traffic impact study arlington, virginia · 2. a field reconnaissance of existing roadways, lane...

6711 LEE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA Prepared for: NVR, Inc. Prepared by: Wells + Associates, Inc. Michael J. Workosky, PTP, TOPS, TSOS John J. Andrus William L. Zeid, PE 703.917.6620 May 4, 2017

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 1

6711 LEE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Section 1 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________ 1

Section 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ___________________________________________________ 7

Public Road Network................................................................................................................. 7 Non-Auto Facilities and Services ............................................................................................... 7 General Land Use Plan (GLUP) ................................................................................................ 10 Existing Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................. 13 Pipeline Developments ........................................................................................................... 13

Section 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ___________________________________________ 17

Study Scope ............................................................................................................................. 17 Existing Conditions Operational Analysis................................................................................ 17 Background Traffic Growth ..................................................................................................... 19 Future Traffic Forecasts with Development (2020) ................................................................ 19 Operational Analysis of Future Conditions without Development (2020) ............................. 19 Site Vehicle-Trip Generation Analysis ..................................................................................... 22 Parking/Loading ...................................................................................................................... 23 Site Trip Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................. 24 Future Traffic Forecasts with Development (2020) ................................................................ 24 Operational Conditions with Development (2020) ................................................................ 24

Section 4 CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________________ 29

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 2



LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE Page

1-1 Site Location Map ......................................................................................................... 2 1-2 Site Plan Reduction ....................................................................................................... 3

2-1 Existing Lane Use and Traffic Controls .......................................................................... 8 2-2 Transit Facilities Map .................................................................................................... 9 2-3 Arlington County Bike Map ......................................................................................... 11 2-4 General Land Use Plan (GLUP) .................................................................................... 12 2-5 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes (2017) ................................ 14 2-6 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes (2017) .......................................... 15 2-7 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes (2017) ................................................ 16

3-1 Regional Growth (2020) .............................................................................................. 20 3-2 Future Traffic Forecasts without Development (2020) .............................................. 21 3-3 Existing Office Building Traffic To Be Removed .......................................................... 25 3-4 Site Trip Assignments and Directional Distributions (2020) ....................................... 26 3-5 Total Future Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts with Development (2020) ......... 27

LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE -1 Intersection Levels of Service Summary ..................................................................... 18 3-2 Intersection Queuing Summary .................................................................................. 18 3-3 Site Trip Generation Summary.................................................................................... 23

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 3



LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A Existing Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Traffic Counts B Scope of Work Agreement C Description of Levels of Service D Existing Intersection Levels of Service and Queues (2017) E Future Intersection Levels of Service and Queues without Development (2020) F Future Intersection Levels of Service and Queues with Development (2020)

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 1

6711 Lee Highway SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway, in Arlington County, Virginia. The subject site is located in the northwest quadrant of the Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29)/N. Underwood Street intersection, as shown on Figure 1-1. The current zoning designation for the site is C-O (Mixed Use District). The parcel is designated as a Low-Medium Residential Development District on the Arlington County General Land Use Plan (GLUP), and is currently developed with a three-story office building consisting of approximately 35,000 square feet (SF) of general office space. The site is currently served by surface parking. Vehicular access to the site is provided via two (2) full-movement driveways on N. Underwood Street and two (2) driveways on Lee Highway, one for inbound vehicles and one for outbound vehicles. The site is located approximately 1,580 feet northwest of the East Falls Church Metrorail station on the Orange and Silver Lines. In addition, the site is served by several Metrobus and ART bus lines and a connected network of streets, sidewalks and bike routes. The Applicant (NVR, Inc.) is in the process of filing a 4.1 Site Plan and Rezoning application to raze the existing three-story (35,000 SF) office building and redevelop the site with 27 residential townhomes. The proposed development would be served by 54 garage parking spaces and 10 visitor parking spaces. As shown on Figure 1-2, access to and from the development would be provided via the two existing driveways on N. Underwood Street. The two driveways on Lee Highway would be closed. For study purposes, the site was assumed to be redeveloped by 2020.

1

SIT

E

EA

ST

F

AL

LS

C

HU

RC

H

ME

TR

O S

TA

TIO

N

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

I

-

6

6

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

B

OU

LE

VA

RD

N. SYCAMORE STREET

2

5

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

F

A

I

R

F

A

X

D

R

I

V

E

N. ROOSEVELT STREET

N

. Q

U

A

N

T

IC

O

S

T

R

E

E

T

W

A

S

H

I

N

G

T

O

N

B

O

U

L

E

V

A

R

D

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

2

6

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants

O:\PROJECTS\7001 - 7500\7081 6711 LEE HIGHWAY\GRAPHICS\7081 - GRAPHICS - CCJ (170223).DWG

Figure 1-1

Site Location M

ap

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 4

Tasks undertaken in this study included the following: 1. Review the proposed site plan, development program, previous transportation studies,

and other background data. 2. A field reconnaissance of existing roadways, lane use and traffic control, posted speed

limits, pedestrian facilities, and transit services and facilities. 3. Discussions with Arlington County staff regarding the scope of this TIA. 4. Counts of existing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic at (4) study intersections

and the site driveways. 5. Analysis of existing levels of service and queues at each study intersection. 6. Forecasts of future traffic volumes without development based on existing traffic

counts and annual growth rate of 0.5 percent per year (compounded) for buildout year 2020 conditions.

7. Analysis of future levels of service and queues without development at each study

intersection based on future traffic forecasts without development and existing traffic controls and intersection geometrics.

8. Estimates of the number of AM and PM peak hour vehicle-trips generated by the

proposed development using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition rates and equations including applicable non-auto mode split reductions.

9. Forecasts of future traffic volumes with development based on future traffic forecasts

without development, plus site traffic assignments from the proposed development, accounting for the elimination of trips generated by the existing uses on-site.

10. Analysis of future levels of service and queues with development at each study

intersection based on future traffic forecasts with development and the future traffic controls and intersection geometrics.

Sources of data for this analysis included traffic counts conducted by Wells + Associates Inc. (W+A); ITE; the Arlington County Department of Environmental Services (DES); the Arlington County General Land Use Plan (GLUP); WMATA; Dewberry Consultants, LLC., and NVR, Inc.

4

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 5

The principal findings of this traffic impact analysis are as follows: 1. The redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway will eliminate two (2) access drives along Lee

Highway (US 29), thus eliminating conflict points along this heavily travelled arterial roadway.

2. The redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway would have a negligible impact on the

adjacent street network and operations at adjacent study intersections. 3. The subject site is located within a connected network of arterial and local streets, with

sidewalks and on-street bike routes, and is located approximately 1,580 feet from the East Falls Church Metro Station.

4. The five (5) unsignalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable overall

LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours with an average delay of 2.8 seconds per vehicle or less. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway currently operates at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.

5. In the future without redevelopment but with regional growth the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections also operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.

6. The 6711 Lee Highway project is estimated to generate 14 AM peak hour vehicle-trips,

16 PM peak hour vehicle-trips and 154 daily vehicle-trips. This assumes a 25% non-auto reduction based on the site’s proximity to the East Falls Church Metro Station and other non-auto facilities in the vicinity of the site. Based on ITE estimates, the proposed redevelopment of the site would result in 64 fewer AM peak hour trips, 97 fewer PM peak hour trips, and 385 fewer daily trips compared to the existing site’s uses.

7. With redevelopment, all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall

LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections also operate at acceptable LOS “A” during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the Lee Highway/N. Underwood Street intersection is located approximately 700 feet east of the signalized Lee highway/Washington Boulevard intersection and approximately 850 feet west of the signalized Lee Highway/N. Sycamore Street intersection. These signalized intersections east and west of N. Underwood Street will introduce gaps in the through traffic streams, allowing the southbound vehicles on N. Underwood Street to execute

5

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 6

left and right turns and access Lee Highway with less delay than calculated and reported above.

8. The proposed 6711 Lee Highway Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will

reinforce the expected vehicle trip reductions given the projects location to transit, bicycle, and walking facilities which minimize the project’s vehicular traffic impacts.

6

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 7

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Public Road Network Existing Network. The proposed development is located within a connected transportation network that provides excellent regional and local accessibility by private vehicle, public transportation, walking, and bicycle. The grid system of roads provides motorists with options traveling to/from the site area and their origins/destinations. Regional access to 6711 Lee Highway is provided by Interstate 66 (I-66) and Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29). N. Sycamore Street and N. Washington Boulevard (Route 237) provide local access to the proposed site. Currently, the existing office building is accessed via four public driveways; two (2) on N. Underwood Street and two (2) on Lee Highway. The east driveway on Lee Highway serves inbound traffic and the west driveway serves outbound traffic. The immediately adjacent intersection of Lee Highway and N. Underwood Street operates under stop control on N. Underwood Street. The existing intersection lane use and traffic control at the study intersections are shown on Figure 2-1. Non-Auto Facilities and Services Overview. The subject site is well served by Metrorail, Metrobus, Arlington Transit (ART), carsharing services, Capital Bikeshare, and on-street bike routes. These facilities are all generally within ¾ miles from the site. Figure 2-2 shows the existing transit facilities in the site area. Metrorail. The subject site is approximately 1,580 feet (0.3 miles) from the East Falls Church Metro Station that serves the Orange and Silver Lines. The Orange Line directly serves Arlington County and Fairfax County in Virginia; the District of Columbia; and Prince George’s County in Maryland. Metro passengers can transfer to the Blue Line at the Rosslyn station, to the Red Line at Metro Center, and to the Green and Yellow Lines at L’Enfant Plaza. The Silver Line will ultimately extend west to Dulles Airport and Loudoun County, but currently terminates at the Wiehle-Reston East station. Metrobus/ART. The subject site is well served by both Metrobus and ART bus service. Bus stops that serve Metrobus route 3A are located adjacent to the site along Lee Highway between N. Underwood Street and Washington Boulevard on both sides of Lee Highway. Access to ART and several other Metrobus routes are accessible from the East Falls Church Metro Station and along N. Sycamore Street to the east. Car Share. As shown on Figure 2-2, Zipcar and Enterprise each have a car sharing space located in the vicinity of the subject site. To the southeast, and closest to the site, there is an Enterprise CarShare vehicle parked at the East Falls Church Metro Station. The nearest Zipcar is parked at the Harris Teeter on West Broad Street, approximately 4,550 feet (0.86 miles) west of the site.

7

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-1

Existing Lane U

se and T

raffic C

ontrols

3804 W

ilson B

oulevard

Arlington, V

irginia

JCP

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

STOP

Sto

p S

ig

n

Sig

na

lize

d In

te

rse

ctio

n

Re

pre

se

nts O

ne

T

ra

ve

l L

an

e

8

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

I

-

6

6

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

B

OU

LE

VA

RD

N. SYCAMORE STREET

2

6

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

2

5

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

F

A

I

R

F

A

X

D

R

I

V

E

N. ROOSEVELT STREET

N

. Q

U

A

N

T

IC

O

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

S

Y

C

A

M

O

R

E

S

T

R

E

E

T

W

A

S

H

I

N

G

T

O

N

B

O

U

L

E

V

A

R

D

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

2

6

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

2

7

T

H

S

T

R

E

E

T

N

.

L

I

T

T

L

E

F

A

L

L

S

R

O

A

D

SIT

E

EA

ST

F

AL

LS

C

HU

RC

H

ME

TR

O S

TA

TIO

N

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-2

Transit F

acilities

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

AR

T 52, 53

AR

T 54, W

MA

TA

2A

AR

T 55, W

MA

TA

3Y

WM

AT

A 3A

WM

AT

A 15K

, 15L

WM

AT

A 26A

, 28X

BU

S S

TO

P

ME

TR

O S

TA

TIO

N

OR

AN

GE

&

S

IL

VE

R L

IN

E

9

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 10

Bikeshare. There is one Capital Bikeshare station located within the vicinity of the site at the East Falls Church Metro Station which houses 19 bike docks. The next nearest station is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the site at Westover Park which houses 15 bike docks.

Bicycle Facilities. In addition to the Capital Bikeshare stations previously mentioned, bicycle connectivity is provided via on-street bike lanes on N. Sycamore Street and Williamsburg Boulevard as shown on Figure 2-3. The Arlington County Bike Map classifies N. Underwood Street, Little Falls Road, 26th Street N, and Westmoreland Street as shown on Figure 2-3 as bicycle friendly on-street routes. Additionally, the Washington and Old Dominion Trail is easily accessible from the site at the East Falls Church Metro Station. Pedestrian Facilities. Within the study area sidewalks are provided on both sides of all streets. Crosswalks are provided on Lee Highway at Washington Boulevard and N. Sycamore Street. General Land Use Plan (GLUP)/Zoning The General Land Use Plan (GLUP) is an element of Arlington County’s Comprehensive Plan and is the primary policy guide for future development within the County. The GLUP is used to establish the overall character, extent and location of various land uses. It serves as a guide to communicate the policy of the County Board to citizens, the business community, developers and others in the development of Arlington County. The current zoning designation for the site is C-O (Mixed Use District). As shown on Figure 2-4, the site is designated as a “Low-Medium” Residential District on the Arlington County GLUP. The proposed townhome uses are not permitted under the C-O designation. Surrounding the site on the north side of Lee Highway is a mix of “Low” and other “Low-Medium” Residential spaces. To the south of Lee Highway, the GLUP designation is a similar mix of “Low” and “Low-Medium” Residential spaces. The Applicant is not seeking to amend the GLUP designation of the site from the current “Low-Medium” Residential designation. Additionally, the site is proposed to be rezoned to RA8-18 Multiple-family Dwelling District.

10

NORTH

INNOVATION + SOLUTIONSTransportation Consultants

O:\P

RO

JE

CT

S\7001 - 7500\7081 6711 LE

E H

IG

HW

AY

\G

RA

PH

IC

S\7081 - G

RA

PH

IC

S - C

CJ (170223).D

WG

Figure 2-3

Bike Map

6711 Lee Highway

Arlington, VA

CC

J

11

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-4

General Land U

se P

lan (G

LU

P)

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

A

CCJ

12

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 13

Existing Traffic Counts Existing AM and PM peak hour counts of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic were conducted by Wells + Associates on Wednesday, January 11, 2017, at the following intersections: N. Underwood Street/Lee Highway. N. Underwood Street/East Site Driveway – North. N. Underwood Street/East Site Driveway – South. East Site Driveway/Lee Highway. West Site Driveway/Lee Highway. The traffic counts are included in Appendix A. Vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic counts are summarized on Figures 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7, respectively. Based on the results of these traffic counts, the peak hours on Lee Highway generally occurred between 7:45 and 8:45 AM and 4:45 and 5:45 PM. For purposes of this analysis the individual peak hours at intersections were used to provide a more conservative analysis. On Street Parking Surrounding the site, some on-street parking is available. East of the site, along N. Underwood Street, there are approximately three (3) parking spaces limited to Zone 9 permits only from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. On the west side of N. Underwood Street, another three (3) parking spaces are available limited to 2-hour parking only from 8:00 to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. On-street parking with similar restrictions is available further north of the site adjacent to Charles A. Stewart Park. Directly adjacent to the site along the west side of N. Underwood Street, 4-hour parking is permitted from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays with space available for approximately five (5) vehicles. South of the site, along Lee Highway in both directions, no parking is permitted. Pipeline Developments There are no pipeline development projects in the immediate vicinity of the site. All of the planned development is located south and west of Interstate 66 within Falls Church. Thus, no specific pipeline developments were included in this study.

13

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-5

Existing W

eekday P

eak H

our V

ehicular T

raffic V

olum

es

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

STOP

Sto

p S

ig

n

Sig

na

lize

d In

te

rse

ctio

n

Re

pre

se

nts O

ne

T

ra

ve

l L

an

e

4/6

8/8

7/7

50/60

53/61

1/0

3/4

2/3

5/1

54/63

53/65

8/4

4/4

1096/736

1236/1155

2/6

1095/736

1236/1155

1/0

8/6

4/31

1056/736

1205/1117

19/33

22/23

33/45

14

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-6

Existing W

eekday P

eak H

our P

edestrian V

olum

es

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

0/0

0/0

4/10

3/4

0/6

0/0

4/10

3/4

3/1

7/7

1/0

2/3

2/6

0/1

0/0

4/0

2/0

0/1

3/2

0/0

15

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 2-7

Existing W

eekday P

eak H

our B

icycle V

olum

es

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/1

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1

0/0

0/0

0/0

16

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 17

SECTION 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS Study Scope Based on the scoping meeting held with Arlington County staff, the 6711 Lee Highway TIA includes the five (5) study intersections listed previously including the four (4) site access points provided via the public driveways on N. Underwood Street and Lee Highway. A copy of the approved scoping agreement is included in Appendix B. For purposes of this traffic study, the build-out year was assumed to be 2020. Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Existing peak hour levels of service (LOS) were estimated at the study intersections based on: the existing lane use and traffic control shown on Figure 2-1; the existing vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic counts shown on Figures 2-4 thru 2-6; and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodologies, using Synchro Software, version 9.1. Descriptions of levels of service (LOS) “A” through “F” for signalized and unsignalized intersections are included in Appendix C. The results of the existing conditions analysis are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In addition to the peak hour volumes the following inputs were coded into Synchro; peak hour factor by approach, CBD area type, lane widths, adjacent parking lane, number parking maneuvers, and bus blockages. Levels of Service. As shown in Table 3-1, the five study intersections currently operate at acceptable overall LOS ”A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections also operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway currently operates at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour. Queues. Existing peak hour 95th percentile queues for study intersection were estimated using Synchro Software, version 9.1. The 95th percentile queues of existing conditions are used to establish a datum against which to compare future conditions. The 95th percentile queue is defined as the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed, it is simply based on statistical calculations1. The results are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Table 3-2.

1 Synchro Studio 9, Traffic Signal Software – User Guide

17

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 18

Table 3-16711 Lee HighwayIntersection Levels of Service

Intersection Lane Group/Intersection Control Approach LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

(1) Lee Highway / N Underwood Street Unsignalized EBLT A 2.6 A 2.1 A 2.6 A 2.1 A 2.3 A 2.1WBTR A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0SBLR F 94.3 E 44.6 F 86.7 E 43.4 F 91.5 E 39.2

Overall A 2.8 A 1.9 A 2.4 A 1.8 A 2.5 A 1.5

(2) N Underwood Street / Unsignalized EBLR A 8.9 A 9.1 A 8.8 A 9.1 A 8.7 A 8.7North Site Driveway NBLT A 0.9 A 0.8 A 1.0 A 0.8 A 0.1 A 0.6

SBTR A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0Overall A 1.3 A 1.2 A 1.3 A 1.3 A 0.6 A 0.5

(3) N Underwood Street Unsignalized EBLR A 9.1 A 9.1 A 9.0 A 9.0 A 8.6 A 8.6South Site Driveway NBLT A 0.7 A 0.1 A 0.6 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.5

SBTR A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0Overall A 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.6 A 0.5 A 0.6 A 0.5

(4) Lee Highway / Site Entrance Unsignalized EBLT A 0.3 A 0.4 A 0.2 A 0.3WBTR A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0

Overall A 0.1 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0

(5) Lee Highway / Site Exit Unsignalized EBT A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0WBT A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0SBLR C 23.0 B 14.4 C 20.7 B 13.8

Overall A 0.1 A 0.0 A 0.1 A 0.0(-) Analysis performed using Synchro software, version 9.

Intersection Removed




2017 Existing Conditions 2020 Background Conditions 2020 Total Future Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Table 3-26711 Lee HighwayIntersection Queuing Summary (1)

Intersection Lane AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM PeakIntersection Control Group 95th Percentile 95th Percentile 95th Percentile 95th Percentile 95th Percentile 95th Percentile

(1) Lee Highway / N Underwood Street Unsignalized EBLT 7 5 7 5 6 5WBTR 0 0 0 0 0 0SBLR 82 57 73 52 76 44

(2) N Underwood Street / Unsignalized EBLR 1 1 1 1 0 0North Site Driveway NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0

SBTR 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unsignalized(3) N Underwood Street EBLR 1 1 0 1 1 0

South Site Driveway NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0SBTR 0 0 0 0 0 0

(4) Lee Highway / Site Entrance Unsignalized EBLT 1 1 1 1WBTR 0 0 0 0

(5) Lee Highway / Site Exit Unsignalized EBT 0 0 0 0WBT 0 0 0 0SBLR 4 1 3 1

Notes: (1) Analysis performed using Synchro software, version 9.

Driveway Removed

Driveway Removed

Driveway Removed

Driveway Removed

2017 Existing Conditions

2020 Background Conditions

2020 Total Future Conditions

18

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 19

As shown on Table 3-2, and observed in the field peak hour queueing does not queue back to or through the adjacent intersections. The maximum 95th percentile queues occurred along southbound N. Underwood Street at Lee Highway and were less than 4 vehicles in length. Background Traffic Growth VDOT AADT data does not indicate growth along this segment of Lee Highway since 2013. In order to present a conservative (or worst case) analysis, regional growth from 2017 to 2020 was estimated at a one-half (0.50) percent per year, compounded annually, for through traffic movements along Lee Highway at the study intersections. This growth rate accounts for increases in traffic resulting from potential developments not included herein and influences outside of the immediate study area. Increases as a result of regional growth are shown on Figure 3-1. Future Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts without Development (2020) In order to forecast future traffic volumes without development at the study intersections, regional growth (Figure 3-1) was added to the existing peak hour traffic counts (Figure 2-5). The resulting future traffic forecasts without development are shown on Figure 3-2. Operational Analysis of Future Conditions without Development (2020) Future peak hour levels of service without the redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway in year 2020 were estimated at the study intersections based on the lane use and traffic control shown on Figure 2-1; the future traffic forecasts without development shown on Figure 3-2; and the HCM 2000 methodologies, using Synchro Software, version 9.1. The results are presented in Appendix F and summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Levels of Service. As shown in Table 3-1, with regional growth, the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall LOS ”A” or during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour. Queues. As shown in Table 3-2 with the addition of regional growth the projected 95th percentile queues would be similar to those experienced under existing conditions during peak periods.

19

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 3-1

Regional G

row

th (2020)

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

17/12

19/18

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

16/12

19/17

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

17/12

19/18

0/0

0/0

0/0

20

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 3-2

Future F

orecasts w

ithout D

evelopm

ent (2020)

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

4/6

8/8

7/7

50/60

53/61

0/1

3/4

2/3

5/1

54/63

53/65

8/4

40/31

1072/748

1224/1134

19/33

22/23

33/45

4/4

1113/748

1255/1173

2/6

1112/748

1255/1173

1/0

8/6

21

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 22

Site Vehicle-Trip Generation Analysis The number of vehicle-trips that would be generated by the redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway was estimated based on rates/equations included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. As agreed to during the scoping process, a 25 percent non-auto mode-share reduction was applied based on the site’s proximity to the East Falls Church Metro Station and other non-auto facilities in the vicinity of the site, and are generally consistent with the WMATA 2006 Development-Related Ridership Survey. As shown in Table 3-3, the existing office building (35,000 S.F.) is estimated to generate 83 AM peak hour trips, 118 PM peak hour trips, and 591 daily trips without adjustments. The proposed development (27 townhouses) is estimated to generate 19 AM peak hour trips, 21 PM peak hour trips, and 206 daily trips without adjustments. Thus, the proposed development would generate 64 fewer AM peak hour trips, 97 fewer PM peak hour trips, and 385 fewer daily trips. When adjusting for non-auto mode share, the proposed development would generate 14 AM peak hour trips, 16 PM peak hour trips, and 154 daily trips. Driveway counts at the site indicate that the existing office building generates 53 AM peak hour trips and 49 PM peak hour trips. Thus, the redevelopment of the existing site with 27 townhomes would result in a net decrease of 39 AM peak hour trips and a net decrease of 33 PM peak hour trips. Existing Trips Removed Since the existing site will be razed, the observed peak hour site traffic relating to the three-story office building was removed from the network based on the existing traffic patterns and are shown on Figure 3-3. Site Access Vehicular access to the site would be provided via the two (2) existing driveways along N. Underwood Street. The two existing curb cuts on Lee Highway will be closed.

22

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 23

Parking/Loading Vehicle Parking. The development program includes 27 residential townhomes. The Arlington County vehicle parking ratios for the C-O zoning district are as followed: Townhouses and stacked one-family dwellings:

o 2 per dwelling unit, and ⅕ additional parking space per dwelling unit for visitors Based on these parking requirements, 60 vehicle parking spaces would be required for the proposed development. According to site plan, the Applicant proposes 64 parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of 2.37 parking spaces dwelling unit. Bicycle Parking. The standard Arlington County bicycle parking ratios are as follows: Residential Uses (Short-Term Visitor Parking (Class III))

o One bicycle parking space per every 50 units Residential Uses (Long-Term Secure Parking (Class I))

o One bicycle parking space per every 2.5 units Based on these parking ratio requirements, one short-term and eleven long-term secure bicycle parking spaces would be required for the site, as currently proposed. It is expected that the long-term requirements will be met by the garages provided for each unit. The short-term requirements will be met by a bike rack located on-site just south of the dry swale BMP. The proposed development meet the bicycle parking requirements of Arlington County.

WeekdayAmount Units In Out Total In Out Total AADT

Existing Conditions710 35,000 SF 73 10 83 20 98 118 591

230 27 DU 3 16 19 14 7 21 206-70 6 -64 -6 -91 -97 -385

Existing Driveway Counts27 26 53 22 27 49 N/A

230 27 DU 3 16 19 14 7 21 20625% -1 -4 -5 -4 -1 -5 -52

2 12 14 10 6 16 154Net Difference: Existing Driveway Counts vs. Proposed With Non-Auto Reduction -25 -14 -39 -12 -21 -33 N/A

Notes: (1) Trip generation estimated using the rates and/or equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (9th Edition)

(2) Actual trip difference will be based on the driveway counts for existing conditions. (3) 25% reduction based on site's proximity to the East Falls Church Metro Station

General Office Proposed Conditions ( Without Non-Auto Reduction) Townhouse

Net Difference: Existing vs. Proposed Without Non-Auto Reduction

Table 3-36711 Lee HighwayTrip Generation Comparision of Existing vs. Proposed Conditions (1) (2)

Land Use

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourScenario

Proposed Conditions ( With Non-Auto Reduction) Townhouse Non-Auto Reduction (3)

Proposed Site Trip Generation with Non-Auto Reduction

General Office

23

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 24

Loading Area. The standard Arlington County off-street loading requirements are as follows: Residential Townhouse uses:

o No Loading Requirements According to the site plan, the Applicant proposes twenty-seven individual two-car garages to serve loading purposes for the townhomes. Site Trip Distribution Analysis The distribution of peak hour trips generated by the redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway was determined based on existing traffic counts, road network, previously approved traffic impact studies, and local knowledge. The distributions were ultimately agreed to with County staff and are summarized below. To/from the south on N. Emerson Street 10% To/from the west on Wilson Boulevard 65% To/from the east on Wilson Boulevard 25% Total 100% The peak hour trips were assigned to the road network based on these distributions and are shown on Figure 3-4. Future Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts with Development (2020) The future peak hour traffic forecasts are presented on Figure 3-5 and include the removal of existing peak hour site traffic (Figure 3-3) and the addition of the peak hour traffic generated by the proposed development (Figure 3-4) to the future peak hour traffic forecasts without development shown on Figure 3-2. Operational Analysis of Future Conditions with Development (2020) Future peak hour levels of service with the proposed redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway in year 2020 were estimated at the study intersections based on the lane use and traffic controls shown on Figure 2-1; the future traffic forecasts with development shown on Figure 3-5; and the HCM 2000 methodologies, using Synchro Software, version 9.1. The results are presented in Appendix G and summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.

24

SIT

E

1

2

3

4

5

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 3-3

Existing O

ffice B

uilding T

raffic to be R

em

oved

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

2 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

3

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

1

ENTRY

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

4

EXIT

SOUTH

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

5

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

-4/-6

-8/-8

-7/-7

-3/-4

-8/-4

-1/0

-3/-4

-2/-3

-5/-1

-7/-7

-8/-8

-8/-4

-5/-3

-1/0

-2/-6

-7/-6

-6/-7

-4/-4

-4/-4

-6/-3

-4/-4

-2/-6

-9/-7

-4/-4

-1/0

-8/-6

25

SIT

E

1

2

3

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

2

5

%

1

0

%

6

5

%

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 3-4

Site T

rip A

ssignm

ent and D

irectional D

istribution

3804 W

ilson B

oulevard

Arlington, V

irginia

JCP

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

1 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

2

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

3

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

1/3

0/0

0/0

1/7

8/4

3/2

1/0

5/3

1/5

0/0

0/0

0/1

0/0

6/3

1/5

1/5

5/3

0/0

Directio

na

l

Distrib

utio

n o

f

Site

T

ra

ffic

XX

%

26

SIT

E

1

2

3

N

.

U

N

D

E

R

W

O

O

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

L

E

E

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

NO

RT

H

IN

NO

VA

TIO

N +

S

OLU

TIO

NS

Transportation C

onsultants


Figure 3-5

Total F

uture W

eekday P

eak H

our T

raffic F

orecasts (20

20

)

6711 Lee H

ighw

ay

Arlington, V

irginia

CCJ

AM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

PM

P

EA

K H

OU

R

000 / 000

STOP

Sto

p S

ig

n

Sig

na

lize

d In

te

rse

ctio

n

Re

pre

se

nts O

ne

T

ra

ve

l L

an

e

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

1 NO

RT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

2

SO

UT

HE

AS

T

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

STREET

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

DR

IV

EW

AY

STREET

STREET

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

LE

E

HIG

HW

AY

3

NORTH

UNDERWOOD

0/1

5/3

1/5

47/56

45/57

0/1

0/0

6/3

1/5

48/61

50/60

0/0

36/31

1071/748

1222/1128

13/35

24/20

32/43

27

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 28

Levels of Service. As shown in Table 3-1, with redevelopment all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the Lee Highway/N. Underwood Street intersection is located approximately 700 feet east of the signalized Lee highway/Washington Boulevard intersection and approximately 850 feet west of the signalized Lee Highway/N. Sycamore Street intersection. These signalized intersections east and west of N. Underwood Street will introduce gaps in the through traffic streams, allowing the southbound vehicles on N. Underwood Street to execute left and right turns and access Lee Highway with less delay than calculated and reported above. When compared to future conditions without development the proposed development would result in minimal decreases in delay at the access drives along N. Underwood Street. At the N. Underwood/Lee Highway intersection, a minimal increase in delay (0.1 seconds per vehicle) would be experienced during the AM peak hour, and a minimal decrease in delay (0.3 seconds per vehicle) would be experienced during the PM peak hour. Thus, the impact of the proposed development on these intersections would be imperceptible. As detailed above, the site development plan calls for the elimination of the two (2) site access drives along Lee Highway. The elimination of these access points will 1) eliminate conflict points along this heavily travelled arterial roadway, and 2) consolidate access to N. Underwood Street at locations appropriate for access to individual land parcels. Queues. As shown in Table 3-2 with the addition of the proposed development the projected 95th percentile queues would remain generally consistent to future conditions without development. The maximum 95th percentile queue along S. Underwood Street at Lee Highway will be approximately 3 vehicles in length and will not interfere with access/egress operations along N. Underwood Street at the site driveways.

28

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 29

SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS The principal findings of this traffic impact analysis are as follows:

5. The redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway will eliminate two (2) access drives along Lee Highway (US 29), thus eliminating conflict points along this heavily travelled arterial roadway.

6. The redevelopment of 6711 Lee Highway would have a negligible impact on the

adjacent street network and operations at adjacent study intersections. 7. The subject site is located within a connected network of arterial and local streets, with

sidewalks and on-street bike routes, and is located approximately 1,580 feet from the East Falls Church Metro Station.

8. The five (5) unsignalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable overall

LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours with an average delay of 2.8 seconds per vehicle or less. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway currently operates at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.

5. In the future without redevelopment but with regional growth the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections also operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS “C” or better) during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.

6. The 6711 Lee Highway project is estimated to generate 14 AM peak hour vehicle-trips,

16 PM peak hour vehicle-trips and 154 daily vehicle-trips. This assumes a 25% non-auto reduction based on the site’s proximity to the East Falls Church Metro Station and other non-auto facilities in the vicinity of the site. Based on ITE estimates, the proposed redevelopment of the site would result in 64 fewer AM peak hour trips, 97 fewer PM peak hour trips, and 385 fewer daily trips compared to the existing site’s uses.

7. With redevelopment, all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable overall

LOS “A” during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway, all approaches at the intersections also operate at acceptable LOS “A” during peak periods. The southbound N. Underwood Street approach at Lee Highway will continue to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak hour and at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour. It is noted that the Lee Highway/N. Underwood Street intersection is located approximately 700 feet east of the signalized Lee highway/Washington Boulevard intersection and approximately 850 feet west of

29

FINAL TIA 12/5/2013 30

the signalized Lee Highway/N. Sycamore Street intersection. These signalized intersections east and west of N. Underwood Street will introduce gaps in the through traffic streams, allowing the southbound vehicles on N. Underwood Street to execute left and right turns and access Lee Highway with less delay than calculated and reported above.

8. The proposed 6711 Lee Highway Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will

reinforce the expected vehicle trip reductions given the projects location to transit, bicycle, and walking facilities which minimize the project’s vehicular traffic impacts.

O:\PROJECTS\7001 - 7500\7081 6711 LEE HIGHWAY\DOCUMENTS\REPORTS\6711 LEE HIGHWAY TIA (W+A DRAFT 2.17.17).DOCX

30

APPENDIX A EXISTING VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN, AND

BICYCLE TRAFFIC COUNTS

6711 Lee Highway North Underwood Street7081 Wednesday 0Lee Highway & N. Underwood St. clear Lee Highway - 29Arlington County,VA Majda & Salih Lee Highway - 29

aganNorth East

& & TotalRight Thru Left Total PHF Right Thru Left Total PHF Right Thru Left Total PHF Right Thru Left Total PHF South West

AM 15 Minute Volumes7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 7 0 3 10 12 112 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 215 15 230 10 354 3647:15 AM - 7:30 AM 19 0 10 29 20 185 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 286 23 309 29 514 5437:30 AM - 7:45 AM 14 0 9 23 23 236 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 291 25 316 23 575 5987:45 AM - 8:00 AM 12 0 7 19 7 290 0 297 0 0 0 0 0 276 9 285 19 582 6018:00 AM - 8:15 AM 11 0 6 17 2 283 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 298 7 305 17 590 6078:15 AM - 8:30 AM 5 0 5 10 4 301 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 230 9 239 10 544 5548:30 AM - 8:45 AM 5 0 4 9 6 331 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 252 15 267 9 604 6138:45 AM - 9:00 AM 8 0 4 12 6 307 0 313 0 0 0 0 0 234 16 250 12 563 5759:00 AM - 9:15 AM 8 0 4 12 4 226 0 230 0 0 0 0 0 184 13 197 12 427 4399:15 AM - 9:30 AM 8 0 1 9 6 175 0 181 0 0 0 0 0 213 5 218 9 399 4089:30 AM - 9:45 AM 6 0 4 10 4 176 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 197 3 200 10 380 3909:45 AM - 10:00 AM 3 0 6 9 2 157 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 174 4 178 9 337 346Total 106 0 63 169 96 2779 0 2875 0 0 0 0 0 2850 144 2994 169 5869 6038AM One Hour Volumes7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 52 0 29 81 0.70 62 823 0 885 0.74 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1068 72 1140 0.90 81 2025 21067:15 AM - 8:15 AM 56 0 32 88 0.76 52 994 0 1046 0.88 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1151 64 1215 0.96 88 2261 23497:30 AM - 8:30 AM 42 0 27 69 0.75 36 1110 0 1146 0.94 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1095 50 1145 0.91 69 2291 23607:45 AM - 8:45 AM 33 0 22 55 0.72 19 1205 0 1224 0.91 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1056 40 1096 0.90 55 2320 23758:00 AM - 9:00 AM 29 0 19 48 0.71 18 1222 0 1240 0.92 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1014 47 1061 0.87 48 2301 23498:15 AM - 9:15 AM 26 0 17 43 0.90 20 1165 0 1185 0.88 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 900 53 953 0.89 43 2138 21818:30 AM - 9:30 AM 29 0 13 42 0.88 22 1039 0 1061 0.79 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 883 49 932 0.87 42 1993 20358:45 AM - 9:45 AM 30 0 13 43 0.90 20 884 0 904 0.72 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 828 37 865 0.87 43 1769 18129:00 AM - 10:00 AM 25 0 15 40 0.83 16 734 0 750 0.82 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 768 25 793 0.91 40 1543 1583PM 15 Minute Volumes4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 7 0 2 9 5 231 0 236 0 0 0 0 0 145 8 153 9 389 3984:15 PM - 4:30 PM 7 0 3 10 8 262 0 270 0 0 0 0 0 165 5 170 10 440 4504:30 PM - 4:45 PM 12 0 7 19 8 283 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 161 7 168 19 459 4784:45 PM - 5:00 PM 11 0 8 19 9 285 0 294 0 0 0 0 0 193 8 201 19 495 5145:00 PM - 5:15 PM 8 0 7 15 3 235 0 238 0 0 0 0 0 179 10 189 15 427 4425:15 PM - 5:30 PM 6 0 4 10 9 294 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 169 5 174 10 477 4875:30 PM - 5:45 PM 20 0 4 24 12 303 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 195 8 203 24 518 5425:45 PM - 6:00 PM 6 0 10 16 8 271 0 279 0 0 0 0 0 169 9 178 16 457 4736:00 PM - 6:15 PM 8 0 5 13 7 236 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 174 4 178 13 421 4346:15 PM - 6:30 PM 14 0 5 19 10 232 0 242 0 0 0 0 0 195 2 197 19 439 4586:30 PM - 6:45 PM 8 0 4 12 8 259 0 267 0 0 0 0 0 173 6 179 12 446 4586:45 PM - 7:00 PM 6 0 9 15 6 216 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 161 6 167 15 389 404Total 113 0 68 181 93 3107 0 3200 0 0 0 0 0 2079 78 2157 181 5357 5538PM One Hour Volumes4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 37 0 20 57 0.75 30 1061 0 1091 0.93 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 664 28 692 0.86 57 1783 18404:15 PM - 5:15 PM 38 0 25 63 0.83 28 1065 0 1093 0.93 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 698 30 728 0.91 63 1821 18844:30 PM - 5:30 PM 37 0 26 63 0.83 29 1097 0 1126 0.93 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 702 30 732 0.91 63 1858 19214:45 PM - 5:45 PM 45 0 23 68 0.71 33 1117 0 1150 0.91 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 736 31 767 0.94 68 1917 19855:00 PM - 6:00 PM 40 0 25 65 0.68 32 1103 0 1135 0.90 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 712 32 744 0.92 65 1879 19445:15 PM - 6:15 PM 40 0 23 63 0.66 36 1104 0 1140 0.90 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 707 26 733 0.90 63 1873 19365:30 PM - 6:30 PM 48 0 24 72 0.75 37 1042 0 1079 0.86 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 733 23 756 0.93 72 1835 19075:45 PM - 6:45 PM 36 0 24 60 0.79 33 998 0 1031 0.92 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 711 21 732 0.93 60 1763 18236:00 PM - 7:00 PM 36 0 23 59 0.78 31 943 0 974 0.91 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 703 18 721 0.91 59 1695 1754

PeriodNorth Underwood Street

LOCATION: EASTBOUND ROAD: COUNTED BY: INPUTED BY:

Time Lee Highway - 29Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound

Lee Highway - 29 0

W+A JOB NO: INTERSECTION:

NORTHBOUND ROAD: WESTBOUND ROAD:

DAY: WEATHER:

Wells + Associates, Inc.McLean, Virginia

Turning Movement Count - All Vehicles

PROJECT: SOUTHBOUND ROAD: 1/11/2017DATE:

A-1

6711 Lee Highway North Underwood Street7081 Wednesday North Underwood StreetN. Underwood St. & Site Entr. - North clear 0Arlington County,VA Luz Site Entrance - North

aganNorth East



WEATHER:




Westbound Northbound Eastbound0 North Underwood Street



DAY:



Time Site Entrance - NorthSouthbound

A-2

6711 Lee Highway North Underwood Street7081 Wednesday North Underwood StreetN. Underwood St. & Site Entr. - South clear 0Arlington County,VA Luz Site Entrance - South

aganNorth East



WEATHER:




Westbound Northbound Eastbound0 North Underwood Street



DAY:



Time Site Entrance - SouthSouthbound

A-3

6711 Lee Highway Site Entrances7081 Wednesday 0Lee Highway & Site Entr. clear Lee Highway - 29Arlington County,VA Jose Lee Highway - 29

aganNorth East



PeriodSite Entrances


Time Lee Highway - 29Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound

Lee Highway - 29 0



DAY: WEATHER:




A-4

APPENDIX B SCOPE OF WORK AGREEMENT

PRE‐SCOPEOFWORKMEETINGFORM

6711LeeHighwayTrafficImpactAnalysis

ContactInformation

ConsultantName:E‐mail:

Tele:

MJWells+AssociatesWilliamZeid,PE([email protected])(703.676.3616)MichaelWorkosky,PTP,TOPS,TSOS([email protected])(703.676.3603)

Developer/OwnerName: Tele: E‐mail:

NVR,Inc.PatrickDonahue([email protected])(703.956.4000)

ProjectInformation

ProjectName: 6711LeeHighway

ProjectLocation:(Attachregionalandsitespecificlocationmap)

Thesubjectsiteislocatedat6711LeeHighwayandboundedbyLeeHighwaytothe south and N Underwood St to the east. The site is bordered by adjacentpropertiestothenorthandwest.Accesstotheexistingdevelopmentisprovidedviafoursitedrivewayswithtwo(2)locatedalongtheLeeHighwayfrontageandtwo(2)alongtheNUnderwoodSt.frontage.(ThesitelocationisshownonAttachmentA)

ProjectDescription:Includingtypeofapplication(rezoning,subdivision,andsiteplan),acreage,businesssquareft,numberofdwellingunits,accesslocation,etc.Attachadditionalsheetifnecessary)

NVR Inc., the Applicant, is proposing to raze the existing three story officebuilding(35,000SF),andredevelopthesitewith27residentialtownhomes.The proposed residential unitswill each have a driveway and parking for twovehicles, and seven additional surfaces spaces will be provided on site. Theoverall parking ratio, including the additional surface spaces, will beapproximately2.25spacesperunit.Accesstothesitewillbeprovidedviatwo(2)sitedrivewaysalongNUnderwoodStreet.TheexistingsouthernmostdrivewayonNUnderwoodStreetwillremainat it’s current location; however, the northernmost driveway is proposed to berelocatedapproximately50feettothenorth.ThetwoexistingsitedrivewaysandcurbcutsonLeeHighwaywillberemoved.The site is located approximately 0.3 miles from the East Falls Church Metrostationandadjacenttofrequentbusservice.(TheproposedsitelayoutisshownonAttachmentB)

Locality/County: ArlingtonCounty,Virginia

B-1

6711 Lee Highway Traffic Impact Analysis

Scope of Work Form

ProposedUse:

Residential Commercial MixedUse Other

ProposedUse/TripGeneration

Existing:35,000SFofGeneralOfficespace(One3‐StoryBuilding)Proposed:27ResidentialTownhouses(TripgenerationshownonAttachmentC)

TripgenerationratestakenfromITE(9thEdition)A25%non‐automodesharereductionwillbeappliedtotheITEtripestimatesgiventhesite’sdistancetotheEastFallsChurchMetrorailstationandothernon‐automodesavailableproximatetothesite.

TrafficImpactAnalysisAssumptions

StudyPeriod ExistingYear:2017 Build‐outYear:2019 DesignYear:N/A

StudyAreaBoundaries(Attachmap)

SeeAttachmentA

North:SiteDriveway(North) South:LeeHighway

East:NUnderwoodStreet West:SiteDriveway(West)

ExternalFactorsThatCouldAffectProject(Plannedroadimprovements,othernearbydevelopments)

PotentialfutureCountyimprovement(Notcurrentlyapprovedorfunded):

NoneidentifiedItrequestedthatCountyStaffprovideanyinformationregardingfundedCapitalImprovementswithinthestudyarea.

ConsistencyWithComprehensivePlan

Theproposalisconsistentwiththeexistingcompplan.

AvailableTrafficData(Historical,forecasts)

2015VDOTAADTData:LeeHighway–22,000vpd

TripDistributionSeeAttachmentA

RoadName:LeeHighway N‐‐%(NoOutlet) S‐‐% E25% W65%

RoadName:NUnderwoodSt. N10% S‐‐% E‐‐% W‐‐%

B-2

6711 Lee Highway Traffic Impact Analysis

Scope of Work Form

AnnualVehicleTripGrowthRate:

A growth rate of 0.5 percent,compoundedannuallyfor3years,will be applied to throughmovements along Lee Highwaybased on existing traffic countdata. VDOT AADT data does notindicate growth along thissegment of Lee Highway since2013.

PeakPeriodforStudy(circleallthatapply)

AM PM SAT

StudyIntersectionsand/orRoadSegments(SeeAttachmentA)

1.NUnderwoodSt./LeeHighway 2.Allexistingandfuturesitedriveways

TripAdjustmentFactors Internalallowance:YesNo Pass‐byallowance:YesNo

SoftwareMethodology

SynchroHCS(v.2000/+)aaSIDRACORSIMOther

TrafficSignalProposedorAffected(Analysissoftwaretobeused,progressionspeed,cyclelength)

Nonewtrafficsignalsareproposed,andnoexistingtrafficsignalsareproposedtobemodified.Synchro(Version9)softwarewillbeusedfortheHCMintersectionanalyses.ThecurrentweekdayAMandPMpeakperiodtrafficsignaltimingsandphasingarerequestedfromCountyStaffforuseintheseanalyses.

Improvement(s)AssumedortobeConsidered

Noimprovements(beyondthoseproposedwiththesiteplanatthesitedriveways)wereidentifiedascurrentlybeingplannedforconstructionwithinthestudyarea.

BackgroundTrafficStudiesConsidered

Nonepipelineprojectslocatedwithinthesitevicinitywerefound.Pleaseidentifyanythatshouldbeincluded.

PlanSubmissionMasterDevelopmentPlan(MDP)4.1SitePlan

Preliminary/SketchPlan

AdditionalIssuestobeaddressed

QueuinganalysisActuation/CoordinationWeavinganalysis

MergeanalysisBike/PedAccommodationsIntersection(s)

TDMMeasures

B-3

5

4

1

3

2

6711

Lee

Highw

ay

Attachmen

t A

B-5

Attachment B 6711 Lee Highway

B-6

WeekdayAmount Units In Out Total In Out Total AADT

ExistingConditions710 35,000 SF 73 10 83 20 98 118 591

230 27 DU 3 16 19 14 7 21 206

‐70 6 ‐64 ‐6 ‐91 ‐97 ‐385

230 27 DU 3 16 19 14 7 21 20640% ‐1 ‐7 ‐8 ‐6 ‐2 ‐8 ‐82

2 9 11 8 5 13 124Notes: (1)Tripgenerationestimatedusingtheratesand/orequationspublishedintheInstituteofTransportationEngineers'TripGeneration(9thEdition)

(3)40%reductionbasedonsite'sproximitytotheEastFallsChurchMetroStation

AMPeakHour PMPeakHourScenario

GeneralOffice

Townhouse

NetTownhouseSiteTripswithNon‐AutoReduction

LandUseCode

ProposedConditions(Without Non‐AutoReduction)

ProposedConditions(With Non‐AutoReduction)

AttachmentC6711LeeHighway

(2)Actualtripdifferencewillbebasedonthedrivewaycountsforexistingconditions.

NetDifference:Existingvs.ProposedWithoutNon‐AutoReduction

Townhouse

TripGenerationComparisionofExistingvs.ProposedConditions(1)(2)

Non‐AutoReduction (3)

Wells + Associates, Inc.Tysons, Virginia

B-7

APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE

Level of Service for Signalized Intersections

Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-service (LOS) criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Exhibit 16-2. Delay may be measured in the field or estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group in question.

LOS A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

LOS B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

Exhibit 16-2. Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

LEVEL OF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC)

A <10.0

B > 10.0 and <20.0

C > 20.0 and < 35.0

D > 35.0 and < 55.0

E > 55.0 and < 80.0

F >80.0

LOS C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

LOS E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council

C-1

Level of Service Criteria for Stop Sign Controlled Intersections

The level of service criteria are given in Table 17-2. As used here, control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from the time a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from free-flow speed to the speed of vehicles in queue.

The average total delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. . . .

Table 17-2. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY

(sec/veh) A < 10

B > 10 and < 15

C > 15 and < 25

D > 25 and < 35

E > 35 and < 50

F > 50

Average total delay less than 10 sec/veh is defined as Level of Service (LOS) A. Follow-up times of less than 5 sec have been measured when there is no conflicting traffic for a minor street movement, so control delays of less than 10 sec/veh are appropriate for low flow conditions. To remain consistent with the AWSC intersection analysis procedure described later in this chapter, a total delay of 50 sec/veh is assumed as the break point between LOS E and F.

The proposed level of service criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an unsignalized intersection. Additionally, several driver behavior considerations combine to make delays at signalized intersections less onerous than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, where drivers on the minor approaches to unsignalized intersections must remain attentive to the task of identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the total delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. . . .

LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to cross safely through a major street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident from extremely long total delays experienced by side street traffic and by queueing on the minor approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size - that is, the critical gap remains constant, no matter how long the side street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form of side street vehicles’ selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior. The latter is more difficult to observe on the field than queueing, which is more obvious.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council

C-2

APPENDIX D EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

AND QUEUES (2017)

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: Lee Highway & N Underwood St 2/21/2017

Baseline Synchro 9 ReportPage 1

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 40 1056 1205 19 22 33Future Volume (Veh/h) 40 1056 1205 19 22 33Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 1173 1324 21 26 39Pedestrians 2 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1348 2014 676vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1348 2014 676tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 91 44 90cM capacity (veh/h) 505 46 395

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 435 782 883 462 65Volume Left 44 0 0 0 26Volume Right 0 0 0 21 39cSH 505 1700 1700 1700 98Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.46 0.52 0.27 0.66Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 82Control Delay (s) 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.3Lane LOS A FApproach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 94.3Approach LOS F

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 2.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15

D-1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: N Underwood St & North Site Driveway 2/21/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 4 8 7 50 53 1Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 8 7 50 53 1Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 9 8 59 62 1Pedestrians 4Lane Width (ft) 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5Percent Blockage 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 142 66 67vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 142 66 67tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 99 99 99cM capacity (veh/h) 844 993 1529

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 14 67 63Volume Left 5 8 0Volume Right 9 0 1cSH 934 1529 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.04Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0Lane LOS A AApproach Delay (s) 8.9 0.9 0.0Approach LOS A

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.3Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

D-2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: N Underwood St & South Site Driveway 2/21/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 3 2 5 54 53 8Future Volume (Veh/h) 3 2 5 54 53 8Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 2 6 64 62 9PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 142 66 71vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 142 66 71tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 100 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 847 997 1529



D-3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Lee Highway & Site Entrance 2/21/2017


Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 4 1096 1236 2 0 0Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 1096 1236 2 0 0Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1289 1454 2 0 0Pedestrians 2 4 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1459 2116 733vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1459 2116 733tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 99 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 459 43 362

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2Volume Total 435 859 969 487Volume Left 5 0 0 0Volume Right 0 0 0 2cSH 459 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.51 0.57 0.29Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS AApproach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0Approach LOS


D-4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis5: Lee Highway & Site Exit 2/21/2017



Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 644 644 727 727 10Volume Left 0 0 0 0 1Volume Right 0 0 0 0 9cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 210Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.05Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 4Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0Lane LOS CApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 23.0Approach LOS C


D-5




Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 294 522 818 445 80Volume Left 33 0 0 0 27Volume Right 0 0 0 36 53cSH 545 1700 1700 1700 168Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.31 0.48 0.26 0.48Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 57Control Delay (s) 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6Lane LOS A EApproach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 44.6Approach LOS E


D-6






D-7






D-8



Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 4 736 1155 6 0 0Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 736 1155 6 0 0Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 866 1359 7 0 0Pedestrians 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5Percent Blockage 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1366 1806 685vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1366 1806 685tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 99 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 499 70 390



D-9




Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 433 433 680 680 7Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 7cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 392Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 1Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4Lane LOS BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.4Approach LOS B


D-10

APPENDIX E

FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND QUEUES WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT (2020)






E-1






E-2






E-3






E-4




Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 604 604 682 682 10Volume Left 0 0 0 0 1Volume Right 0 0 0 0 9cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 239Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.04Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 3Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7Lane LOS CApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 20.7Approach LOS C


E-5






E-6






E-7






E-8






E-9




Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1Volume Total 406 406 638 638 7Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0Volume Right 0 0 0 0 7cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 418Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 1Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8Lane LOS BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.8Approach LOS B


E-10

APPENDIX F FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND

QUEUES WITH DEVELOPMENT (2020)






F-1






F-2






F-3






F-4






F-5






F-6

traffic impact study arlington, virginia · 2. a field reconnaissance of existing roadways, lane...

Documents