appendix a 2015 scott's addition...

$: Appendix A 2015 Scott's Addition Studyrichmond300.com/marketingMasterPlan/sites/default/files/ScottsAd… · \\vhb\gbl\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\docs\VARIOUS\3396502_ScottsAdd_Existing$
Appendix A 2015 Scott's Addition Study

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\docs\VARIOUS\3396502_ScottsAdd_Existing Conditions Memo-final-rev11-

09-15.docx

115 South 15th Street Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23219-4209 P 804.343.7100

To: Mark Olinger, City of Richmond Matt Raggi, Thalhimer

Date: November 11, 2015

Project #: 33965.02

From: Daniel Lovas, PE Diane Linderman, PE

Re: Scott's Addition Existing Traffic & Parking Conditions Assessment Richmond, VA

INTRODUCTION

Scott’s Addition is a traditionally industrial and commercial neighborhood located in Richmond, Virginia. The neighborhood is located approximately two miles northwest of downtown Richmond and is bounded by North Boulevard, West Broad Street, I-195, and the CSX railroad tracks. Named for General Winfield Scott, the neighborhood is a National Historic District and contains building representing a variety of 20th Century architectural styles. The neighborhood has been the site of significant recent redevelopment and adaptive re-use of formerly industrial parcels with a mix of residential, commercial, and office properties.

As a result of the new development, changing traffic and parking patterns are emerging in the neighborhood. The Scott’s Addition Association requested the City of Richmond perform an assessment of the existing land use, traffic,

and public parking conditions to better understand the current conditions and provide the foundation for further consideration of redevelopment in the neighborhood. The memorandum provides a summary of the Scott’s Addition

existing conditions assessment. Several graphical exhibits are provided with this memorandum to highlight existing conditions and critical information.

LAND USE

Scott’s Addition was rezoned as an industrial area in 1927 and grew in prominence as an industrial and commercial district supporting the City of Richmond. The proximity of the railroad located along the northern boundary of Scott’s

Addition provided the neighborhood with a strategic location for the receipt of raw materials and shipping of manufactured products. Scott’s Addition is still a thriving industrial area, providing a proximate location to downtown Richmond at affordable lease rates.

A general decline in the manufacturing sector over the past generation has reduced the overall demand for significant industrial uses. Property values and availability, along with historic tax credits, have encouraged redevelopment and adaptive reuse in portions of the neighborhood. Several vacant industrial buildings have been redeveloped, or are currently under construction, as multi-unit residential lofts and condominiums. Commercial uses, including sit-down restaurants and consumer services businesses, are increasingly emerging to support the 24-hour community needs of both the businesses and residents in the neighborhood.

VHB performed a combination of online land use data review and visual inspection throughout the neighborhood to identify existing land uses at both the block and parcel level. Figure 1 summarizes the existing land use pattern identified in the Scott’s Addition neighborhood. The map categorizes all properties into one of three categories: industrial/office, commercial, or residential. The validity of this data was dependent on the availability of accurate land use data and the subjectivity of the visual observations, but the map provides useful guidance regarding the general transformation of portions of the neighborhood from primarily industrial uses to other uses.

Ref: 33965.02 November 11, 2015 Page 2

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\docs\VARIOUS\3396502_ScottsAdd_Existing Conditions Memo-final-rev11-09-15.docx

The land use map indicates that along the major boundary roadways, West Broad Street and North Boulevard, the properties consist of primarily small and moderate commercial and service-oriented land uses, including restaurants, a hotel, a florist, and tattoo parlor. The interior of Scott’s Addition is still predominantly occupied by light industrial and low density office land uses, characterized by automotive repair/parts/detailing, food production/distribution, equipment manufacturing/storage, building contractors, and professional services firms. The areas of greatest transformation in recent years are generally located on eastern side of the neighborhood, where several blocks in proximity to the Summit Avenue/ Norfolk Street intersection have redeveloped with mixed-used residential and commercial properties, and the major multi-story mixed-use redevelopment of the 3600 West Broad Street block on the west side of the neighborhood.

TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

Vehicular Access and Traffic Operations

Regional access to Scott’s Addition is provided by North Boulevard, West Broad Street, and I-195. Freeway access into the neighborhood is provided by an interchange ramp from I-195 northbound that connects to Roseneath Avenue at Clay Street. Additional access to and from I-195 is provided via interchange ramps on West Broad Street, just west of Scott’s Addition. Additional freeway access is provided at the North Boulevard/Robin Hood Road interchange with I-95/I-64, located approximately one-half mile north of Scott’s Addition. Two signalized intersections on North Boulevard and two signalized intersections on West Broad Street facilitate efficient access to the neighborhood. The only signalized intersection within the neighborhood is located at the Roseneath Avenue/Clay Street/I-95 NB off-ramp intersection.

The traffic activity within the neighborhood is typically modest to light throughout the day. The periods of highest traffic volume correspond to the weekday morning and afternoon commuter peak periods. Industrial land uses typically operate on earlier schedules or shifts than many other employers, and observations indicate that the neighborhood’s peak commuter activity may occur somewhat earlier than the overall Richmond commuter peaks. The predominantly light industrial and commercial land uses tend to generate elevated levels of single-unit delivery trucks, but only a few businesses in the neighborhood appear to regularly operate larger trucks, including tractor trailers.

The location where traffic congestion appear greatest within the neighborhood is the Moore Street approach to the traffic signal at North Boulevard during the weekday evening peak period, when employees are typically exiting the neighborhood. Vehicular queuing was observed to extend to or past Altamont Street; however, the traffic signal timings appeared adequate to process all queued traffic within a single signal cycle. Should additional capacity on eastbound Moore Street become necessary, the City could re-designate the through lane approaching the signal as a shared through-left turn lane because the signal operates with a split phased condition and two northbound receiving lanes are provided on North Boulevard.

Roadway Network and Traffic Circulation

The roadway network within Scott’s Addition is a configured as a grid network, which provides direct access to both North Boulevard and West Broad Street at multiple locations. The traffic circulation pattern in Scott’s Addition is

influenced by the alternating one-way streets, between North Boulevard and Roseneath Avenue, which comprise much of the east-west street network. The one-way streets include Marshall Street, Clay Street, Moore Street, and



Norfolk Street. Leigh Street is the only major east-west street that provides two-way travel. Figure 2 summarizes the existing directional travel restrictions for Scott’s Addition and also includes approximate dimensions of the roadway width in selected locations throughout the neighborhood.

All of the north-south streets, except the relatively narrow Shepard Street, provide two-way travel throughout Scott’s

Addition. Throughout Scott’s Addition, the east-west streets are generally considered the major streets, and the north-south streets are controlled by Stop signs at intersections with east-west streets. Roseneath Avenue and Bellville Street are the only exceptions to this pattern and are treated as major streets at intersections with all east-west streets.

Most streets in Scott’s Addition appear relatively uniform, with a curb-to-curb width of approximately 39 feet, which accommodates two standard travel lanes and 7-8 feet on each side of the street for on-street parking. Some of the east-west streets in the southern portion of Scott’s Addition are slightly narrower, ranging from 34-36 feet wide. Roneneath Avenue appears to be the only significantly wider street, at approximately 44 feet wide.

The existing one-way traffic patterns for most of the east-west streets does not appear to be necessary based on the existing roadway widths or prevailing traffic volumes and patterns. The one-way traffic patterns may contribute to elevated traffic speeds and drivers violating existing one-way restrictions. At least one vehicle was observed violating the one-way eastbound travel restriction on Marshall Street simply to access a property without driving having to travel around the block. Most of the one-way streets throughout the neighborhood could be converted to support two-way traffic operations and maintain on-street parking. Since there are businesses that have active tractor trailer use, turning radii needs to be factored into any redesign of the roadway and intersection geometries.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

While most streets in Scott’s Addition have sidewalk on at least one side of the street, many areas of the neighborhood lack adequate pedestrian facilities. On some streets, such as Altamont Avenue, sidewalks are entirely absent. Significant gaps are present between sidewalk segments and sidewalk materials. Sidewalk widths are substandard. The neighborhood’s urban location and burgeoning mixed-use character suggests that at minimum a five-foot wide sidewalk should be a standard pedestrian accommodation on all blocks. In some higher-activity areas, wider sidewalks may be appropriate. Landscape buffers and tree boxes may be desirable in commercial and residential areas to improve the appearance of the streetscape and increase the available tree canopy.

Many parcels throughout the neighborhood maintain multiple private driveways or on-street loading docks, where trucks and other vehicles may be parked in conflict with pedestrian movements along the side of the street. In many cases, private driveways were designed with very wide aprons to accommodate truck movements and may be excessive for existing land uses. As the urban mixed-use character of the neighborhood continues to evolve, it will be desirable to minimize parking and loading along the roadside areas where pedestrian facilities are typically provided and minimize driveway widths to help reduce potential pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles.

No dedicated bicycle facilities are provided in Scott’s Addition. The existing street network and prevailing traffic

speeds appear generally compatible with on-street bicycle activity. The existing roadway cross-sections are not compatible with providing bicycle lanes as well as two-way vehicular traffic and on-street parking. Many of the one-way streets likely maintain excess vehicle capacity and it may be desirable to perform a road diet to reduce the



number of vehicular travel lanes and provide on-street bike lanes or cycle tracks. Preferably, any new dedicated bicycle facilities in Scott’s Addition would connect to external bicycle systems throughout the city.

PARKING CONDITIONS

Parking Regulations and Capacity

On-street parking is provided throughout Scott’s Addition and many land uses provide significant off-street parking as well. To better understand existing parking conditions, VHB performed a visual survey of the existing on-street parking regulations and capacity throughout Scott’s Addition. Figure 3 provides a summary of the approximate

existing on-street parking restrictions and capacity for each street block.

Existing parking signage can be unclear regarding the extent of restricted parking areas and on-street parking spaces are not individually marked, so restricted areas identified in Figure 3 are approximate and the number of legal parking spaces is based on average parking space length assumptions. There are many locations where parking is prohibited for portions of a block, primarily so that adjacent industrial land uses can maintain adequate access to private driveways, entrances, or loading areas.

Figure 3 includes a Parking Summary Chart identifying an estimated total of approximately 1,559 legal on-street parking spaces in the neighborhood. Additionally, VHB identified several locations where outdated parking regulation signs, including No Parking and time-based parking restrictions, remained present primarily in the central portion of the neighborhood. These outdated parking regulation are likely a vestige of formerly active industrial operations that ceased when old tenants departed or operations changed over time, rendering the on-street parking restrictions unnecessary at this time. In total, VHB identified approximately 35 legal parking spaces that could be restored through removal of the outdated parking regulations.

Parking Utilization

VHB also performed observations of existing on-street parking utilization throughout Scott’s Addition at several times

of day, on both a weekday and weekend, to establish a baseline understanding of the availability of on-street parking. Figures 4-6 summarize the parking utilization for the weekday midday, weekday evening, and weekday midday time periods, respectively.

The parking utilization data indicates that the weekday midday period was the overall busiest time for on-street parking utilization. Specifically, the eastern half of the neighborhood experiences relatively full on-street parking utilization during the midday, while parking in the western portions of the neighborhood is relatively light. Overall, there is significant remaining on-street parking capacity throughout the neighborhood, even during the midday peak parking demand condition.

The data suggests that many of the businesses and employees in Scott’s Addition continue to utilize on-street parking during the workday, likely as a matter of convenience. The elevated parking demand in the eastern part of the neighborhood is attributable, in part, to the daytime overlap of the active industrial and commercial land uses, particularly around Summit Avenue and North Boulevard. Lower overall parking utilization during both the weekday evening and weekend midday suggests that the parking demands associated with the residential and commercial land uses are generally manageable with existing on-street parking availability. While the most convenient on-street



parking, located immediately adjacent to the highest activity uses, may be fully utilized at all times, most residents or customers are unlikely to need to park further than one block from their destinations during evenings and weekends.

Off-street parking is provided on most properties in Scott’s Addition and continues to support many of the existing

land uses; however, few parking lots in the neighborhood appeared to be fully utilized, even during the midday. While reductions in off-street parking capacity through redevelopment could contribute to localized shortages in parking availability, significant on-street parking resources remain available to the neighborhood.

In general, industrial/office and residential land uses should continue to provide reasonable off-street parking capacity for employees and residents, and generally preserve on-street parking for visitors, customers, deliveries, and high-turnover users. In commercial areas, it may be appropriate to implement new parking regulations limiting the duration of on-street parking to encourage turnover. Where advantageous, the Scott’s Addition Business Association

should consider further implementation of back–in angled or head-in parking on one-way streets, similar to the treatment used on the northernmost block of Summit Avenue, to maximize on-street parking for highly-active street-front commercial redevelopment or other land uses without significant off-street parking.

Conclusions

The existing transportation systems within Scott’s Addition were designed to support a different land use than is

currently emerging within the neighborhood. The results of this study suggest that there is plenty of on street parking available today in the neighborhood, with certain blocks more occupied than others. There is minimal traffic congestion during the peak hours based on limited observation. The wide cart paths would allow for either accommodating two-way traffic or more parking (back-in angled parking) to meet the needs of the future land uses while not impacting the required capacity. Sidewalks are missing, narrow, or in poor condition throughout the neighborhood which doesn’t support safety and walkability. There are no existing bicycle accommodations in the public right of way.

Next steps should include further study the transportation system based on a proposed land use plan. Strategies for modifying the system to accommodate all modes of transportation, including parking, should consider:

• Use of the streets for vehicular and bicycle traffic and parking

• conversion of the one-way streets to two-way for improved circulation,

• improved access from the neighborhood to the proposed BRT station at Altamont Street

• planned investment in construction and maintenance of the sidewalk system, including lighting andstreetscape

• prioritized transportation system investment,

Appendix B

Scott’s Addition

Proposed Typical Cross Sections

Notes:

1. Existing right-of-way information was based on available GIS information from the City of Richmond. No detailed survey was performed.

2. All north to south cross-sections are facing north, and all east to west cross sections are facing west.

3. All images courtesy of streetmix.net via license CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ )

Roseneath RoadBetween W. Broad Street and W. Marshall Street

Courtesy of Streetmix.net via license CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ )

Existing

Proposed


Roseneath RoadBetween W. Marshall Street and Patton Avenue


Existing

17.5’

curbside zone

17.5’

curbside zone

Proposed


Mactavish Avenue and Altamont AvenueBetween W. Broad Street and Patton Avenue

Existing

Proposed

11’-14’

curbside zone

11’-14’

curbside zone



Highpoint AvenueBetween W. Broad Street and W. Moore Street

Existing

Proposed

7’-10’

curbside zone

7’-10’

curbside zone

7’

6’



Highpoint AvenueBetween W. Moore Street and Rockbridge Street

Existing

Proposed

8’

curbside

zone

8’

curbside

zone



Summit AvenueBetween W. Broad Street and W. Moore Street

Existing

Proposed

7’-9.5’

curbside zone

7’-9.5’

curbside zone

6’

7’

10’

10’

8’



Summit AvenueBetween W. Moore Street and Norfolk Street; Rockbridge Street and Patton Avenue

Existing

Proposed

11’

curbside zone

11’

curbside zone



Proposed

Summit AvenueBetween Norfolk Street and Rockbridge Street

Existing

Proposed

7-8.5’

curbside zone

7-8.5’

curbside

zone

10’

Drive lane

12’

Drive lane

21’

Angled parking



N. Sheppard Street Between W. Broad Street and W. Marshall Street

Existing

Proposed

7’

curbside

zone

7’

curbside

zone

11’

Travel Lane



P

P

7.5’

curbside

zone

7.5’

curbside

zone

11’

Travel Lane

N. Sheppard Street Between W. Marshall Street and W. Clay Street

Existing

Proposed



W. Marshall Street, W. Leigh Street, and Rockbridge StreetBetween Belleville Street and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard

Existing

Proposed

11’-14’

curbside zone

11’-14’

curbside zone



W. Marshall StreetBetween Roseneath Road and N. Sheppard Street

Existing

Proposed

8.5’-11.5’

curbside zone

8.5’-11.5’

curbside zone



W. Marshall Street Between N. Sheppard Street and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard

Existing

Proposed

9.5’

curbside zone

9.5’

curbside zone



Proposed P

P

W. Clay StreetBetween Roseneath Road and N. Sheppard Street

Existing

Proposed

8.5’-10.5’

curbside zone

8.5’-10.5’

curbside zone



W. Clay StreetBetween N. Sheppard Street and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard

Existing

Proposed

7’

curbside

zone

7’

curbside

zone

10’

Drive

Lane

10’

Drive

Lane

10’

Drive

Lane

5’

Bike

Lane



W. Moore Street Between Belleville Street and Roseneath Road

Existing

Proposed

7.5’

curbside

zone

7.5’

curbside

zone

6’ 7’7’ 6’ 10’10’

Proposed



7.5’-10.5’

curbside zone

7.5’-10.5’

curbside zone

6’ 7’10’11’5’

W. Moore StreetBetween Roseneath Road and Altamont Avenue

Existing

Proposed



W. Moore Street Between Altamont Avenue and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard

Existing

Proposed

8’

curbside

zone

8’

curbside

zone



P

P

Norfolk Street Between Belleville Street and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard

Existing

Proposed

11’

curbside zone

11’

curbside zone



Belleville StreetBetween W. Clay Street and W. Leigh Street

Existing

Proposed

10.5’

curbside zone

10.5’

curbside zone



Belleville StreetBetween W. Leigh Street and Norfolk Street

Existing

Proposed

7’

curbside

zone

7’

curbside

zone



Patton AvenueNew Street Connection

Between Altamont Avenue and Summit Avenue

Between Summit Avenue and Roseneath Road

7’

curbside

zone

13’

Shared-Use

Path

7’

curbside

zone

15’

Shared-Use Path



Appendix CUnit Cost Opinions

Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ONLYITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE NOTES

GENERAL1 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ Lump sum based on 12th Street Project

SUBTOTAL = 2,000$ DEMOLITION

2 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB RAMP EA 1,000$ -$ 3 ERADICATION OF EXIST. LINEAR PVMT MARKING 100 LF 0.35$ 35$ 4 ERAD. EXIST. NONLINEAR PVMT MRKG SF 6$ -$

SUBTOTAL = 35$ SITE WORK

5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT - PLANNING ABOVE 2"-4" 1,780 SY 7$ 12,282$ Assume average of 40' pavement6 NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 4" 230 SY 65$ 14,950$ Assume average of 10' sidewalk on each side7 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK - 4" 230 SY 75$ 17,250$ Assume half new, half replaced sidewalk8 NEW CONCRETE WHEELCHAIR RAMP - 6" SY 136$ -$ 9 INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CURB BUMP OUTS SY 65$ -$ 10 TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SF 44$ -$

11REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/ALLEY CROSSING - 8" COMMERCIAL 90 SY 158$ 14,220$ Assume 4 1'x20' openings per block

12 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB 800 LF 57$ 45,600$ SUBTOTAL = 104,302$

PAVEMENT MARKINGS13 4" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 2,800 LF 8$ 22,400$ 14 HELMETED BICYCLIST SYMBOL PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 6 EA 353$ 2,118$ Assume three per direction per block15 PAVEMENT MARKING MESSAGE: ELONGATED ARROW (TYPE B, CLASS IV) 6 EA 364$ 2,184$ Assume three per direction per block

SUBTOTAL = 26,702$ STREET FURNISHINGS

16 INSTALL SIGNS AND POSTS 2 EA 600$ 1,200$ Assume 2 wayfinding signs per block17 INSTALL TRASH CANS 2 EA 500$ 1,000$ Assume two per block18 INSTALL DECORATIVE BENCH 2 EA 2,000$ 4,000$ Assume two per block19 5-SLOT BICYCLE RACKS 2 EA 500$ 1,000$ Assume two per block

SUBTOTAL = 7,200$ LANDSCAPING

20 INSTALL TREE 8 EA 1,000$ 8,000$ Assume 8 per block21 CONSTRUCT NEW TREE WELL UP TO 25 SF 8 EA 437$ 3,496$ Assume 8 per block22 ADDITIONAL SITE LANDSCAPING AND SEEDING 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$

SUBTOTAL = 16,496$

Typical Cross Section ImprovementRichmond, Virginia

Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

Appendix C - Preliminary Cost OpinionPage 1

Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019


Typical Cross Section ImprovementRichmond, Virginia


UTILITIES23 REPLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 1 EA 2,500$ 2,500$ 24 STORM SEWER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Lump sum based on 17th Street Project25 RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITY POLE (SEE NOTE 7) 2 EA -$ -$

SUBTOTAL = 12,500$

CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = 169,235$ 6% 10,154.10$ 8% 13,538.80$

25% 42,308.75$ 235,237$

20% 47,047$ 282,284$

10% 28,228$ 10% 28,228$

TOTAL = 338,741$

GENERAL NOTES1 Quantities shown in this estimate are preliminary and will be refined during design process. 2 City of Richmond Term Contract unit prices were used, if known.3 VDOT Richmond District average unit prices were used, if known.4 Similar project cost experience was used if applicable.5 This estimate does not include bonding costs.6 Does not account for underground utilities or any relocation of underground utilities.7 Assume existing utility poles will be relocated by Dominion Power at no cost to the City through the Franchise Agreement.8 Assume block length of 400'.

ROADWAY COST (RD)CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION (CN)R/W & UTILITY RELOCATIONS (RW)

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (PE)

CONTINGENCY

MOBILIZATIONMAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC


Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019




2 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB RAMP 4 EA 1,000$ 4,000$ Assume 4 per each intersection3 ERADICATION OF EXIST. LINEAR PVMT MARKING 80 LF 0.35$ 28$ 4 ERAD. EXIST. NONLINEAR PVMT MRKG 80 SF 6$ 514$

SUBTOTAL = 4,542$ SITE WORK

5 NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 4" 62 SY 65$ 4,044$ 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK - 4" 89 SY 75$ 6,667$ 7 INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CURB BUMP OUTS 202 SY 65$ 13,144$ Assume 4 per intersection8 TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 80 SF 44$ 3,520$ 1 2'x5' surface per curb ramp9 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB 300 LF 57$ 17,100$

SUBTOTAL = 44,476$ PAVEMENT MARKINGS

10 24" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 24 LF 6$ 132$ 11 6" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 192 LF 10$ 1,920$ 12 4" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 80 LF 8$ 640$


13 INSTALL SIGNS AND POSTS 2 EA 600$ 1,200$ Assume 2 wayfinding signs per intersection14 RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN 2 EA 564$ 1,127$ Assume relocation of two STOP signs15 INSTALL TRASH CANS 4 EA 500$ 2,000$ Assume 4 per intersection16 INSTALL DECORATIVE BENCH 1 EA 2,000$ 2,000$ Assume 1 per intersection17 5-SLOT BICYCLE RACKS 1 EA 500$ 500$ Assume 1 per intersection

SUBTOTAL = 6,827$ LANDSCAPING

18 INSTALL TREE 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ Assume 2 per intersection19 CONSTRUCT NEW TREE WELL UP TO 25 SF 2 EA 437$ 874$ Assume 2 per intersection20 ADDITIONAL SITE LANDSCAPING AND SEEDING 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$

SUBTOTAL = 7,874$

Typical Unsignalized Intersection ImprovementRichmond, Virginia



Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019


Typical Unsignalized Intersection ImprovementRichmond, Virginia


UTILITIES21 REPLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 1 EA 2,500$ 2,500$ 22 STORM SEWER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Lump sum based on 17th Street Project23 RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITY POLE (SEE NOTE 7) 2 EA -$ -$

SUBTOTAL = 12,500$

CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = 80,910$ 6% 4,854.62$ 8% 6,472.83$

25% 20,227.60$ 112,465$

20% 22,493$ 134,959$

10% 13,496$ 10% 13,496$

TOTAL = 161,950$

GENERAL NOTES1 Quantities shown in this estimate are preliminary and will be refined during design process. 2 City of Richmond Term Contract unit prices were used, if known.3 VDOT Richmond District average unit prices were used, if known.4 Similar project cost experience was used if applicable.5 This estimate does not include bonding costs.6 Does not account for underground utilities or any relocation of underground utilities.7 Assume existing utility poles will be relocated by Dominion Power at no cost to the City through the Franchise Agreement.8 Assumes only intersection streetscaping and pedestrian improvements. Pavement markings and signs for two-way conversion included in block unit costs.

CONTINGENCY






Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019




2 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB RAMP 4 EA 1,000$ 4,000$ Assume 4 per each intersection3 ERADICATION OF EXIST. LINEAR PVMT MARKING 160 LF 0.35$ 56$ 4 ERAD. EXIST. NONLINEAR PVMT MRKG 160 SF 6$ 1,027$


5 NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 4" 62 SY 65$ 4,044$ 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK - 4" 89 SY 75$ 6,667$ 7 INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CURB BUMP OUTS 202 SY 65$ 13,144$ As shown in graphics8 TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 80 SF 44$ 3,520$ 1 2'x5' surface per curb ramp9 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB 300 LF 57$ 17,100$

SUBTOTAL = 44,476$ PAVEMENT MARKINGS

10 24" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 48 LF 6$ 264$ 11 4" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 160 LF 8$ 1,280$


12 INSTALL SIGNS AND POSTS 2 EA 600$ 1,200$ Assume 2 wayfinding signs per intersection13 RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN 2 EA 564$ 1,127$ Assume relocation of two STOP signs14 INSTALL TRASH CANS 4 EA 500$ 2,000$ Assume 4 per intersection15 INSTALL DECORATIVE BENCH 1 EA 2,000$ 2,000$ Assume 1 per intersection16 5-SLOT BICYCLE RACKS 1 EA 500$ 500$ Assume 1 per intersection

SUBTOTAL = 6,827$ PEDESTRIAN SIGNALIZATION

17 PEDESTRIAN ACTUATION PA-2 8 EA 207$ 1,652.32$ 18 PEDESTAL POLE PF-2 12' 8 EA 811$ 6,484.64$ 19 CONCRETE FOUNDATION PF-2 8 EA 768$ 6,140.32$ 20 14/2 CONDUCTOR CABLE 3,040 LF 2$ 5,472.00$ 21 14/7 CONDUCTOR CABLE 3,080 LF 2$ 5,174.40$ 22 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEAD SP-9 8 EA 722$ 5,773.68$ 23 JUNCTION BOX JB-S2 8 EA 1,096$ 8,768.16$ 24 3" PVC CONDUIT 530 LF 7$ 3,688.80$ 25 TRENCH EXCAVATION ECI-1 160 LF 8$ 1,313.60$ 26 INSTALL CONTROLLER 1 EA 3,500$ 3,500.00$

SUBTOTAL = 47,968$

Typical Signalized Intersection ImprovementRichmond, Virginia



Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/11/2019


Typical Signalized Intersection ImprovementRichmond, Virginia


LANDSCAPING27 INSTALL TREE 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ Assume 2 per intersection28 CONSTRUCT NEW TREE WELL UP TO 25 SF 2 EA 437$ 874$ Assume 2 per intersection29 ADDITIONAL SITE LANDSCAPING AND SEEDING 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$

SUBTOTAL = 7,874$ UTILITIES

30 REPLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 1 EA 2,500$ 2,500$ 31 STORM SEWER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Lump sum based on 17th Street Project32 RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITY POLE (SEE NOTE 7) 2 EA -$ -$

SUBTOTAL = 12,500$

CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = 128,272$ 6% 7,696$ 8% 10,262$

25% 32,068$ 27,000$

205,298$ 20% 41,060$

246,358$ 10% 24,636$ 10% 24,636$

TOTAL = 295,629$

GENERAL NOTES1 Quantities shown in this estimate are preliminary and will be refined during design process. 2 City of Richmond Term Contract unit prices were used, if known.3 VDOT Richmond District average unit prices were used, if known.4 Similar project cost experience was used if applicable.5 This estimate does not include bonding costs.6 Does not account for underground utilities or any relocation of underground utilities.7 Assume existing utility poles will be relocated by Dominion Power at no cost to the City through the Franchise Agreement.8 Assumes only intersection streetscaping and pedestrian improvements. Pavement markings and signs for two-way conversion included in block unit costs.9 Assumes installation of pedestrian signalization.

10 Assumes upgrade of existing controller to accommdate pedestrian signalization.



CONTINGENCYUPGRADE CONTROLLER




Appendix DClay Street and N. Arthur Ashe Boulevard Signal Justification Report

VDOT Signal Justification Report Template – Version 1.0 - Nov-03-2017

Page 1 of 4

VDOT Signal Justification Report (SJR)Richmond District

.

Date: August 3rd, 2018

I. Study Intersection

Major Street Route # and Name: Boulevard Direction: North/SouthMinor Street Route # and Name: Clay Street Direction: East/WestCounty or Locality: City of RichmondIntersection on Arterial Preservation Network (APN)? NoIf on APN, type of APN Corridor? N/ASketch/Diagram/Aerial of the Intersection Geometry:

Describe the Origin and Nature of Request. If this SJR is based on a recommendation from another study (e.g. Traffic Impact Analysis or Safety Study), then note the name/date of the study and attach the study to this SJR.The need for this signal derives from the Scott’s Addition Circulation and Mobility Study, which concluded in a Smart Scale application for two-way conversion and streetscape of Clay Street in Richmond, Virginia. Clay Street is currently one-way westbound, but the improvements propose converting Clay Street to two-way. This SJR is for the intersection of Clay Street and Boulevard to accommodate the new eastbound Clay Street approach. This SJR is attached to the technical memo in support of that Smart Scale application.

If the origin of this SJR comes from another study, what were the key conclusions from that study that are related to this intersection?This SJR is in support of a Smart Scale application for Clay Street in Richmond, Virginia, which concluded to convert Clay Street from one-way westbound to two-way and proposed streetscape and pedestrian improvements. The conversion of Clay Street to two-way suggests the need for signal control at the intersection of Clay Street and Boulevard.

VHB115 South 15th Street, Suite 200

Richmond, Virginia 23219TRAFFIC ENGINEER

https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8cf10ec607844f75be916e27b15f43eb


Page 2 of 4

II. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary Intersection Approach Information:

Approach Direction

Road Name/Route

Number Approach

Speed Approach

Speed Type Approach Speed

Notes1

Number of Through

Lanes

Annual Average Daily Traffic

(AADT)

Northbound Boulevard 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit 2 9,500

Southbound Boulevard 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit 2 9,500

Eastbound Clay Street 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit 1 1,300

Westbound Driveway 15 MPH Other

(Describe in Notes)

Assumed driveway entrance speed. 1 -

1 If approach speed type is not the posted/statutory speed limit, explain the reason why the posted/statutory speed limit was not used. Summary of Traffic Count Source: 11-hour turning movement counts (TMCs) were collected from 7AM to 6PM using Miovision on a typical, non-holiday weekday on April 18, 2018. These counts consisted of vehicular turning movements and pedestrian crossings at each approach. The 11-hour TMC is summarized in 15-minute intervals and is included in the attached signal warrant analysis. 6-hour TMC counts were collected for the adjacent intersections. The 6-hour data was used to determine how traffic would be reassigned when Clay Street is converted to two-way. Only six hours of traffic volumes were analyzed in this signal justification report. Summary of MUTCD Signal Warrant Analysis:

MUTCD Signal Warrants Warrant Satisfied? Notes / Summary

Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

All 6 hours of available data met the volume thresholds, indicating that Warrant 1 would be satisfied if more hours of data were available.

Warrant 1: VDOT ADT Option1 ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A Click or tap here to enter text.

Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A At least 4 hours met the four-hour vehicular volume thresholds set forth and satisfy Warrant 2.

Warrant 3: Peak Hour2 ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A

At least 1 hour met the peak hour volume warrant thresholds; however, the peak hour warrant is not applicable to this location as it does not generate a large amount of traffic volume over a short period of time.

Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A The pedestrian volumes fell below the warrant thresholds, so Warrant 4 is not met.

Warrant 5: School Crossing ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A This warrant is not applicable to the study intersection.

Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A The spacing of the signalized intersections is below 1000’, so this warrant is not met.

Warrant 7: Crash Experience ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A

The existing intersection does not meet the crash thresholds because it is currently only a one-way away from the intersection; however, based on engineering judgement, installation of a traffic signal at Clay Street and Boulevard may be considered for safety reasons.

Warrant 8: Roadway Network ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A This warrant is not applicable to the study intersection.


Page 3 of 4

MUTCD Signal Warrants Warrant Satisfied? Notes / Summary

Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A This warrant is not applicable to the study intersection.

Are the signal warrant analyses based on current volumes or anticipated future volumes? ☐ Current volumes ☒ Anticipated future volumes/conditions The signal warrant analysis is based on current volumes, but reassigned to the network to reflect the conversion of Clay Street to two-way. If the signal warrant is only met under future conditions, provide a summary of trip generation assumptions and anticipated development thresholds that will trigger the signal being justified: Signal warrants are not met under existing conditions as the minor street has no approach. VHB assumed that when Clay Street is converted to two-way, it will be the most direct route from I-195 to Boulevard, and the vast majority of traffic from I-195 destined for Boulevard will use Clay Street. VHB understands that it is likely that some traffic from I-195 destined for Boulevard may remain on Moore Street or Marshall Street after conversion of Clay Street to two-way; however, a similar number of vehicles generated by land uses on Clay Street that are currently using Moore Street or Marshall Street will be reassigned to Clay Street. VHB anticipates that the I-195 traffic remaining on Moore Street and Marshall Street and the traffic generated by Clay Street are essentially equal. Therefore, the total volume reassigned to Clay Street is equal to the I-195 traffic destined for Boulevard.


Page 4 of 4

III. VJuST Innovative Intersection Consideration Summary of Potentially Feasible Innovative Intersections according to VJuST results:

Innovative Intersection Type Feasibility Decision and Reason

Roundabout

Is a roundabout feasible? ☐ Yes ☒ No Explanation: A two-lane roundabout would be needed to accommodate the existing cross-section and volumes on Boulevard. A two-lane roundabout requires a minimum diameter of 150’, which is not feasible in this location as it would require right of way and demolition of adjacent properties.

Continuous Green-T

Is this Innovative Intersection type feasible? ☐ Yes ☒ No Explanation: The westbound driveway approach must be closed or converted to right-in/right-out, and the green-T provides worse pedestrian accommodations when compared to a conventional signalized intersection.

IV. Intersection Configuration and Control Recommendations and Signal Justification Intersection Configuration and Control Recommendations: This engineering study examines traffic signal warrants using traffic volumes and crash history at the intersection of Clay Street and Boulevard in Richmond, VA. It is important to note that the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Engineering judgement should also be used in the evaluation of the warrants to ensure that a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. The analysis showed that the traffic volumes exceed the thresholds set forth in Warrants 1, 2, and 3 defined by the MUTCD. Signal Justification: A signal is warranted and recommended at this location. In addition to satisfying all volume thresholds, signalization of this intersection will provide better circulation to/from the rapidly redeveloping Scott’s Addition network. Adding traffic signal control to this intersection will provide a more direct route from I-195 to Boulevard and mitigate congestion at the adjacent signal of Moore Street / Leigh Street and Boulevard. The VJuST analysis suggests that the volumes will incur excessive delay under two-way stop-control conditions. Alternative intersection designs analyzed (i.e., Roundabout and Continuous Green-T) are not feasible alternatives for this location due to significant right of way impacts and the closely spaced intersections on Boulevard.


Page 5 of 4

V. Approvals Signal Justification Report Approvals:

District Traffic Engineer (DTE): ☐ Concur ☐ Do Not Concur _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Name Signature Date Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ District Engineer/Administrator (DE/DA): ☐ Concur ☐ Do Not Concur _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Name Signature Date Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ State Traffic Engineer (STE): ☐ Approved ☐ Denied _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Name Signature Date Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix A: Signal Warrant Analysis

Ref: 33965.19

July 27, 2018

Page 1

To: Mike Sawyer

City of Richmond

Date:

August 2, 2018

Project #: 33965.19

From: Chris Daily, P.E.

Noelle Wilcox, E.I.T.

VHB Re: Signal Warrant Analysis at Clay Street and North Boulevard

Introduction

This document is submitted in support of the Signal Justification Report (SJR) accompanying the Smart Scale

application for improvements on Clay Street. As part of the Clay Street recommendations, Clay Street will become

two-way. Clay Street is currently one-way westbound at the intersection with North Boulevard. The conversion from

one-way to two-way will introduce a new approach (eastbound Clay Street) to this intersection. VHB conducted a

signal warrant analysis for this intersection using the methodology outlined in Part 4 of the 2009 Edition of FHWA’s

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The signal warrant analysis relies on existing 2018 traffic volumes,

but reassigns the traffic volume to accommodate the conversion of Clay Street to two-way.

VHB assumed that the new Clay Street eastbound approach will have two lanes. VHB also evaluated the adjacent

signals on Boulevard to evaluate if they would still be warranted when traffic is reassigned to the new eastbound Clay

Street approach from the two adjacent signalized intersections. This document presents the signal warrant analysis

conclusions.

Executive Summary

The analysis is based on existing traffic volumes, anticipated future traffic reassignments, observed physical location

characteristics, and reported crash history at the study intersection. The intersection was tested against six of the nine

warrants in Chapter 4C of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition:

• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

• Warrant 3, Peak Hour

• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System

• Warrant 7, Crash Experience

It is important to note that installation of a traffic control signal is not based solely on the satisfaction of a traffic signal

warrant or warrants. Engineering judgement should also be used in the evaluation of the warrants to ensure that a

traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.

The analysis showed that the traffic volume thresholds in warrants 1, 2 and 3 are met at the 100% thresholds.

Furthermore, the crash experience warrant, warrant 7, requires three criteria to be met. Alternative countermeasures

have not yet been implemented as the geometry is still one-way westbound. Therefore, warrant 7 was not fully

satisfied.

Accordingly, two of the six warrants tested were satisfied. The reassigned traffic volumes also satisfied the volume

thresholds for Warrant 3 as well, but did not meet all aspects of the warrant and was not satisfied. The warrant analysis

and engineering judgement conclude that a traffic signal is recommended at this location with the conversion of Clay

Street from one-way to two-way.

Existing Conditions

The functional classification of Clay Street is a local road, and the functional classification of North Boulevard is a

principal arterial. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the study intersection.

Figure 1: Aerial View of Study Intersection (Source: ESRI, July 2018)

North Boulevard is the major street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph, and Clay Street is the minor street with a

posted speed limit of 25 mph for all vehicles. The study intersection operates under stop-control, with stop sign and

stop bar, on Clay Street. Pedestrian accommodations (i.e., marked crosswalks and curb ramps) are provided crossing

the northbound and eastbound approaches, and sidewalks are provided along North Boulevard and the south side of

Clay Street. Table 1 shows the approximate distance measurements to the adjacent intersections surrounding the

study intersection.

Table 1: Distances to Adjacent Intersections

Intersection Distance (feet) Direction Control

North Boulevard and

West Marshall Street 400 South

T-intersection (4th leg is driveway).

Signal controlled

North Boulevard and

Leigh Street 400 North

T-intersection. Stop-controlled on

Leigh Street

N Sheppard Street and

Clay Street 205 West

T-intersection. Stop-controlled on

Sheppard Street

Available Data

Eleven-hour turning movement counts (7:00 AM – 6:00 PM) were collected at the Clay Street and North Boulevard

intersection on a typical, non-holiday weekday (Wednesday, April 18, 2018). These counts consisted of vehicular

turning movements and pedestrian crossings on each approach. The count data was summarized in 15-minute

intervals and included in the attachments.

The turning movement counts were used to identify the weekday AM and PM peak hours of vehicular activity at the

intersection. The weekday AM peak hour was identified as 8:00 - 9:00 AM and the weekday PM peak hour was

identified as 4:45 - 5:45 PM. The peak hour approach volumes for each of these time periods are summarized by

turning movement in Table 2.

Table 2: Weekday Peak Hour Approach Volumes - Existing

Peak

Period Hour

North Boulevard

Southbound

North Boulevard

Northbound

Clay Street*

Eastbound

Total

Entering

Volume T R L T L R

AM 8:00 - 9:00 AM 679 76 42 739 0 0 1,536

PM 4:45 - 5:45 PM 900 84 40 879 0 0 1,903

*Clay Street is one-way westbound under existing conditions

To corroborate the count data collected, VHB compared the peak hour counts obtained from data collection efforts to

the peak hour count derived by applying the K factor to the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume on Boulevard.

The counted data peak hour (1828 vehicles per hour) and the peak hour derived from the AADT (1760 vehicles per

hour) are within 5% of each other suggesting that the count data collected and used in this study is representative of

typical average volumes.

Due to the limitation of data available for the adjacent intersections, only six hours (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM –

1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) of traffic volume data were analyzed in this analysis.

Future Conditions

Since Clay Street is currently one-way westbound and has no eastbound approach, the minor street approach volume

was developed through reassignment of existing traffic volumes. VHB assumed that the total volume that will be

reassigned to Clay Street is equal to the total volume from I-195 destined for Boulevard. Clay Street will be the most

direct route to Boulevard from I-195. Various factors influence a driver’s route decisions, including:

• Origin/destination within Scott’s Addition,

• Parking location,

• Direction of ultimate destination (e.g., North or South on Boulevard),

• Congestion of adjacent signalized access points to Boulevard,

• Driver perception of delay at a signalized vs unsignalized intersection, and

• Driver preference of roadway characteristics.

VHB recognizes that it is likely that a percentage of the I-195 traffic destined for Boulevard may still choose to access

Boulevard via Moore Street or Marshall Street in the future. There are also current trips at those adjacent intersections

generated by the land uses along Clay Street that will most likely choose to use Clay Street after conversion to two-

way. VHB anticipates that the I-195 traffic remaining on Moore Street and Marshall Street and the traffic generated by

Clay Street are essentially equal. Therefore, the total volume reassigned to Clay Street is equal to the I-195 traffic

destined for Boulevard.

To meet the 8-hour volume warrant for traffic signal control, at least 100 vehicles must use eastbound Clay Street to

access Boulevard for eight distinct hours of the day. Assuming the unlikely scenario that no traffic is generated on Clay

Street, and all 100 vehicles must come from I-195 to meet the warrant, those 100 vehicles constitutes a mere 11% and

20% of the total volume coming from I-195 in the AM and PM, repsectively. It is highly likely that traffic is generated

on Clay Street and will use eastbound Clay Street to access Boulevard, and that the actual volume needed from I-195

to meet the warrant is lower, and represent an even lower percentage of I-195 traffic. VHB anticipates that at least 100

vehicles from those two sources will use eastbound Clay Street to access Boulevard for at least eight hours of the day.

Signal Warrant Analysis for Clay Street and North Boulevard

The signal warrant analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology presented in Chapter 4C of the

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. The MUTCD specifies nine warrants, or

requirements, to be evaluated for a new traffic control signal installation. A traffic control signal should not be

installed unless at least one of these warrants is met; however, the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants

shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Engineering judgement should also be used in the

evaluation of the warrants to ensure that a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the

intersection.

The nine warrants outlined in the MUTCD are as follows:

• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

• Warrant 3, Peak Hour

• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

• Warrant 5, School Crossing

• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System

• Warrant 7, Crash Experience

• Warrant 8, Roadway Network

• Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

For the purpose of this analysis, Warrants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were tested for further examination. A description of each

warrant (adopted from the MUTCD) is included within the specific sections that follow.

Please note that the MUTCD has an option that the minimum volume threshold may be adjusted to 70% of the actual

value if the major street speed exceeds 40 mph or if the intersection is within an isolated community of less than

10,000. According to the MUTCD’s FAQs1, while there was no research conducted to validate the 70% threshold, the

intention of adding the 70% adjustment was to compromise between urban and rural interests of the need for

signalization. The urban interests felt that the higher (100%) numbers should be retained as lower numbers would greatly

increase the number of intersections meeting the signal warrants. The engineering judgment for this study intersection

was to not use the 70% adjustment based on following engineering judgment:

• The study intersection of North Boulevard and Clay Street is in an urban area

• The speed limit on North Boulevard is 25 mph, below the 40 mph threshold.

• The MUTCD statement on using the 70% adjustment is an option statement which can be overruled with

engineering judgment.

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, consists of two separate conditions: Condition A – Minimum Vehicular

Volume and Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic. The Minimum Vehicular Volume condition is intended

for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a

traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic condition is intended for use at locations where Condition

A is not satisfied and where the volume of traffic on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting

street suffers excessive delay when attempting to cross or enter the major street. Warrant 1 is intended to be treated

as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 are satisfied, and therefore Condition B

and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for

Warrant 1 are satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. Table 3 presents the minimum

hourly volume thresholds that need to be satisfied for eight distinct hours for Warrant 1.

Table 3: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Thresholds

Warrant 1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Minimum Hourly

Volume (VPH)

Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume

Major Street (total of

both approaches) 2

Lane(s) on

each approach 600

Minor Street (higher

volume approach) 2

Lane(s) on

each approach 200

Condition B Interruption of Continuous Traffic Flow

Major Street (total of

both approaches) 2

Lane(s) on

each approach 900

Minor Street (higher

volume approach) 2

Lane(s) on

each approach 100

Since only six hours of traffic volume data were available for a typical day, this warrant cannot be fully satisfied;

however, the six-hour analysis can indicate if this warrant would likely be satisfied if more hours of data were

collected.

Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of Warrant 1. The MUTCD states that, “for signal warrants requiring conditions to

be present for a certain number of hours to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as

1 Frequently Asked Questions - Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals - FHWA MUTCD. Available at:

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsnsq6

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsnsq6

1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major street

volume and the minor street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods.” In other words, to satisfy the criteria

for Warrant 1, the criteria must be met for eight distinct hours of the day. If a one-hour interval meets the warrant

criteria, any one-hour interval that overlaps cannot be counted as one of the eight hours used to satisfy the warrant.

The dark grey highlights represent the existing volumes meeting the warrant threshold as a distinct hour.

Warrant 1 Conclusion

The reassigned volumes meet the warrant thresholds for 4 distinct hours for Condition A, all 6 distinct hours for

Condition B, and 4 distinct hours for 80% of A and B conditions. The results suggest that the volumes would meet the

8-distinct hour requirement Condition B of Warrant 1, indicating that Warrant 1 is likely satisfied.

Table 4: Warrant 1 Evaluation Summary Table for Clay Street and Boulevard

Hour

Entering

Vol. Entering Vol. on Major Street

Tot. Ent.

Vol.

Condition

A Condition B 80%(1A&1B)

Minor

Street Northbound Southbound

On

Major

Rd

Met? Met? Met?

7:00 - 8:00 AM 402 601 527 1,128 Yes Yes Yes

7:15 - 8:15 AM 402 727 606 1,333 Yes Yes Yes

7:30 - 8:30 AM 402 785 708 1,493 Yes Yes Yes

7:45 - 8:45 AM 402 791 744 1,535 Yes Yes Yes

8:00 - 9:00 AM 402 789 758 1,547 Yes Yes Yes

11:00 - 12:00 PM 126 570 688 1,258 No Yes No

11:15 - 12:15 PM 126 624 684 1,308 No Yes No

11:30 - 12:30 PM 126 653 705 1,358 No Yes No

11:45 - 12:45 PM 126 674 723 1,397 No Yes No

12:00 - 13:00 PM 126 698 727 1,425 No Yes No

16:00 - 17:00 PM 265 804 961 1,765 Yes Yes Yes

16:15 - 17:15 PM 265 871 959 1,830 Yes Yes Yes

16:30 - 17:30 PM 265 913 987 1,900 Yes Yes Yes

16:45 - 17:45 PM 265 927 993 1,920 Yes Yes Yes

17:00 - 18:00 PM 265 940 976 1,916 Yes Yes Yes

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, is intended to be applied where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the

principal reason to consider the installation of a traffic control signal. The need for a traffic control signal shall be

considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any four distinct hours of an average day, the plotted points

representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per

hour on the higher volume minor street (one approach only) all fall above the applicable curve in MUTCD Figure 4C-1.

Warrant 2 evaluation, using dots to represent the major and minor street volumes during some of the highest distinct

hours, is shown on Figure 2.


5 of the 6 hours of available traffic count data fall above the applicable curve for 2 major street and 2 minor street

approach lanes. Therefore, Warrant 2 is satisfied.

Figure 2: Warrant 2 Analysis for Clay Street and Boulevard

Warrant 3, Peak Hour

Warrant 3, Peak Hour, is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one

hour of an average day, the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This

signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial

complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities, specifically for land uses that attract or discharge large numbers of

vehicles over a short time.

It should be noted that the MUTCD states the use of this warrant is only for “unusual cases” with regards to facilities

that “attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” The study intersection, however, is not

considered as a special traffic generator based on the MUTCD’s definition in Section 4C.04, Paragraph 2, as it does not

generate unusually high side street traffic volumes in short durations.

Warrant 3 is further investigated for informational purposes to determine if the numerical thresholds are satisfied.

However, if the numerical values in Warrant 3 are met for any of the scenarios, the warrant will still not be satisfied, as

the special traffic generator is a standard requirement in the MUTCD, and Warrant 3 can only be satisfied for special

traffic generators.

The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the

following two categories are met:

A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an

average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only)

controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach. A stop-delay study

was not conducted as part of the data collection effort, and was not pursued further as Warrant 3 is not directly

applicable to the study intersection since it does not attract or discharge a large number of vehicles over a

short time.

2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 150 vehicles per hour for

two moving lanes of traffic. Table 5 summarizes the evaluation of Warrant 3A.2.

Table 5: Summary of Warrant 3A.2 Analysis

Clay Street Approach

Time Volume Warrant 3A.2 met?

7:00 – 8:00 AM 402 Yes

8:00 – 9:00 AM 402 Yes

11:00 – 12:00 PM 126 No

12:00 – 1:00 PM 126 No

4:00 – 5:00 PM 265 Yes

5:00 – 6:00 PM 265 Yes

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three

approaches. Table 6 summarizes the evaluation of Warrant 3A.3.

Table 6: Summary of Warrant 3A.3 Analysis

Clay Street Approach

Time Major Street Volume

(both approaches)

Minor Street

Volume

Intersection

Volume

Warrant

3A.3 met?

7:00 – 8:00 AM 1,128 402 1,530 Yes

8:00 – 9:00 AM 1,547 402 1,949 Yes

11:00 – 12:00 PM 1,258 126 1,384 Yes

12:00 – 1:00 PM 1,425 126 1,551 Yes

4:00 – 5:00 PM 1,765 265 2,030 Yes

5:00 – 6:00 PM 1,916 265 2,181 Yes

Warrant 3A.2 and Warrant 3A.3 were both satisfied. Additional data collection efforts are needed to determine the

satisfaction of Warrant 3A.1.

B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the

corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any

four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve for the existing combination

of approach lanes. The curve and points representing major and minor street volume are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Warrant 3B Analysis for Clay and Boulevard

The reassigned volume has at least one hour that falls above the applicable curve for 2 major street and 2 minor street

approach lanes. Therefore, Warrant 3 is satisfied for category B.


Though Warrant 3 is met for the volume warrants (i.e., 3A.1, 3A.2, and 3B), Warrant 3 should not be applied to this

intersection as this intersection is not a special traffic generator and does not attract or discharge a large number of

vehicles over a short period of time. Therefore, Warrant 3 is not satisfied.

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, is intended for application where the traffic volume on the major street is so heavy that

pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. For each of any four hours of an average day, the

minimum pedestrian volume threshold is 107 pedestrians per hour. For one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute

periods) of an average day, the minimum pedestrian volume threshold is 133 pedestrians per hour.


During the peak of the pedestrian activity, there were 15 total pedestrians crossing the major street and 22

pedestrians crossing the minor street. The pedestrian activity is well below the thresholds set forth by the MUTCD.

Therefore, Warrant 4 is not satisfied at the study intersection.

Warrant 5, School Crossing

Warrant 5, School Crossing, is intended for application where the fact that school children (i.e., elementary school

through high school students) cross the major street is the principle reason to consider installing a traffic signal. This

warrant was not tested at this location as this intersection is not at a designated school crossing nor is there a school

in the immediate vicinity that would generate a high volume of school children crossing the major street.

Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System

Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System, is intended for locations where the coordinated signal system necessitates

installing traffic control signals where they would not otherwise be needed to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.

The MUTCD states that the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one

of the following criteria is met:

A. One a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent traffic control

signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.

B. One a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and

the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.

Warrant 6 should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic signals would be less than 1,000 feet.


At this location, a traffic control signal is not a necessity to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. The adjacent

signals are approximately 790’ to the north and 400’ to the south. Therefore, Warrant 6 is not satisfied at the study

intersection.

Warrant 7, Crash Experience (Existing Conditions)

Warrant 7, Crash Experience, is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the major

reasons for installing a traffic control signal. It should be noted that a detailed safety analysis, detailing causal factors and

proposed improvements, is not included in this scope, nor is a graphic depicting or diagramming the crashes. The need

for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met:

A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash

frequency; and

B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within

a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the

applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and

C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns

of Condition A in Table 4C-1 in the MUTCD, or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in

Table 4C-1 in the MUTCD exists on the major street and the higher volume minor street approach, respectively,

to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified

in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major and minor street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours.

Crash data from years 2012-2016 was used in this analysis. As Clay Street is still one-way westbound at this location

and no crash data was available for a two-way Clay Street with an eastbound approach, crash data from the adjacent

intersection (North Boulevard and Leigh Street) was used as a proxy for Clay Street as a two-way operation with an

eastbound approach. In consideration of the above criteria:

A. An adeqaute trial of alternatives have not yet been implemented at this location as this location is still under one-

way operation. Therefore, Warrant 7A is not met.

B. At North Boulevard and Clay Street, only two correctable crashes occurred within the 5-year study period;

however, Clay Street was not operating as two-way during this time frame. The two correctable crashes were

vehicles pulling out of the driveway (i.e., the westbound approach) which has very minimal volume in comparison

to Clay Street. VHB examined the crashes at the adjacent intersection (i.e., North Boulevard and Leigh Street). As

this intersection has three approaches, all of which operate as two-way, and is unsignalized, it can be used as a

proxy for the future scenario in which Clay Street becomes two-way. Based on the crash history at the adjacent

loction and engineering judgement, installation of a traffic signal at Clay Street and Boulevard may be considered

for safety reasons.

C. Four of the 6 analysis hours met condtion A, and all 6 analysis hours met condition B. If more data was available to

complete an 8-hour analysis, it is likely that all 8 hours would have met and exceeded condition B. Table 8 shows

the evaluation summary. Warrant C would likely be satisfied if more data was available.

Table 7: Warrant 7C Evaluation Summary Table for Clay and Boulevard

Hour

Entering

Vol.

Entering Vol. on Major

Street

Tot. Ent.

Vol.

Condition

A

Condition

B

Minor


On Major

Rd Met? Met?

7:00 - 8:00 AM 402 601 527 1,128 Yes Yes

7:15 - 8:15 AM 402 727 606 1,333 Yes Yes

7:30 - 8:30 AM 402 785 708 1,493 Yes Yes

7:45 - 8:45 AM 402 791 744 1,535 Yes Yes

8:00 - 9:00 AM 402 789 758 1,547 Yes Yes

11:00 - 12:00 PM 126 570 688 1,258 No Yes

11:15 - 12:15 PM 126 624 684 1,308 No Yes

11:30 - 12:30 PM 126 653 705 1,358 No Yes

11:45 - 12:45 PM 126 674 723 1,397 No Yes

12:00 - 13:00 PM 126 698 727 1,425 No Yes

16:00 - 17:00 PM 265 804 961 1,765 Yes Yes

16:15 - 17:15 PM 265 871 959 1,830 Yes Yes

16:30 - 17:30 PM 265 913 987 1,900 Yes Yes

16:45 - 17:45 PM 265 927 993 1,920 Yes Yes

17:00 - 18:00 PM 265 940 976 1,916 Yes Yes


While 7C is satisfied, Warrant 7A and 7B are not satisfied. Warrant 7 requires all three categories to be satisfied for

Warrant 7 to be satisfied. Therefore, Warrant 7 is not satisfied.

Warrant 8, Roadway Network

Warrant 8, Roadway Network, is intended for use at locations where installing a traffic control signal might be justified

to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. The need for a traffic control signal

shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major route meets one

or both criteria. As this location is not an intersection between two major routes (i.e., Clay Street does not meet the

qualifications for a major route), this warrant was not tested for applicability at the study intersection.

Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing, is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions

described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on

an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic

control signal. Since other traffic signal warrants are applicable and this study location is not near an at-grade

crossing, this warrant was not applied for applicability at the study intersection.

Conclusion – Clay Street and Boulevard

The intersection of North Boulevard and Clay Street was analyzed to determine if the installation of a traffic control

signal is warranted. Currently, the minor street (Clay Street) is one-way westbound (i.e., away from the intersection). As

such, there is no existing minor street approach. Under proposed improvements, Clay Street will become two-way and

an eastbound approach to this intersection will be provided.

The signal warrant analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology presented in Chapter 4C of the

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. Table 9 provides a summary of the warrant

analysis results.

Table 8: Warrant Analysis Results Summary

Warrant Warrant satisfied?

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes*

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes

Warrant 3, Peak Hour No**

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume No

Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System No

Warrant 7, Crash Experience No

* Warrant satisfaction based on six hours of available traffic data, and indicated Warrant 1 would likely be met if more

data was available.

**Traffic volumes meet the volume threshold for Warrant 3, but there is no adjacent peak hour generator.

The findings of this analysis indicate that the installation of traffic signal control IS warranted at the study

intersection of North Boulevard and Clay Street when Clay Street is converted from one-way to two-way.

Signal Warrant Analysis for Adjacent Signals

VHB analyzed the volume warrants for the adjacent signal-controlled intersections to determine if the volumes still

warrant a traffic control signal when traffic is reassigned to Clay Street. This section summarizes the results of these

analyses. Supporting tables and graphics are attached.

Moore Street / Leigh Street and Boulevard

Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

The volume meets 5 of 6 hours of Condition B, indicating that 8-hours may have been met if more data was available.

The results suggest that the volumes would meet the 8-distinct hour requirement for at least one of the Warrant 1

conditions, indicating that Warrant 1 is likely satisfied. The results are shown in Table 10.

Table 9: Warrant 1 Evaluation Summary Table for Moore Street and Boulevard

Hour

Entering


Tot. Ent.

Vol.

Condition


Minor


On

Major

Rd

Met? Met? Met?

7:00 - 8:00 AM 99 691 639 1,330 No No No

7:15 - 8:15 AM 153 787 716 1,503 No Yes No

7:30 - 8:30 AM 205 876 781 1,657 Yes Yes Yes

7:45 - 8:45 AM 187 892 807 1,699 No Yes Yes

8:00 - 9:00 AM 148 811 783 1,594 No Yes No

11:00 - 12:00 PM 215 513 614 1,127 Yes Yes Yes

11:15 - 12:15 PM 244 562 686 1,248 Yes Yes Yes

11:30 - 12:30 PM 244 608 733 1,341 Yes Yes Yes

11:45 - 12:45 PM 253 639 779 1,418 Yes Yes Yes

12:00 - 13:00 PM 255 665 762 1,427 Yes Yes Yes

16:00 - 17:00 PM 206 771 676 1,447 Yes Yes Yes

16:15 - 17:15 PM 290 828 684 1,512 Yes Yes Yes

16:30 - 17:30 PM 299 885 790 1,675 Yes Yes Yes

16:45 - 17:45 PM 300 904 905 1,809 Yes Yes Yes

17:00 - 18:00 PM 226 926 1017 1,943 Yes Yes Yes

Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

Five of the six available hours of traffic volumes fall above the applicable curve for Warrant 2. Warrant 2 is satisfied.

Results of Warrant 2 are presented in Figure 4.

Warrant 3 – Peak Hour

At least one hour falls above the applicable curve for Warrant 3, satisfying the volume portion of the warrant.

However, Warrant 3 should not be applied to this intersection as this intersection is not a special traffic generator and

does not attract or discharge a large number of vehicles over a short period of time.

Moore Street and Boulevard Conclusion

The volumes at this intersection still warrant a traffic control signal after traffic is reassigned to Clay Street.

Figure 4: Warrant 2 Analysis for Moore Street and Boulevard

Figure 5: Warrant 3B Analysis for Moore Street and Boulevard

Marshall Street and Boulevard

Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

All 6 hours of traffic volumes meet the minimum volume threshold for Condition B The results suggest that the

volumes would likely meet the 8-distinct hour requirement for Condition B if more data was available. Warrant 1 is

likely satisfied.

Table 10: Warrant 1 Evaluation Summary Table for Marshall Street and Boulevard

Hour

Entering


Tot. Ent.

Vol.

Condition


Minor


On

Major

Rd

Met? Met? Met?

7:00 - 8:00 AM 115 611 512 1123 No Yes No

7:15 - 8:15 AM 139 719 580 1299 No Yes No

7:30 - 8:30 AM 149 797 655 1452 No Yes No

7:45 - 8:45 AM 142 785 665 1450 No Yes No

8:00 - 9:00 AM 153 722 683 1405 No Yes No

11:00 - 12:00 PM 281 390 610 1000 Yes Yes Yes

11:15 - 12:15 PM 306 436 690 1126 Yes Yes Yes

11:30 - 12:30 PM 309 492 741 1233 Yes Yes Yes

11:45 - 12:45 PM 310 545 770 1315 Yes Yes Yes

12:00 - 13:00 PM 295 577 752 1329 Yes Yes Yes

16:00 - 17:00 PM 354 609 779 1388 Yes Yes Yes

16:15 - 17:15 PM 377 639 812 1451 Yes Yes Yes

16:30 - 17:30 PM 381 677 884 1561 Yes Yes Yes

16:45 - 17:45 PM 395 704 975 1679 Yes Yes Yes

17:00 - 18:00 PM 405 754 1051 1805 Yes Yes Yes

Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

Five of the six available hours of traffic volumes fall above the applicable curve for Warrant 2. Warrant 2 is satisfied.

Figure 6: Warrant 2 Analysis for Marshall Street and Boulevard

Warrant 3 – Peak Hour

At least one hour falls above the applicable curve for Warrant 3, satisfying the volume portion of the warrant.

However, Warrant 3 should not be applied to this intersection as this intersection is not a special traffic generator and

does not attract or discharge a large number of vehicles over a short period of time.

Figure 7: Warrant 3B Analysis for Marshall Street and Boulevard

Conclusion

The volumes at this intersection still warrant a traffic control signal after traffic is reassigned to Clay Street.

Signal Warrant Analysis Conclusion

VHB conducted a signal warrant analysis for Clay Street and Boulevard in Richmond, Virginia:

All volume thresholds were exceeded. The findings of this analysis indicate that the installation of traffic signal

control IS warranted at the study intersection of North Boulevard and Clay Street when Clay Street is converted

from one-way to two-way.

VHB also analyzed the adjacent signals (Marshall Street / Boulevard and Moore Street / Leigh Street / Boulevard) to

determine if the remaining volumes will still warrant traffic signal control when traffic is reassigned away from the

signals to Clay Street. The analysis indicates that both adjacent signals are still warranted when traffic is reassigned to

accommodate a new two-way Clay Street.


Appendix B: VJuST Input and Results Worksheets

To: Mike Sawyer City of Richmond

Date:

August 2, 2018

Project #: 33965.19

From: Chris Daily, P.E. Noelle Wilcox, E.I.T. VHB

Re: VJuST Analysis at Clay Street and Boulevard

IntroductionAs part of the Scott’s Addition Circulation and Mobility Study recommendations, Clay Street will become two-way. Currently, Clay Street is one-way westbound at the intersection with North Boulevard. The conversion from one-way to two-way will introduce a new approach (eastbound Clay Street) to this intersection. To accompany the Signal Justification Report (SJR), VHB conducted an analysis using VDOT’s Junction Screening Tool. The signal justification report relied on existing 2018 traffic volumes, but reassigned the volumes to accommodate the new eastbound Clay Street approach at Boulevard.

The concept level tool helps to identify and screen innovative intersection and interchange configurations to be evaluated for further study, analysis, and design. Results are based on user inputs for turning movement volumes and lane configurations. The tool utilizes volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio to compare the operations of each alternative. Additionally, the tool accounts for the alternative’s impact on pedestrians (i.e., safety, wayfinding, and delay) and safety (i.e., number of conflict points). VJuST is only to be used as a planning level tool, and is not intended as a substitute for a detailed analysis. This document presents the results of VDOT’s Junction Screening Tool.

VDOT Junction Screening Tool Analysis VJuST considers 29 intersection and interchange designs. VHB eliminated 16 intersection configurations and all interchange configurations based on limited right of way and incompatibility with existing roadway characteristics. VHB compared a conventional signalized intersection, a continuous green-T, a roundabout, and a two-way stop controlled intersection.

The VJuST results are summarized in Table 1, and full results are attached.

Table 1: VJuST Results

Maximum V/C Intersection Type AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Conventional 0.47 0.32 0.48 Continuous Green-T 0.49 0.35 0.51 Roundabout 0.47 0.30 0.46 Two-Way Stop Control 1.86 0.62 2.35

Conventional Signalized Intersection

A conventional signalized intersection experiences a V:C ratio comparable to the other alternative intersection designs and would require minimal to no right of way acquisition. Additionally, pedestrians are fully accommodated at a conventional signalized intersection with controlled pedestrian crossing across each approach.

Ref: 33965.19 July 27, 2018 Page 2

Continuous Green-T

A continuous green-T, while generally specific to T-intersections, may be considered at this location; however, the westbound driveway approach must either be permanently closed or converted to a right-in/right-out access point. Continuous green-Ts provide the worst pedestrian accommodations of all the options as pedestrian still cross uncontrolled through movements on Boulevard. VHB does not recommend a continuous Green-T at this location due to the limitations mentioned.

Roundabout

For the purposes of this analysis, a two-lane roundabout was evaluated with each approach having two lanes. The roundabout operationally performs very similar to a conventional signalized intersection. A multi-lane roundabout requires a minimum inscribed circle diameter of 150’. This intersection is along a signal-controlled corridor and the introduction of a roundabout is not conducive to the coordinated platoon flow on Boulevard. To construct a 150’

diameter roundabout at this location would require a large amount of right of way acquisition and likely demolition of adjacent buildings. A single-lane roundabout, which requires only a 90’ inscribed diameter, would not accommodate

the existing four-lane cross section on Boulevard. A roundabout provides pedestrian accommodations on the same level as a conventional signalized intersection. The small operational benefit will likely not outweigh the large costs associated with the necessary right of way acquisitions and construction. A roundabout is not a feasible alternative at this location.

Two-Way Stop Control

A two-way stop condition experiences V:C ratios much higher than other intersection configurations. In the PM peak, the intersection experiences more than twice the volume than there is capacity under two-way stop conditions. VHB does not recommend two-way stop control at this intersection.

Project Title:E‐W Facility:N‐S Facility:

Date:

Through Right

Eastbound 0 70 0.50%Westbound 0 0 0.00%Northbound 739 0 2.00%Southbound 679 76 2.00%

Adjustment Factor 0.80 0.95 0.85

Suggested U ‐ 0.8 L ‐ 0.95 0.85

Through Right Approach

Eastbound 0 70 404Westbound 0 0 0Northbound 754 0 797Southbound 693 78 771

332042

U‐Turn / Left

Critical Lane Volume Sum Limit

Right‐turn Adjustment Factor Conversion of right‐turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles

Left‐turn Adjustment Factor

Saturation value for critical lane volume sum at an intersection

0

0

Volume (veh/hr)

Notes:

U‐turn Adjustment Factor

Conversion of left‐turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles

1 truck = X Passenger Car Equivalents

Conversion of U‐turning vehicles to equivalent through vehicles

2.00

334043

U‐Turn / Left

Truck to PCE Factor

VDOT Junction Screening ToolInput Worksheet

Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ AMClay Street and Boulevard

BoulevardJuly 26th, 2018

Equivalent Passenger Car VolumeVolume (pc/hr)

Traffic Volume Demand

Truck

Percent (%)

Truck to PCE Factor Critical Lane Volume

Suggested = 2.00

Direction

1600

1

# Intersections Information Consider? Justification

1 Conventional ‐ Y2 Bowtie Link N Insufficient intersection spacing

3 Center Turn Overpass Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

4 Continuous Green-T Link Y5 Echelon Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

6 Full Displaced Left Turn Link N Right‐of‐way restrictions identified

7 Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

8 Partial Displaced Left Turn Link N Right‐of‐way restrictions identified

9 Partial Median U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

10 Quadrant Roadway N-E Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

11 Quadrant Roadway N-W Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

12 Quadrant Roadway S-E Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

13 Quadrant Roadway S-W Link N Unable to accommodate traffic patterns

14 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

15 Single Loop Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

16 Split Intersection Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

17 50 Mini Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type


19 Roundabout Link Y20 Two-Way Stop Control ‐ Y# Interchanges Information Consider? Justification21 Traditional Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

22 Contraflow Left Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

23 Displaced Left Turn Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

24 Diverging Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

25 Double Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

26 Michigan Urban Diamond Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

27 Partial Cloverleaf Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

28 Single Point Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

29 Single Roundabout Link N Not feasible for roadway facility type

Indicate with a "Y" or "N" if each intersection or interchange configuration should or should not be considered. Use the information links for

guidance. Then, click the "Show/Hide Configurations button" to hide the worksheets for the configurations that will not be considered.

Possible Configurations

VDOT Junction Screening Tool

Signalized Intersections

Unsignalized Intersections

2

Intersections DirectionTwoDirList

FourDirList

EchelonList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

SingleLoopList

TwoDirList

Interchanges DirectionTwoDirList

N/A

N/A

VDOT Junction Screening ToolDirectional Questions and Base Lane Configurations

Before entering a base number of through lanes for each direction, answer all applicable directional

question for each intersection or interchange configuration selected for consideration. Navigate to the

lane configuration worksheet for example diagrams, if provided.

N/A

EB

Question

N/A

Select the direction associated with the "stem" of the T‐

intersection from the drop‐down list. See example diagrams.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Partial Median U-Turn

Restricted Crossing U-Turn

N/A

Single Loop

Split Intersection

All

Bowtie

Continuous Green-T

Echelon

Median U-Turn

Partial Displaced Left Turn

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Question

N/A

Southbound 2211

Base Number of Through Lanes

Enter a base number of through lanes for each direction. The number of through lanes entered will

populate on each non‐roundabout lane configuration worksheet. This tool also allows the user to enter the

number of through lanes on the lane configuration worksheets directly. This base number may be

overwritten on individual lane configuration worksheets. Turn lanes, shared lanes, and channelized lanes

must still be entered in each lane configuration worksheet.

EastboundWestboundNorthbound

3

U‐Turn / Left Through Right

332 0 70

0 0 0

42 739 0

0 679 76

Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ AM

Clay Street and Boulevard

Boulevard

July 26th, 2018

General Instructions: All intersection and interchange configurations have a default assumption

of one exclusive lane per movement. No results shall be interpreted until the user has verified

the lane configurations on each worksheet.

VDOT Junction Screening ToolResults Worksheet

Intersection Results

Project Title:

EW Facility:

NS Facility:

Date:

General Information

Volumes (veh/hr)

Eastbound

Northbound

Westbound

Southbound

Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety

Notes

Type DirMaximum

V/C

Accommodation

Compared to

Conventional

Weighted Total

Conflict Points

Conventional ‐ 0.47 48

Continuous Green‐T ‐ 0.49 ‐ 12*

Roundabout ‐ 0.47 8

Two‐Way Stop Control ‐ 1.86 48

*The continuous green‐T is the only three‐legged innovative intersection in this tool. To compare the continuous green‐T to other innovative intersections,

conflicts corresponding with the fourth leg must be removed. This has been done for the conventional intersection. Conflict point diagrams for three‐legged

and four‐legged conventional intersections have been provided on the conventional intersection worksheet for reference.

4

Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety

InformationThe maximum v/c ratio represents the worst v/c of all zones that make up an intersection.

Compares the potential of each design to accommodate pedestrians based on safety, wayfinding, and delay. Potential is

qualitatively defined as better (+), similar (blank cell), or worse (‐) than a conventional intersection or traditional diamond

interchange.

Weighted Total = (2 x Crossing Conflicts) + Merging Conflicts + Diverging Conflicts

5


Date:

Through Right



Suggested U ‐ 0.8 L ‐ 0.95 0.85



July 26th, 2018



Truck

Percent (%)


Suggested = 2.00

Direction

1600


Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ MiddayClay Street and Boulevard

Boulevard

Volume (veh/hr)

Notes:





2.00

123049

U‐Turn / Left

Truck to PCE Factor

122048

U‐Turn / Left





1

1

1

































2


FourDirList

EchelonList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

SingleLoopList

TwoDirList








EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 2

211

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Question

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/ASingle Loop

Split Intersection

All

Bowtie

Continuous Green-T

Echelon

Median U-Turn


N/A

N/A





N/A

EB

Question

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

3


122 0 4

0 0 0

48 634 0

1 654 62

Volumes (veh/hr)

Eastbound

Northbound

Westbound

Southbound



Project Title:

EW Facility:

NS Facility:

Date:

General Information

Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ Midday


Boulevard

July 26th, 2018




Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety

Notes

Type DirMaximum

V/C

Accommodation

Compared to

Conventional

Weighted Total

Conflict Points








4

Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety




interchange.


5


Date:

Through Right



Suggested U ‐ 0.8 L ‐ 0.95 0.85



July 26th, 2018



Truck

Percent (%)


Suggested = 2.00

Direction

1600


Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ PMClay Street and Boulevard

Boulevard

Volume (veh/hr)

Notes:





2.00

267032

U‐Turn / Left

Truck to PCE Factor

263032

U‐Turn / Left





7

7

1

































2


FourDirList

EchelonList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

TwoDirList

SingleLoopList

TwoDirList








EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 2

211

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Question

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/ASingle Loop

Split Intersection

All

Bowtie

Continuous Green-T

Echelon

Median U-Turn


N/A

N/A





N/A

EB

Question

N/A



N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

3


263 0 2

0 0 0

32 903 0

7 899 70

Volumes (veh/hr)

Eastbound

Northbound

Westbound

Southbound



Project Title:

EW Facility:

NS Facility:

Date:

General Information

Clay Street and Boulevard ‐ PM


Boulevard

July 26th, 2018




Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety

Notes

Type DirMaximum

V/C

Accommodation

Compared to

Conventional

Weighted Total

Conflict Points








4

Congestion

Pedestrian

Safety




interchange.


5


Appendix C: Traffic Volume Data

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.225 East Robinson Street, Suite 300

Landmark Center TwoOrlando, Florida, United States 32801407-839-4006 [email protected]

Count Name: Boulevard andClaySite Code:Start Date: 04/18/2018Page No: 1

Turning Movement Data

Start Time

Boulevard Driveway Boulevard W Clay Street

Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound

Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App.

Total Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App.



TotalInt.

Total

7:00 AM 13 88 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 1 0 3 99 0 0 0 0 2 0 200

7:15 AM 12 96 0 0 1 108 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 127 6 1 0 134 0 0 0 0 1 0 242

7:30 AM 8 138 0 0 1 146 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 179 1 2 2 182 0 0 0 0 2 0 328

7:45 AM 12 159 0 1 0 172 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 177 7 1 0 186 0 0 0 0 2 0 358

Hourly Total 45 481 0 1 2 527 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 581 15 4 5 601 0 0 0 0 7 0 1128

8:00 AM 16 164 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 217 7 1 2 225 0 0 0 0 1 0 405

8:15 AM 15 195 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 183 9 0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 402

8:30 AM 23 157 0 2 0 182 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 175 13 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 1 0 370

8:45 AM 22 163 0 1 0 186 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 164 13 7 3 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 370

Hourly Total 76 679 0 3 0 758 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 739 42 8 5 789 0 0 0 0 2 0 1547*** BREAK *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4:00 PM 13 232 0 3 1 248 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 167 16 4 0 187 0 0 0 0 1 0 435

4:15 PM 12 218 0 0 1 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 6 0 0 171 0 0 1 0 2 1 402

4:30 PM 18 220 0 2 0 240 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 206 11 5 0 222 0 0 0 0 5 0 462

4:45 PM 28 213 0 2 0 243 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 205 14 5 2 224 0 0 0 0 5 0 467

Hourly Total 71 883 0 7 2 961 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 743 47 14 2 804 0 0 1 0 13 1 1766

5:00 PM 14 231 0 1 0 246 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 246 7 1 0 254 0 0 0 0 6 0 500

5:15 PM 22 233 0 3 0 258 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 204 8 1 0 213 0 0 0 0 6 0 471

5:30 PM 20 223 0 3 1 246 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 224 11 1 0 236 0 0 0 0 3 0 482

5:45 PM 14 212 0 0 1 226 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 229 6 2 0 237 0 0 0 0 6 0 463

Hourly Total 70 899 0 7 2 976 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 903 32 5 0 940 0 0 0 0 21 0 1916

Grand Total 262 2942 0 18 6 3222 0 0 0 0 50 0 1 2966 136 31 12 3134 0 0 1 0 43 1 6357

Approach % 8.1 91.3 0.0 0.6 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 94.6 4.3 1.0 - - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.1 46.3 0.0 0.3 - 50.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 46.7 2.1 0.5 - 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -

Motorcycles 0 13 0 0 - 13 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 8 0 0 - 8 0 0 0 0 - 0 21

%Motorcycles 0.0 0.4 - 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.3

Cars & LightGoods 251 2857 0 17 - 3125 0 0 0 0 - 0 1 2892 134 31 - 3058 0 0 1 0 - 1 6184

% Cars &Light Goods 95.8 97.1 - 94.4 - 97.0 - - - - - - 100.0 97.5 98.5 100.0 - 97.6 - - 100.0 - - 100.0 97.3

Buses 3 19 0 0 - 22 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 12 0 0 - 12 0 0 0 0 - 0 34

% Buses 1.1 0.6 - 0.0 - 0.7 - - - - - - 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.5

Single-UnitTrucks 6 36 0 0 - 42 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 41 1 0 - 42 0 0 0 0 - 0 84

% Single-Unit Trucks 2.3 1.2 - 0.0 - 1.3 - - - - - - 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 - 1.3 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 1.3

ArticulatedTrucks 1 7 0 0 - 8 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 - 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 12

%Articulated

Trucks0.4 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.2

Bicycles onRoad 1 10 0 1 - 12 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 9 1 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 - 0 22

% Bicycleson Road 0.4 0.3 - 5.6 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 - 0.3 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.3

Bicycles onCrosswalk - - - - 0 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 4 - -

% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - 0.0 - - - - - 2.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 9.3 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 6 - - - - - 49 - - - - - 12 - - - - - 39 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 98.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 90.7 - -




04/18/2018 7:00 AMEnding At04/18/2018 6:00 PM

MotorcyclesCars & Light GoodsBusesSingle-Unit TrucksOther

Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

8 13 21

2910 3125 6035

12 22 34

41 42 83

14 20 34

2985 3222 6207

0 13 0 0 0

251 2857 0 17 0

3 19 0 0 0

6 36 0 0 0

2 17 0 1 6

262 2942 0 18 6R T L U P

1 0 0 0 1 0 Out

0 0 0 0 0 0 In

1 0 0 0 1 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 0 0 0 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 50 50 0 0 0 0

13 8 21

2888 3058 5946

19 12 31

36 42 78

17 14 31

2973 3134 6107Out In Total

Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 8 0 0

31 134 2892 1 0

0 0 12 0 0

0 1 41 0 0

0 1 13 0 12

31 136 2966 1 12

W C

lay

Stre

et [E

B]

Tota

l

0 386 3 7 3 399

In 0 1 0 0 0 1

Out 0 385 3 7 3 398

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 1 0 0 0 1 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 0 0 0 0 0 R

0 0 0 0 43 43 P

Turning Movement Data Plot




Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (8:00 AM)

Start Time







TotalInt.

Total

8:00 AM 16 164 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 217 7 1 2 225 0 0 0 0 1 0 405

8:15 AM 15 195 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 183 9 0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 402

8:30 AM 23 157 0 2 0 182 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 175 13 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 1 0 370

8:45 AM 22 163 0 1 0 186 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 164 13 7 3 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 370

Total 76 679 0 3 0 758 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 739 42 8 5 789 0 0 0 0 2 0 1547

Approach % 10.0 89.6 0.0 0.4 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 93.7 5.3 1.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.9 43.9 0.0 0.2 - 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 47.8 2.7 0.5 - 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -

PHF 0.826 0.871 0.000 0.375 - 0.902 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 0.851 0.808 0.286 - 0.877 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.955

Motorcycles 0 4 0 0 - 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 4

%Motorcycles 0.0 0.6 - 0.0 - 0.5 - - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - - - 0.3

Cars & LightGoods 73 650 0 3 - 726 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 718 42 8 - 768 0 0 0 0 - 0 1494

% Cars &Light Goods 96.1 95.7 - 100.0 - 95.8 - - - - - - - 97.2 100.0 100.0 - 97.3 - - - - - - 96.6

Buses 1 5 0 0 - 6 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 9

% Buses 1.3 0.7 - 0.0 - 0.8 - - - - - - - 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.6


% Single-Unit Trucks 1.3 2.2 - 0.0 - 2.1 - - - - - - - 1.6 0.0 0.0 - 1.5 - - - - - - 1.8


%Articulated

Trucks0.0 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.3 - - - - - - - 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 - - - - - - 0.3

Bicycles onRoad 1 3 0 0 - 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 - 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 8

% Bicycleson Road 1.3 0.4 - 0.0 - 0.5 - - - - - - - 0.5 0.0 0.0 - 0.5 - - - - - - 0.5


% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 0 - - - - - 15 - - - - - 5 - - - - - 2 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - -




Peak Hour Data

04/18/2018 8:00 AMEnding At04/18/2018 9:00 AM


Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

0 4 4

721 726 1447

3 6 9

12 16 28

6 6 12

742 758 1500

0 4 0 0 0

73 650 0 3 0

1 5 0 0 0

1 15 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

76 679 0 3 0R T L U P

0 0 0 0 0 0 Out

0 0 0 0 0 0 In

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 0 0 0 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 15 15 0 0 0 0

4 0 4

658 768 1426

5 3 8

15 12 27

5 6 11

687 789 1476Out In Total

Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 0 0 0

8 42 718 0 0

0 0 3 0 0

0 0 12 0 0

0 0 6 0 5

8 42 739 0 5

W C

lay

Stre

et [E

B]

Tota

l

0 115 1 1 1 118

In 0 0 0 0 0 0

Out 0 115 1 1 1 118

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 0 0 0 0 0 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 0 0 0 0 0 R

0 0 0 0 2 2 P

Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (8:00 AM)




Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:45 PM)

Start Time







TotalInt.

Total

4:45 PM 28 213 0 2 0 243 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 205 14 5 2 224 0 0 0 0 5 0 467

5:00 PM 14 231 0 1 0 246 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 246 7 1 0 254 0 0 0 0 6 0 500

5:15 PM 22 233 0 3 0 258 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 204 8 1 0 213 0 0 0 0 6 0 471

5:30 PM 20 223 0 3 1 246 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 224 11 1 0 236 0 0 0 0 3 0 482

Total 84 900 0 9 1 993 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 879 40 8 2 927 0 0 0 0 20 0 1920

Approach % 8.5 90.6 0.0 0.9 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 94.8 4.3 0.9 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.4 46.9 0.0 0.5 - 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 45.8 2.1 0.4 - 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -

PHF 0.750 0.966 0.000 0.750 - 0.962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 0.893 0.714 0.400 - 0.912 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.960

Motorcycles 0 6 0 0 - 6 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 6 0 0 - 6 0 0 0 0 - 0 12

%Motorcycles 0.0 0.7 - 0.0 - 0.6 - - - - - - - 0.7 0.0 0.0 - 0.6 - - - - - - 0.6

Cars & LightGoods 80 883 0 8 - 971 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 860 38 8 - 906 0 0 0 0 - 0 1877

% Cars &Light Goods 95.2 98.1 - 88.9 - 97.8 - - - - - - - 97.8 95.0 100.0 - 97.7 - - - - - - 97.8

Buses 1 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 - 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 7

% Buses 1.2 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.3 - - - - - - - 0.5 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.4




%Articulated

Trucks1.2 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - - - 0.1

Bicycles onRoad 0 4 0 1 - 5 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 1 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 7

% Bicycleson Road 0.0 0.4 - 11.1 - 0.5 - - - - - - - 0.1 2.5 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - 0.4


% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 10.0 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 1 - - - - - 17 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 18 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 90.0 - -




Peak Hour Data

04/18/2018 4:45 PMEnding At04/18/2018 5:45 PM


Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

6 6 12

868 971 1839

4 3 7

8 6 14

2 7 9

888 993 1881

0 6 0 0 0

80 883 0 8 0

1 2 0 0 0

2 4 0 0 0

1 5 0 1 1

84 900 0 9 1R T L U P

0 0 0 0 0 0 Out

0 0 0 0 0 0 In

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 0 0 0 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 17 17 0 0 0 0

6 6 12

891 906 1797

2 4 6

4 9 13

5 2 7


Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 6 0 0

8 38 860 0 0

0 0 4 0 0

0 1 8 0 0

0 1 1 0 2

8 40 879 0 2

W C

lay

Stre

et [E

B]

Tota

l

0 118 1 3 2 124

In 0 0 0 0 0 0

Out 0 118 1 3 2 124

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 0 0 0 0 0 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 0 0 0 0 0 R

0 0 0 0 20 20 P

Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:45 PM)



Count Name: Boulevard andClay Street Off PeakSite Code:Start Date: 04/18/2018Page No: 1

Turning Movement Data

Start Time

N. Boulevard Driveway N. Boulevard Clay Street






TotalInt.

Total

9:00 AM 12 166 1 2 0 181 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 138 9 2 4 150 0 0 0 0 1 0 332

9:15 AM 16 156 1 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 110 10 6 1 126 0 0 0 0 2 0 299

9:30 AM 8 133 1 1 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 7 4 0 117 0 0 0 0 5 0 260

9:45 AM 11 164 0 1 0 176 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 106 6 1 1 114 0 0 0 0 1 0 290

Hourly Total 47 619 3 4 0 673 0 0 1 0 10 1 2 460 32 13 6 507 0 0 0 0 9 0 1181

10:00 AM 9 131 0 1 0 141 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 94 7 2 5 104 0 0 1 0 1 1 248

10:15 AM 9 125 0 2 0 136 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 138 5 1 0 144 0 0 0 0 3 0 281

10:30 AM 9 124 0 0 0 133 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 121 7 4 2 132 0 0 0 0 1 0 266

10:45 AM 15 133 0 1 0 149 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 113 7 2 2 122 0 0 0 0 3 0 271

Hourly Total 42 513 0 4 0 559 3 0 1 0 12 4 1 466 26 9 9 502 0 0 1 0 8 1 1066

11:00 AM 12 164 0 1 0 177 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 105 8 2 0 115 0 0 0 0 3 0 292

11:15 AM 15 146 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 130 5 2 5 137 0 0 0 0 3 0 298

11:30 AM 12 149 0 2 0 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 8 6 2 157 0 0 0 0 3 0 320

11:45 AM 13 174 0 0 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 13 4 1 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 348

Hourly Total 52 633 0 3 0 688 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 522 34 14 8 570 0 0 0 0 9 0 1258

12:00 PM 19 150 0 4 0 173 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 156 9 4 2 169 0 0 0 0 8 0 342

12:15 PM 15 165 0 2 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 16 4 1 166 0 0 0 0 4 0 348

12:30 PM 17 161 1 2 0 181 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 162 11 5 2 178 0 0 0 0 4 0 359

12:45 PM 11 178 0 2 0 191 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 170 12 3 6 185 0 0 0 0 8 0 376

Hourly Total 62 654 1 10 0 727 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 634 48 16 11 698 0 0 0 0 24 0 1425

1:00 PM 14 179 1 4 0 198 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 197 12 2 0 211 0 0 0 0 1 0 409

1:15 PM 23 149 0 2 0 174 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 167 11 2 4 180 0 0 0 0 3 0 355

1:30 PM 10 174 0 1 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 10 3 1 187 0 0 0 0 2 0 372

1:45 PM 8 175 0 2 0 185 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 143 12 3 1 158 0 0 0 0 2 0 343

Hourly Total 55 677 1 9 0 742 0 0 1 0 13 1 0 681 45 10 6 736 0 0 0 0 8 0 1479

2:00 PM 7 147 0 1 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 14 4 2 172 0 0 0 0 4 0 327

2:15 PM 11 160 0 2 0 173 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 132 11 4 4 147 1 0 0 0 3 1 321

2:30 PM 15 153 0 3 1 171 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 156 6 1 4 163 1 0 0 0 4 1 335

2:45 PM 9 166 0 0 1 175 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 143 4 8 3 155 1 0 0 0 8 1 331

Hourly Total 42 626 0 6 2 674 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 585 35 17 13 637 3 0 0 0 19 3 1314

3:00 PM 11 165 1 5 0 182 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 156 13 0 4 169 0 0 0 0 2 0 351

3:15 PM 16 209 0 1 1 226 1 0 2 0 4 3 0 168 6 5 2 179 0 0 0 0 8 0 408

3:30 PM 25 183 0 1 1 209 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 191 7 3 1 201 0 0 0 0 4 0 410

3:45 PM 21 211 0 1 0 233 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 155 9 3 2 167 1 0 0 0 5 1 401

Hourly Total 73 768 1 8 2 850 1 0 2 0 11 3 0 670 35 11 9 716 1 0 0 0 19 1 1570

Grand Total 373 4490 6 44 4 4913 4 0 5 0 71 9 3 4018 255 90 62 4366 4 0 1 0 96 5 9293

Approach % 7.6 91.4 0.1 0.9 - - 44.4 0.0 55.6 0.0 - - 0.1 92.0 5.8 2.1 - - 80.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.0 48.3 0.1 0.5 - 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 43.2 2.7 1.0 - 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 -

Motorcycles 2 19 0 0 - 21 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 12 0 0 - 12 0 0 0 0 - 0 33

%Motorcycles 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.4

Cars & LightGoods 343 4306 6 44 - 4699 4 0 5 0 - 9 3 3827 247 90 - 4167 4 0 1 0 - 5 8880

% Cars &Light Goods 92.0 95.9 100.0 100.0 - 95.6 100.0 - 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 95.2 96.9 100.0 - 95.4 100.0 - 100.0 - - 100.0 95.6

Buses 3 37 0 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 48 1 0 - 49 0 0 0 0 - 0 89

% Buses 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 - 0.8 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 - 1.1 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 1.0


% Single-Unit Trucks 5.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 - 2.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.0 0.0 - 2.6 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 2.6


%Articulated

Trucks1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.3

Bicycles onRoad 0 11 0 0 - 11 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 9 2 0 - 11 0 0 0 0 - 0 22

% Bicycleson Road 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 0.2


% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - 0.0 - - - - - 5.6 - - - - - 3.2 - - - - - 3.1 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 4 - - - - - 67 - - - - - 60 - - - - - 93 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 94.4 - - - - - 96.8 - - - - - 96.9 - -




04/18/2018 9:00 AMEnding At04/18/2018 4:00 PM


N. Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

12 21 33

3876 4699 8575

48 40 88

108 125 233

23 28 51

4067 4913 8980

2 19 0 0 0

343 4306 6 44 0

3 37 0 0 0

20 105 0 0 0

5 23 0 0 4

373 4490 6 44 4R T L U P

9 0 0 0 9 0 Out

9 0 0 0 9 0 In

18 0 0 0 18 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 4 0 0 0 4 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 5 0 0 0 5 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 71 71 0 0 0 0

19 12 31

4405 4167 8572

37 49 86

105 113 218

23 25 48

4589 4366 8955Out In Total

N. Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 12 0 0

90 247 3827 3 0

0 1 48 0 0

0 5 108 0 0

0 2 23 0 62

90 255 4018 3 62

Cla

y S

treet

[EB

] Tota

l

2 595 4 25 7 633

In 0 5 0 0 0 5

Out 2 590 4 25 7 628

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 1 0 0 0 1 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 4 0 0 0 4 R

0 0 0 0 96 96 P

Turning Movement Data Plot




Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (11:00 AM)

Start Time







TotalInt.

Total

11:00 AM 12 164 0 1 0 177 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 105 8 2 0 115 0 0 0 0 3 0 292

11:15 AM 15 146 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 130 5 2 5 137 0 0 0 0 3 0 298

11:30 AM 12 149 0 2 0 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 8 6 2 157 0 0 0 0 3 0 320

11:45 AM 13 174 0 0 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 13 4 1 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 348

Total 52 633 0 3 0 688 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 522 34 14 8 570 0 0 0 0 9 0 1258

Approach % 7.6 92.0 0.0 0.4 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 91.6 6.0 2.5 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.1 50.3 0.0 0.2 - 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 41.5 2.7 1.1 - 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -

PHF 0.867 0.909 0.000 0.375 - 0.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 0.906 0.654 0.583 - 0.885 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.904

Motorcycles 1 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 5

%Motorcycles 1.9 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - - 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.4

Cars & LightGoods 51 612 0 3 - 666 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 494 33 14 - 541 0 0 0 0 - 0 1207

% Cars &Light Goods 98.1 96.7 - 100.0 - 96.8 - - - - - - - 94.6 97.1 100.0 - 94.9 - - - - - - 95.9

Buses 0 2 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 4

% Buses 0.0 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.3 - - - - - - - 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.3




%Articulated

Trucks0.0 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.3 - - - - - - - 0.6 0.0 0.0 - 0.5 - - - - - - 0.4

Bicycles onRoad 0 3 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 4

% Bicycleson Road 0.0 0.5 - 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - - - - 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - 0.3


% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 0 - - - - - 3 - - - - - 8 - - - - - 9 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - -




Peak Hour Data

04/18/2018 11:00 AMEnding At04/18/2018 12:00 PM


N. Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

2 3 5

497 666 1163

2 2 4

20 12 32

4 5 9

525 688 1213

1 2 0 0 0

51 612 0 3 0

0 2 0 0 0

0 12 0 0 0

0 5 0 0 0

52 633 0 3 0R T L U P

0 0 0 0 0 0 Out

0 0 0 0 0 0 In

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 0 0 0 0 0 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 0 0 0 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 3 3 0 0 0 0

2 2 4

626 541 1167

2 2 4

12 21 33

5 4 9


N. Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 2 0 0

14 33 494 0 0

0 0 2 0 0

0 1 20 0 0

0 0 4 0 8

14 34 522 0 8

Cla

y S

treet

[EB

] Tota

l

1 84 0 1 0 86

In 0 0 0 0 0 0

Out 1 84 0 1 0 86

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 0 0 0 0 0 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 0 0 0 0 0 R

0 0 0 0 9 9 P

Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (11:00 AM)




Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:00 PM)

Start Time







TotalInt.

Total

3:00 PM 11 165 1 5 0 182 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 156 13 0 4 169 0 0 0 0 2 0 351

3:15 PM 16 209 0 1 1 226 1 0 2 0 4 3 0 168 6 5 2 179 0 0 0 0 8 0 408

3:30 PM 25 183 0 1 1 209 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 191 7 3 1 201 0 0 0 0 4 0 410

3:45 PM 21 211 0 1 0 233 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 155 9 3 2 167 1 0 0 0 5 1 401

Total 73 768 1 8 2 850 1 0 2 0 11 3 0 670 35 11 9 716 1 0 0 0 19 1 1570

Approach % 8.6 90.4 0.1 0.9 - - 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 - - 0.0 93.6 4.9 1.5 - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -

Total % 4.6 48.9 0.1 0.5 - 54.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 42.7 2.2 0.7 - 45.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 -

PHF 0.730 0.910 0.250 0.400 - 0.912 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 - 0.250 0.000 0.877 0.673 0.550 - 0.891 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.250 0.957

Motorcycles 0 5 0 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 6

%Motorcycles 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 - 0.6 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.4

Cars & LightGoods 65 746 1 8 - 820 1 0 2 0 - 3 0 653 34 11 - 698 1 0 0 0 - 1 1522

% Cars &Light Goods 89.0 97.1 100.0 100.0 - 96.5 100.0 - 100.0 - - 100.0 - 97.5 97.1 100.0 - 97.5 100.0 - - - - 100.0 96.9

Buses 0 3 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 5 0 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 - 0 8

% Buses 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.7 0.0 0.0 - 0.7 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.5


% Single-Unit Trucks 9.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 - 2.1 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 1.2 2.9 0.0 - 1.3 0.0 - - - - 0.0 1.7


%Articulated

Trucks1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.1

Bicycles onRoad 0 2 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 5

% Bicycleson Road 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.4 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.3


% Bicycleson

Crosswalk- - - - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - 11.1 - - - - - 5.3 - -

Pedestrians - - - - 2 - - - - - 11 - - - - - 8 - - - - - 18 - -

%Pedestrians - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - 88.9 - - - - - 94.7 - -




Peak Hour Data

04/18/2018 3:00 PMEnding At04/18/2018 4:00 PM


N. Boulevard [SB]

Out In Total

1 5 6

662 820 1482

5 3 8

8 18 26

3 4 7

679 850 1529

0 5 0 0 0

65 746 1 8 0

0 3 0 0 0

7 11 0 0 0

1 3 0 0 2

73 768 1 8 2R T L U P

1 0 0 0 1 0 Out

3 0 0 0 3 0 In

4 0 0 0 4 0

Total

Drivew

ay [WB

]

R 1 0 0 0 1 0

T 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 2 0 0 0 2 0

U 0 0 0 0 0 0

P 11 11 0 0 0 0

5 1 6

760 698 1458

3 5 8

11 9 20

3 3 6


N. Boulevard [NB]

U L T R P

0 0 1 0 0

11 34 653 0 0

0 0 5 0 0

0 1 8 0 0

0 0 3 0 9

11 35 670 0 9

Cla

y S

treet

[EB

] Tota

l

0 100 0 8 1 109

In 0 1 0 0 0 1

Out 0 99 0 8 1 108

0 0 0 0 0 0 U

0 0 0 0 0 0 L

0 0 0 0 0 0 T

0 1 0 0 0 1 R

0 0 0 0 19 19 P

Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:00 PM)

Appendix EClay Street SMART SCALE Application

\\vhb\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\tech\Improvements\Clay Street Smartscale Items\Clay Street SmartScale

Application Memo_071818.docx Clay Street Improvement Project

To: Mike Sawyer, P.E. City Transportation Engineer City of Richmond

Date:

July 17, 2018

Project #: 33965.19

From: Chris Daily, P.E. Noelle Wilcox, E.I.T.

Re: Scott’s Addition - Clay Street Improvements

This memorandum provides the proposed concept sketch, cost opinion, and background information for the streetscape improvement project for Clay Street in Scott’s Addition in support of a SMART SCALE application.

Project Need Scott’s Addition in the City of Richmond is a traditionally industrial and commercial neighborhood located in the City of Richmond. Clay Street plays a vital role as a major east-west road through Scott’s Addition. In addition, traffic from Interstate 195 enters Scott’s Addition via Clay Street. The project area is outlined in Figure 1. The neighborhood has been the site of significant recent redevelopment and adaptive re-use of formerly industrial parcels with a mix of residential, commercial, and office properties. As a result of the new development, changing traffic and parking patterns are emerging in the neighborhood. Clay Street was initially designed under the pretense of an industrial neighborhood. As the neighborhood is now rapidly changing, Clay Street requires circulation, pedestrian, and other streetscape improvements throughout the entire neighborhood. Clay Street has been prioritized as the most vital component of the neighborhood revitalization.

One detriment to Clay Street is the one-way street network. The current one-way circulation does not fully allow Clay Street and the community to recognize its full economic potential. The one-way operation hinders the economic growth and vitality of the businesses along Clay Street as their location is more difficult to access. A true grid network, complete with two-way streets, would offer great benefits in Scott’s Addition, specifically Clay Street. A two-way system would allow for better internal and external circulation and would support the City’s vision for a restored two-way street grid.

Limited pedestrian facilities are currently provided. The pedestrian network is inconsistent and broken up by sidewalks that end mid-block and blocks that have no sidewalks at all. No pedestrian crosswalks are provided on Clay Street, except for at the streets on either side of the corridor (i.e., Roseneath Road and Boulevard). No bicycle facilities are provided on Clay Street under existing conditions. This corridor has largely been vehicle-focused, and the lack of multi-modal accommodations hinders economic potential, suppresses active transportation alternatives, and limits the opportunity for Clay Street to serve as a vibrant, multifunctional communal place to support the adjacent land uses.

Proposed Recommendations To transform the vehicle-centric conditions on Clay Street, VHB applied a complete streets approach. A complete street is one that establishes equity among all users (i.e., vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists). Complete streets promote the mobility and safety of all users while increasing the economic vitality and community health along the corridor. The City of Richmond adopted a complete street resolution and is currently in the process of finalizing its Better Streets Manual that provides guidance on the design for all roadways in the City. Following this principle, VHB developed typical sections for Clay Street.



Figure 1 - Project Area



Typical Cross-Section

Detailed survey of existing right of way and utilities was not available for this preliminary conceptual development phase. Instead, VHB used the right of way parcel information available through the City of Richmond’s GIS database. The available right of way on Clay Street varies between 51 feet and 60 feet. Four typical sections are proposed to meet user needs that can be accommodated within the existing right of way. No right of way acquisition is proposed. The typical sections are attached as Appendix A. Table 1 shows the typical section template application for each block of Clay Street.

Table 1 - Application of Typical Cross SectionsClay Street Section Typical Cross Section

From Belleville Street to Roseneath Road C From Roseneath Road to Mactavish Avenue B From Mactavish Avenue to Highpoint Avenue B From Highpoint Avenue to Summit Avenue A From Summit Avenue to Altamont Avenue B From Altamont Avenue to Sheppard Avenue A From Sheppard Avenue to North Boulevard D

Each typical section aims to provide equitable access to the right of way for all users with emphasis on the safety and mobility of the most vulnerable users (i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists). All proposed cross sections convert the existing one-way operation to a two-way operation for the entirety of Clay Street and install dedicated bike lanes. The City’s approach is to restore two-way mobility along all City streets to create a true grid street network that fosters commerce and social interactions for a more livable, healthy community. Two-way access will provide operational benefits by decreasing travel time for the users who now must take a circuitous route due to one-way operations. The conversion to a two-way street will better disperse traffic across the entire network and across the access points along North Boulevard. To create a consistent pedestrian network, sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the street for the entirety of the corridor. Due to the deteriorating conditions of the existing sidewalks, it is assumed that all existing sidewalks will be replaced. In addition to providing the minimum pedestrian zone, each concept offers a pedestrian buffer zone featuring landscaping (e.g., trees or a grass strip) and street furniture (e.g., benches and trash cans).

Typical sections A and B, to be applied on the internal blocks, operate with one lane in each direction and maintain on-street parking on one side of the street. A dedicated bike lane is added in both directions adjacent to the travel lanes. Pedestrian accommodations are provided on both sides of the street. Due to the varying right of way, typical section A provides a 6.5-foot sidewalk on either side, and typical section B provides a 5.5-foot sidewalk on either side. VHB assumed that two Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) will be installed on Clay Street, the locations to be determined upon further investigation, which preliminarily, is assumed to include the pedestrian path leading to the Pulse (bus rapid transit) station on Broad Street at Cleveland Street.

Typical sections C and D operate with two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane because they lead to signalized intersections, which require two eastbound approach lanes. To accommodate the additional travel lane, no on-street parking is proposed for these two cross-sections. A dedicated bike lane is only provided in the westbound direction in both cross sections. In the eastbound direction, a shared bicycle/travel lane is proposed. Typical section C provides 5-foot sidewalks, and typical section D provides 6-foot sidewalks on both sides.

Ref: Clay Street SMART SCALE Improvement Project July 18, 2018 Page 4

Clay Street Improvement Project

Typical Intersection

VHB created two typical intersection concepts: one signalized and one unsignalized. These concepts are provided in Appendix B. Each concept provides improved pedestrian accommodations including a marked pedestrian crossing across all approaches. At signalized intersections, a high visibility crosswalk is proposed, and at unsignalized intersections, a standard pedestrian crossing (i.e., crossing denoted by two parallel lines) is proposed. In addition to the marked crossings, pedestrian curb bump-outs are proposed to decrease the pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to vehicles. At the unsignalized intersections, existing control will be maintained (i.e., Clay Street will be uncontrolled and the side street approaches will be stop-controlled).

Site-Specific Improvements

Due to the conversion to two-way operation on Clay Street, VHB examined the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Clay Street and North Boulevard. The Signal Justification Report for this intersection will be attached as a separate document to this memorandum.

Opinion of Cost Estimate

VHB performed a preliminary cost opinion for the full concept. Construction costs were estimated using average unit prices from Richmond’s annual streets and sewers contract unit prices as well as VDOT Statewide and Richmond District

bid average costs where known. VHB cost opinion is attached in Appendix C. The total cost opinion of the project is $4,899,500. VHB corroborated this total cost with other similar projects in the City of Richmond (i.e., 12th Street and 17th Street improvement projects).

This cost opinion did not include the cost associated with any underground utilities or underground utility impacts, as this information was not available. VHB assumed a contingency of 10% to account for any miscellaneous and unknown items that may become apparent at a later design stage. Percentages of the construction cost were applied to determine the mobilization, maintenance of traffic, a project contingency, construction engineering and inspection, right of way and utility relocation, and preliminary engineering. These percentages were determined based on previous City of Richmond project cost estimates that VHB has prepared and engineering judgement. Specific design aspects (e.g., number and type of street furniture and signal improvements) were assumed and are preliminary at this stage. The design will be further refined during the preliminary engineering phase. VHB assumed that two rectangular rapid flashing beacons will be installed along Clay Street.

Additional Supporting Documentation Existing Conditions

In April of 2018, VHB collected four-hour (7:00-9:00AM and 4:00-6:00PM) peak-hour turning movement counts for the following two unsignalized intersections throughout on Clay Street:

1. Clay Street and North Boulevard

2. Clay Street and Summit Avenue



The City provided peak-hour turning movement counts for Clay Street and Roseneath Road. In addition to the traffic data collected, VHB acquired the past seven years (January 2011- August 2017) of crash data from VDOT’s Public Tableau

Database for use in this analysis.

Vehicular Access and Traffic Operations

Clay Street is a vital roadway in Scott’s Addition as it provides access into the neighborhood and to Broad Street from

I-195. On this segment of Clay Street (i.e., between Belleville Street and Roseneath Road), the daily traffic volume is 9,500 vehicles per day. Between Roseneath Road and Boulevard, the daily traffic volume is 1,300 vehicles per day. Currently, Clay Street is a one-way street and carries traffic into Scott’s Addition from I-195 and North Boulevard. East of Roseneath Road, Clay Street is one way westbound. West of Roseneath Road, Clay Street is one way eastbound. At the intersection of Roseneath Road and Clay Street, the Clay Street approaches are both one-way, but facing opposite each other. This means that vehicles on Clay Street must either turn left or right onto Roseneath Road and cannot continue through to remain on Clay Street.

Clay Street is characterized by two travel lanes and a parking lane on both sides of the street. At unsignalized intersections, Clay Street is considered the major street and operates as free-flow. The intersecting side streets are stop-controlled. An excessive amount of access points exists along Clay Street, and many parking lots have multiple access points. In addition, there are curb cuts still present from industrial land uses that are no longer utilized with the changed land uses. An example of an obsolete curb cut on Clay Street is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Obsolete Curb Opening on Clay Street

Safety Conditions

VHB analyzed the crash data for apparent trends. The following three intersections along Clay Street experienced a high volume of angle crashes in the period analyzed:

- Clay Street and Roseneath Road



- Clay Street and Mactavish Avenue

- Clay Street and Summit Avenue

These crashes were largely due to side street vehicles failing to yield right of way to the vehicles on Clay Street.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

One of the largest detriments to pedestrians in the area is the lack of consistent sidewalks. Pedestrians have left many “desire lines” of where sidewalks should be, and during field observations, VHB witnessed pedestrians creating their own sidewalks by walking in the grass. In many instances where there are sidewalks, they end mid-block. The lack of consistency in sidewalk locations, style, and size decrease the pedestrian connectivity of Clay Street. The sidewalks that do exist are often dark, cluttered with utility poles, and broken up by defunct curb openings and driveways from prior industrial uses. Minimal pedestrian accommodations are provided at intersections along Clay Street. Only the intersections at Roseneath Road and North Boulevard maintain any pedestrian crosswalks. In many places, adequate curb ramps are not present in all quadrants either. Additionally, many pedestrians complain about the lack of wayfinding available for both pedestrians and vehicles. The areas with non-existent and inadequate sidewalks are identified in Figure 3. No bicycle accommodations are currently provided along Clay Street.

Development

Scott’s Addition is a rapidly developing neighborhood of Richmond. VHB met with City Staff in the Land Use and Planning department to gain insight into the future developments occurring in Scotts Addition that may impact the traffic on Clay Street. In addition to smaller re-use of existing warehouse spaces, one major development is occurring on Clay Street adjacent to the I-195 off-ramp. Two towers of mixed-use development are currently under construction. The development is anticipated to contain 350 apartments and at least 2,500 square feet of commercial use. The development will include a parking garage to provide on-site parking. This development is anticipated to generate a significant amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. While it is unknown where the access to the parking garage will be, it is likely that it would be off Clay Street.



Figure 3 - Existing Pedestrian Accommodations

APPENDIX A - TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

Parking LaneTravel LaneTravel LaneSidewalk SidewalkSidewalk with Landscaping

Bike LaneFrontage

Bike LaneSidewalk with Landscaping

Frontage

8’10’11’6.5’ 3’ 6.5’3’ 5’ 5’1’ 1’

Clay StreetTypical Section A

Parking LaneTravel LaneTravel LaneSidewalk SidewalkSidewalk with Landscaping

Bike LaneSidewalk with Landscaping

Bike LaneFrontage Frontage

8’10’11’5.5’ 3’ 5.5’3’ 5’ 5’1’ 1’

Clay StreetTypical Section B

Travel LaneTravel LaneSidewalk Sidewalk Grass Buffer Grass Buffer

Bike LaneTravel Lane withShared Bike LaneFrontage Frontage

10’10’5’ 2’10’ 5’2’ 5’ 1’1’

Clay StreetTypical Section C

Travel LaneSidewalk SidewalkGrass Buffer Grass Buffer

Bike LaneTravel LaneFrontage

Travel Lane withShared Bike Lane Frontage

10’10’6’ 2’10’ 6’2’ 5’1’ 1’

Clay StreetTypical Section D

APPENDIX B - TYPICAL INTERSECTIONS

Pedestrian Curb Bump-Out

Crosswalk (Typ.)

Clay Street – Typical Intersection A(to be applied at Clay and Roseneath)

Clay StreetRoseneath Road

Roseneath Road


Crosswalk (Typ.)

Typical Intersection B(Unsignalized)

Clay Street


Crosswalk (Typ.)

Pedestrian Median Refuge Island

Intersection C(Clay Street and Boulevard)

Clay Street

APPENDIX C - COST OPINION

Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/17/2018




2 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB RAMP 28 EA 1,000$ 28,000$ Assume 4 per each intersection3 ERADICATION OF EXIST. LINEAR PVMT MARKING 930 LF 0.35$ 326$ 4 ERAD. EXIST. NONLINEAR PVMT MRKG 70 SF 6$ 449$


5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT - PLANNING ABOVE 2"-4" 13,670 SY 7$ 94,323$ 6 NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK - 4" 1,750 SY 65$ 113,750$ 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK - 4" 3,500 SY 75$ 262,500$ 8 NEW CONCRETE WHEELCHAIR RAMP - 6" 700 SY 136$ 95,200$ Assume 2 curb ramps for each quadrant9 INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CURB BUMP OUTS 1,500 SY 65$ 97,500$ As shown in graphics10 TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 470 SF 44$ 20,680$ 1 per curb ramp and 2 per ped. refuge

11REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/ALLEY CROSSING - 8" COMMERCIAL 630 SY 158$ 99,540$ Assume 4 per block

12 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB 5,410 LF 57$ 308,370$ SUBTOTAL = 1,091,863$

PAVEMENT MARKINGS13 6" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 800 LF 10$ 8,000$ 14 12" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 1,960 LF 8$ 15,680$ Assume same cost for white and green color15 24" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 250 LF 6$ 1,375$ 16 4" THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 13,870 LF 8$ 110,960$ 17 HELMETED BICYCLIST SYMBOL PAVEMENT MARKING (TYPE B, CLASS I) 24 EA 353$ 8,472$ 18 PVMT SYMB MRKG (SHARED LANE) (TYPE B, CLASS I) 5 EA 520$ 2,600$ 19 PAVEMENT MARKING MESSAGE: ELONGATED ARROW (TYPE B, CLASS IV) 8 EA 364$ 2,912$


20 RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON 2 EA 20,000$ 40,000$ Unit cost assumed per 17th Street Project21 INSTALL SIGNS AND POSTS 14 EA 600$ 8,400$ Assume 2 wayfinding signs per block22 RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN 28 EA 564$ 15,781$ 23 INSTALL TRASH CANS 56 EA 500$ 28,000$ Assume 4 per intersection and 4 per midblock24 INSTALL DECORATIVE BENCH 28 EA 2,000$ 56,000$ Assume 4 per block25 5-SLOT BICYCLE RACKS 20 EA 500$ 10,000$ Assume 2 per block

SUBTOTAL = 158,181$

Clay Street Streetscape Improvement ProjectRichmond, Virginia


\\vhb\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\tech\Improvements\Clay Street Cost Estimate_7.14.18 Page 1

Project #: 33965.19Date: 7/17/2018


Clay Street Streetscape Improvement ProjectRichmond, Virginia


SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

26 REMOVE AND REBUILD SIGNAL AT ROSENEATH ROAD 1 LS 354,000$ 354,000$

Cost estimated from 10% design. Does not assume markings and sidewalk improvements. Assumes new controller

27 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NORTH BOULEVARD 1 LS 313,000$ 313,000$

Cost estimated from 10% design. Does not assume markings and sidewalk improvements. Assumes new controller

28 ITS/COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1 LS 63,000$ 63,000$ SUBTOTAL = 730,000$

LANDSCAPING29 INSTALL TREE 56 EA 1,000$ 56,000$ Assume 8 per block30 CONSTRUCT NEW TREE WELL UP TO 25 SF 56 EA 437$ 24,472$ Assume 8 per block31 ADDITIONAL SITE LANDSCAPING AND SEEDING 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$

SUBTOTAL = 100,472$ UTILITIES

32 REPLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 7 EA 2,500$ 17,500$ 33 STORM SEWER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ Lump sum based on 17th Street Project34 RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITY POLE (SEE NOTE 7) 41 EA -$ -$

SUBTOTAL = 167,500$

CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = 2,447,790$ 6% 146,867.42$ 8% 195,823.22$

25% 611,947.57$ 3,402,428$

20% 680,486$ 4,082,914$

10% 408,291$ 10% 408,291$

TOTAL = 4,899,497$

GENERAL NOTES1 Quantities shown in this estimate are preliminary and will be refined during design process. 2 City of Richmond Term Contract unit prices were used, if known.3 VDOT Richmond District average unit prices were used, if known.4 Similar project cost experience was used if applicable.5 This estimate does not include bonding costs.6 Does not account for underground utilities or any relocation of underground utilities.7 Assume existing utility poles will be relocated by Dominion Power at no cost to the City through the Franchise Agreement.




MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFICCONTINGENCY

MOBILIZATION

\\vhb\proj\Richmond\33965.19 Scotts Addition Phase 2\tech\Improvements\Clay Street Cost Estimate_7.14.18 Page 2

appendix a 2015 scott's addition...

Documents