridor, we know that that the "k" factor is very low and the through volumes are very
heavy each hour of the day. From inspection of the site trip generation data, we see that
the "k" factor for the site is approximately 9% for each of the peak hours. Given the
retail and office use components of the site, we would expect there to be a lunch hour
peak period and furthermore would expect a considerable site ingress and egress volume
throughout the day.
As a point of comparison, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, includes a
Table 2.1 that provides projections for hourly percentages of trips for retail uses between
10AM and 10PM. We can infer some correlation between this data and the commercial
uses proposed for this development, though the margin of error is difficult to predict.
However, for comparison purposes, this data shows that approximately 9% to 10% of the
site trips occur in the PM peak hour, and then the distribution during hours between
LOAM and 4PM range from approximately 6% to 9% of the daily traffic. If this
correlation is accepted as a means to estimate the non-peak hour volumes for non-
residential trips, then we might anticipate in excess of 550 combined ingress/egress trips
per hour during the non-peak hours of the day. This does not include traffic from the
residential component.
A summary of the results of the signal warrant analysis are as follows. See the technical
appendix for the signal warrant worksheets.
Warrant Comment Met
Warrant 1 —Eight Hour Volume Warrant Expected to meet all 8 hours N/A
Warrant 2—Four Hour Vehicular Volume Peak hours solidly met,projected hrs met. N/A
Warrant 3 —Peak Hour Volume Solidly met Yes
Warrant 4—Pedestrian Volume N/A
Warrant 5—School Crossing N/A
Warrant 6—Coordinated Signal System N/A
Warrant 7—Crash Experience New connection N/A
Warrant 8 —Roadway Network N/A
Also included in the appendix are Synchro output sheets for the future unsignalized and
signalized analyses for the study intersection. From the planning level analyses, we see
that under the unsignalized scenario the turn movements fail in level of service. For the
signalized scenario the intersection level of service is C or better for both peak hours.
5
V. thins
Figures 1 and 2 show the existing andfuture projected volumes for the study intersection.
fled on comparison of these volumes to the MITJCDsignal warrants, and in
consideration of future intersection operations, it appears that signalization should be
provided at the future intersection.
While the timing of the improvement is difficult to predict, the volumes and intersection
operations will need to be monitored as the dvedere development comes online.
Construction of signalization can take up to six months based on timing of procurement
of mast arms and signal control egipment. Thus timing of the improvement should be
carefully monitored once occupancy begins to occur within the development.
Furthermore, some coordination between Stonehaus and VID should occur to make
sure that the turn lanes for the development are ade:ately sized when the Meadowcreek
Parkway improvements are constructed. As part of that road widening project, the
signalization infrastructure for the ultimate condition should be constructed. fending
on the progress of the buildout of Elvedere versus cons truction of the Meadowcreek
Parkway project, an interim( emporary)signalization projec t could become necessary.
•
6
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Future Roadway Geometry for Rio Road
MUTCD Signal Warrant Forms
Synchro Runs for Future Peak Hours with and without Signal
1
I
I
r /
4 i 1
6
'/ i
I�.
,al
.\•
W ,t
I
iiI, I
///711n i �4
CD -41 ' f i ,. W
,,g
v �I I' ,\,.‘ E E .�
,,,,, m , ,
E P
CO
O VCD
g
CD r
I 1 \\..:•v
CD Me
a •2.
CULPEPER DISTRICT DESIGN UNI'
W2,/ZW7 0935.8
N1NCIAr-p10,.1f? 4/ 5'4
ma 4 8,N,�n a'39b1 v £$p$I'
nI.• T',1"_l hm'ilRQ$ tn mmm 4 S
a ®a
Match Dne SCJ 7 Station 86•pi� G L',
P k 41
��
app •i i ' c
aeg16 ' ;a1 g a g
Yr { rrlpgd. ti I �3$.: �I b7 F1 _ m i
it
, -. _ •--1 � ' Z 4 ��" -$ I , I- � aoip"b Np sy I.. 6
411 O`` g . + I` t .>
F
1 J. mi , ��9q�5���,1l1// � PrMr Eam7.' +•n .�,/ /.� .,;1,
I m �:�_� ° r1 yZ4ge ) LI? L
-ar
89 ,
rt, ��m^jpv .Fate.STATE Cp14C: iirl�.: p I/ii; s {6g 9
�v +S4 4 O
L r1 p gg
_.. .�.._.r-I. Prop.rens Si EaMt $ t i�l'. YI 1ilfr-�-Sq.I E -:,.
lg,�\ P/11R R/IY b Q - ��I61 � luQ �y rv�'°hirY..b
rl m I. g l Ii h. gI
„No kg ,,,, C) , -,,. i"
% ••• _ Pr4A ,,,,, ,yrg ii, !..,._.._j_, % --� ,•ri gill
.f, in i §
• • d
° '" Ill; . pro. :-
kr4° 1-P ® ® s "w,w,, - ,,...i
• mi
Jmoi3g P Certlolc,TpooI '�I
�;010 , 'g �
4 u:
I. Ne I R ter ! IA •• 1 j•� 9 1 i
S , IuJL1--' 06. @d Ili I, 7�'-• (Y �'Q r� .:. a
d 4 $a 8s 1ai PP,p9 - • ��,4 i jl �ll t i.;
4 $•g g&g � ?a� o�.an .� .. � ,+ ,,,,(01:,..
il�l► ell t'° �� ' �. �J ,
,�"- h$ R$ ei l ����a - ,! ., 4 4 rte. i,, V ,! 'r , ..., g„„E-! .d�,0 •F,
g g 8 ,•l4u lJ1 I' 0II 0 lerD -?0,,,,..-d P v •r. 9 6
A �-• `fes, •t I ;..ii ,go 21 ' t .S ,' r
p . d u�/. - R "� 3
s J 4 -:61
m 1 i gg 9 S. • ipi@ fib—: \ d ekft a .i r •''••••• ti ® _ ma. g
-C ID 5 a 6 g , $ - , mEDb_"
Z a c c $ s € saaal►Ere.rr•n nua• �Qd S 4r 'ill-' ry 9G '• ?. 1 fi:-q
0 6 w 4 i i I EVinap a° "•ae CFi Aei' a :4 'I'. ® - £ _
oo� a 2 2 t ^��A• d,, i I. gt q
1 d 0aI• xF
z
,mc
I
1 ti` 1fu' y 3 J `3 _ Y� .4 e
xi z x
� 3 :
?omo 4' o � waN i
S. bb
I y
r1 � • < a
I 3 1 g ,�. }VD D a r
gr
®®D®D•
O ® L n
g E- e B r�g$a �g8s~ w 3 Kg e
>^ AR c
vg > N ' a
i, 7 n u
a 1 g
Co
a A m
g
PUC SF D/STR =S/GN UNIT
Vr✓ 'vow'"
e,'a ' N N ,\,
Kem
PQ 5 D,ar
Q N , 4 N ^'6 a
r r , , ro ra U ,' r 1 9'g.
I r r a r
° i0 io a Q r x @� A I 9
x Q
I ti '" € U r r r R N N N§`Q
_ 4 r
r N
Q r �g4 g
8 ' g
r m�, `" ie N 8a
Q o 0 I �y:zi
m 7 N m$ 1a% IN r $
m Q a
G 8 i m
F he m 3
Q 5
,m-n, � `a � m "� o £
S m� rQ a t m 8 i I N @
$ i G 8 Q �- r m ' r cr
a
L
N' ',',11 a I II 'rte- a `
illi
r A oy Q t"Q GYM "' Q Q r
g.
mYm� U �P ' N Nti >a A
ii
t!,-.,:i a Q 8 Q rg �`
y=m� Q 8 4U_I— 4 ti
3"a R T ��—
a A
m 'kg$ ' roQ to a m
8 -r ' ' m $s
4 Y Z 4' l''' i rQ 8g
ro N Iil
1, / c
C "0 1 Q m: Q v
1.1
r N
Can
Am T S $3 Qtil
o
ti
i ° I �- Z
1 $ .. 8 C�
iim n iia. .
mmm m 1" o _
ann a
c
T wP _
m 4
$Fmg r , r �eg
4 .i ,11110,t i' . I 0 R !ti • X-31'
x-*- Y K
il g2
61,
miiImNRV m r4 AAm7 m R myn',mv,x'�i• n $8 Y i a m
lo,,,,,'a,;'Ea a xxy
Kra k m '^ m$1.o FD, u $ 9 3�R Rk v. m
$� Wa m i n�x Na �. 3a n
8rt'igEa-. 0 C zy 0 R m xy N„ V N C :“.if
~u$N ,om '4 '111'4' ,aF,§ a m 3 m", ',',,,,,21§ 4 Fn ?? •t a�^ a$a
DDH ae �ammAB � m 'N,1� m �, A18.8p ,:-,,�i @ @ R' t'gm el
i o � $ago m ~ Rim �'oim m m$ ��2 gtmm S k' CT"a'
<z maw pr,alv., Q ,a,"'e a Wrn ! x' 'Aim$ x4rr, a a W n E..:1
Q g m Z D a imn= m zr,,' `$'i m e $A $imniy s m 1'61 $ moo w $
N - OOZ $� � �=m m On �°e $oNm a v,3 �� A zm 3 $8 .eu m
ro
Z m mn'Fm � �W m a R,',1
iN1 32 m +� �T @ N
TI R1 C ,, i'°'c,'n m as i° � A X aN o'l 3 N i x
Z m
CCT `^_' aNm.1m i ao -V"P44 g -pm t M-.,'n a 8$8 3` ` o Ao 8 ^
„z �§2Ta P� `A' 0A i°n N AR mFc�',ms T g �N 4
00 ao a,,r1A nm&,Z R Fa Ri=d 4 N `�"
ZTIAOO mA a �F •^ §m a ma r,'p N
N 2^ m ° m m
b m m N S
Form 75002001
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING-07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page2of6
City: Engineer: wlw
County: Albemarle Date: December 19, 2007
Mapr Street: Rio Road Lanes: 4(fut) Critical Approach Speed: 40+
Minor Street: Belvedere Blvd Lanes: 2
Volume Level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic>70 km/h (40 mph) ? ❑E ifs 0 No
2. Is the intersection in a builtup area of isolated community of 10,000 population? 0 Its IX No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered Ws','then use 70%'Volume level 0 70% 0 100%
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: 0 Ifs 0 No
Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is"100%"satisfied. Satisfied: L Ifs 0 No
Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%"satisfied.
Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied: El Ws 0 No
80%Satisfied: 0 Ws 0 No
Eight Highest Hours
Minimum Requirements ,, ..
as
(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets) a
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more2 I5 iii N N
co in 2
Volume Level 100%1 70% 100% 70% Q a) a> a> a> a) a) o_
Both Approaches 500 350 600 420 2,771 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 3,526
on Mapr Street (400) (480)
Highest Approach 150 105 200 140 681 250+ 250+ 250+ 250+ 250+ 250+ 574
on Minor Street (120) (160)
Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100%satisfied if the
minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition is 80%satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours.
Condition B-Interruption of Continuous Traffic Applicable: El Ifs 0 No
Condition B is intended for application where the traffic volume is Ekessive Delay: IX Ifs 0 No
so heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay. 100% Satisfied: ❑x Ws 0 No
80% Satisfied: 0 Ws 0 No
Eight Highest Hours
Minimum Requirements ,,
(volumes in veh/hr) (80%Shown in Brackets) a li
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more
Volume Level 100%I 70% 100% 70% < a
Both Approaches 750 525 900 630
2,771 3,526
on Mapr Street (600) _ (720) _
Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 681 574
on Minor Street (60) (80)
Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100%satisfied if the
minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition is 80%satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours.
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Not Applicable: 0
Delay is not excessive.
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR Not Applicable: 0
This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases. Such cases include
manufacturing plants,industrial complexes,or high-occupancy vehicle facilities
that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
Form 75002001
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING-07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page 3of6
City: Engineer: wlw
County: Albemarle Date: December 19, 2007
Mapr Street: Rio Road Lanes: 4(fut) Critical Approach Speed: 40+
Minor Street: Belvedere Blvd Lanes: 2
Volume Level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of mapr street traffic>70 km/h(40 mph)? E ifs ❑x No
2. Is the intersection in a builtup area of isolated community of 10,000 population? 0 Ifs ID No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered Ws"then use'70%"volume level ❑x 70% 0 100%
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: ❑E I's No
If all four points lie above the appropriate line,then the warrant is satisfied. Satisfied: IX is No
Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.
FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for"100%"Volume Level
700
x 600
Satisfied at the 100%and 70% crite > 2 OR MORE LANES R OR MORE LANES
x 500 /
F U
w a0
rt a 400
0-
N Q 2 OR MORE LANES 81 LANE
O 3
z 300
—IIIII
IP-
J % 1 LANE 81 LANE
> 200 Wx
Four Volumes x 100 115
80
Highest Major Minor
Hours Street Street 0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
am pk 2,771 681 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH
3,526 574 *Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and
pm pk 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
est 1000+ 250+ o
FIGURE 4C-2: Criteria for'"70%"Volume Level
(Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/hr(40 mph) on Mapr Street)
est
1000+ 250+
x 400
0- 2 OR MORE LANES B.OR MORE LANES
x 300
F U
W 0 2 OR MORE LANES a LANE
1x a
a 200
Ix w
2 j 1 LANE a LANE
J
>O 100 _" 60
X
( _
7 60
0 -
200 300 400 500 600 700 800. 900 1000
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH
'Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and
60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 •
rr��..LL�� Form 75002001
year 2vI rricENGINEERING-07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page4of6
City: Engineer: wlw
County: Albemarle Date: December 19, 2007
Mapr Street: Rio Road Lanes: 4(fut) Critical Approach Speed: 40+
Minor Street: Belvedere Blvd Lanes: 2
Volume Level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of mapr street traffic 270 km/h (40 mph) ? 0 is 0 No
2. Is the intersection in a builtup area of isolated community of 10,000 population? 0 Ws E No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered Ws'then use 70%"volume level 0 70% ❑x 100%
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR Applicable: ❑x Ws 0 No
If all three criteria are fullfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, Satisfied: 0 Ws E No
then the warrant is satisfed.
Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below.
Unusual condition iistifying
use of warrant: 600 FIGURE 4C-3: Criteria for"100%"Volume Level
`' 2 OR MORE LANES R OR MORE LANES •
= 500
a
Record hour when criteria are fulfilled a 400
and the corresponding delay or volume w 0 2 OR MORE LANES S LANE
in boxes provided. 1- a
300
K
Z2 1 LANE B LANE
Peak Hour
0 200
Om I 3526 I 574 > 150
I
= 100 100
Criteria
0
1. Delay on Minor Approach 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
'(vehicle-hours) MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH
Approach Lanes 1 2
Delay Criteria* 4.0 5.0 *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor street approach with two or more lanes and
Delay* 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
Fulfilled? 0 Ws ❑No
FIGURE 4C-4: Criteria for"70%"Volume Level
(Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/hr(40 mph) on Mapr Street)
500
2. Volume on Minor Approach 1
"(vehicles per hour) 2 OR MORE LANES 8 OR MORE LANES
Approach Lanes 1 2 >
Volume Criteria" 100 150
o 400 //
i 2 OR MORE LANES S LANE
I—
c
Volume w w 300 _
rc
Fulfilled? ❑ Ws ❑NO Q 1 LANES LANE
ceLU
0 200•
__
E O
3. Total Entering Volume x
"(vehicles per hour) o
s 100 100
Ir5
No. of Approaches 3 4
Volume Criteria* 650 800 0
Volume* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Fulfilled? 0 I!'s 0 No MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH
Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor street approach with two or more lanes and
75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
Form 75002001
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING-07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page 5of6
City: Engineer: wlw
County: Albemarle Date: December 19, 2007
Mapr Street: Rio Road Lanes: 4(fut) Critical Approach Speed: 40+
Minor Street: Belvedere Blvd Lanes: 2
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Applicable: 0 Ifs 0 No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: 0 Ws 0 No
frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled
and condition 3 is fulfilled.
Pedestrian Pedestrian Fulfilled?
Criteria Hour Volume Gaps Yes No
1. Pedestrian volume crossing the mapr street is
100 ped/hr or more for each of any four hours
and there are less than 60 gaps per hour in the
mapr street traffic stream of adequate length.
2. Pedestrian volume crossing the mapr street is
190 ped/hr or more for any one hour and there
are less than 60 gaps per hour in the mapr street
traffic stream of adequate length.
3. The nearest traffic signal along the mapr street is located more than 90 m(300 ft)away,or the nearest signal
is within 90 m(300 ft)but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Applicable: 0 its EE No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: 0 's 0 No
frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria
are fulfilled.
Fulfilled?
Criteria Yes No
1. There are a minimum of 20 students crossing the mapr street Students: Hour:
during the highest crossing hour.
2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the mapr street traffic stream during the period Minutes: Gaps:
when the children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period.
3. The nearest traffic signal along the mapr street is located more than 90 m(300 ft)away,or the nearest signal
is within 90 m(300 ft)but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Applicable: 0 tis ❑x No
indicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is Satisfied: 0 Ys 0 No
satisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the
resulting signal spacing would be less than 300 m(1,000 ft).
Fulfilled?
Criteria Yes No
1. On a oneway street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction,the adjacent signals are
so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning.
2. On a twoway street,adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning,and
the proposed and adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
Form 75002001
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING-07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page6of6
City: Engineer: wlw
County: Albemarle Date: December 19, 2007
Mapr Street: Rio Road Lanes: 4(fut) Critical Approach Speed: 40+
Minor Street: Belvedere Blvd Lanes: 2
WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Applicable: 0 Its No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other Satisfied: 0 Ifs 0 No
information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria
are fulfilled.
Met? Fulfilled?
Criteria Hour Volume Yes No Yes No
1. One of the Warrant 1,Condition A(80%satisfied)
warrants Warrant 1,Condition B(80%satisfied) , „ _-M,:, a„ g ` k
to the right Warrant 4,Pedestrian Volume
is met. at 80%of volume requirements:
80 ped/hr for four(4)hours or
152 ped/hr for one(1)hour
2. Adequate trial of other remedial measure Measure tried:
has failed to reduce crash frequency.
3. Five or more reported crashes,of types susceptible to Number of crashes per 12 months:
correction by signal, have occurred within a 12mo.period.
WARRANT 8 - ROADWAY NETWORK Applicable: 0 I's 0 No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, and the corresponding volume or other Satisfied: 0 /is 0 No
information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria
is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the characteristics listed.
Met? Fulfilled?
Criteria Yes No Yes No
1. Both of a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/hr Entering Volume:
the criteria during a typical weekday peak hour. 4000+
to the right b. Fiveyear proj;cted volumes that satisfy Warrant: 1 2 3
are met. one or more of Warrants 1,2,or 3. Satisfied? El C O
2. Total entering volume at least est est est est est Hour
1,000 veh/hr for each of any 5 hrs 10:00AM 11:00AM 12:00 AM 1:00PM 2:00PM
of a nonnormal business day 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ 1000+ *—Volume
(Sat.or Sun.)
Met? Fulfilled?
Characteristics of Major Routes Yes No Yes No
1. Part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway Mapr Street: E
network for through traffic flow. Minor Street:
2. Rural or suburban highway outside of,entering,or traversing a city. Mapr Street: t]
E3
Minor Street:
3. Appears as a mapr route on an official plan. Mapr Street: O
Minor Street:
CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:
Remarks: On a planning basis (using propctions and engineering Udgement, several of the warrants are erected
to be satisfied.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
2013 w/mcp but no signal .- — AM Peak Hour
3: Int
*mom
lUlove _l l L ,:El I ` T f U1IBR w, '1A �.x.k , Fir ._..R ,... <
Lane Configurations j 44' '
4 �+ "1
Sign Control Free : Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume(vehlh) 287" 1034:,.1230 267 304 _ 379
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourlyflow rate v ti 312 11`24 337 290 330 412
Pedestrians
Lane Width
-cf,t.):-• --. , - ,,..„' ''''''' ',-- 2', ' '-'. -'',..,:-,,L.,,: ,,,,,,,,,.,",.1,,,,, . , ,,,,,, ,„ , ,, , , , , , ,,,,.,
Walking Speed (ft/s)
,
Percent Blockage ;
Right turn flare(veh)
Median ape 'None,.
Median storage veh)
Upstreamignal(ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
iC, conflicting.volume" 1627 ?8'8,'_ 668 ;'.
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf"vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1627 2862.83'
523 668
tC, single(s) <!. 41 6 8 6 9,._F.
tC, 2 stage (s)
t {s)
22 35 . ' 33: - .
p0 queue free `)/0 21 0 0
cM capacity(veh/h) ,, 395 6.. 400
lyifea n l ie# -' E3'F.v, W 1 l 1 lQ �� .... .,5 ,
Volume Total: 312 562 562 668 668 290_ 330. 412
Volume Left 312 0 0 0 0 330 0
Volume Right" 0 .",:"97',',.:•„,;,,L00.,. 0 0 ".,:1296 .: .. .0 41
cSH 395 1700 1701700 1700 1700 5 400
Volume to Capacity ' ,0.79 0.33 0.33 0.39. 0.39 0.17 68.52 1°03 '
s.
Queue Length 95th (ft) 170 0 0 0 0 0 Err 329
Control Delay(s) 40.7 '0.0" 0.0, 0.0 0.0 '0.0 Err, 85.3
Lane LOS E F F
Approach Delay(a) 8.8 0.0 _�, 4497.8
Approach LOS F
ffirY.,.., F.. ":.„ .... . "o-.',s<.3 , >,u.a d . .. s' + o Tlaze .�$' ,Li _ ., ,.Ay ..,e.,
Average Delay 880.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service 0
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1
2013 w/mcp unsignalized PM Peak Hour
3: Int
--► 4— k \, 1Plb
X�rt_�,,,,, ,.,.amt..•a- *-k .ha�,�CJ ...` �. "fiR ,,.'�`':', Ss£ r,;'it-.iL w`1,T,x.,,, .F-,. _k➢.Fa°x,rS-3 Yt. '"'.hi,,f3
Lane Configurations r
Sign Control Flee Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume(veh/h) 352 1466 1377 331` 262 312 •
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow'rate(vph)' 383'," "'1593::',..",;1:497, 360 285 339 „`
Pedestrians
Lane Widtt (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage`°
Right turn flare (veh)
•
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft}
pX, platoon unblocked
uC,cdnfl�cting volume 1857" 3059 74g"
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, Stage 2 conf Vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1857 3059 748
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF(s) 22 3 5 3 3 .1 ,-_
p0 queue free % 0 0 4
pM capacity(veh/h) 322 0 355
:70Iii` #3i4,1G s$$
Volume'Tata1 383 797 797 748 748" 360 L85 339=
Volume Left 383 0 0 0 0 0 285 0
oIume Right• 0
3 Y' fl, fl fl 36fl fl 339
cSH 322 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 355
Vol me to Capacity 1 19 ..! 7-..,, 0.47 . 0.44 0.44 • 0 21,, Err 0:96
Queue Length 95th (ft) 409 0 0 0 0 0 Err 259
{ )
Control::Dela S 14 -rt0:131 41;), 0 0 � fl 0 `�€� `$�.Err ' 72 1" � ��, •
Lane LOS F F F
Approach'Delay (s) 28A a 0.0 •
Err
Approach LOS F
I'11t��.S�(�jQ�r�.`UJ1lC11a� ..�,.>�� .., .• ,,. '"_"� :;.. -. ,. ',;���' $a. � ,, � � ' ';..
•
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity"Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1
2013 w/mcp signalized AM Peak Hour
3: Int
1 '1` T ,U11R SIBL BR
Lane Configurations j 4it,
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1X00 "1900 1900." 1900 , 1900,;
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 . 0,95 :.0 95 1.
00 1.00 " 1 00'
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1"0b '.1 00 . 'I 00 . 0.95 1-.00-
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 1770 1583
'it Permitted 0.12 100 1.00 1 00
Satd. Flow (perm) 229 3539 3539 1583 1770 1583
volume tvp�?},:. 287 1034'", 1230 267 :304` 379 ,. r ,..
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Add vi?h 312 1124 1337 290 330 412
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 56 0 . 8
Lane Group Flaw(vph)" 312; 1124 1337 234 330 ~ 404
Turn Type pm+pt pm+ov pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 6 7
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
.
Actuated Green, G (s) 44.1 44.°1<'7,;428.5 ; 46 4 17 9 29 3'
Effective Green, g (s) 44.1 44.1 28.5 46.4 17.9 29.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.63 . 0;6.3 0.41 0.66 0.26 : ,,,,13,?Clearance Time (s) 4.04.040Vehicle;Extension is? 30 3.0 3. 30 £,
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 2230 1441 1140 453 758
vis Ratio,Prot c004:301360
032 c0 38 . 9.05 o0.19 0 09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0.10 0.17
v/c Retio 0 78 0 50 ,,,.0.93 0.21 0.73, 0 53 .x
Uniform Delay, dl 16.3 7.0 19.8 4.6 23.8 15.1
'rogressron Factor ..., .. 1 008. .„, 11.100.0;'''' 1.00 1 00: °1 00 1.pp
Incremental Delay, d2 9. 10 .6 0.1 9.9 0.7
;Belay (s 25 8 7•2 30.3,, 4.7 33,7-;..,„..15.n8
Level of Service C A C A C
Approach Delay(s) 11 3y 25.8 s.
Approach LOS B C C
t. a ����t� .. �, ia .-,!,. ,;.,,,I.,,,,.,1!...„.„,.,7,..._ .. " . ,- > .� - ., _.Ems.- ; s , ---,-----
HCM Average Control Delay 19.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 ,,,,,ua 3-,tom, , 1"
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU
Level of Servrce D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1
2013 w/mcp signalized PM Peak Hour
3: Int
7101 ement ..:. 1k,T 1 t3,$
Lane Configurations tt 4 j
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900' "1900.. 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95
1,00 ,1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1:00 - 1 00 0.95 1.00 •
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 1770 1583
Flt
P. -r„11:1. tter) 010 1.00 1.:00 1.00:
Satd. Fow (perm) 188 3539 3539 1583 1770 1583
Volume(vph) .352 1466' 1377 331 262 312
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj Flow(vph} : 383 ,1593':',' 1497, 366... 285 339
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 45 0 7
Lane Group Flow(vph) 383 1593 _., 1497 315. ., 285 332"
Turn Type pm+pt pm+ov pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4
8 6 6 7
Permitted Phases 4 8 6
Actuated Green,G (s) ;0 55.0' 35.7;;;-,52.7 17.0 32.3
Effective Green, g (s) 55.0 55.0 35.7 52.7 17.0 32.3
Actuated1alo 0.69 0.69 0:45 10.66" 021 0.40
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
/ehicle ri-eiza-(s) ,-'0.0' 3 0 , •3.0 3,0 30 30. •
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 432 2433 1579 1122 376 718
0.42 °..006 ...c0 16 '.0.09
v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.14 0.12
6..89r'''0-.65 0,95 64:8' 0.76' 0,46
Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 7.1 21.3 5.7 29.6 17.5
,Progress[on Factors p 3 1 40 ;1:00 Q0 00 1 Q0 1.0.6"
Incremental Delay, d2 19.1 0.6 12.3 0.1 13.4 0.5
Delay(s)
42:9 7.7 33.6•. 5 9 °42.9"" , 18 0 : " . .. ,
Level of Service D AC A D B
Approach Delay(a) .. .. .F. 14.4 28.2,, 29.4
Approach LOS B C C
�t�r� t♦� ,. ,,., a' §�,� `.>"aa4�`w "� 4,.. ,w.<4,r.. .a.•;€ "�rR��„g*� �3 .. .. .. .�ax �r ... .�. a��,;.,... ;. � .,._<...._
HCM Average Control Delay 22.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to,Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time"(s) 8.0
[ntersection Capacity Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
P Critical Lane Group
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1
2013 w/mcp signalized Queues AM Peak Hour
3: Int
--. .- .. .
� .x ..r�ti.GDLY'* .FT. �o. ' �„ Y1( 5�' L7�1 sBR ,?�, \\n.,'' c,r§":,:a.E rY ,w" '
Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 1124 1337 300 330 412
vfc Ratio 4.69 4.52 0.93 ( 25 :: 71 " 0.56
Control Delay 21.3 8.2 31.7 1.4 29.6 14.9
Queue Delay 0 0 . 0 0 0.0 "0 4. . 4.4 0.0
Total Delay 21.3 8.2 31.7 1.4 29.6 14.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 114. 235 8 1o4r 97
Queue Length 95th (ft) #139 160 #374 21 #183 172
I teinal ;6k Dist(ft)":, 9076 3 52
30�6
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 364 " 143 "1431 1 40 502 738 _.
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 4 4 �. ?; 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 4 4.52 . 0:93' 0;24 0 66' {7;.56
t A o -� &i a3' 1 3�, »:.
# 95ttt percentile volume exceeds;capacity.,queue may be forger
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1
2013 w/mcp signals
3: Int Queues PM Peak Hour
arter,l roup : 7 ,•?, L 86 1NE3R # ,.; B 2 r £
Lane Group Flow (vph) 383 1593 1497 360 285 339
'Control
Rani
��89 fl7� ''�,27 " 0.33 0 62 ; ;fl.43 :
Control Delay 41.1 13.6 148.1 3.1 21.2 9.7
Queue Delay • ,, . 4 0 fl 0 8.0 0.0 0 0 0.0
Total Delay 41.1 13.6 148.1 3.1 21.2 9.7
ueue Length,5Oth"(ft) 53 [`60 ". 92 24 68 54 " ."
Queue Length 95th (ft) #224 #341 #403 32 116 102
Internal LinkDist(ft) 4076 3652 3056
Turn Bay Length (ft) � �.w • ��_._
Base Capacity (vph) ', �2fl27 1180 1201 590. 793. �i
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spiliback,Cap Fe = 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0; 9 : 0.79 1.27 4 30 0.48 fl 43
•
�.... � �� . `. ��,� .. . x,. ` z„ �e:.r.�.�x'�s "z s �y��„Y���� s �„�%n."'�.... .. �4�..\ ;_, E
�1ume exceeds capacity, queueis theoretically infinite
—
Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles.
# , 95t1 percenttie vo[ume exceeds capacity,queue may be rar er
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
•
Baseline Synchro 6 Report
Renaissance Planning Group Page 1