MEMORANDUM · Pulkit Parikh Date: March 10, 2016 Subject: Stone Bridge High School – Traffic...

3914 Centreville Road Suite 330

Chantilly, VA 20151 703.787.9595

Transportation Planners and Engineers www.goroveslade.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Michelle Kim

Joe Kroboth

VDOT

Loudoun County

From: Tushar Awar, P.E., PTOE

Pulkit Parikh Date: March 10, 2016

Subject: Stone Bridge High School – Traffic Analysis Memorandum

INTRODUCTION

The following memorandum presents the findings of a traffic analysis comparison conducted for the intersection of Hay

Road and Stone Bridge High School entrance in Loudoun County, Virginia. The existing conditions were compared with the

proposed conditions (restriping/modifications) at the intersection to accommodate a crosswalk. A crosswalk study for the

subject location (on the east side of the intersection) was submitted and approved by VDOT on July 21, 2015. Figure 1 shows

the location of the intersection.

Figure 1: Location Map

http://www.gsatrans.com/

Traffic Analysis Memorandum – Stone Bridge High School Page 2

March 10, 2016

Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

A description of the major roadways within the immediate vicinity of the site is presented below:

Hay Road (VA Route 642) is a four-lane undivided minor collector according to Loudoun County CTP. The posted speed limit

is 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. Since the section is in a school zone, the speed limit drops to 25 mph during certain

times of the day.

The existing lane configuration at the intersection is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control (2016)

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The operating hours of Stone Bridge High School are from 9:00 AM to 3:48 PM. In order to determine the AM, PM school

peak, and PM commuter peak hour turning movement traffic volumes, traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of

Hay Road and Stone Bridge High School entrance on Thursday, February 11, 2016 during the AM and PM peak periods (from

6:30 AM – 9:30 AM and 2:00 PM – 7:00 PM). Analysis of the existing traffic data determined the following peak hours:

AM Commuter/School Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM

PM School Peak Hour: 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM

PM Commuter Peak Hour: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM

The existing weekday AM, PM school peak, and PM commuter peak hour traffic volumes for the intersection are shown in

Figure 3. Observations were made with regards to the number of buses using the entrance and accordingly the heavy

vehicle percentages for the analysis were determined. The existing turning movement count data is included in the

Technical Appendix A.

Please note that the operating hours for Stone Bridge High School are from 9:00 AM to 3:48 PM. The traffic data collected

for the study intersection reveals that the AM Peak Hour is from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM, which coincides with the School AM

peak hour of 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Hence, a separate analysis for the AM school peak hour was not conducted.



March 10, 2016


Figure 3: Existing Traffic Volumes (2016)

PROPOSED CONDITIONS - CROSSWALK AND STRIPING CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS

As mentioned earlier, a crosswalk is proposed on the east side of the study intersection along Hay Road. Per VDOT staff’s

recommendation, the following changes are proposed to the lane configuration to accommodate the crosswalk:

The eastbound shared left/thru lane approaching the school entrance will be converted to an exclusive left turn

only lane.

A portion of the existing receiving lane on the east side of the intersection will be converted to a raised median

and allow for a pedestrian refuge area. The receiving lane will be striped up to the tip of the existing left turn

taper/lane (eastbound to northbound) at Claiborne Parkway.

A crosswalk will be constructed on the east side of the intersection.

Figure 4 shows an aerial image of the intersection in the existing conditions and Figure 5 shows an aerial image of the

intersection with the proposed changes. The lane configuration at the intersection with the proposed changes is shown in

Figure 6. The proposed improvements are planned to be in place by the fall of this year (2016).

Please note that as per the email correspondence received from VDOT staff on Thursday, March 3, 2016, it was noted that

LCPS can pursue the ‘localized’ lane reduction option on Hay Road without objection from the Traffic Engineering group at

VDOT. However, this configuration will be considered as an interim measure. When the street is paved in the future, VDOT

will plan to implement the full road diet option along Hay Road. LCPS will mention this likely future change as part of its

public outreach process. The email correspondence with the VDOT staff is included in Appendix B.



March 10, 2016


Figure 4: Aerial Image of Intersection in Existing Conditions (2016)

Figure 5: Aerial Image of Intersection under Proposed Conditions (2016)



March 10, 2016


Figure 6: Lane Configuration and Traffic Control under Proposed Conditions (2016)

INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - SYNCHRO

Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis (Synchro Results)

Intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersection during the weekday AM, PM school peak, and PM

commuter peak hours, under the existing (2016) conditions. The analysis was performed using Synchro version 8 based on

the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) data and methodology. A minimum peak hour factor of 0.85 was used for all the

approaches, unless the existing peak hour factor was higher.

The results of the intersection capacity analysis for the existing (2016) conditions are summarized in Table 1. The

description of the different LOS and delay and the detailed analysis worksheets for the existing (2016) conditions are

included in the Technical Appendix C and D respectively. The existing levels of service are shown in Figure 7.

Table 1: Existing (2016) Intersection Capacity Analysis - SYNCHRO

No Intersection (Movement)

AM Peak PM School Peak PM Commuter Peak

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft) LOS

Delay (s/veh)

95th Queue (ft)

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft)

1 Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance (Unsignalized)

Eastbound Approach A 3.2

A 2.2

A 1.5

Eastbound Left/Thru A 6.0 19

A 4.5 7

A 3.4 5

Eastbound Thru A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

Westbound Approach A 0.0

A 0.0

A 0.0

Westbound Thru A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

Westbound Right A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

Southbound Approach C 18.3

B 14.3

C 16.1

Southbound Left D 31.7 51

C 19.5 30

C 20.3 22

Southbound Right A 9.6 15 B 10.6 17 B 10.5 6



March 10, 2016


Figure 7: Existing Levels of Service (2016) – Synchro Results

Proposed Conditions Capacity Analysis (Synchro Results)

Intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersection during the weekday AM, PM school peak, and PM

commuter peak hours, under the proposed conditions with the proposed changes. The analysis was performed using

Synchro version 8 based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) data and methodology. A minimum peak hour factor

of 0.85 was used for all the approaches, unless the existing peak hour factor was higher.

The results of the intersection capacity analysis for the proposed conditions are summarized in Table 2. The description of

the different LOS and delay and the detailed analysis worksheets for the proposed conditions are included in the Technical

Appendix C and E respectively. The levels of service for the proposed conditions are shown in Figure 8.

Please note that the existing receiving lane on the east side of the intersection is envisioned to be a raised median. Synchro

8.0 does not allow defining the median type. It automatically changes the Median type to ‘Raised’ upon entering a median

width of 25 feet or greater. Since the actual median width provided will be approximately 12 feet, a raised median was not

coded in the Synchro files and the files show the median type as ‘None’.



March 10, 2016


Table 2: Proposed (2016) Conditions - Intersection Capacity Analysis - SYNCHRO



LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft) LOS

Delay (s/veh)

95th Queue (ft)

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft)



A 2.0

A 1.3

Eastbound Left A 9.1 19

A 8.6 7

A 8.9 5


A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0


A 0.0

A 0.0


A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0


A 0.0 0

A 0.0 0

Southbound Approach D 29.1

C 16.4

C 19.6

Southbound Left F 59.3 87

C 24.7 40

D 26.5 30

Southbound Right A 9.6 15 B 10.6 17 B 10.5 6

Figure 8: Proposed Conditions Levels of Service (2016) – Synchro Results



March 10, 2016


INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - SIMTRAFFIC

Per feedback received from VDOT staff, Synchro universally overestimates the delay at two-way stop-controlled

intersections in urban corridors and SimTraffic analysis was deemed to be a more accurate representation of actual

conditions. Hence, a SimTraffic (Simulation) analysis was conducted and this section provides the results and the discussion

of the simulation analysis conducted for the existing and the proposed conditions in the AM, PM school peak, and PM

commuter peak hours, as requested by VDOT.

In order to include downstream and upstream intersections for Simulation purposes, the input files used for the simulation

analysis include four intersections on Hay Road, starting from Twelve Oaks Way to Claiborne Parkway. Please note that

traffic counts were not conducted at any of the intersections apart from the Stone Bridge HS Entrance on Hay Road. The

traffic volumes at the intersection of Hay Road and Claiborne Parkway were obtained from the VDOT files. The turning

movement counts at the other two residential entrances were calculated from the trip generation for the estimated

number of residential units that are served by the streets. The volumes were adjusted to balance the traffic volumes along

Hay Road, based on the count conducted at the Stone Bridge HS Entrance. The detailed methodology for the volume

calculation is included in Appendix F.

The following measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were compared for the two scenarios:

Delay/vehicle (s)

95th percentile queues (feet)

SimTraffic 8.0 was used to run the simulations for the analysis. The following parameters were used for the simulation:

15 minute seeding period

60 minute recording period

A seeding period is necessary to ensure that the results obtained are not skewed since at the beginning of the simulation,

there would not be any vehicles on the network. This would lead to lower travel times and delays for the traffic at the

beginning of the simulation. The network reaches the normal state during the seeding period without affecting the results

of the simulation. Five (5) model runs were performed to obtain the results. Hence, the results presented in this section are

the average results of the 5 runs for each scenario.



March 10, 2016


Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis (SimTraffic Results)

The results of the intersection capacity analysis for the existing (2016) conditions are summarized in Table 3. The

description of the different LOS and delay and the detailed analysis worksheets for the existing (2016) conditions are

included in the Technical Appendix C and G respectively. The existing levels of service are shown in Figure 9.

Table 3: Existing (2016) Intersection Capacity Analysis - SimTraffic



LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft) LOS

Delay (s/veh)

95th Queue (ft)

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft)



A 1.7

A 1.4

Eastbound Left/Thru A 8.4 152

A 5 65

A 5.1 63


A 0.7 0

A 0.8 11


A 1.7

A 2.5


A 1.6 4

A 2.4 0


A 2.1 3

A 2.9 6

Southbound Approach B 14.8

A 8.2

A 10

Southbound Left D 33.1 106

B 14 73

B 14.5 64

Southbound Right A 3.4 63 A 4.4 83 A 4 50

Figure 9: Existing Levels of Service (2016) – SimTraffic Results



March 10, 2016


Proposed Conditions Capacity Analysis (SimTraffic Results)

The results of the intersection capacity analysis for the proposed conditions are summarized in Table 4. The description of

the different LOS and delay and the detailed analysis worksheets for the proposed conditions are included in the Technical

Appendix C and H respectively. The levels of service for the proposed conditions are shown in Figure 10.

Table 4: Proposed (2016) Conditions - Intersection Capacity Analysis - SimTraffic



LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft) LOS

Delay (s/veh)

95th Queue (ft)

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft)



A 1.4

A 1.1

Eastbound Left A 6.4 98

A 4.5 54

A 4.8 47


A 0.4 0

A 0.5 0


A 0.5

A 0.4


A 0.4 3

A 0.4 3


A 0.8 8

A 0.4 11

Southbound Approach C 16.9

A 8.9

A 8.8

Southbound Left E 36.3 120

C 15.4 92

B 12.2 56

Southbound Right A 3.4 64 A 4.4 84 A 4.3 53

Figure 10: Proposed Conditions Levels of Service (2016) – SimTraffic Results



March 10, 2016


COMPARISON OF SYNCHRO AND SIMTRAFFIC RESULTS

A comparison the Synchro and SimTraffic results reveal the following:

The delay for the southbound left turn movement (High School entrance) increases significantly (from 31.7

seconds to 59.3 seconds) for the proposed conditions under the Synchro analysis

The delay for the southbound left turn movement (High School entrance) shows a fairly minimal change (from

33.1 seconds to 36.3 seconds) for the proposed conditions under the SimTraffic analysis

Hence, the comparison reveals that Synchro tends to overestimate the delay particularly for the side street traffic

(stop controlled) for an unsignalized intersection and justifies VDOT’s feedback that SimTraffic is the appropriate

evaluation tool for actual conditions.

COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS (SIMTRAFFIC ANALYSIS)

As noted above, since SimTraffic was deemed to be the more appropriate tool for evaluation, the results evaluated using

SimTraffic were used to compare the existing and proposed conditions. Table 5 below presents the comparison.

Table 5: Comparison of Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions (SimTraffic) – Stone Bridge HS Entrance/Hay Road

Intersection (Movement)

EXISTING PROPOSED

LOS Delay

(s/veh) 95th Queue

(ft) 95th Queue

(cars) LOS

Delay (s/veh)

95th Queue (ft)

95th Queue (cars)

AM

Pe

ak

Eastbound Approach

A 3.6

A 2.3

Eastbound Left/Thru*

A 8.4 152 7 A 6.4 98 4

Eastbound Thru

A 1.6 21 1 A 0.7 0 0

Westbound Approach

A 1.9

A 0.8

Westbound Thru

A 1.2 4 1 A 0.3 6 1

Westbound Right

A 2.5 38 2 A 1.2 40 2

Southbound Approach

B 14.8

C 16.9

Southbound Left

D 33.1 106 5 E 36.3 120 5

Southbound Right A 3.4 63 3 A 3.4 64 3

PM

Sch

oo

l Pe

ak

Eastbound Approach

A 1.7

A 1.4

Eastbound Left/Thru*

A 5 65 3 A 4.5 54 3

Eastbound Thru

A 0.7 0 0 A 0.4 0 0

Westbound Approach

A 1.7

A 0.5

Westbound Thru

A 1.6 4 1 A 0.4 3 1

Westbound Right

A 2.1 3 1 A 0.8 8 1

Southbound Approach

A 8.2

A 8.9

Southbound Left

B 14 73 3 C 15.4 92 4

Southbound Right A 4.4 83 4 A 4.4 84 4

PM

Co

mm

ute

r P

eak

Eastbound Approach

A 1.4

A 1.1

Eastbound Left/Thru* A 5.1 63 3 A 4.8 47 2

Eastbound Thru A 0.8 11 1 A 0.5 0 0

Westbound Approach A 2.5 A 0.4 Westbound Thru A 2.4 0 0 A 0.4 3 1

Westbound Right

A 2.9 6 1 A 0.4 11 1

Southbound Approach

A 10

A 8.8

Southbound Left

B 14.5 64 3 B 12.2 56 3

Southbound Right A 4 50 2 A 4.3 53 3

* The eastbound shared left/thru lane in the existing conditions is proposed to be converted to a left turn lane. Hence, although the movement shows ‘Eastbound Left/Thru’, the results are for ‘Eastbound Left’ in the Proposed Conditions.



March 10, 2016


The comparison presented in Table 5 reveals the following:

The proposed lane change and modifications do not have a significant impact on the main line (Hay Road) with the

proposed conversion of an eastbound shared left/thru lane to an exclusive left turn lane. The main line continues

to operate at an acceptable level of service during all the peak hours and there are no stacking/queuing issues

anticipated.

The delay for the southbound approach (School Entrance – traffic exiting the entrance) increases slightly

(approximately 3 seconds) under the proposed conditions for the AM peak hour. However, there is no increase in

the number of cars in the 95th percentile queues compared to the existing conditions.

The LOS for the southbound left movement goes from LOS D in the existing conditions to LOS E in the proposed

conditions under the AM peak hour. However, the increase in the delay is minimal (approximately 3 seconds).

Please note that a secondary access point (Right-in Right-out) to the school exists along Claiborne Parkway, so

some of the left turn traffic may divert to that location.



March 10, 2016


CONCLUSIONS

This memorandum presents the findings of a traffic analysis comparison conducted for the intersection of Hay Road and

Stone Bridge High School entrance in Loudoun County, Virginia. The existing conditions were compared with the proposed

conditions (restriping/modifications) at the intersection to accommodate a crosswalk. The study supports the following

conclusions:

The proposed conditions would improve pedestrian safety due to the following reasons:

o The number of travel lanes required to cross Hay Road will reduce since the eastbound shared left/thru lane

would be converted to an exclusive left turn lane.

o The pedestrians would be able to wait for gaps in traffic in the pedestrian refuge area created under the

proposed design.

The proposed lane change and modifications do not have a significant impact on the main line (Hay Road) with the

proposed conversion of an eastbound shared left/thru lane to an exclusive left turn lane. The main line continues

to operate at an acceptable level of service during all the peak hours and there are no stacking/queuing issues

anticipated.

The simulation analysis reveals that the delay for the southbound approach (School Entrance – traffic exiting the

entrance) increases slightly (approximately 3 seconds) under the proposed conditions for the AM peak hour.

However, there is no increase in the number of cars in the 95th percentile queues compared to the existing

conditions.

Although, the level of service (LOS) for the southbound left movement changes from LOS D in the existing

conditions to LOS E in the AM peak hour for the proposed conditions, the increase in actual delay is minimal

(approximately 3 seconds). Please note that a secondary access point (Right-in Right-out) to the school exists along

Claiborne Parkway, so some of the left turn traffic may divert to that location.


Traffic Analysis – Stone Bridge High School Gorove/Slade Associates

TECHNICAL APPENDIX


TECHNICAL APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A Turning Movement Count Sheet

APPENDIX B Email Correspondence with VDOT Staff

APPENDIX C Level of Service Definitions

APPENDIX D Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Synchro) – Existing Conditions (2016)

APPENDIX E Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Synchro) – Proposed Conditions (2016)

APPENDIX F Traffic Volume Calculation for Simulation Analysis APPENDIX G Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (SimTraffic) – Existing Conditions (2016)

APPENDIX H Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (SimTraffic) – Proposed Conditions (2016)


APPENDIX A Turning Movement Count Sheet

Gorove/Slade Associates

Project # :

Location

AM PEAK Direction:

Roadway:

Movement: Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds

6:00 AM to 6:15 AM 0

6:15 AM to 6:30 AM 0

6:30 AM to 6:45 AM 0 0 1 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 3 0 66

6:45 AM to 7:00 AM 1 0 5 0 10 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 5 0 93

7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 2 0 9 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 3 0 121

7:15 AM to 7:30 AM 7 0 24 0 13 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 12 0 165

7:30 AM to 7:45 AM 12 0 11 0 20 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 19 0 189

7:45 AM to 8:00 AM 19 0 23 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 23 0 240

8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 11 0 21 0 22 33 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 143 22 0 252

8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 18 0 23 0 23 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 29 0 263

8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 34 0 25 0 79 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 58 0 333

8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 70 0 17 0 106 48 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 88 92 0 421

9:00 AM 9:15 AM 5 0 15 0 11 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 75 0 214

9:15 AM 9:30 AM 2 0 6 0 2 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 58 0 164

PM School PEAK Direction:

Roadway:


2:00 PM to 2:15 PM 4 0 21 0 10 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 11 0 1202:15 PM to 2:30 PM 23 0 29 0 4 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 4 0 1272:30 PM to 2:45 PM 2 0 4 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 842:45 PM to 3:00 PM 2 0 4 0 3 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3 0 1283:00 PM to 3:15 PM 0 0 3 0 1 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 49 2 0 1143:15 PM to 3:30 PM 1 0 5 0 9 54 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 56 2 0 1273:30 PM to 3:45 PM 3 0 8 0 30 72 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 32 0 1853:45 PM to 4:00 PM 61 0 26 0 34 89 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 68 24 0 3024:00 PM to 4:15 PM 47 0 40 0 16 83 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 71 9 0 2664:15 PM to 4:30 PM 14 0 13 1 22 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 8 0 198

4:30 PM to 4:45 PM 12 0 8 0 8 97 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 6 0 1744:45 PM to 5:00 PM 20 0 17 0 17 92 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 60 15 0 221

.

PM Commuter PEAK Direction:

Roadway:


4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 04:15 PM to 4:30 PM 04:30 PM to 4:45 PM 04:45 PM to 5:00 PM 05:00 PM to 5:15 PM 19 0 16 0 13 107 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 59 11 0 2255:15 PM to 5:30 PM 21 0 16 0 22 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 17 0 2705:30 PM to 5:45 PM 2 0 20 0 19 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 13 0 2365:45 PM to 6:00 PM 4 0 9 0 14 107 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 94 9 0 2376:00 PM to 6:15 PM 7 0 10 0 15 99 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 64 13 0 2086:15 PM to 6:30 PM 9 0 5 0 19 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 15 0 2446:30 PM to 6:45 PM 5 0 10 0 21 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 15 0 1776:45 PM to 7:00 PM 16 0 15 0 10 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 14 0 186

Direction:

Roadway:


AM INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR

8:00 AM to 9:00 AM 133 0 86 0 230 156 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 463 201 0 1,269

MIDDAY INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR

3:30 PM to 4:30 PM 125 0 87 1 102 323 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 241 73 0 951

PM INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR

5:00 PM to 6:00 PM 46 0 61 0 68 454 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 289 50 0 968

PEAK HOUR FACOTRS Overall

Right Thru Left Approach Right Thru Left Approach Right Thru Left Approach Right Thru Left Approach

AM PEAK HOUR 0.48 0.00 0.86 0.63 0.54 0.81 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.81 0.55 0.92 0.75


0.51 0.00 0.54 0.64 0.75 0.91 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.85 0.57 0.79 0.79


0.55 0.00 0.76 0.72 0.77 0.92 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.77 0.74 0.82 0.90

Midday PEAK HOUR

PM PEAK HOUR

0

0

Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound

0


Overall

Intersection

High School Entrance Hay Road No Approach Hay Road

522

339 Hay Road

No

Appro

ach

350

50

289 0 0 0

68

454

0

500 Hay Road

46

0 61

Hig

h S

chool

Entr

ance

No Approach Hay Road

107

118


0

0

Overall

Intersection

Vehicular

Volumes

PM COMMUTER SYSTEM PEAK VOLUMES

High School Entrance Hay Road

0

425

314 Hay Road

No

Appro

ach

328

73

241 0 0 0

102

323

0

448 Hay Road

125

0 87

Hig

h S

chool

Entr

ance

Overall

Intersection

Vehicular

Volumes

PM SCHOOL SYSTEM PEAK VOLUMES


212

175


0

0 0

386

664 Hay Road

No

Appro

ach

549

201

463 0 0 0

230

156

0

289 Hay Road

133

0 86

Hig

h S

chool

Entr

ance

AM SYSTEM PEAK VOLUMES


219

431

Intersection: Hay Road and Stone Bridge High School Entrance

Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Overall

Intersection

Vehicular

Volumes

Data Source: Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc.

Count Date Thursday February 11, 2016

Project Name : Stone Bridge High School

2305-011

Loudoun County

7


APPENDIX B Email Correspondence with VDOT Staff

1

Pulkit V. Parikh

From: Tushar AwarSent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:49 PMTo: Lorraine T. Tacinelli; Pulkit V. ParikhSubject: FW: Environmental and Traffic Engineering Items

From: Sara Howard‐O'Brien [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:42 PM To: Tushar Awar <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Environmental and Traffic Engineering Items fyi

From: Kim, Michelle (VDOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:09 PM To: Randy Taylor <[email protected]> Cc: Donna Torraca <[email protected]>; Chris Glassmoyer <[email protected]>; Claus Bader <[email protected]>; Jim Bishoff <[email protected]>; Sara Howard‐O'Brien <[email protected]>; Gary Van Alstyne <[email protected]> Subject: Environmental and Traffic Engineering Items Randy et al, First, please find attached the PCE from our environmental team. Second, our Traffic Engineering group has decided to not object if LCPS wants to pursue the ‘localized’ lane reduction option on Hay Road. However, TE will consider this configuration as an interim measure. When the street is next paved, VDOT will plan to implement the full road diet option. We request that LCPS mention this likely future change as part of its public outreach process. Third, TE, along with numerous individuals and groups, has requested that in the future LCPS to maintain a single point of contact for meetings and all other correspondence. A key reason for the confusion and delay on this project was due to the involvement of so many different staff members. Time, frustration, and confusion could have all been avoided if all questions and concerns went to the LAP group first, instead of LCPS reaching out to other VDOT personnel. We have stressed the importance of the role of the LAP team on several different occasions. Going forward please keep this in mind. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, Michelle M. Kim Program Coordinator | Northern Virginia District – Local Assistance | Virginia Department of Transportation | 4975 Alliance Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030 | 703.259.1961 | [email protected]


APPENDIX C Level of Service Definitions


LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

All capacity analyses are based on the procedures specified by the Transportation Research Board,

Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000. Levels of service (LOS) range from A to F.

A brief description of each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided

below.

Signalized Intersections: Level of service is based upon the traffic volume present in each lane on the

roadway, the capacity of each lane at the intersection and the delay associated with each directional

movement. The levels of service for signalized intersections are defined below:

Level of Service A describes operations with very low average delay per vehicle, i.e., less than

10.0 seconds. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive

during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop. Short signal cycle lengths may also

contribute to low delay.

Level of Service B describes operations with average delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds

per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More

vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per

vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is

significant at this level although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. This

is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in rural

areas.

Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per

vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may

result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high

traffic volumes as compared to the roadway capacity. Many vehicles are required to stop and

the number of vehicles that do not have to stop declines. Individual signal cycle failures, where

all waiting vehicles do not clear the intersection during a single green time, are noticeable. This

is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in urban

areas.

Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per

vehicle. These higher delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and

high traffic volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS E has been set as

the limit of acceptable conditions.

Level of Service F describes operations with average delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.

This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-

saturation, i.e., when traffic arrives at a flow rate that exceeds the capacity of the intersection.


It may also occur at high volumes with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and

long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delays.

Unsignalized Intersections: At an unsignalized intersection, the major street through traffic and right

turns are assumed to operate unimpeded and therefore receive no level of service rating. The level of

service for the minor street and the major street left turn traffic is dependent on the volume and

capacity of the available lanes, and, the number and frequency of acceptable gaps in the major street

traffic to make a conflicting turn. The level of service grade is provided for each conflicting movement

at an unsignalized intersection and is based on the total average delay experienced by each vehicle.

The delay includes the time it takes a vehicle to move from the back of a queue through the

intersection.

The unsignalized intersection level of service analysis does not account for variations in driver behavior

or the effects of nearby traffic signals. Therefore, the results from this analysis usually indicates worse

levels of service than may be experienced in the field. The unsignalized intersection level of service

descriptions are provided below:

Level of Service A. Describes operations where there is very little to no conflicting traffic for a

minor side street movement, i.e., an average total delay of less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle.

Level of Service B. Describes operations with average total delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0

seconds per vehicle.

Level of Service C. Describes operations with average total delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0

second per vehicle.

Level of Service D. Describes operations with average total delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0


Level of Service E. Describes operations with average total delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0


Level of Service F. Describes operations with average total delay of 50 seconds per vehicle. LOS

F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to cross

safely through or enter a major street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident

from extremely long total delays experienced by side street traffic and by queuing on the minor

approaches. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may

result in adjustments to normal driver behavior.


APPENDIX D Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Synchro) – Existing Conditions (2016)

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/7/2016

2/17/2016 Baseline Synchro 8 ReportPage 1

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 201 463 156 230 86 133Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 218 503 184 271 101 156PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 454 872 92vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 454 872 92tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 7.0tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.4p0 queue free % 80 57 83cM capacity (veh/h) 1096 234 935

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 386 336 92 92 271 101 156Volume Left 218 0 0 0 0 101 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 271 0 156cSH 1096 1700 1700 1700 1700 234 935Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.43 0.17Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 0 0 0 51 15Control Delay (s) 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 9.6Lane LOS A D AApproach Delay (s) 3.2 0.0 18.3Approach LOS C

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.9Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM School Peak4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/7/2016



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 180 189 188 188 119 102 147Volume Left 86 0 0 0 0 102 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 119 0 147cSH 1073 1700 1700 1700 1700 349 789Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.29 0.19Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 0 30 17Control Delay (s) 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 10.6Lane LOS A C BApproach Delay (s) 2.2 0.0 14.3Approach LOS B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Commuter Peak4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/7/2016



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 172 227 252 252 76 72 54Volume Left 59 0 0 0 0 72 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 76 0 54cSH 990 1700 1700 1700 1700 307 704Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.23 0.08Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 22 6Control Delay (s) 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 10.5Lane LOS A C BApproach Delay (s) 1.5 0.0 16.1Approach LOS C



APPENDIX E Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Synchro) – Proposed Conditions (2016)

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed AM4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/9/2016



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 218 503 92 92 271 101 156Volume Left 218 0 0 0 0 101 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 271 0 156cSH 1096 1700 1700 1700 1700 161 935Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.63 0.17Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 0 0 0 87 15Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.3 9.6Lane LOS A F AApproach Delay (s) 2.8 0.0 29.1Approach LOS D


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed PM School Peak4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/9/2016



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 86 284 188 188 119 102 147Volume Left 86 0 0 0 0 102 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 119 0 147cSH 1073 1700 1700 1700 1700 283 789Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.36 0.19Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 0 40 17Control Delay (s) 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 10.6Lane LOS A C BApproach Delay (s) 2.0 0.0 16.4Approach LOS C


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed PM Commuter Peak4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance 3/9/2016



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 59 340 252 252 76 72 54Volume Left 59 0 0 0 0 72 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 76 0 54cSH 990 1700 1700 1700 1700 239 704Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.30 0.08Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 30 6Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 10.5Lane LOS A D BApproach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 19.6Approach LOS C



APPENDIX F Traffic Volume Calculation for Simulation Analysis


Hay Road and Claiborne Parkway

AM Peak Hour PM School Peak Hour PM Commuter Peak Hour

Volume at Intersection (VDOT Files)

Volume on Hay Road (VDOT Files)

EB – 356 vph, WB – 292 vph EB – 310 vph, WB – 607 vph EB – 310 vph, WB – 607 vph

Volume on Hay Road (Traffic Counts)

EB – 549 vph, WB – 386 vph EB – 328 vph, WB – 425 vph EB – 350 vph, WB – 522 vph

Volume Factors* EB – 1.54, WB – 1.32 EB – 1.06, WB – 0.7 EB – 1.13, WB – 0.86

Traffic Volumes for Simulation

* The EB volume factor is used for the eastbound approach at the intersection. The WB volume factor is used for all the other approaches.

Trip Generation Table for Residential Neighborhoods:

Land Use ITE

Code Size* Units

------ W e e k d a y ------

AM Peak Hour PM School Peak

Hour**

PM Commuter Peak Hour

Weekday

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Total

Twelve Oaks Court (Intersection 1)

Single Family Detached 210 100 DU 20 60 80

60 35 95

67 39 106

1,051

Total Trips 20 60 80

60 35 95

67 39 106 1,051

Weatherwood Drive (Intersection 2)

Single Family Detached 210 55 DU 13 36 49

36 20 56

40 22 62

606

Total Trips 13 36 49

36 20 56

40 22 62 606

* The trip generation for the units that are anticipated to use Weatherwood Drive or Twelve Oaks Court along Hay Road. The residential neighborhoods have additional access points as shown in the figure below.

** The trips generated during the PM School Peak Hour are assumed to be 90% of the trips generated during the PM Commuter Peak Hour. This is based on the approximate ratio of the volumes along Hay Road during the PM School Peak and PM Commuter Peak Hours.


Additional Access Points for Residential Neighborhoods:

Trip Distribution for Residential Neighborhoods:


Turning Movements at the Intersections (AM/PM School Peak/PM Commuter Peak Hour): Hay Road and Twelve Oaks Way: Inbound Trips – 20/60/67, Outbound Trips – 60/35/39

EBL WBR SBL SBR

Turning Movement Volumes 6/18/20 14/42/47 42/24/27 18/11/12

Hay Road and Weatherwood Drive: Inbound Trips – 13/36/40, Outbound Trips – 36/20/22

EBR WBL NBL NBR

Turning Movement Volumes 5/13/14 8/23/26 13/7/8 23/13/14


APPENDIX G Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (SimTraffic) – Existing Conditions (2016)

SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AMBaseline 3/7/2016

SimTraffic ReportPage 1

3: Hay Road & Twelve Oaks Way Performance by approach

Approach EB WB SB AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1Total Del/Veh (s) 0.7 0.2 9.6 1.1

4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance Performance by approach


16: Weatherwood Drive & Hay Road Performance by approach

Approach EB WB NB AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0Total Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.5 6.7 0.6

19: Claiborne Parkway & Hay Road Performance by approach

Approach EB WB NB SB AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.9Total Del/Veh (s) 22.1 29.7 25.4 29.0 26.6

Total Network Performance

Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.9Total Del/Veh (s) 26.5

SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AMBaseline 3/7/2016


3: Hay Road & Twelve Oaks Way Performance by movement

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1Total Del/Veh (s) 3.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 11.6 4.6 1.1

4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance Performance by movement


16: Weatherwood Drive & Hay Road Performance by movement

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Total Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 5.3 0.3 9.7 5.0 0.6

19: Claiborne Parkway & Hay Road Performance by movement

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.0 0.2 3.3 0.3 3.5 3.0 0.3 2.7 2.6 0.3 2.6Total Del/Veh (s) 27.0 35.7 16.7 28.4 35.6 5.7 33.1 27.3 4.1 26.9 31.7 5.3


Movement AllDenied Del/Veh (s) 0.9Total Del/Veh (s) 26.6



Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AMBaseline 3/7/2016


Intersection: 3: Hay Road & Twelve Oaks Way

Movement EB SBDirections Served LT LRMaximum Queue (ft) 40 79Average Queue (ft) 3 3495th Queue (ft) 21 60Link Distance (ft) 902 222Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 4: Hay Road & Stone Bridge High School Entrance

Movement EB EB WB WB WB SB SBDirections Served LT T T T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 173 30 8 4 58 139 81Average Queue (ft) 79 1 0 0 10 54 3695th Queue (ft) 152 21 4 3 38 106 63Link Distance (ft) 530 530 667 667 182 182Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 16: Weatherwood Drive & Hay Road

Movement WB NBDirections Served LT LRMaximum Queue (ft) 31 62Average Queue (ft) 5 2395th Queue (ft) 23 52Link Distance (ft) 530 227Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AMBaseline 3/7/2016


Intersection: 19: Claiborne Parkway & Hay Road

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NBDirections Served L T T R L T T R L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 170 81 82 237 231 148 187 47 154 271 233 49Average Queue (ft) 81 25 29 114 113 45 78 13 80 158 110 1895th Queue (ft) 146 60 66 200 200 103 146 34 139 243 199 42Link Distance (ft) 667 667 501 501 582 582Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 325 305 325 310 315Storage Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0


Movement SB SB SB SBDirections Served L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 217 353 319 54Average Queue (ft) 69 218 186 2095th Queue (ft) 146 314 280 46Link Distance (ft) 784 784Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 510Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3

Network SummaryNetwork wide Queuing Penalty: 3

SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM School PeakBaseline 3/7/2016












SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM School PeakBaseline 3/7/2016














Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM School PeakBaseline 3/7/2016





Movement EB WB WB SB SBDirections Served LT T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 75 9 4 95 113Average Queue (ft) 26 0 0 39 4695th Queue (ft) 65 4 3 73 83Link Distance (ft) 530 667 182 182Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Movement EB WB WB NBDirections Served T LT T LRMaximum Queue (ft) 4 58 15 35Average Queue (ft) 0 10 0 1695th Queue (ft) 3 38 11 40Link Distance (ft) 230 530 530 227Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM School PeakBaseline 3/7/2016



Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NBDirections Served L T T R L T T R L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 162 64 69 118 135 171 155 54 150 324 286 112Average Queue (ft) 71 24 23 44 60 93 76 17 59 188 145 2595th Queue (ft) 130 52 53 85 114 150 140 39 110 284 245 73Link Distance (ft) 667 667 505 505 600 600Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 325 305 325 310 315Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0


Movement SB SB SB SBDirections Served L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 248 205 168 57Average Queue (ft) 111 109 81 1595th Queue (ft) 193 183 150 38Link Distance (ft) 732 732Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 310 510Storage Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0


SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/7/2016












SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/7/2016














Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/7/2016





Movement EB EB WB SB SBDirections Served LT T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 77 15 9 91 61Average Queue (ft) 24 1 1 31 2395th Queue (ft) 63 11 6 64 50Link Distance (ft) 530 530 182 182Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Movement EB WB WB NBDirections Served T LT T LRMaximum Queue (ft) 4 60 17 40Average Queue (ft) 0 10 1 1895th Queue (ft) 3 38 12 42Link Distance (ft) 230 530 530 227Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/7/2016



Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NBDirections Served L T T R L T T R L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 187 66 61 108 204 213 222 62 334 403 391 183Average Queue (ft) 87 26 23 47 85 135 116 26 95 266 232 3295th Queue (ft) 155 55 55 86 160 201 198 53 223 367 335 98Link Distance (ft) 667 667 509 509 607 607Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 325 305 325 310 315Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 1





APPENDIX H Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (SimTraffic) – Proposed Conditions (2016)

SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed AMBaseline 3/9/2016












SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed AMBaseline 3/9/2016














Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed AMBaseline 3/9/2016





Movement EB WB WB WB SB SBDirections Served L T T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 124 9 13 63 147 76Average Queue (ft) 55 0 0 11 59 3695th Queue (ft) 98 6 5 40 120 64Link Distance (ft) 530 296 296 183 183Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Movement EB WB NBDirections Served TR LT LRMaximum Queue (ft) 5 31 62Average Queue (ft) 0 4 2495th Queue (ft) 3 21 52Link Distance (ft) 230 530 227Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed AMBaseline 3/9/2016





Movement SB SB SB SBDirections Served L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 254 356 300 60Average Queue (ft) 71 210 172 1695th Queue (ft) 154 312 275 40Link Distance (ft) 692 692Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 510Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3


SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed PM School PeakBaseline 3/9/2016












SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed PM School PeakBaseline 3/9/2016














Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed PM School PeakBaseline 3/9/2016





Movement EB WB WB SB SBDirections Served L T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 58 4 18 127 106Average Queue (ft) 24 0 1 45 4795th Queue (ft) 54 3 8 92 84Link Distance (ft) 530 328 182 182Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)



Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed PM School PeakBaseline 3/9/2016







SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/9/2016












SimTraffic Performance Report Proposed PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/9/2016














Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/9/2016



Movement EB WB SBDirections Served LT TR LRMaximum Queue (ft) 40 9 70Average Queue (ft) 8 0 2995th Queue (ft) 31 4 58Link Distance (ft) 929 230 222Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Movement EB WB WB SB SBDirections Served L T R L RMaximum Queue (ft) 60 4 23 64 71Average Queue (ft) 17 0 1 32 2695th Queue (ft) 47 3 11 56 53Link Distance (ft) 530 310 182 182Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)



Queuing and Blocking Report Proposed PM Commuter PeakBaseline 3/9/2016



Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NBDirections Served L T T R L T T R L T T RMaximum Queue (ft) 188 72 70 107 175 218 205 74 334 407 361 228Average Queue (ft) 94 28 21 47 79 141 119 25 96 269 223 3795th Queue (ft) 165 59 51 84 149 203 193 56 235 374 328 140Link Distance (ft) 304 304 519 519 602 602Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 325 305 325 310 315Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 3 1 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 6 1 0




Date post:	25-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

MEMORANDUM · Pulkit Parikh Date: March 10, 2016 Subject: Stone Bridge High School – Traffic...

Documents