Traffic Impact Analysis

hdrinc.com 101 N 3rd Street, Suite 201, Wilmington, NC 28401-4034 (910) 398-9020

Traffic Impact Analysis

CenterPoint Development

NCDOT Division 3, District 3

Wilmington, NC March 30, 2018


1

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CENTERPOINT DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 30, 2018

PREPARED BY:

HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE CAROLINAS 101 NORTH 3RD STREET, SUITE 201

WILMINGTON, NC 28401 NC LICENSE NO. F-0116


2

Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Volume Development ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Future-Year Volumes ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Existing Network .................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 2027 and 2035 No-Build Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 2027 and 2035 Proposed Build Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 8

Capacity Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Turn Lane Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................ 17

Tables Table 1: Trip Generation Summary (PM Peak Hour) ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary (Saturday Peak Hour) ............................................................................................ 5 Table 3: Intersection Control Delay Thresholds for LOS ................................................................................................ 6 Table 4: 2017 Existing Scenario MOE's ......................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5: 2027 PM Peak MOE Comparion .................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: 2027 Saturday Peak MOE Comparison ......................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: 2035 PM Peak MOE Comparison .................................................................................................................. 12 Table 8: 2035 Saturday Peak MOE Comparison ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 9: 2027 Design Iteration Summary at Military Cutoff Road at Drysdale Extension ............................................. 14 Table 10: 2027 Build with Development Improvements Scenario Queuing Summary ................................................. 16

Figures Figure 1: Development Locations and Study Area ......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: CenterPoint Site with U-5710 Configuration (Build Alternative) ...................................................................... 8 Figure 3: CenterPoint Site and Build with Development Improvements ......................................................................... 9 Figure 4: CenterPoint TIA Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 19


3

1.0 Introduction HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) was retained to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the proposed CenterPoint development located adjacent to the intersection of Eastwood Road and Military Cutoff Road in Wilmington, North Carolina (Figure 1). This intersection is the subject of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project U-5710, for which HDR has performed an alternatives analysis and developed a conceptual design for a Northwest Quadrant Grade-Separated configuration.

Figure 1: Development Locations and Study Area


4

The purpose of this analysis is to better understand the potential impacts of the proposed adjacent site development on the preferred alternative configuration and to compare the quality of traffic operations in the following scenarios:

• 2017 Existing Conditions

2027: CenterPoint Build Year • 2027 No Build • 2027 Build • 2027 Build with Development Improvements

2035: TIP U-5710 Design Year • 2035 No Build • 2035 Build • 2035 Build with Development Improvements

Under the development of STIP Project U-5710, improvements were proposed throughout the study area based on future-year forecasted traffic conditions. These improvements will again be considered with additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed site development (TIP improvements and site development plans shown in Appendix A). Level of Service (LOS) is reported for each scenario, both with and without additional potential improvements resulting from the estimated site development-generated traffic. In the context of this analysis:

• “No Build”: TIP Improvements without development built • “Build”: TIP Improvements with development built and projected additional traffic • “Build with Development Improvements”: TIP Improvements with development built and projected

additional traffic, along with any recommended improvements intended to mitigate congestion resulting from the aforementioned additional traffic

2.0 Volume Development 2.1 Data Collection Proposed improvements for U-5710 were developed based on a future-year traffic forecast, which is derived from a combination of data sources: the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) regional travel demand model, forecast data from recently-completed nearby projects, historic AADT data, and field-collected turning movement counts and tube counts. However, for the purposes of this TIA, intersection turning movement counts for six intersections were collected on a weekday (4:00-6:00pm) and a Saturday (11:30am-1:30pm) in June 2017 and September 2017, respectively (Appendices B.1 and B.2). Any discrepancies in the counted volumes along the study area links (i.e., due to mid-segment access points or human error) were addressed by several balancing adjustments. These balanced counts were used as the basis for the 2017 existing capacity analysis scenario. An NCDOT-approved 1% compounded annual growth rate was used to estimate the intermediate-year (2027) and build-out year (2035) traffic volumes at the same intersections (Appendix B.3).

2.2 Trip Generation Trip generation methodology and calculations for the proposed CenterPoint development were based on the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. According to proposed plans from Swain & Associates, LLC, CenterPoint is to be a 9-acre mixed-use development that


5

includes a medical treatment facility, hotels, office space, residential and retail land uses. It would be located north of Eastwood Road, between Cavalier Drive and Galleon Lane. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the trip generation assumptions – including internal capture and pass-by reductions – used to derive the entering and exiting traffic volumes. Appendix C summarizes the trip generation methodology, pass-by distributions and external trip distributions for each scenario in detail. These trip generation estimates were approved on October 23, 2017.

Table 1: Trip Generation Summary (PM Peak Hour)

LUC Description Value Variable

Scenario Method* Peak Hour

Total Entering Exiting

220 Apartment 300 Dwelling Units

Weekday Adjacent Roadway Peak Hour Btwn. 4-6PM Equation 160 104 56

310 Hotel 200 Rooms Weekday Adjacent Roadway Peak Hour Btwn. 4-6PM Rate 58 27 31

610 Hospital 70.00 1,000 ft2 Weekday Adjacent Roadway Peak Hour Btwn. 4-6PM Rate 65 25 40

710 General Office 34.00 1,000 ft2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Equation 100 5 95

820 Shopping Center 143.25 1,000 ft2 Weekday Adjacent Roadway Peak Hour Btwn. 4-6PM Equation 316 145 171

931 Quality Restaurant 26.64 1,000 ft2 Weekday Adjacent Roadway Peak Hour Btwn. 4-6PM Rate 69 64 5

932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 28.82 1,000 ft2 Weekday PM Peak

Hour of Generator Rate 179 129 50

External Trips 947 499 448

*Guidance obtained from NCDOT Congestion Management Trip Generation Rate Equation Recommendations

Table 2: Trip Generation Summary (Saturday Peak Hour)

LUC Description Value Variable

Scenario Method* Peak Hour

Total Entering Exiting

220 Apartment 300 Dwelling Units Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Equation 142 71 71

310 Hotel 200 Rooms Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Rate 144 81 63

610 Hospital 70.00 1,000 ft2 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Rate 158 79 79

710 General Office 34.00 1,000 ft2 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Equation 15 8 7

820 Shopping Center 143.25 1,000 ft2 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Equation 816 430 386

931 Quality Restaurant 26.64 1,000 ft2 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Rate 288 170 118

932 High-Turnover (Sit- Down) Restaurant 28.82 1,000 ft2 Saturday Peak Hour of Generator Rate 405 215 190

External Trips 1,968 1,054 914

*Guidance obtained from NCDOT Congestion Management Trip Generation Rate Equation Recommendations

2.3 Future-Year Volumes Several existing traffic movements are proposed to be restricted in the future-year No Build scenario as a result of the proposed TIP improvements. These movements and their associated peak hour volumes were re-routed accordingly. For several traffic movements, multiple new potential travel paths would become available as a result of a proposed alternative design. To help estimate the splits between travel paths for movements such as these, a network-wide origin-destination (O-D) matrix based on percentile splits was developed (Appendix D.1). The final “adjusted” volumes used in the analysis – those re-routed paths due to TIP improvements together with the pass-by and external trips – are summarized in detail for the future-year No Build and Build scenarios in Appendices D.2-D.4.


6

3.0 Capacity Analysis 3.1 Methodology Traffic capacity analyses were performed in accordance with NCDOT Congestion Management Unit’s Capacity Analysis Guidelines (current as of July 2015) in addition to NCDOT District 3’s TIA Supplemental Guidelines (current as of September 2017). Traffic operations are quantified with Control Delay (seconds per vehicle), Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) ratio and the 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet), all of which are derived from Synchro (Version 9.1) for signalized and unsignalized intersections, and from SIDRA Intersection 7 for roundabouts. Control delay – experienced at individual movements, approaches and intersections as a whole (in signalized intersections) – dictates LOS. Thresholds for LOS vary, depending on the type of intersection being analyzed (Table 3).

Table 3: Intersection Control Delay Thresholds for LOS Signalized Unsignalized

Min. Max. LOS Min. Max. LOS 0 10 A 0 10 A 10 20 B 10 15 B 20 35 C 15 25 C 35 55 D 25 35 D 55 80 E 35 50 E 80 ∞ F 50 ∞ F

3.2 Existing Network The Existing traffic capacity analyses assume that no improvements are made to the existing roadway network, and includes the following intersections:

• Eastwood Road at Cavalier Drive (Two-Way Stop-Controlled, TWSC) • Eastwood Road at Commonwealth Drive / Galleon Lane (TWSC) • Eastwood Road at Military Cutoff Road (Signalized) • Military Cutoff Road at Viking Lane / Landfall Center (TWSC) • Military Cutoff Road at Drysdale Drive (Signalized) • Military Cutoff Road at Parker Farm Drive / The Forum (Signalized)

Current signal timing and coordination plans (Appendix E) were implemented in the Synchro networks for the Existing scenarios. Table 4 summarizes the intersection LOS within the study area for each scenario and peak hour analyzed.


7

Table 4: 2017 Existing Scenario MOE's

N

ode

Con

fig.

Intersection Approach PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

LOS Delay Max. v/c LOS Delay Max. v/c

East

woo

d R

d.

2

TWSC

*

Cavalier Dr.

EB A 9.6 0.06 B 11.3 0.09 WB A 9.5 0.00 B 12.1 0.01 NB E 41.2 0.16 F 144.4 0.33 SB F 73.7 0.56 F 203.2 0.54 - - - - - -

3

TWSC

*

Commonwealth Dr./ Galleon Ln.

EB A 9.5 0.00 B 10.8 0.01 WB - - - - - - NB B 13.8 0.18 C 16.4 0.08 SB B 11.2 0.03 B 13.0 0.05 - - - - - -

4

Sign

aliz

ed

Military Cutoff Rd.

EB E 63.4 0.78 E 66.5 0.95 WB E 63.2 0.65 E 57.2 0.78 NB D 50.5 0.86 E 57.7 0.87 SB C 32.5 0.78 D 42.5 0.87 D 48.9 0.86 D 55.0 0.95

Milit

ary

Cut

off R

d.

5

TWSC

*

Viking Ln./ Landfall Ctr.

EB F 200.2 0.42 F 1,344.6 1.75 WB F 483.9 1.28 F 3,743.0 6.22 NB B 13.5 0.00 C 15.1 0.01 SB B 11.4 0.03 B 14.4 0.07 - - - - - -

6

Sign

aliz

ed

Drysdale Dr.

EB - - - - - - WB E 70.0 0.79 E 65.5 0.72 NB A 3.9 0.38 A 7.8 0.48 SB A 8.1 0.77 A 8.8 0.76 B 12.5 0.79 B 13.2 0.76

7

Sign

aliz

ed

Parker Farm Rd./ The Forum

EB F 111.8 1.07 E 67.6 0.75 WB F 99.4 0.85 E 73.9 0.66 NB C 21.8 0.70 C 21.3 0.68 SB C 32.3 0.81 D 35.5 0.79 D 39.9 1.07 C 34.4 0.79

*MOE's reported only for movement experiencing the highest control delay within the approach

The observed capacity constraints at the signalized intersection of Eastwood Road and Military Cutoff Road, are intended to be addressed with the TIP project U-5710, which is being developed concurrently with this TIA report. The project concept consists of a grade-separated crossing of Military Cutoff Road and Eastwood Road, the construction of the Drysdale Extension to serve as a quadrant road, and median-restricted access along both intersecting roads to control traffic flow and improve safety. Detailed Synchro reports for the 2017 Existing scenarios are shown in Appendix F.1.


8

3.3 2027 and 2035 No-Build Scenarios To establish a base line for comparison, both a 2027 and a 2035 network of turning movements were developed. A diagram of volumes for each timeframe is found in Appendix D of this report. As previously mentioned, a compound annual growth rate of 1% per year was applied to 2017 volumes to project out to the respective opening and design years. The results of this capacity analysis can be found in the comparison tables located in Section 3.4. Synchro output reports are also located in the Appendix F.1-F.7 for reference.

3.4 2027 and 2035 Proposed Build Scenarios In addition to the intersections listed in Section 3.2, the following intersections were included or updated to reflect future conditions in the capacity analyses of the proposed Build alternative (Figure 2):

• Eastwood Road at Cavalier Drive o Build – Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) o Build with Developer Improvements – Traffic Signal

• Eastwood Road at CenterPoint Site Access #3 o Build – TWSC with an unsignalized left-in median break o Build with Developer Improvements – right-in/right-out driveway

• Drysdale Drive Extension at CenterPoint Site Access #2 o Build – TWSC o Build with Developer Improvements – Traffic Signal

• Military Cutoff Road at Calypso Drive (right-in/right-out access) • Military Cutoff Road at Commonwealth Drive (Traffic Signal) • Calypso Drive at CenterPoint Site Access #4 (roundabout, internal to site plan) • Cavalier Drive at Calypso Drive (TWSC)

Figure 2: CenterPoint Site with U-5710 Configuration (Build Alternative)


9

The methodology used to evaluate all capacity measures of effectiveness (MOEs) is based on guidance from the NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis publication. In determining reasonable improvements to the network that are a direct result of the traffic generated by the CenterPoint site, a comparison of 2027 PM and Saturday peak hour traffic was made between Build and No Build scenarios. Declines in LOS and/or increases to approach delay indicated a need for development improvements. A second set of capacity analyses of Build with Development Improvements was conducted to determine the benefits of proposed improvements. These proposed improvements are referred to as the Build with Development Improvements scenario. Figure 3 illustrates those proposed improvements.

Figure 3: CenterPoint Site and Build with Development Improvements

CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 5 and Table 6 provide 2027 PM and Saturday peak hour results, respectively. Each table includes the corresponding time period’s No Build delay and LOS, the Build delay and LOS, the magnitude of the change in delay, and whether the proposed site is responsible for a decline in LOS letter grade. The right-hand column in each table provides operational MOEs with the proposed modifications to the road network which are intended to mitigate declines in LOS and increases in delay.

Table 7 and Table 8 provide design year 2035 PM and Saturday peak hour results, respectively. It should be noted that 2035 MOEs are provided for the purposes of understanding long-term intersection capacity. Design decisions with regards to proposed traffic control improvements and turn bay lengths were made using the 2027 capacity analysis.


10

Table 5: 2027 PM Peak MOE Comparion

LOS Delay Max. v/c LOS Delay Max. v/c LOS Delay Max. v/c

EB B 10.0 0.07 B 10.4 0.07 4% C 20.2 0.57WB A 9.8 0.00 B 13.9 0.16 42% Yes B 11.4 0.49NB F 58.4 0.24 F 108.9 0.45 86% D 38.4 0.09SB F 133.2 0.80 F 381.3 1.36 186% E 58.2 0.74

186% C 20.8 0.74EB - - - B 11.5 0.24 - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - B 14.7 0.33 - B 14.4 0.32

- - - - - - - - - -EB A 2.3 0.22 A 2.8 0.23 22% A 4.0 0.23WB B 13.2 0.40 B 12.0 0.51 -9% C 21.0 0.51NB - - - - - - - - - -SB B 16.0 0.54 C 21.8 0.69 36% Yes C 28.5 0.57

A 9.1 0.54 B 10.9 0.69 20% Yes B 15.5 0.57EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB No Delay Free - No Delay Free - - No Delay Free -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB - - - - - - - - - -WB No Delay Free - No Delay Free - - No Delay Free -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB C 22.2 0.10 D 26.0 0.15 17% Yes D 26.0 0.15WB D 29.1 0.43 D 34.7 0.48 19% D 34.7 0.48NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 19% - - -EB C 30.9 0.55 C 32.7 0.78 6% C 32.2 0.78WB D 49.4 0.61 D 52.0 0.75 5% D 52.0 0.75NB C 31.3 0.72 D 39.0 0.86 25% Yes D 39.0 0.86SB C 23.0 0.65 C 26.2 0.79 14% C 26.2 0.79

C 29.4 0.72 C 34.0 0.86 16% C 33.9 0.86EB A 0.4 0.24 A 0.4 0.26 0% A 0.4 0.26WB - - - - - - - - - -NB A 2.7 0.46 A 2.6 0.50 -4% A 2.6 0.50SB A 6.6 0.44 A 6.9 0.47 5% A 6.9 0.47

A 4.3 0.46 A 4.4 0.50 2% A 4.4 0.50EB - - - D 26.3 0.23 - D 26.3 0.23WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB E 76.6 0.94 F 90.8 1.01 19% Yes F 90.8 1.01WB F 96.1 0.92 F 117.1 1.01 22% F 117.1 1.01NB C 25.1 0.94 C 28.3 1.02 13% C 28.4 1.02SB D 42.5 0.97 D 49.9 1.01 17% D 49.9 1.01

D 40.6 0.97 D 46.9 1.02 16% D 46.9 1.02EB - - - - - - - - - -WB B 10.5 0.01 B 10.9 0.05 4% B 10.9 0.05NB - - - - - - - - -SB A 7.4 0.00 A 7.4 0.01 0% A 7.4 0.01

- - - - - - 4% -EB - - - A 3.4 0.08 - A 3.4 0.08WB - - - A 3.1 0.05 - A 3.1 0.05NB - - - A 3.2 0.06 - A 3.2 0.06SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - A 3.3 0.08 - A 3.3 0.08EB - - - F 547.0 2.08 - C 31.6 0.38WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - A 9.3 0.13 - C 23.1 0.65SB - - - - - - - C 34.3 0.76

- - - - - - - C 30.1 0.76

Cal

ypso

Dr.

Build with Improvements

Con

fig.

Sig

naliz

edTW

SC

*S

igna

lized

Uns

igna

lized

Uns

igna

lized

TWS

C*

Sig

naliz

edU

nsig

naliz

ed

2 Cavalier Dr.

TWS

C*

% DelayIncrease

Sig

naliz

edLOS

Degrade?

Cavalier Dr.

Sig

naliz

edTW

SC

*S

igna

lized

TWS

C*

Rou

ndab

out

Sig

naliz

ed

Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood Road EB On Ramp

8

Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood Road WB Off Ramp

10 Commonwealth Dr.

Parker Farm Rd./The Forum

6Build

14

CenterPointSite Access #3

TWS

C*

Sig

naliz

edTW

SC

*

95 Viking Ln. /

Landfall Ctr.

Drysdale Dr.Ext.

Sig

naliz

ed

15

Commonwealth Dr.3

Uns

igna

lized

4


Nod

e

Con

fig.

ApproachIntersectionR

ound

abou

t

12

Drysdale Dr. Ext. / CenterPoint

Site Access #2

16

TWS

C*


117

TWS

C*

Sig

naliz

ed

Eas

twoo

d R

d.M

ilita

ry C

utof

f Rd.

Drysdale Dr./Drysdale Dr. Ext.

Calypso Dr.

TWS

C*

No Build


11

Table 6: 2027 Saturday Peak MOE Comparison


EB B 12.1 0.11 B 13.3 0.12 10% C 23.1 0.71WB B 13.1 0.01 F 54.0 0.71 312% Yes B 19.6 0.65NB F 314.2 0.58 F - - MAX D 48.1 0.12SB F 437.0 0.95 F 7,322.0 10.00 1576% E 63.7 0.61

- - - - - - 1576% C 23.2 0.71EB - - - C 22.3 0.59 - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - D 32.4 0.69 - D 28.3 0.65

- - - - - - - - - -EB A 2.1 0.34 A 2.6 0.37 24% A 2.5 0.37WB B 16.0 0.46 B 14.4 0.54 -10% C 24.5 0.53NB - - - - - - - - - -SB A 8.2 0.51 B 18.9 0.68 130% Yes C 25.8 0.59

A 7.3 0.51 A 9.8 0.68 34% B 13.8 0.59EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB No Delay Free - No Delay Free - - No Delay Free -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - - -EB C 22.9 0.15 D 31.5 0.26 38% Yes D 31.3 0.25WB D 31.0 0.38 E 44.6 0.48 44% Yes E 44.6 0.48NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 44% - - -EB C 34.7 0.51 D 41.0 0.86 18% Yes D 44.5 0.91WB D 49.0 0.63 D 46.7 0.66 -5% D 51.4 0.66NB C 30.8 0.64 D 41.9 0.87 36% Yes D 38.4 0.84SB B 17.9 0.62 C 27.6 0.86 54% Yes C 24.1 0.79

C 27.2 0.64 D 36.5 0.87 34% Yes C 34.9 0.91EB A 0.3 0.19 A 0.4 0.24 33% A 0.4 0.24WB - - - - - - - - - -NB A 3.1 0.52 A 3.0 0.56 -3% A 3.0 0.56SB A 5.9 0.52 A 6.2 0.62 5% A 6.2 0.62

A 4.2 0.52 A 4.3 0.62 2% A 4.3 0.62EB - - - F 55.1 0.61 - F 55.1 0.61WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB E 60.1 0.81 F 87.0 0.99 45% Yes F 87.0 0.99WB E 74.0 0.78 F 115.4 0.99 56% Yes F 115.4 0.99NB B 19.6 0.85 C 21.7 0.99 11% Yes C 23.7 0.99SB D 35.6 0.91 D 42.6 0.99 20% D 42.6 0.99

C 32.9 0.91 D 40.2 0.99 22% Yes D 41.1 0.99EB - - - - - - - - - -WB A 9.4 0.01 B 10.0 0.08 6% Yes A 9.9 0.08NB - - - - - - - - - -SB A 7.4 0.00 A 7.4 0.02 0% A 7.4 0.01

- - - - - - 6% - - -EB - - - A 4.1 0.13 - A 4.1 0.13WB - - - A 3.7 0.10 - A 3.7 0.10NB - - - A 3.8 0.14 - A 3.8 0.14SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - A 3.9 0.14 - A 3.9 0.14EB - - - F 1,620.3 4.46 - D 36.9 0.69WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - A 9.7 0.17 - C 25.0 0.75SB - - - - - - - C 22.4 0.61

- - - - - - - C 26.8 0.75

TWS

C*


156

Sig

naliz

ed

11

Sig

naliz

ed

% DelayIncrease

LOSDegrade?

Eas

twoo

d R

d.M

ilita

ry C

utof

f Rd.

Uns

igna

lized


Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood EB On Ramp4

TWS

C*

Calypso Dr.

Sig

naliz

edS

igna

lized

TWS

C*

Eastwood WB Off Ramp8

Uns

igna

lized

TWS

C*

Sig

naliz

edU

nsig

naliz

edU

nsig

naliz

edTW

SC

*

2

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

14

Con

fig.

Sig

naliz

ed

Build with ImprovementsN

ode

Con

fig.

Intersection3

Uns

igna

lized

Commonwealth Dr.

Sig

naliz

ed

Drysdale Dr.Ext.

ApproachNo Build Build

5

TWS

C*

Viking Ln. /Landfall Ctr.

7

Sig

naliz

ed



9

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

12

Rou

ndab

out


16

TWS

C* Drysdale Dr. Ext. / CenterPoint

Site Access #2

Cal

ypso

Dr. TW

SC

*R

ound

abou

tS

igna

lized

10

Sig

naliz

ed

Commonwealth Dr.


12

Table 7: 2035 PM Peak MOE Comparison


EB B 10.4 0.08 B 10.8 0.08 4% C 21.2 0.59WB B 10.2 0.01 B 14.9 0.18 46% B 12.0 0.53NB F 90.5 0.37 F 205.9 0.71 128% D 37.6 0.09SB F 244.1 1.10 F 664.0 1.93 172% E 57.7 0.76

- - - - - - 172% C 21.4 0.76EB - - - B 12.0 0.26 - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - C 15.6 0.35 - C 15.2 0.34

- - - - - - - - - -EB A 2.4 0.24 A 2.5 0.25 4% A 3.9 0.25WB B 12.1 0.40 B 13.2 0.56 9% C 22.2 0.55NB - - - - - - - - - -SB B 19.0 0.67 C 21.5 0.73 13% Yes C 28.7 0.60


- - - - - - - - -EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - AEB D 25.1 0.14 D 29.8 0.19 19% D 29.8 0.19WB E 36.3 0.51 E 44.7 0.58 23% E 44.7 0.58NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 23% - - -EB C 30.6 0.57 D 36.8 0.82 20% Yes D 36.2 0.82WB D 50.6 0.66 D 54.7 0.76 8% D 54.7 0.76NB C 32.9 0.76 D 42.0 0.88 28% Yes D 42.0 0.88SB C 23.3 0.73 C 28.1 0.84 21% C 28.1 0.84

C 30.2 0.76 D 36.8 0.88 22% Yes D 36.7 0.88EB A 0.4 0.26 A 0.4 0.28 0% A 0.4 0.28WB - - - - - - - - - -NB A 2.8 0.49 A 2.8 0.54 0% A 2.8 0.54SB A 7.7 0.53 A 8.0 0.56 4% A 8.0 0.56

A 4.9 0.53 A 5.0 0.56 2% A 5.0 0.56EB - - - D 29.9 0.25 - D 29.9 0.25WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB F 89.5 1.01 F 112.4 1.10 26% F 112.4 1.10WB F 111.1 0.99 F 135.9 1.08 22% F 135.9 1.08NB C 28.1 1.02 C 32.0 1.10 14% C 32.1 1.10SB E 61.3 1.05 E 64.9 1.06 6% E 64.9 1.06

D 51.1 1.05 E 57.6 1.10 13% Yes E 57.6 1.10EB - - - - - - - - - -WB B 10.7 0.01 B 11.1 0.05 4% B 11.2 0.05NB - - - - - - - - - -SB A 7.4 0.00 A 7.4 0.01 0% A 7.4 0.01

- - - - - - 4% - -EB - - - A 3.5 0.08 - A 3.5 0.08WB - - - A 3.1 0.04 - A 3.1 0.04NB - - - A 3.2 0.06 - A 3.2 0.06SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - A 3.3 0.08 - A 3.3 0.08EB - - - F 667.0 2.34 - C 32.1 0.38WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - A 9.6 0.13 - C 23.0 0.66SB - - - - - - - C 34.4 0.76

- - - - - - - C 30.2 0.76*MOE's reported only for movement experiencing the highest control delay within the approach

Rou

ndab

out


Rou

ndab

out

16

TWS


Site Access #2 Sig

naliz

ed

7

Sig

naliz

ed


Sig

naliz

ed

Cal

ypso

Dr.

9

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

TWS

C*

12

Mili

tary

Cut

off R

d.

4

Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood Road EB On Ramp

Uns

igna

lized

810

Sig

naliz

ed

Commonwealth Dr.

Sig

naliz

ed

11

TWS

C*

Calypso Dr.

TWS

C*

TWS

C*

Viking Ln. /Landfall Ctr. TW

SC

*

6

Sig

naliz

ed


Sig

naliz

ed

5

Eas

twoo

d R

d.

2

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

Sig

naliz

ed

14

TWS

C*


Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood Road WB Off Ramp

Uns

igna

lized

TWS

C*

15

Sig

naliz

ed

Drysdale Dr.Ext.

Sig

naliz

ed

3

Uns

igna

lized

Commonwealth Dr.

Uns

igna

lized

Nod

e

Con

fig.

Intersection ApproachNo Build Build Build with Improvements

Con

fig.

% DelayIncrease

LOSDegrade?


13

Table 8: 2035 Saturday Peak MOE Comparison


EB B 13.0 0.13 B 14.3 0.15 10% C 24.6 0.77WB B 14.1 0.01 F 78.3 0.83 455% Yes C 20.7 0.71NB F 559.3 0.96 F - - MAX D 48.3 0.14SB F 893.6 1.62 F 2,176.6 5.05 144% E 64.4 0.63

455% C 24.5 0.77EB - - - D 26.7 0.65 - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - E 39.0 0.74 - D 33.5 0.70

- - - - - - - - - -EB A 2.6 0.37 A 2.6 0.40 0% A 2.4 0.40WB B 13.5 0.41 B 14.8 0.57 10% C 25.8 0.56NB - - - - - - - - - -SB B 17.8 0.66 C 20.1 0.73 13% Yes C 26.0 0.62


- - - - - - - - - -EB - - - - - - - - - -WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - AEB D 26.1 0.19 E 37.1 0.32 42% Yes E 37.1 0.32WB E 38.7 0.46 F 59.0 0.59 52% Yes F 59.0 0.59NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 52% - - -EB D 39.1 0.55 D 47.8 0.91 22% D 44.6 0.91WB D 49.6 0.64 D 48.5 0.71 -2% D 47.8 0.71NB C 31.3 0.69 D 42.6 0.92 36% Yes D 42.6 0.92SB B 19.2 0.66 C 27.7 0.90 44% Yes C 27.6 0.90

C 28.5 0.69 D 38.1 0.92 34% Yes D 37.5 0.92EB A 0.3 0.21 A 0.4 0.26 33% A 0.4 0.26WB - - - - - - - - - -NB A 3.2 0.56 A 3.6 0.64 13% A 3.6 0.64SB A 7.0 0.61 A 7.1 0.70 1% A 7.1 0.70

A 4.8 0.61 A 4.9 0.70 2% A 4.9 0.70EB - - - F 76.4 0.72 - F 72.1 0.69WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - - - - - - - -SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -EB F 80.7 0.98 F 99.5 1.07 23% F 99.5 1.07WB F 108.9 0.98 F 133.8 1.07 23% F 133.8 1.07NB C 20.2 0.92 C 26.3 1.07 30% C 26.9 1.07SB D 36.2 0.93 E 59.7 1.06 65% Yes E 59.7 1.06

D 37.0 0.98 D 51.5 1.07 39% D 51.7 1.07EB - - - - - - - - - -WB A 9.4 0.01 B 10.1 0.08 7% Yes B 10.2 0.08NB - - - - - - - - - -SB A 7.4 0.00 A 7.4 0.02 0% A 7.5 0.02

- - - - - - 7% - - -EB - - - A 4.2 0.15 - A 4.2 0.15WB - - - A 3.7 0.09 - A 3.7 0.09NB - - - A 3.7 0.13 - A 3.7 0.13SB - - - - - - - - - -

- - - A 3.9 0.15 - A 3.9 0.15EB - - - F 1,904.6 5.08 - D 37.6 0.69WB - - - - - - - - - -NB - - - A 10.0 0.18 - C 24.7 0.76SB - - - - - - - C 22.8 0.61

- - - - - - - C 27.0 0.76

TWS


Site Access #2 Sig

naliz

ed


9

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

TWS

C*

12

Rou

ndab

out


Rou

ndab

out

16

Cal

ypso

Dr.

7

Sig

naliz

ed


Sig

naliz

ed

6

Sig

naliz

ed


Sig

naliz

ed

10

Sig

naliz

ed

Commonwealth Dr.

Sig

naliz

ed

Viking Ln. /Landfall Ctr. TW

SC

*

3

Uns

igna

lized

Commonwealth Dr.

Uns

igna

lized

11

TWS

C*

Calypso Dr.

TWS

C*

Eas

twoo

d R

d.

2

TWS

C*

Cavalier Dr.

Sig

naliz

ed

14

TWS

C*

Mili

tary

Cut

off R

d.

4

Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood EB On Ramp

Uns

igna

lized

8

CenterPointSite Access #3 TW

SC

*

15

Sig

naliz

ed

Drysdale Dr.Ext.

Sig

naliz

ed

Uns

igna

lized

Eastwood WB Off Ramp

Uns

igna

lized

5

TWS

C*

Nod

e

Con

fig.

Intersection ApproachNo Build Build Build with Improvements

Con

fig.

% DelayIncrease

LOSDegrade?


14

In Build scenarios, a significant increase in side-street delays was observed at Eastwood Road at Cavalier Drive. Exiting traffic from CenterPoint is likely to increase delays, primarily on the southbound approach, by 186%. A proposed traffic signal here would keep intersection delays within the LOS C range through 2035.

The Node # 6 intersection of Military Cutoff Road and the new Drysdale Extension yields a SB approach delay that is 50% more than the 2027 Saturday No Build conditions and an overall intersection delay increase that is 34% more than the same No Build scenario. This prompted further examination of the intersection in an attempt to identify mitigating improvements. Several iterations of design were investigated at this site. Initially, the lane geometrics from the U-5710 concept were evaluated. The traffic analysis of this concept yielded findings that indicated that the primary cause for this increase in delay was attributed to additional eastbound left turn volumes from CenterPoint and southbound U-turn traffic, also generated by CenterPoint. These movements required more of the signal’s green time, which hurt the overall intersection capacity.

The first iteration on the U-5710 concept considered that the Saturday eastbound left turn volume from the Drysdale Extension would operate better with a third eastbound left turn lane.

The second iteration on the U-5710 concept also consisted of a third eastbound left turn lane and added a full prohibition of the southbound U-turn movement. The U-turn volumes were re-routed to the triple eastbound left turn lanes.

The findings of this iterative process are documented in Table 9. As seen in the Table, adding the third eastbound left turn lane frees up more of the signal’s green time for the northbound/southbound phases, which helps mitigate the growing delay on those respective movements. The full removal of the southbound U-turn movement does not provide much further benefit to the intersection above what is gained by the third eastbound left turn lane. More time is freed up in the cycle for the northbound movement, and southbound delays are reduced by another 1.8 sec/veh; however delays for the overall intersection only improve by 0.6 sec/veh by prohibiting the U-turn. Note that both iterations improve overall intersection delay to a point where the LOS range reaches the No-Build level of C.

Table 9: 2027 Design Iteration Summary at Military Cutoff Road at Drysdale Extension

LOS Delay Max. v/c LOS Delay Max. v/cEB C 34.7 0.51 D 41.1 0.86 18% YesWB D 49.0 0.63 D 46.7 0.66 -5%NB C 30.8 0.64 D 41.9 0.87 36% YesSB B 17.9 0.62 C 27.1 0.86 51% Yes

C 27.2 0.64 D 36.4 0.87 34% Yes

LOS Delay Max. v/cEB D 44.5 0.91 28% YesWB D 51.4 0.66 5%NB D 38.4 0.84 25% YesSB C 24.1 0.79 35% YesInt. C 34.9 0.91 28%

LOS Delay Max. v/cEB D 43.7 0.89 26% YesWB D 53.3 0.74 9%NB D 37.6 0.87 22% YesSB C 22.3 0.80 25% YesInt. C 34.3 0.89 26%

Nod

e

Con

fig.

Intersection ApproachNo Build U-5710 Concept Build % Delay

IncreaseLOS

Degrade?

6

Prohibit SBU-Turns/Triple EBL Lanes % Delay

IncreaseLOS

Degrade?Approach

Sig

naliz

ed


ApproachTriple EBL Lanes % Delay

IncreaseLOS

Degrade?


15

A signal at Access #2 on the proposed Drysdale Extension Road is necessary to control traffic into and out of CenterPoint. This approach as an unsignalized side-street stop has a demand equal to more than twice the capacity that the approach would provide, yielding failing LOS. By signalizing this primary entrance to CenterPoint, a vehicle delay equivalent to an LOS of C can be maintained through 2035.

Lastly, the unsignalized driveway called Access #3, which was initially assumed to consist of a right-in/left-in/right-out configuration was deemed to be inadequate with respect to potential crash risk. The driveway is proposed as a right-in/right-out access point in the Build with Development Improvements scenario.

Detailed Synchro reports, SIDRA reports for Node #12, and SimTraffic reports (used for establishing approximate queue lengths) for each peak period, and during each design year are shown in the following Appendices:

Scenario Synchro Reports SIDRA Reports

SimTraffic Reports

2017 Existing Conditions F.1 - 2027 No Build F.2 - 2035 No Build F.3 - 2027 Build F.4 F.8 - 2035 Build F.5 F.8 - 2027 Build with Developer Improvements F.6 F.8 G.1 2035 Build with Developer Improvements F.7 F.8 -


16

TURN LANE RECOMMENDATIONS

Turn lane lengths are established using the 95th Percentile value from Synchro and the maximum queue from SimTraffic. The 2027 Build with Development Improvements networks were run in SimTraffic a total of 10 times to estimate an average maximum queue length at these locations. This process was also conducted at proposed driveways into the CenterPoint site. Table 10 summarizes the recommended turn lane lengths for each intersection, with a 100’ minimum storage length. Maximum calculated queues are shown in yellow boxes, and blue boxes indicate where a U-5710 turn lane should be lengthened due to CenterPoint traffic.

Table 10: 2027 Build with Development Improvements Scenario Queuing Summary

Synchro SimTraffic Synchro SimTraffic

EBL 161 200 232 284 - 300WBL 101 127 171 272 - 275WBR 16 45 20 79 200 100

SBL-Th 89 237 55 92 - -SBR 216 226 125 129 - 250

WBR 0 0 0 0 - 100SBR 35 108 110 182 - 200

EBL1 53 143 53 212 480* 225EBL2 53 135 53 191 265* 200WBR 294 235 301 266 270* 325SBR1 287 363 309 326 Continuous* 375SBR2 287 381 309 343 Continuous* 400

EBR 20 77 83 133 - 150SBR-Th 0 8 0 31 - 100

EBL1 85 94 150 135 - 150EBL2 85 122 150 174 - 175EBL3 85 133 150 194 - 200EBR 328 334 528 544 290* 550NBL1 318 402 313 469 830* 475NBL2 318 428 313 548 830* 550SBR - 0 - 44 470* 100

NBR 25 5 25 4 - 100SBL 25 22 25 24 - 100WBR 25 24 25 25 - 100

EBTh-R 8 - 15 - - 100WBL-Th 5 - 10 - - 100NBL-R 8 - 15 - - 100

EBL1 143 154 267 239 - 275EBL2 143 236 267 337 - 350EBR 66 87 51 101 - 125NBL 224 252 305 296 - 325SBR 314 301 415 273 Continuous* 425

* Current U-5710 concept** SIDRA generated queue length reported due to roundabout configuration

Node 16: Drysdale Dr. Ext. at CenterPoint Site Access #2

Node 2: Eastwood Rd. at Cavalier Dr.

Node 15: Eastwood Rd. at Drysdale Dr. Ext.

Node 9: Cavalier Dr. at Calypso Dr.

Node 11: Military Cutoff Rd. at Calypso Dr.

Node 14: Eastwood Rd. at CenterPoint Site Access #3

Node 6: Military Cutoff Rd. at Drysdale Dr. Ext.

Node 12: CenterPoint Site Access #4 at Calypso Dr.**

PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Existing/ Proposed StorageLength

Rec. Min.Storage Length


17

4.0 Conclusions Comparing the future-year No Build and Build scenarios in terms of intersection capacity and simulation analyses, several conclusions can be inferred with regards to the proposed potential TIP improvements and how the projected MOE’s change with the added traffic from the proposed development. Generally, the peak hour trips generated by the proposed CenterPoint development do contribute to degrading traffic operations at intersections with the proposed TIP improvements in the future-year scenarios, but not to an extent that would necessitate major improvements and subsequent revisions to the configuration design plans. The necessary improvements for mitigation would instead be focused mainly at locations immediately adjacent to the U-5710 study area. Improvements are described below, and are represented graphically in Figure 4. Also note that at nodes #15 and #6, the proposed right turn bays in the U-5710 concept are currently not long enough to store anticipated volumes in the TIA analysis. Those additional lengths are noted in Figure 4 and will be addressed through design changes to the U-5710 concept.

The following summarizes the necessary improvements as the result of added traffic from CenterPoint, which are reflected in the Build with Development Improvements Synchro and SimTraffic traffic models.

• Node #2: Eastwood Road at Cavalier Drive

o Install a traffic signal with left turn protection for the major street movements o New eastbound left turn bay with 300’ for storage + 150’ for decel and tapering o New westbound left turn bay with 275’ for storage + 150’ for decel and tapering o Maintain existing 200’ westbound right turn bay o New southbound right turn lane with 250’ for storage + 100’ for decel and taper o New southbound through-left turn lane

• Node #14: Eastwood Road at CenterPoint Access #3 o Construct a new right-in/right-out driveway to CenterPoint. The southbound driveway stem

should be equal to or greater than 200’ to accommodate estimated queues o It is recommended that the first interior intersection be designed to keep traffic moving into

the site to avoid blocking the driveway at Eastwood Road; consider a roundabout or two-way stop control for the internal drives

o New westbound right turn lane with 100’ for storage + 150’ for decel and taper • Node #11: Calypso Road at Military Cutoff Road

o Extend Calypso Road from the existing stub to Military Cutoff Road, as a right-in/right-out driveway

o Construct a 100’ SB through-right turn lane + 150’ decel and taper on Military Cutoff Road for this right-in/right-out driveway. This through-right lane should be designed as an extension of the southbound right turn lane from Military Cutoff Road onto Drysdale Extension

o Any interior intersections with Calypso Road should be located a minimum of 150’ from the driveway to accommodate estimated queues

• Node #6: Military Cutoff Road at Drysdale Extension/Drysdale Road o New triple eastbound left turn lanes; the left-most turn lane should have a minimum of 150’

of storage, the middle turn lane should have a minimum of 175’ of storage, and the right-most turn lane should have a minimum of 200’ of storage

o Maintain proposed eastbound through lane o Maintain proposed eastbound right turn lane with a permitted overlap phase with

northbound lefts and U-turns o Install overhead signage indicating that right turns must yield to U-turns


18

• Node #16: Drysdale Extension at CenterPoint Access #2 o Install a traffic signal with left turn protection for the northbound movement and a

southbound right turn overlap concurrent with the eastbound left turn lane protected phase o New northbound left turn lane with 325’ of storage + 100’ minimum decel and taper length o New southbound right turn lane that is continuous between Military Cutoff Road and

CenterPoint Access #2 o New dual eastbound left turn lanes; the left-hand lane should have a minimum of 275’ of

storage, the right-hand lane should have a minimum of 350’ of storage; decel and taper can be minimal given the low speeds of vehicles operating on this access road

o New eastbound right turn lane with 125’ of storage; decel and taper can be minimal given the low speeds of vehicles operating on this access road

o It is recommended that the first internal drive be equal to or greater than 350’ to accommodate estimated queues of exiting traffic

o The ingress lanes should consist of two inbound lanes into CenterPoint; the egress lanes should consist of a minimum of two outbound lanes exiting CenterPoint

• Node #9: Cavalier Drive at Calypso Road o New northbound right turn lane with 100’ of storage + 100’ for decel and tapering o New southbound left turn lane with 100’ of storage + 100’ for decel and tapering o New westbound right turn lane with 100’ of storage + 100’ for decel and tapering o Maintain current side-street stop control

• Node #12: Calypso Drive at CenterPoint Access #4 o Construct an unsignalized access point (single-lane roundabout) from Calypso Road into

CenterPoint Access #4; the northbound driveway stem of the roundabout should be equal to or greater than 100’ to accommodate estimated queues

o It is recommended that the first interior intersection be designed to keep traffic moving into the site to avoid blocking the roundabout; consider a roundabout or two-way stop control for the internal drives

CenterPoint TIANCDOT Division 3

Cavalier Dr.

Drysdale D

r.

The Forum

Par

ker F

arm

Dr.

Park S

t.

Eastwood Rd.

Military Cutoff Rd.

Landfall Ctr.

Viking Ln.

CenterPoint

Drysdale Dr. Ext.

Site

Acc

ess

#2

150’ driveway stem

Site Access #3

Site Access #4

Cavalier Dr.

Calypso Dr.

Traffic Impact Analysis Recommendations

Commonwealth Dr.

Sturdivant Dr.

Military Cutoff Rd.

100’

100’

100’

300’

200’

250’

200’

driv

eway

ste

m

100’ 325’ (lengthen proposed 270’ turn bay)

150’175’200’

100’

275’ 350’125’

Con

tinuo

us

325’

Eastw

ood Rd.

275’

CenterPoint Traffic Impact Analysis Recommended Traffic Signal Control

CenterPoint Traffic Impact Analysis Recommended Roundabout

CenterPoint Traffic Impact Analysis Recommended Stop Control

CenterPoint Traffic Impact Analysis Recommended Turn Lane and Storage Length

TIP U-5710 Proposed Traffic Signal Control

TIP U-5710 Proposed Free-Flow Right Turn/Yield

Note: No Border Indicates Existing Traffic Control

#2#14

#15

#16

Recommend dual entry lanes

Recommend 1st internal drive be >350’ from signal stop bars

#11

550’ (lengthen proposed 290’ turn bay)

#6

100’ driveway stem

#12

#9

100’

Figure 4: CenterPoint TIA Recommendations

19

Date post:	18-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

Traffic Impact Analysis

Documents