Graves Mill Road Corridor Improvement Study by City of Lynchburg, Virginia

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY City of Lynchburg and Bedford County, Virginia

June 14, 2018

FINAL

Graves Mill Road Corridor Improvement Study June 14, 2018

Prepared for Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization City of Lynchburg Bedford County

Prepared by

902 East Jefferson Street, Suite 101, Charlottesville, VA 22902

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Figure 1 – Study Area................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Multimodal Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 –Crash Locations .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 –Corridor Crash Rates ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5 – Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 6 – Existing (2017) LOS and Delay ................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 7 – Future (2040) Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 8 – Future (2040) LOS and Delay .................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 – Project Development Goals .................................................................................................................................... 24

Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1 Corridor Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 General Description of the Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3 Relevant Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Field Observations ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Table 1 – Corridor Crash Statistics ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2 – Corridor Crash Rates .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3 – Intersection Crash Rates ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4– Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 5– Existing Queuing ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6– Existing Turn Warrants.............................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 7– Future (2040) No Build Queuing ............................................................................................................................... 19 Table 8– Future No Build Turn Warrants................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 9 – Comprehensive Project Screening Results............................................................................................................... 25 Table 10 – Draft Project Summary (Pre Final Public Meeting) ................................................................................................ 27 Table 11 – Final Project List ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 12 – Gristmill Drive Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 31 Table 13 – Eastbound Right Turn Lane Extension and US 501 SB Ramp Widening Cost Estimates ........................................ 31 Table 14 – Smart Scale Funding............................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 15 – Highway Safety Improvement Funding.................................................................................................................. 31 Table 16 – Transportation Alternatives Funding ..................................................................................................................... 31 Table 17 – Revenue Share Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 18 – Maintenance Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 19 – Proffer Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 20 – BUILD Funding........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Crash Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary of Corridor Crashes ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Corridor Crash Rates ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Traffic Model Development ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Performance Measures................................................................................................................................................... 14 Existing Traffic Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 15 Delay and LOS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Queuing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Turn Warrants..................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Traffic Forecasting..................................................................................................................................... 19 Future No Build Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................. 19 Delay and LOS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Queuing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Turn Warrants..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Public Informational Meeting #1 ............................................................................................................... 23

List of Appendix Items………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….. 33

Specific Public Comments ................................................................................................................................................... 23 Project Development, Screening and Analysis ........................................................................................... 24 Preliminary Concepts and Ideas ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Note: Public Information Meeting attendee lists (including personal contact information)have been removed to protect privacy.

Public Information Meeting #2 .................................................................................................................. 28 Final Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 29 Other Considerations .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Funding Opportunities .............................................................................................................................. 31

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Introduction

General Description of the Study Area

Graves Mill Road is a four-lane undivided roadway from Gristmill Road east to The US 501 Expressway (“501”), where it then becomes a divided four-lane roadway to McConville Road. Graves Mill Road is classified as a minor arterial and designed for “through” and local traffic. The posted speed limited ranges from 35 miles per hour (mph) near Gristmill Road in Bedford County, to 45 mph along the middle section west of Old Graves Mill Road, down to 35 mph east to McConville Road in the City of Lynchburg. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reports that the 2016 average daily traffic (ADT) counts are approximately 26,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between 501 and Old Graves Mill Road, and 21,000 VPD west of Old Graves Mill Road. East of the interchange the ADT is 9,100 VPD.

Graves Mill Road, located in the City of Lynchburg and Bedford County, is an important roadway that serves large volumes of commuter traffic, while also providing access to commercial interests. Given 1) heavy traffic demand, 2) proximity to future development potential 3) interchange expressway access, and 4) its status as a key commuter route, the City of Lynchburg, Bedford County, and the Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization (CVMPO) have undertaken a study to develop a plan to address existing and expected future mobility challenges along this important corridor. The purpose of this study is to investigate existing and future traffic conditions, traffic operations, multimodal features, and safety issues along Graves Mill Road. The results of the investigation will then lead to the development of recommendations that will help to minimize congestion and improve multimodal mobility within the Graves Mill Road corridor. The key steps in the process include: • •

• •

Graves Mill Road is a unique, albeit important transportation facility as it serves many functions and users. It is geographically situated between the 501 to the east and US 221 (“221”) to the west. Collectively, these corridors are critical to the City’s economic health and quality of life. As such, Graves Mill Road serves many purposes including:

Existing Conditions: existing traffic conditions as of the date of this study. Future No Build Conditions: future 2040 traffic demand under existing geometric conditions, plus the addition of any planned transportation related improvements. Future no build establishes a baseline improvements can then be compared against. Future Build Conditions: recommended improvements, vetted through a public involvement process, that accommodate 2040 traffic demand and address safety issues. Funding and Implementation: prioritization, strategies and funding opportunities.

• • • • • • •

Each step in the study informs subsequent steps and allows for the creation of a comprehensive concept plan for the transportation system that may be implemented over time. The results have been shared with the public through an interactive and transparent public engagement process, which is integral to the success of the plan, resulting in recommendations for the benefit of the citizens and businesses in the surrounding study area.

A summary of the recommended projects is included. This information is intended to aid the City, County, and CVMPO with project prioritization and implementation when grant or other funding opportunities arise in the future. It will also help to inform current development and potential development of what future transportation related projects may affect them. Projects should continue to be updated in the future as a tool to track opportunities and needs within the corridor.

Corridor Study Area

This corridor study area extends along Graves Mill Road, from McConville Road at the eastern terminus to Gristmill Drive at the western terminus, a distance of approximately 1.6 miles. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the study area, as well as the intersections this study examined. The study area includes the following six (6) signalized intersections and two (2) unsignalized intersection: • • • • • • • •

Local residential and shopping access School related traffic Local and regional truck traffic Employment commuting Some pedestrian and transit activity Local business access Emergency and security response

Gistmill Drive (signalized) Millrace Drive (signalized) Millside Drive (unsignalized) Old Graves Mill Road (signalized) Creekside Drive (signalized) US501 eastbound interchange ramps (signalized) US501 westbound interchange ramps (signalized) McConville Road (unsignalized)

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 1 – Study Area

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Methodology Overview This corridor planning study includes a multifaceted approach that consisted of assemblage of relevant plans and studies, detailed field review, crash analysis, development of a traffic model, and assessment of performance measures. Collectively, these elements may uncover existing deficiencies in the network, and provide a baseline on which future conditions can then be established upon.

Relevant Plans and Studies

Relevant studies and plans that have been completed in the study area have been collected and reviewed. The following provides a summary of each: City Comprehensive Plan – The City of Lynchburg completed a land use and population analysis as part of their Comprehensive Plan. The Graves Mill Road corridor is generally flanked by industrial, commercial and institutional uses, with residential beyond. One important note in the City is the shift in population growth. Over the first decade of the 21st century, the City began to capture a greater share of the region’s growth, increasing by a percentage that exceeded every county in the region and the state as a whole – with the highest growth areas in the southern portions of City served by Graves Mill Road. The City has also developed a Plan Framework Map that highlights the City’s primary commercial and mixed use corridors. As important local and regional travel routes and commercial destinations, these areas strongly influence the City’s accessibility, attractiveness, and economic vitality. This map identifies the Graves Mill Road area as a business/technology and employment growth area. Rosedale Farms Development – The proposed development is located just west of the existing Home Depot side off of Graves Mill Road in the City of Lynchburg. The proposed site includes three entrance locations on Graves Mill Road – one right in only, one right out only and one full entrance. The site is planned to be constructed in three phases with an ultimate build-out year of 2024. The proposed land uses include a mix of residential, office, retail, grocery, service and restaurant land uses with the potential to generate over 15,000 new daily trips. 1 Elements at Old Graves Mill Road – The proposed development is located on Old Graves Mill Road, approximately 500’ south of Graves Mill Road in the City of Lynchburg. The site will have one entrance to Old Graves Mill Road. The site is currently moving forward with construction and will include a mix of residential and office land uses with the potential to generate over 2,000 new daily trips. While many trips are expected to head south along Old Graves Mill Road, some will travel north to Graves Mill Road to access either US501 or US221. 2

Field Observations

A detailed field review was conducted on Friday, August 18th. Subsequent field reviews were conducted thereafter as needed. These observations examined traffic patterns and queues for each approach, driver behavior and decision factors, pedestrian use, signage, signal operations and other relevant transportation characteristics. Key observations include:

•

The intersection of Gristmill Drive experienced a relatively significant amount of westbound queuing (making the left off Graves Mill Road). No dedicated left turn lane is provided; therefore, vehicles are observed queuing back and drivers familiar with the intersection are typically in the right lane well before the approach. This ultimately creates a de facto turn lane and the westbound through movement functions as a single lane.

•

Drivers use Gristmill Drive as a bypass for the 221/Graves Mill Road intersection. In fact, based off observations, the majority of drivers using Gristmill Drive did not access the adjacent commercial and business uses during the peak hours.

•

Continuing east from Gristmill Drive, traffic demand appeared higher, compared to between Gristmill Drive and 221 (supports the bypass use).

•

High speeds were observed (>50 miles per hour) between Millrace Drive and Old Graves Mill Road, even during more congested times of day. This section of Graves Mill Road has fewer driveways and the alignment allows for higher speeds.

•

Approaching Old Graves Mill Road and Creekside Drive, lane utilization will need to be a consideration, particularly in the eastbound direction approaching the 501 ramps. Lane bias was observed as queues were substantially longer in the right lane. The eastbound queue in the right lane consistently did not clear the intersection at Creekside Drive. The beginning of this queue was the eastbound right at the 501 southbound ramp.

•

Outside of the eastbound movement at the southbound ramp, the remaining approaches appeared to function reasonably well. There was moderate southbound right queuing observed at the 501 southbound ramp, and the eastbound left turn lane backed up to Graves Mill Road at the 501 northbound ramp. The northbound approach off 501 cleared for nearly every cycle though during a short duration, some vehicles appeared to not clear.

•

From a signal operations perspective, the timings for the ramp intersections could be improved.

•

The four-way stop at McConville Road processed traffic reasonably well, though right at 5:00 PM for the rush it backed up for about a 10-minute period (4 or 5 car queuing).

•

The office park east of McConville Road is generally built out; however, there is one large parcel remaining that once developed, could generate more traffic.

•

No bicyclists were observed, and only one pedestrian was observed waiting at a bus stop just east of Gristmill Drive. Sidewalks are only installed along Graves Mill Road along the south side east of Gristmill Drive, and along the north side east of Old Graves Mill Road.

•

A cluster of bus stop were located along the south side of Graves Mill Road east of Millrace Road. No accommodations (benches, trash cans, pad, shelter) were provided at the stops, only a sign.

Figure 2 illustrates the multimodal conditions along the corridor.

Rosedale Farms Traffic Impact Analysis, November 2013 (revised January 2014).

Elements at Old Graves Mill Road Traffic Impact Analysis, June 2016 (supplemental revision August 2016).

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 2 – Multimodal Conditions

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Table 2 – Corridor Crash Rates

Crash Analysis

A crash analysis was performed on the Graves Mill Road study corridor using crash data from the VDOT Roadway Network System (RNS). The crash data covered the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 and was used to identify crash patterns based on crash severity, roadway characteristics, and environmental characteristics. The complete crash data is provided in the Appendix.

Summary of Corridor Crashes

142 total crashes were reported within the study area over the six-year crash analysis period. Of the reported crashes, 100 involved property damage only and 31 involved injuries. There was one fatality involving an angle collision at Gristmill Drive in 2013. A total summary of the crashes, by type, is shown in Table 1. Table 1 – Corridor Crash Statistics

Sideswipe

Head On

Other

Deer

Total

Segment

Segment Rate

VA Hwy Rate

Lynchburg Hwy Rate

VA Minor Arterial Rate

Gristmill Dr. to Millrace Dr.

324

Higher

Millrace Dr. to Millside

259

Higher

Millside to Old Graves Mill Rd.

Lower

Old Graves Mill Rd. to Creekside Dr.

176

Higher

Creekside Dr. to 501 SB Ramps

327

Higher

501 SB Ramps to 501 NB Ramps

244

Higher

501 NB Ramps to McConville Rd.

274

Higher

Year

Rear End

Angle

Fixed Object

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Intersection

Intersection Rate

Rank

2016

Gristmill Drive

0.23

Total

142

Millrace Drive

0.28

Millside Drive

0.05

Old Graves Mill Road

0.10

Creekside Drive

0.40

501 SB Ramps

0.09

501 NB Ramps

0.11

McConville Road

0.11

With the exception of Graves Mill Road between Millside Drive and Old Graves Mill Road, the corridor exhibits crash rates that are higher than state and local average rates. The likely reason the one segment is lower is that there are few driveways limiting vehicle conflict points. Table 3 summarizes the intersection crash rates along Graves Mill Road. Table 3 – Intersection Crash Rates

The total number of crashes by year illustrate an concerning trend. From 2011, the number of crashes occurring along the corridor were steadily reducing, bottoming in 2013. From 2013, the number of crashes began to steadily increase, peaking in 2016 at a rate that significantly outpaces growth in traffic levels. In fact, the number of annual crashes have increased by approximately 60% between 2013 and 2016, while historical traffic indicates traffic levels increased by less than 10%. Unfortunately, this could reflect a national trend and is largely blamed on distracted drivers using cell phones. That, combined with increasing congestion, exacerbates safety conditions.

Corridor Crash Rates

Crash rates can be an effective tool to measure the relative safety at a particular location or segment along a corridor. They account for roadway characteristics such as segment length, number of crashes, and traffic demand; thereby, allowing for a “weighted” comparison of locations. Crash rates are expressed as "crashes per Million Entering Vehicles" (MEV) for intersection locations and as "crashes per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" (MVMT) for roadway segments. VDOT maintains local (City of Lynchburg) and statewide roadway crash rates by facility type that can be used for comparison. Table 2 illustrates how individual segments along Graves Mill Road compare to state and local average rates.

Clearly, the intersections of Creekside Drive, Millrace Drive, and Gristmill Road stand out among the eight (8) intersections. Creekside Drive experiences heavy peak hour congestion and queues consistently extend from the 501 SB ramps, back through the intersection to Old Graves Mill Road. Gristmill Road also experiences heavy peak hour congestion due to the lack of a westbound dedicated left turn lane, plus heavy northbound right turning movements. Millrace Drive stands out because it doesn’t serve a high number of turning movements, but high speed is likely a contributing factor as most of the crashes are rear ends. The locations of crashes and corridor crash rates are illustrated on Figures 3 and 4, respectively. To note, the number identified on Figure 3 for each location is a unique identifier, not the number of crashes.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 3 –Crash Locations

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Crash Location Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Crash Location Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Crash Location Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 4 –Corridor Crash Rates

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Corridor Crash Rates Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Corridor Crash Rates Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Corridor Crash Rates Figure Continued

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Table 4– Level of Service Criteria

Traffic Analysis

Signalized Intersection

Intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) at each study area intersection were collected on September 6 – 7, 2017 on clear days while local schools were in session. TMCs were collected during the AM peak period from 7:00 – 9:00 AM, and during the PM peak period from 4:00 – 6:00 PM. All traffic counts are provided in the Appendix.

(seconds/vehicle)

0-10

>10-20

> 10-15

>20-35

>15-25

>35-55

>25-35

>55-80

>35-50

>80

>50

Level of Service (LOS)

All AM and PM TMCs were totaled by 15-minute and one-hour increments. To be more conservative and ensure operations unique to each intersection are captured, the individual intersection AM and PM peak hour was used for the purposes of this study. For most intersections, the peak hours fell between 7:30 – 8:30 AM, and 5:00 – 6:00 PM, with a few deviating by 15 minutes. Heavy vehicle counts were also collected at each study intersection as part of the data collection process. Heavy vehicle percentages were calculated for each movement at all study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. In general, truck percentages on Graves Mill Road ranged from one to two percent. However, individual turning movements experience higher truck percentages at several locations in the corridor due to lower total volume. The Graves Mill Road corridor contains multiple access points and parking lots located between the study area intersections; therefore, some discontinuity in traffic volumes is expected. To avoid manual adjustments that could potentially over or under-inflate traffic levels, volumes were not balanced for the purposes of this analysis. To note, the peak hours were very consistent along the corridor with only minor fluctuations observed between intersections.

Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

In addition to LOS, the 95th percentile queue is the probable furthest distance from the stop bar to the back of the last vehicle waiting at an intersection. This queue represents the length of the line of cars that arrive at an intersection when the signal is red combined with vehicles that did not clear the intersection during the previous green light. Comparing the length of this line of vehicles to potential lane lengths available at each intersection provides another measure of how efficiently the intersection is processing traffic demand. To note, maximum queues (essentially 100 percentile) were occasionally reviewed via traffic model simulation runs, as conditions dictated.

The existing TMCs for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated on Figure 5.

Traffic Model Development

The traffic modeling network was developed using aerial mapping, roadway geometry, traffic, and signal operational information provided by the City. The operational analysis for the study area intersections was completed using Synchro 9.0, a computer-based intersection operations model that replicates procedures from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000 and 2010). The program was used to assess existing and future operations of intersections in the study area. At present, the traffic signals are coordinated during the Mid-day peak hour; however, run free during the PM peak. Two measures of effectiveness were selected to measure the quantitative performance of the study area intersections: • •

Control Delay

Unsignalized Intersection Control Delay

Average vehicle delay by movement, approach, and intersection – measured in seconds per vehicle 95th percentile queue length – measured in feet

The signal timing and phasing plans for all signalized intersections were provided by the City of Lynchburg and VDOT.

Performance Measures

To determine lane geometric needs, intersection level of service (LOS) standards have been applied. Intersection LOS is a qualitative measure of vehicular delay and takes into account a number of conditions related to intersection design and traffic volume, and the perception of those conditions by motorists. Ratings range from A to F, with LOS A indicating little or no average delay and LOS F indicating severe average delays. Typically, LOS A-C are considered acceptable ratings for an intersection, while LOS D-F indicate the potential need for improvements. To note, LOS D (and sometimes LOS E), with greater vehicle delay, are often considered acceptable for more urbanized areas because of the accessibility benefits and higher pedestrian interactions that result from increased density. Table 4 summarizes the LOS criteria, as specified in HCM 2000 and 2010.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Existing Traffic Conditions

INTERSECTION

Traffic operations analyses for existing conditions were conducted using Synchro to evaluate overall performance of the study intersections within the Graves Mill Road corridor. Delay and LOS are reported from the HCM 2010 from Synchro for signalized intersections with standard (National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) phasing and all unsignalized intersections. HCM 2000 methodology results are still used to report signalized intersections with non-NEMA signal phasing. Figure 6 illustrates the average AM and PM peak hour delay and LOS for each movement for the eight (8) study intersections along the Graves Mill Road corridor. The intersection HCM outputs from Synchro can be found in the Appendix. The results in Figure 6 indicate that all study area intersections operate at LOS D, or better during both AM and PM peak hours. However, there are individual movements that experience higher delays (LOS E and F) than the overall intersection. These locations include: The westbound left at Gristmill Drive experiences high delays and queueing (using simulations and confirmed with field review).

•

The eastbound approaches to Old Graves Mill Road and Creekside experience high delays.

•

The northbound left at US 501 northbound ramps operates at LOS F during the AM peak (field review supports this, thought duration was short at less than 15 minutes).

•

While not formally a study area intersection, queuing at 221 extends nearly back to Gristmill Drive.

•

The westbound movement at McConville operates at LOS E during the PM peak (field review supports this, thought duration was short at less than 10 minutes right at 5:00 PM).

Queuing

A queuing analysis was completed for the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro 95th percentile queue lengths in feet were reported for each lane. Table 5 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths during the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions, compared against the storage length capacity for that particular turning movement. Table 5– Existing Queuing

INTERSECTION 1. Graves Mill/Gristmill

2. Graves Mill/Millrace 3. Graves Mill/Millside

APPROACH

MOVEMENT

Graves Mill EB Graves Mill WB Gristmill NB Gristmill NB Graves Mill EB Graves Mill WB Graves Mill WB Millrace NB Millrace NB Graves Mill EB Graves Mill EB

EBT/EBR WBL/WBT NBL NBR EBT/EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR EBL/EBT EBR

STORAGE LENGTH

130 180

190 110

AM Peak 95TH QUEUE 165 93 20 #367 240 12 50 18 12 0 0

MOVEMENT

Graves Mill WB WBL/WBT Graves Mill WB WBR Baush Lomb NB NBL/NBT/NBR Millside SB SBL/SBT/SBR Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill EB EBR Graves Mill WB WBL 4. Graves Mill/Old Graves Mill Graves Mill WB WBT/WBR Old Graves Mill NB NBL/NBT Old Graves Mill NB NBR Private Entrance SB SBL/SBT/SBR Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT/EBR Graves Mill WB WBL Graves Mill WB WBT 5. Graves Graves Mill WB WBR Mill/Creekside Connector NB NBL/NBT Connector NB NBR Creekside SB SBL Creekside SB SBT/SBR Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill EB EBR 6. Graves Graves Mill WB WBL Mill/Expressway Graves Mill WB WBT Ramp SB Expressway Ramp SB SBL/SBT Expressway Ramp SB SBR Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill WB WBT 7. Graves Graves Mill WB WBR Mill/Expressway Expressway Ramp Ramp NB NBL NB Expressway Ramp NBL/NBT/NBR NB Graves Mill EB EBL/EBT Graves Mill EB EBR Nationwide WB WBL/WBT/WBR 8. Graves Mill/McConville Graves Mill NB NBL/NBT/NBR McConville SB SBL/SBT McConville SB SBR “#” means volumes exceeds capacity and queueing may be longer.

Delay and LOS

•

APPROACH

PM Peak 95TH QUEUE 131 #225 33 60 162 9 106 62 47 0 0 15

AM Peak 95TH QUEUE 0 0 3 5 0 269 22 95 92 118 0 0 17 382 156 206 11 36 219 54 31 115 56 27 111 104 93 85 54 74 7

PM Peak 95TH QUEUE 0 0 5 18 6 340 43 #321 216 122 0 10 23 #368 99 296 20 72 164 96 40 84 #356 55 122 47 #256 78 32 117 32

#329

#330

300

#245

#322

125

198 55 15 85 10 30

45 48 215 230 5 33

STORAGE LENGTH 110

200 210 280

200 320 200 130 120

180 200

125 130

120

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

From Table 5 it can be observed that the turn-lane storages fall short of accommodating back of queues for several locations and thru movement queuing can be extensive. These locations include: •

The westbound left queuing at Gristmill Drive is ~350’ during the PM peak (when an isolated simulation was run). Queues for the northbound right extend over 350’ during the AM peak.

•

Eastbound thru queuing at Millrace extends ~250’ during the AM peak.

•

The westbound left at Old Graves Mill Road extends beyond the available storage during the PM peak. The eastbound thru queuing extends over 300’ during the PM peak.

•

Eastbound thru queuing at Creekside Drive extends over 350’ during the AM and PM peak. There is lane bias occurring at the locations as most drivers merge into the outside lane; therefore, actual queuing is longer and spills back to Old Graves Mill Road. Northbound right queuing extends over 200’ during the AM peak.

•

Eastbound right queuing at the 501 southbound ramps extends over 350’ during the PM peak. The southbound right queues extend over 250’ during the PM peak, as well.

•

Collective eastbound queuing beginning at the 501 southbound ramps extends back over 1,000’ during the PM peak.

•

The northbound left/shared queuing at the 501 northbound ramps extends over 325” during the AM and PM peak.

To note, the 95th percentile queue length is the queue length that has a 5% probability of being exceeded during the analysis peak hours. Therefore, there are times when a maximum queue may exceed the available storage length capacity. Field observations are generally consistent with the 95th percentile queueing as reported; however, there were intermittent queues observed that extended further than reported.

Turn Warrants

VDOT turn lane warrants were evaluated for several of the study intersections for existing conditions. The turn lane warrant forms per the VDOT Road Design Manual were examined in this study and provided in the Appendix. Based on VDOT criteria, a turn lane is warranted for the eastbound right to Millrace Drive under existing traffic conditions. Table 6 summarizes the results. Table 6– Existing Turn Warrants

Existing Turn Lane Warrant AM PM Full-width Turn Lane Taper Required and Taper Required

Intersection

Turning Movement

Graves Mill/Millrace

Eastbound Right

Graves Mill/Millside

Eastbound Left

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Graves Mill/Millside

Westbound Left

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 5 – Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 6 – Existing (2017) LOS and Delay

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Delay and LOS

Traffic Forecasting

Delay and LOS are reported from the HCM 2010 from Synchro for signalized intersections with standard NEMA phasing and all unsignalized intersections. HCM 2000 methodology results are still used to report signalized intersections with non-NEMA signal phasing. Figure 8 summarizes the average AM and PM peak hour delay and LOS for each movement for the eight (8) study intersections along the Graves Mill Road corridor. The intersection HCM outputs from Synchro can be found in the Appendix.

Project level traffic forecasting is an essential part of the corridor planning process. Transportation investments can be very large and will typically be in service for many years; therefore, future traffic projections will help to ensure these investments not only serve near-term traffic demand, but longer-term demand. Multiple sources were reviewed to determine an appropriate growth rate for a 23-year time horizon (2017 to 2040) including: • • • • • •

The results in Figure 8 indicate that under future traffic conditions, six of the nine study area intersections will operate at LOS E and F during at least one peak hour. High delays experienced for individual movements are only exacerbated under no build. Notable locations include:

Existing traffic demand Historical traffic demand Land use context using transportation analysis zones (TAZs) VDOT Statewide Planning System (SPS) Travel demand model (TDM) projections Planned development

• •

The traffic projections methodology will be applied to existing traffic counts to develop traffic volumes for use in the analysis of future conditions for the study corridor. A technical memorandum detailing the methodology is provided in the Appendix. Based on:

• • • •

1) TAZ, SPS, and TDM linear growth rates that range from 0.5% to 2.0% annually (1.25% average rate), 2) new traffic anticipated from Rosedale Farms and Elements at Old Graves Mill Road, and 3) 1.25% annual historical growth likely to continue that is unrelated to planned developments,

Gristmill Drive will operate at LOS F for both peak hours. Because traffic demand has increased since the last study was completed for the Rosedale mixed use development, key inbound/outbound movements will operate at LOS F during both peak hours under the previous configuration (not illustrated on the figures but included in the modeling). The eastbound thru movements at Old Graves Mill Road and Creekside Drive will operate at LOS E and F for both peak hours. Key 501 off-ramp movements will operate at LOS E and F for both peak hours. The stop controlled intersection at McConville Road will operate at LOS F for both peak hours. While not formally a study area intersection, multiple movements at 221.

Queuing

a 1.25% annual background growth rate, plus the site generated traffic from the planned developments will be used to forecast 2040 projections. The 1.25% linear rate has been applied to all existing – or “background” – traffic counts collected in the study area that is unrelated to traffic generated specifically by developments proposed along Graves Mill Road. Then, site generated trips from each of the two (2) developments has been applied. To note, trips from Rosedale Farms will be distributed west through the study area based on existing travel patterns. With the application of a 1.25% rate, plus the addition of the site generated trips, the effective annual growth rate along the corridor is approximately 2% in the morning peak, and 2.5% in the evening peak.

A queuing analysis was completed for the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro 95th percentile queue lengths in feet were reported for each lane. Table 7 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths during the AM and PM peak hours under no build conditions, compared against the storage length capacity for that particular turning movement. Table 7– Future (2040) No Build Queuing

INTERSECTION

Figure 7 illustrates the future TMCs for the eight (8) study intersections along the Graves Mill Road corridor.

1. Graves Mill/Gristmill

Future No Build Traffic Conditions No-build traffic conditions were analyzed to evaluate the results of future (2040) traffic demand on the existing roadway network. The intent of the no-build conditions analysis is to provide a general understanding of the baseline future traffic conditions that may then be used to evaluate the effectiveness of potential future improvement strategies.

2. Graves Mill/Millrace

The existing conditions Synchro models were used as a basis to develop the no-build models. Because this is a future scenario, planned and approved projects identified through previous efforts that are anticipated along the corridor would need consideration. Within the study area, a new signalized intersection has been included to serve the planned Rosedale mixed use development. Outside of the study area, improvements at 221 are also being planned to include dual westbound left turn lanes. These geometric modifications were included in the model. The same measures of effectiveness used to evaluate existing conditions were used to measure the quantitative performance under no-build conditions.

3. Graves Mill/Millside

APPROACH

MOVEMENT

Graves Mill EB Graves Mill WB Gristmill NB Gristmill NB Graves Mill EB Graves Mill WB Graves Mill WB Millrace NB Millrace NB Graves Mill EB Graves Mill EB Graves Mill WB Graves Mill WB Baush Lomb NB Millside SB

EBT/EBR WBL/WBT NBL NBR EBT/EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR EBL/EBT EBR WBL/WBT WBR NBL/NBT/NBR SBL/SBT/SBR

STORAGE LENGTH

130 180

190 110 110

AM Peak 95TH QUEUE 384 #407 27 #1007 342 48 3 35 23 0 0 3 0 0 0

PM Peak 95TH QUEUE 397 #850 82 #902 575 16 430 88 134 0 0 3 0 23 98

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill EB EBR Graves Mill WB WBL 4. Graves Mill/Old Graves Mill Graves Mill WB WBT/WBR Old Graves Mill NB NBL/NBT Old Graves Mill NB NBR Private Entrance SB SBL/SBT/SBR Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT/EBR Graves Mill WB WBL Graves Mill WB WBT 5. Graves Graves Mill WB WBR Mill/Creekside Connector NB NBL/NBT Connector NB NBR Creekside SB SBL Creekside SB SBT/SBR Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill EB EBR 6. Graves Graves Mill WB WBL Mill/Expressway Graves Mill WB WBT Ramp SB Expressway Ramp SB SBL/SBT Expressway Ramp SB SBR Graves Mill EB EBL Graves Mill EB EBT Graves Mill WB WBT 7. Graves Graves Mill WB WBR Mill/Expressway Expressway Ramp Ramp NB NBL NB Expressway Ramp NBL/NBT/NBR NB Graves Mill EB EBL/EBT Graves Mill EB EBR Nationwide WB WBL/WBT/WBR 8. Graves Mill/McConville Graves Mill NB NBL/NBT/NBR McConville SB SBL/SBT McConville SB SBR “#” means volumes exceeds capacity and queueing may be longer.

200 210 280

200 320 200 130 120

180 200

125 130

120

0 389 22 #269 16 228 0 0 7 #750 226 88 4 49 #597 #102 44 78 #340 31 311 #238 #383 #393 94 #235 40

1 #974 112 #705 196 290 6 14 14 164 252 210 5 #197 #647 #248 70 108 #1698 77 372 96 #826 #452 56 442 117

#645

#804

300

484

#713

125

380 85 20 130 13 43

73 80 433 463 8 53

Eastbound thru queuing at Millrace extends ~550’ during the AM peak.

•

Westbound thru queuing at Rosedale extends ~550’ during the PM peak. The eastbound and southbound left queuing extends beyond the proposed storage.

•

The westbound left at Old Graves Mill Road extends beyond the available storage during the PM peak. The eastbound thru queuing extends over 750’ during the PM peak.

•

Eastbound thru queuing at Creekside Drive extends over 750’ during the AM and PM peak. There is lane bias occurring at the locations as most drivers merge into the outside lane; therefore, actual queuing is longer and spills back through Old Graves Mill Road (continuous queue). Northbound right queuing extends over 525’ during the AM peak.

•

Eastbound right queuing at the 501 southbound ramps extends over 900’ during the PM peak. The southbound right queues extend over 425’ during the PM peak, as well.

•

The northbound left/shared queuing at the 501 northbound ramps extends over 500” during the AM and PM peak.

•

Queuing for the approach movements at McConville Road extend over 350’ during the AM and PM peak.

Turn Warrants

VDOT turn lane warrants were evaluated for several of the study intersections for existing conditions. The turn lane warrant forms per the VDOT Road Design Manual were examined in this study and provided in the Appendix. Based on FHWA and VDOT criteria, a turn lane is warranted for each location under future no build traffic conditions. Table 8 summarizes the results. Note that the storage length is in addition to the deceleration and transition distance requirements. Table 8– Future No Build Turn Warrants

From Table 7 it can be observed that the turn-lane storages fall short of accommodating back of queues for several locations and thru movement queuing can be extensive. These locations include: •

•

The westbound left queuing at Gristmill Drive is ~675’ during the PM peak (no storage provided). Queues for the northbound right extend ~625’ during the AM peak.

2040 No Build Turn Lane Warrant AM PM Full-width Turn Lane Taper Required and Taper Required

Intersection

Turning Movement

Graves Mill/Millrace

Eastbound Right

Graves Mill/Millside

Eastbound Left

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

50’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Graves Mill/Millside

Westbound Left

100’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

125’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 7 – Future (2040) Traffic Volumes

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 8 – Future (2040) LOS and Delay

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

A consistent flow of attendees began right at 4:00 PM and continued through approximately 6:00 PM. Representatives were provided sufficient time to walk attendees through the study and answer questions, as needed. Several news organization interviews were provided by the public and agency representatives. Overall, attendees were very pleased City officials were attempting to stay in front of potential growth that could exceed 50% over the next 20 years. In additional to managing traffic congestion, attendees were also pleased attention was being paid to transit, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along the corridor. It was further suggested by multiple attendees the City (or other agencies) undergo a study along Old Graves Mill Road between Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road.

Public Informational Meeting #1 Improvement projects were developed to address safety, geometric, and operational deficiencies along the Graves Mill Road corridor identified in the existing and no-build analyses, as well as during the community meeting A first public meeting for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study was held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at the Lynchburg Humane Society in Lynchburg, Virginia. The meeting was organized as an open-house format and was open to the general public from 4:00 – 6:30 pm. Advertisement for the meeting included: • • • • • •

Mail-outs to residents and businesses near the study area approximately two weeks in advance of the meeting Deployment of variable message signs on Graves Mill Road approximately one week in advance of the meeting Press release Advertisement via social media Advertisement via local news agencies Notice included on the project website (www.gravesmillplan.com)

Specific Public Comments

The following public comments were written on comment sheets that were provided at the meeting, or emailed via the project website (specific identifying information has been removed, and at times, comments are paraphrased): I was not able to attend the meeting. One suggestion (and it might be a long shot) is to have Graves Mill Road 3 lanes each way. However, a more feasible suggestion would be signage. An issue with accidents in Lynchburg is the lack of signs. People from out of town that use Graves Mill to go to the expressway merge over at the very end and back end or swipe other cars. Every street that intersects with the expressway should have a sign like the one on Timberlake Rd. I have heard from transportation officials that "signs are expensive" but this is one of the key reasons for congestion from 3-6pm weekdays.

The goal of this meeting was for the public to 1) learn about the study, 2) review information about the corridor, and 3) share comments regarding concerns, opportunities, and improvement ideas. Attendees were encouraged to provide feedback and offer suggestions that would help to inform the project development process. Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), City of Lynchburg, Bedford County, Virginia’s Region 2000 Local Government Council, and project consultants were available to explain materials, answer questions, and record feedback. Information boards were set up in the meeting space that presented the following subjects: • • • • • •

I have lived in this area since 1976. There used to be little traffic even though it was a cut thru. Now, I can hardly get out of my street. The traffic from Timberlake Road is awful. From McConville Rd to 221 there are too many lights & way too much traffic. Traffic isn't flowing, a light needs to be at Nationwide Dr., that "annex" is a nightmare, it's like crossing 3 lanes & you take your life in your hands using it. People block that light at Bella Rosa. Lots of times it turns green but you can't go because of cars blocking it. People fly from 221 to just get to the exit for the expressway. There are lots of things that can be done to help traffic.

Welcome and purpose of the meeting Information about the study Summary of existing and future traffic conditions Crash data (six years) Summary of multimodal conditions (sidewalks, transit stops, etc.) General information on innovative intersection ideas applicable to the corridor

I was not able to attend the meeting, and I don't know if a stop light at Lillian Ln or Millside Center is part of the discussion, but there are currently a lot of senior citizens that are trying to access this area of Graves Mill with no safe and/or easy way to do it. I'm not sure if a turn lane in this stretch or a stop light is a good solution, but if there is a master plan being developed, I think something like this would be quite helpful. Has any thought been given to a roundabout at the intersection of Graves Mill Rd. and McConville Rd.? With Lynchburg's consideration of roundabouts throughout the City, this seems to me to be one place that one would work well. The fourway stop is confusing at best and dangerous at worst, especially during times of heavy traffic.

Sync lights so the thru traffic doesn’t have to stop at every light. Plan a stop light for the Bella Rose community development. Do not add sidewalks directly beside the road. Needs separation by 3’ – 5’ from road. The same goes for bike lanes. Road milling contributes to uneven lanes and vehicles crashing. Add lights so they are on both sides of the road. 23

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Figure 9 – Project Development Goals

Keep speed limit at 45 mph. Access to highway is currently acceptable. Roundabout absolutely needed at McConville Rd. My concerns relate to Old Graves Mill Road. As the area has grown, there has been a tremendous increase in traffic on Old Graves Mill Road between Timberlake Road and Graves Mill Road. Old Graves Mill needs traffic control to better manage cars and commercial truck traffic. Sidewalks throughout the section should also be installed. Old Graves Mill Road is also too narrow and has not been updated since it was originally designed as a rural road.

Improve Traffic Operations

I attended the recent public meeting at the Lynchburg Humane Society which presented the Graves Mill Road Plan. I was disappointed that the Plan did not include a study of Old Graves Mill Road between Timberlake Road and Graves Mill Road. As a homeowner off Old Graves Mill road, I have no choice but the travel this section of road daily and am increasingly concerned whether this section of road can safely handle traffic. Recent years have seen a marked increase in traffic along Old Graves Mill Road as more drivers use it as a short cut to and from the Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road areas. Recent development of the Old Graves Mill Road and Graves Mill Road areas has also dramatically added to this traffic. The planned development of this corridor in the near future will surely further increase traffic on Old Graves Mill Road. As you know, the section of Old Graves Mill Road north of Timberlake Road still has a narrow section without shoulders or sidewalks that dates back to an earlier and rural age. In addition, there is considerable commercial truck traffic to and from the Tomahawk Industrial Park not to speak of the number of school buses that pick up children throughout this neighborhood. All this makes for periods of heavy, unregulated traffic that result in the neighbors having difficulty turning onto Old Graves Mill Road from side streets and driveways. Also, please note that the speed limit of 35 MPH is routinely and grossly exceeded. I personally have had cars pass me on Old Graves Mill Road while I am driving the speed limit! I hope that you, VDOT and Lynchburg engineers find my concern warrant further interest. Specifically, I hope that consideration will be given to regulating traffic flow with a stoplight at the intersection of Tomahawk Industrial Park and Old Graves Mill Road. I believe that a traffic light at that intersection would greatly add to the safety along this stretch of road.

Incorporate Multimodal Elements Desired by the Community

Development of Preliminary and Final Alternative Concepts Preliminary Concepts and Ideas

A technical memorandum summarizing comments written on table top maps that were provided at the meeting, or on blank note boards located between the informational boards, sign-in sheets, and a summary of news coverage is provided in the Appendix.

A comprehensive list of preliminary concepts and ideas were developed based on analysis results, safety considerations, and input from public and agency partners. In fact, multiple ad hoc meetings were held with the City to coordinate project efforts and results shared during the January CVMPO TCC meeting. The no build traffic models were used as a basis for screening concepts and ideas. Each was analyzed independently, though the no build models do include signal coordination and projects were “optimized” and compared against conflicting movements to ensure indirect negative impacts did not occur.

Project Development, Screening and Analysis Now that a baseline of future conditions has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of potential future improvement strategies, the concept development phase can proceed. The following efforts, beginning with no build, were undertaken to ensure the most effective concepts and ideas were advanced as part of the final corridor plan: • • • •

Address Safety Issues

The complete list of all concepts and ideas are shown in Table 9.

Completion of no build – determined operational and safety needs. Held community meeting #1 – uncovered additional needs and community desires, including multimodal elements. Developed numerous preliminary concepts and ideas to address those needs. Screened numerous concepts (linework for right-of-way assessment, planning level cost screening, operational analysis).

Figure 9 illustrates the project development goals.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy Table 9 – Comprehensive Project Screening Results

Intersection

Graves Mill Road Corridor Study - Preliminary Screening Issues

Gristmill Drive

Millrace Drive Millside Drive

Rosedale Site Entrance

Old Graves Mill Road

Under future no build, heavy WB queuing (over 600' during the PM), and LOS F conditions for the intersection and WB and NB movements. Drivers utilize Gristmill as a 221 by-pass option.

Options Considered

Advance?

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Restripe NB approach to shared left/right and right.

Yes

Add WBL dedicated turn lane only.

Add WBL dedicated turn lane, plus reduce eastbound approach to single lane.

Add WBL dedicated turn lane, plus reduce eastbound approach to single lane, plus add an eastbound right turn pocket.

Add WBL and remark NBL to shared left/right.

Add WBL dedicated turn lane, plus additional NBR turn lane and implement overlap phasing

Yes

Add an additional NBR turn lane so configuration is shared left/right and dedicated right.

Add WB left turn lane, modify NBR to free flow (maintain NBL), and remove an EBT lane (provide EBR turn pocket).

WBL permitted only phase was tested.

N/A

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Add EBR turn lane (warranted).

Yes

Remove WBL protected phase (it's currently protected/permitted).

Implement rcut. This would require widening out Graves Mill to accommodate the treatments (no existing median).

Install EB and WB left turn lanes.

Yes

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Provide dual EBL turn lanes only.

Provide dual SBL turn lanes only.

Provide dual EBL and SBL turn lanes.

Yes

Implement a Green T intersection, maintaining a single EBL turn lane.

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Extend WBL turn lane to the furthest extent feasible.

Add another WBL turn lane. This would require widening Old Graves Mill Road to accommodate two southbound lanes.

Yes

Under future no build, all movements operate at LOS C, or better. However, eastbound queues extend over 400'. EBR right turn warrant under future conditions. NBL and SBL operate at LOS F under future conditions due to free flow conditions on Graves Mill. Volume does not meet signal warrants (<100 for the left across). Crash frequency is relatively low (only two crashes over six years). Meets EBL and WBL turn warrants under future conditions. The new intersection has been included under future no build in support of the Rosedale mixed use development. The background, no build configuration was based off the previous TIA. However, new data and growth factors suggest the recommended configuration is not adequate. The single EBL turn lane is LOS F and impacts the WBT (LOS E). The SBL from the site is also a LOS F.

Under future conditions heavy EB queuing and WBL queue extends beyond available storage.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Creekside Drive

US 501 SB Ramps

Old Graves Mill, Creekside, and 501 SB Ramps

US 501 NB Ramps

McConville Road

Implement protected/permitted phasing for the WBL, with flashing yellow arrow.

Yes

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Add an additional NBR turn lane.

Yes

Signal Optimization/Coordination.

Yes

Provide dual SBR turn lanes (controlled).

Provide channelized SBR free flow.

Yes

Add an additional EB right turn lane, providing dual controlled turning lanes. Maintain two thru lanes.

Restripe EB approach to a single thru, and dual rights.

Reconfigure approach to a single through lane and dual eastbound, controlled rights. Convert the existing right turn lane to a travel lane by extending back to Creekside Drive. The US 501 southbound ramp will then be widened to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane, before merging on to US 501.

Yes

Provide EBR channelized free flow lane that would merge with other ramp traffic. This option would require widening out the ramp's entrance and still maintain two lanes to 501 SB. Two EBR free flow lanes would require a three-lane ramp; therefore, not considered.

Signal Optimization

Yes

Install an additional EB thru lane that begins just west of Old Graves Mill and continues east to the 501 SB ramps.

Yes

Signal Optimization

Yes

Implement a Diverging Diamond Interchange

Yes

Provide a dedicated NBR turn lane to help manage queuing.

Extend EBL turn lane to the furthest extent feasible.

Yes

Install a single lane roundabout with no slip lanes.

Yes

Signalization.

N/A

The NB and SBL movements operate at LOS E/F due to priority given to Graves Mill Road. The NBR experiences ~325' of queuing under future conditions.

With corridor improvement as noted above, the SBR movement is improved to LOS D with queuing ~275'. To note, without the additional thru lane that drops at the ramp, the EBR and SBR movements operate at LOS F with extensive queuing. The options reflect no implementation of the thru lane.

Heavy future EB congestion pushes the LOS to E for the EBT movements. The WBL is LOS E/F for each intersection. EB queuing extends back ~800' from Old Graves Mill during the PM peak. This queue continues eastward to the SB ramp. WB progression appears to be managed reasonably well.

The NB off-ramp movement operates at LOS F under future conditions. EBL queue extends beyond available storage.

Multiple approaches operate at LOS F

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Through this iterative process, list of alternative concepts and ideas were screened down to a short list of potential improvements at each intersection based on safety, operations, ease of implementation, and feedback from the community. However, the number of projects needed to help improve operations and safety along the corridor is still more than could reasonably be funded, considering other local and regional project needs. Therefore, a phasing plan was developed that allocated projects by priority. The priorities include:

Reconfigure eastbound approach to a single thru lane and dual, controlled rights. Convert the existing right turn lane to a travel lane by extending back to Creekside Drive. Widen the southbound on-ramp to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane, before merging on to US 501. Provide a channelized southbound right, free flow lane. The lane will end as a dedicated right turn lane at Creekside Drive. Priority II Projects Multiple Intersections Provide an additional eastbound thru lane beginning ~500’ west of Old Graves Mill Road and terminating at the new lane provided as part of the Priority I projects at US 501 southbound ramp intersection. Creekside Drive Widen the connector at Creekside Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes and maintain overlap phasing. Install pedestrian crossings and countdown pedestrian signal heads to improve multimodal conditions. McConville Road Install a single lane roundabout to replace the four-way stop. Consider an eastbound right slip lane. Priority III Projects 501 Interchange Construct a diverging diamond interchange to improve safety and better manage traffic flow for the northbound and southbound 501 ramps and Graves Mill Road. The new interchange will support – and expand upon priority I and II projects. Millrace Drive Provide an eastbound right turn lane (warranted via traffic existing and future demand). Modify future access and bring two access points along the north side into the traffic signal. Old Graves Mill Road Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate dual westbound left turn lanes. This will require an additional receiving lane on Old Graves Mill Road. Install pedestrian crossings and countdowns. Development Driven Projects Complete sidewalks along Graves Mill Road as part of the Rosedale mixed use development. As an alternative to sidewalks, consider a multiuse path that could be extended to each end of Graves Mill Road (decision between sidewalks and multiuse paths should be based on public input, and other plans that may have developed by the time implementation is imminent). Improve roadway lighting between Millside Drive and McConville Road. An initial effort could be accomplished through incorporating these elements as part of the frontage improvements resulting from the Rosedale mixed use development. Prioritize transit stops for better accommodations as part of the next GLTC Transit Development Plan. Rosedale site entrance at Graves Mill Road should consist of dual eastbound left turn lanes and dual southbound left turn lanes, in addition to a single westbound right turn lane and single southbound right turn lane. The potential roundabout at McConville Road could be programmed as additional development occurs along Nationwide Drive.

Short-Term Recommendations: These recommendations reflect short-term improvements uncovered through the study efforts that can be completed and funded directly by the City, or funded through a grant opportunity such as Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. These recommendations can be implemented in less than five (5) years and typically cost less than $1 million. Priority I Projects: These recommended projects are the primary improvements determined through this study’s efforts. They exhibit existing safety and operational challenges that are only exacerbated with future growth. These locations were also a focal point during the public meetings. The Priority I projects will be considered for the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Plan, and other regional and local transportation plans. Priority II Projects: These recommendations are secondary improvements that were determined as part of the future conditions analysis and offer support to Priority 1 projects. Typically, existing conditions don’t warrant them – at least not on a consistent basis; however, as growth occurs and Priority I projects are implemented, Priority II projects should be revisited. Priority III Projects: Building on Priority II Projects, these recommended improvements will be needed if a maximum buildout and growth scenario occurs along the corridor. Priority III projects should be monitored over time as conditions dictate. Based on the screening results, a final set of projects was selected to share with the public at the second community meeting. More detailed design, cost estimates, and schedule estimates were then developed for these selected “final” improvement projects. Table 10 summarizes the draft project list shared with the public during community meeting #2. Table 10 – Draft Project Summary (Pre Final Public Meeting)

Summary of Projects for Public Review

Short-Term Recommendations Restripe northbound approach on Gristmill Drive to shared left/right and right. Convert the protected westbound left from Graves Mill Road to Old Graves Mill Road to a protected-permissive left using a flashing yellow arrow (a critical gap analysis would need to be completed prior to implementation). Implement coordinated and adaptive control measures at all signalized intersections from Gristmill Drive through the interchange (adaptive control HSIP grant application in progress per date of this report). Extend eastbound and westbound left turn lanes for the two 501 ramp intersections by approximately 75’ each. Priority I Projects Gristmill Drive Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate a single westbound left turn lane (with protected-permissive left using a flashing yellow arrow). Widen Gristmill Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes and implement overlap signal phasing. Provide a pedestrian crossing and countdown signal across Gristmill Drive. If sidewalks are implemented along the north side of Graves Mill Road (which would likely require additional right of way), then pedestrian crossings across Graves Mill Road could be installed at that time. 501 Southbound Ramps

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Public Information Meeting #2

and bicycle accommodations along the corridor, the majority of attention was on the draft recommendations. To note, this was consistent with the first meeting, as many participants recognize this is a higher speed, cut-through road. However, multimodal recommendations included additional sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, a multiuse path along one side off the road, and enhanced transit stop amenities.

A public meeting for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study was held on Monday, April 23, 2018 at the Lynchburg Humane Society in Lynchburg, Virginia. The meeting was organized as an open-house format and was open to the general public from 4:00 – 6:00 pm. Advertisement for the meeting included: • • • • • •

It was further suggested, in this meeting and at the first, that City (or other agencies) undergo a study along Old Graves Mill Road between Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road. Specific Public Comments The following public comments were written on comment sheets that were provided at the meeting, or emailed via the project website (specific identifying information has been removed, and at times, comments are paraphrased): Please address no turn lanes from Graves Mill Road to Lillian. There are many rear end accidents that occur.

The goal of this meeting was for the public to 1) learn more about the study and progress to date, 2) review draft shortand long-term roadway improvements, and 3) share comments and thoughts on bicycle and pedestrian needs. Attendees were encouraged to provide feedback and offer suggestions that would help to inform the project development process. Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), City of Lynchburg, Virginia’s Region 2000 Local Government Council, and project consultants were available to explain materials, answer questions, and record feedback. Information boards were set up in the meeting space that presented the following subjects: • • • • • • •

Very difficult to make a left across Graves Mill Road from Lillian during rush hour. The connector between Old Graves Mill Road and Graves Mill Road is a concern. Need a center turn lane on the western side of the project (west of Millside Drive). Are there any current plans to connect all the sidewalks on Old Graves Mill Rd from humane society to Timberlake Road? A lot of pedestrians walk towards Kroger etc. and there are no sidewalks to accommodate. The following images depict public comments provided on table top maps located between the informational boards. A summary is provided under each.

Welcome and purpose of the meeting Information about the study Priority I recommendations Priority II recommendations Priority III recommendations Information on roundabout and diverging diamond interchanges Overview of existing multimodal conditions

The comments on this map indicate a greater desire for a multiuse path along portions of Graves Mill Road when compared to a sidewalk. This was a common theme heard from participants as residents feel it would be more utilized because it can also accommodate bikes. In addition to a multiuse path, enhanced pedestrian accommodations should be provided, including ADA. To note, intersection #1 includes a pedestrian crossing and signal as part of the study’s Priority I recommendations.

A consistent flow of attendees began right at 4:00 PM and continued through approximately 5:30 PM. Representatives were provided sufficient time to walk attendees through the study recommendations and answer questions, as needed. Overall, attendees were very pleased of the recommendations presented and that transportation representatives were attempting to stay in front of potential growth that could exceed 50% over the next 20 years. One key topic that was discussed included project implementation and funding opportunities. While some focus was paid to transit, pedestrian 28

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Provide a pedestrian crossing and countdown signal across Gristmill Drive. If sidewalks are implemented along the north side of Graves Mill Road (which would likely require additional right of way), then pedestrian crossings across Graves Mill Road could be installed at that time. 501 Southbound Ramps Reconfigure eastbound approach to a single thru lane and dual, controlled rights. Convert the existing right turn lane to a travel lane by extending back to Creekside Drive. Widen the southbound on-ramp to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane, before merging on to US 501. Provide a channelized southbound right, free flow lane. The lane will end as a dedicated right turn lane at Creekside Drive. Conduct a study to implement flashing yellow arrows to mitigate angle crashes occurring at the interchange ramp intersections. Priority II Projects Creekside Drive Widen the connector at Creekside Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes and maintain overlap phasing. Install pedestrian crossings and countdowns to improve multimodal conditions. McConville Road Install a single lane roundabout to replace the four-way stop. Maintain the eastbound right slip lane. Install sidewalks and pedestrian crossings to better accommodate multimodal activity, particularly to/from the businesses along Nationwide Drive. Millrace Drive Provide an eastbound right turn lane. Modify future access and bring two access points along the north side into signalization. Millrace Drive to Millside Drive Provide a landscaped median with left turn lanes at key locations in general compliance with VDOT access management standards. These locations should include Lillian Lane and Millside Drive. This will require the widening of Graves Mill Road between the two intersections to accommodate the landscaped median. Include a multiuse path or sidewalk along the south side of Graves Mill Road as part of the widening that connects with the existing sidewalk to the west, and potential sidewalk included as part of the Rosedale development to the east. Consider extending the landscaped median through the proposed traffic signal serving the Rosedale development since Graves Mill Road would require widening as part of that traffic signal installation as well. Priority III Projects Old Graves Mill Road to Creekside Drive Provide an additional eastbound thru lane beginning at least 500’ west of Old Graves Mill Road and terminating at the new lane provided as part of the Priority I projects at US 501 southbound ramp intersection. Install sidewalks where appropriate to better accommodate multimodal activity. Old Graves Mill Road Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate dual westbound left turn lanes. This will require an additional receiving lane on Old Graves Mill Road southbound. Install pedestrian crossings and countdowns. 501 Interchange Construct a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) to better manage traffic flow for the northbound and southbound 501 ramps and Graves Mill Road. The new interchange will support – and expand upon Priority I and II projects. The project would align with the existing bridge replacement; therefore, the new bridge should also be wide enough to accommodate a multiuse path or sidewalk. The DDI is slated as a Priority III project because it aligns with the bridge replacement. However, if it’s determined the bridge should be replaced sooner, or if a Smart Scale grant application opportunity arises, this concept could jump to a higher priority. Development Driven Projects Complete sidewalks along Graves Mill Road as part of the Rosedale mixed use development (development frontage along the north and south side of Graves Mill Road – crossing at the proposed traffic signal).

The following comments were noted on the table top map above: •

Be sure to consider adaptive signals. To note, the City has applied for adaptive signal technology that covers the eastern intersections of Graves Mill Road.

•

Consider connecting Enterprise Drive with Graves Mill Road. This would ease conditions from Old Graves Mill Road to 221. It would also add relief to Enterprise Drive.

•

Bump up the roundabout priority.

Final Recommendations Following the community meeting #2, the project list was updated to include the ideas/concerns raised by the public that address operational, safety, and multimodal needs along the corridor. A draft final project list and report was then shared with the CVMPO TCC for final comment and review. Once comments were included, a final project list was established and shared with the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Table 11 summarizes the final projects, aggregated by priority and mode, with consideration given to development driven projects. Illustrative project sheets and are provided in the Appendix. Table 11 – Final Project List

Summary of Projects

Short-Term Recommendations Restripe northbound approach on Gristmill Drive to shared left/right and right. Convert the protected westbound left from Graves Mill Road to Old Graves Mill Road to a protected-permissive left using a flashing yellow arrow (a critical gap analysis would need to be completed prior to implementation). Implement coordinated and adaptive control measures at all signalized intersections from Gristmill Drive through the interchange (adaptive control HSIP grant application in progress per date of this report). Extend eastbound and westbound left turn lanes for the two 501 ramp intersections by approximately 75’ each. Priority I Projects Gristmill Drive Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate a single westbound left turn lane (protected-permissive left using a flashing yellow arrow. Widen Gristmill Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes and implement overlap phasing.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

As an alternative to sidewalks, consider a multiuse path that could be extended to each end of Graves Mill Road (decision between sidewalks and multiuse paths should be based on public input, and other plans that may have developed by the time implementation is imminent). Improve roadway lighting between Millside Drive and McConville Road. An initial effort could be accomplished through incorporating these elements as part of the frontage improvements resulting from the Rosedale mixed use development. Prioritize transit stops for better accommodations as part of the next GLTC Transit Development Plan. Rosedale site entrance at Graves Mill Road should consist of dual eastbound left turn lanes and dual southbound left turn lanes, in addition to a single westbound right turn lane and single southbound right turn lane. Install pedestrian crossings and countdowns to improve multimodal conditions to connect potential sidewalks/multiuse paths as noted. The potential roundabout at McConville Road could be programmed as additional development occurs along Nationwide Drive.

Other Considerations

Graves Mill Road must continue to accommodate a wide array of users with varying trip purposes. Maintaining and enhancing traffic flow within the corridor is of crucial importance, as well as balanced multi-modal accessibility. Access to future development should also be planned for and designed to ensure that it does not impede or further restrict traffic flow and is in general compliance with VDOT access management standards. As new development occurs, curb cuts should be minimized and cross parcel access shall be provided to avoid adding unnecessary short trips to Graves Mill Road. A design traffic study should accompany any widening project to ensure appropriate access management standards are adhered to, promoting safe and efficient multimodal activity.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Evaluation Criteria

Cost Estimates Cost estimates for the Priority I concepts have been developed using the latest VDOT unit costs and summarized in Table 12 and 13. Cost estimates for the remaining priority projects will be developed as needed moving forward. While not indicated on the concept sheets, the cost estimates also include replacing/providing pedestrian signal heads with modern countdown pedestrian signal heads as needed. The cost allocations are also included in the Appendix.

Website

Table 15 – Highway Safety Improvement Funding

Table 12 – Gristmill Drive Cost Estimates

Description

Total

Preliminary Engineering Construction Right of Way and Utilities

$430,568 $2,289,807 $132,632

Grand Total

$2,853,007

Source: EPR, PC, May 2018

Purpose

Funding

Eligible Projects Eligible Applicants

Table 13 – Eastbound Right Turn Lane Extension and US 501 SB Ramp Widening Cost Estimates

Description

Total

Preliminary Engineering Construction Right of Way and Utilities

$697,821 $4,993,528 $473,149

Grand Total

$6,164,498

Source: EPR, PC, May 2018

Evaluation Criteria

Website

Funding Opportunities

Funding

Eligible Projects

Eligible Applicants

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Established by the federal transportation legislation MAP-21, this program is structured and funded to make significant progress in reducing highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads. The Federal share for highway safety improvements is 90%, with certain types of projects (including, as relevant to this study, maintaining retro-reflectivity of pavement markings and the installation of traffic signs) eligible to be funded at 100%. If project cost is higher than what was originally submitted, the project manager and sponsor will be responsible for identifying sources for funding those estimates. Projects involve the identification of high-crash spots or corridor segments, an analysis of crash trends and existing conditions, and the prioritization and scheduling of improvement projects. Local governments, VDOT District and Regional Staff. • Evaluated on a statewide basis rather than on a local or district basis. • Locations or corridors where a known “substantive safety” problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on severe crashes, and where it is determined that the specific project action can with confidence produce a measurable and significant reduction in the number and/or consequences of severe crashes. • To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the program is on cost- effective use of funds allocated for safety improvements. • Priority will be given to projects having higher total number of deaths and serious injuries. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/ted_app_pro.asp

Table 16 – Transportation Alternatives Funding

Table 14 – Smart Scale Funding

Purpose

There are five factors evaluated for all projects: Safety, Congestion Mitigation, Accessibility, Environmental Quality, and Economic Development. MPOs with a population greater than 200,000 are also evaluated by land use policy consistency. http://www.vasmartscale.org/

Purpose

Smart Scale SMART SCALE is a statewide program that intends to distribute funding based on a standard and objective evaluation of projects that will determine to how effectively they help the state achieve its transportation goals. There are two main pathways to funding within the SMART SCALE process—the construction District Grant Program (DGP) and the High Priority Projects Program (HPPP). A project applying to funds from the DGP is prioritized with projects from the same construction district. A project applying for funds from the HPPP is prioritized with projects statewide. The CTB then makes a final decision on which projects to fund. Projects must address improvements to a Corridor of Statewide Significance, Regional Network, or Urban Development Area (UDA). Project types can include highway improvements such as widening, operational improvements, access management, and intelligent transportation systems, transit and rail capacity expansion, and transportation demand management including park and ride facilities. Projects may be submitted by regional entities including MPOS and PDCs, along with public transit agencies, counties, cities, and towns that maintain their own infrastructure. Projects pertaining to UDAs can only be submitted by localities.

Funding

Eligible Projects

Eligible Applicants

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) This program is intended to help local sponsors fund community based projects that expand non-motorized travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historical, and environmental aspects of transportation infrastructure. It focuses on providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and other community improvements. TAP is not a traditional grant program and funds are only available on a reimbursement basis. It is therefore important to have the necessary funding available to pay for services and materials until appropriate documentation can be submitted and processed for reimbursement. The program will allow a maximum federal reimbursement of 80% of the eligible project costs and requires a 20% local match. • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths • Pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational activities such as classroom projects, safety handouts and directional signage for trails (Safe Routes to School) • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors such as the development of a rails-to-trails facility Any local governments, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, natural resource or public land agencies, school districts, local educational agencies, or school, tribal government, and any other local or regional government entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreation trails.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Evaluation Criteria

Website

Table 18 – Maintenance Funding

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Number of federal enhancement categories • Inclusion in a state, regional, or local plan • Public/private venture-cooperation (multi-jurisdictional) • Total cost and matching funds in excess of minimum • Demonstrable need, community improvement • Community support and public accessibility • Compatibility with adjacent land use • Environmental and ecological benefits • Historic criteria met, significant aesthetic value to be achieved and visibility from a public right of way • Economic impact and effect on tourism http://www.virginiadot.org/business/prenhancegrants.asp

VDOT Road Maintenance The VDOT Road Maintenance category of funding covers a wide variety of maintenance and operations activities. Road maintenance funds comprise the majority of VDOT’s scheduled funding (versus new construction). Road maintenance funding addresses needs having to do with pavement management, signals, pavement markings, signs, stripes, guardrails, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) assets that are considered to be of critical safety and operational importance. Maintenance funding also addresses operation services comprising ordinary and preventative maintenance work such as cleaning ditches, washing bridge decks, patching pot-holes, debris removal, snow and ice removal, emergency response, incident management, mowing, and equipment management. Table 19 – Proffer Funding

Table 17 – Revenue Share Funding

Purpose

Funding

Eligible Projects

Eligible Applicants Evaluation Criteria Website

Purpose

VDOT Revenue Share Program This program provides additional funding for use by a county, city, or town to construct, reconstruct, improve, or maintain the highway systems within such county, city, or town and for eligible rural additions in certain counties of the Commonwealth. Locality funds are matched, dollar for dollar, with state funds, with statutory limitations on the amount of state funds authorized per locality. Application for program funding must be made by resolution of the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting funds. Project funding is allocated by resolution of the CTB. Project costs are divided equally between the Revenue Share Fund and locality funding. • Supplemental funding for projects listed in the adopted in the six-year plan • Construction, reconstruction, or improvement projects not including in the adopted six-year plan • Improvements necessary for the specific subdivision streets otherwise eligible for acceptance into the secondary system for maintenance (rural additions) • Maintenance projects consistent with the department’s operating policies • New hardsurfacing (paving) • New roadway • Deficits on completed construction, reconstruction, or improvement projects Any county, city, or town in the Commonwealth • Priority 1: Construction projects that have previously received Revenue Sharing funding • Priority 2: Construction projects that meet a transportation need • Priority 3: Projects that address deficient pavement resurfacing and bridge rehabilitation • Priority 4: All other projects http://www.virginiadot.org/business/local-assistance-access-programs.asp#Revenue_Sharing

Funding Eligible Projects Eligible Applicants

Development Proffer Developer contributions, known as proffers, provide one potential source of funding for capital facilities. Proffers are typically cash amounts, dedicated land, and/or in-kindservices that are voluntarily granted to the locality to partially offset future capital facility costs associated with specific land developments. Recent legislation has limited the ability of local governments to receive proffers, but through the rezoning process developers may still consider proffering infrastructure improvements under the current legislation. The cost of the program can be partially financed with developer contributions. • Rezoning requests that permit residential and/or commercial uses in accordance with State enabling legislation • Limited to offsetting impacts that are directly attributable to new development • To "accept" a proffer, a locality should have completed an exhaustive study to document the real project costs Any property owners or developers seeking a rezoning.

Table 20 – BUILD Funding

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation Discretionary Grants (Previously TIGER) The BUILD Transportation grants replace the pre-existing Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. As the Administration looks to enhance America’s infrastructure, FY 2018 BUILD Transportation grants are for investments in surface transportation Purpose infrastructure and are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant local or regional impact. Since 2009, the Program has provided a combined $5.6 billion to 463 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Island. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of Funding 2018 made available $1.5 billion for National Infrastructure Investments, through September 30, 2020. Eligible Projects BUILD funding can support roads, bridges, transit, rail, ports or intermodal transportation. BUILD can provide capital funding directly to any public entity, including municipalities, counties, port Eligible Applicants authorities, tribal governments, MPOs, or others in contrast to traditional Federal programs which provide funding to very specific groups of applicants (mostly State DOTs and transit agencies). Projects for BUILD will be evaluated based on merit criteria that include safety, economic Evaluation competitiveness, quality of life, environmental protection, state of good repair, innovation, Criteria partnership, and additional non-Federal revenue for future transportation infrastructure investments. Website https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy

Appendix List Letter

Description

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H

Project Summary Sheets Detailed Crash Data Raw Traffic Counts Traffic Forecasting Memorandum Public Meeting Summaries HCM and Queuing Reports Turn Lane Warrants Project Cost Estimates

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix A Project Summary Sheets

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY Priority I Projects: Key improvements for locations that exhibit existing safety and operational challenges that are intensified with

US future growth. These locations were also a focal point during the first public meeting. The Priority I projects will be considered for the VDOT Six-Year US 501 501 Southbound Southbound Ramp Ramp Intersection Intersection Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Improvement Plan, and other regional and local transportation plans. Queuing for the eastbound right extends back through Creekside Drive, primarily during the

Queuing for the eastbound right extends back through Creekside Drive, primarily during the PM PM peak. peak. Lane Lane bias bias becomes becomes an an issue issue west west of of Creekside Creekside Drive. Drive. The The eastbound eastbound queue queue in in the the right right lane lane consistently consistently does does not not clear clear the the intersection intersection at at Creekside Creekside Drive. Drive. Moderate Moderate southbound southbound right right queuing queuing for for the the off-ramp off-ramp occurs occurs during during both both peaks. peaks.

Location: US 501 Southbound Ramp Intersections Existing Conditions

Project Description

Planning Level Costs

2040 Conditions (Coordinated Network Implemented) 2040 No No Build Buildapproach Conditionsto (Coordinated Network Implemented) ▪▪ Reconfigure eastbound a single thru lane Eastbound queuing and delays increase substantially, Old Six Year Eastbound queuing and delays increase substantially, extending extending back back well well beyond beyond Old Improvement Graves Mill and dual, controlled rights. Convert the existing right Graves Mill Road. Road. Phase Program Unable to the cycle Unable to clear clear the intersection intersection for multiple cycle lengths. lengths. turn lane to a travel lane by extending backfor tomultiple Creekside Safety Safety conditions conditions likely likely to to deteriorate deteriorate due due to to congestion congestion and and “queue “queue jumping” jumping” from from lane lane bias. bias. Drive. Southbound on the off-ramp. Southbound right right will will experience experience significant significant delays delays and and queuing queuing on the off-ramp. Preliminary Engineering $ 697,821

▪▪ Queuing for the eastbound right extends back through Creekside Drive, primarily during the PM peak. ▪▪ Lane bias becomes an issue west of Creekside Drive. The eastbound queue in the right lane consistently does not clear the intersection at Creekside Drive. ▪▪ Moderate southbound right queuing for the off-ramp occurs during both peaks.

▪▪ Widen the southbound on-ramp to accommodate two Project Description Description lanes that willProject merge to a single lane, before merging on ROW/Utility $ 473,149 ▪▪ Eastbound queuing and delays increase substantially, extending back well beyond Old Graves Mill Road. Provide Provide dual, dual, controlled controlled rights rights to to US US 501 501 southbound. southbound. This This will will require require widening widening the the on-ramp on-ramp to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane at US 501. to US 501. to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane at US 501. ▪▪ Unable to clear the intersection for multiple cycle lengths. Construction Provide at Drive Provide overhead overhead signage signage at Old Old Graves Mill Road Road and and Creekside Creekside Drive to to inform inform drivers drivers$ 4,993,528 ▪ ▪ Provide a channelized southbound right, freeGraves flow Mill ▪▪ Safety conditions likely to deteriorate due to congestion and “queue jumping” from lane bias. that both eastbound thru lanes can directly access the US 501 on-ramp. that both eastbound thru lanes can directly access the US 501 on-ramp. Graves MillCorridor Corridor Plan Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/501 Expressway SB lane. The lane will end aaaschannelized, a dedicated right turn lane atflow Graves Mill Improvement Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/501 Expressway SB Provide southbound right free new ▪▪ Southbound right willPlan experience significant delaysImprovement and queuing on the off-ramp. Costs outside $ 6,164,498 Provide channelized, southbound right free flow lane. lane. A ATotal new receiving receiving outside lane lane along along Graves Mill Corridor Plan Improvement Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/501 Expressway SB westbound Graves Mill Road will connect with the existing dedicated right turn lane Creekside Drive.westbound Graves Mill Road will connect with the existing dedicated right turn lane at at

2040 No Build Conditions (Coordinated Network Implemented)

Creekside Creekside Drive. Drive. Lengthen Lengthen the the westbound westbound left left turn turn lane lane to to US US 501 501 southbound. southbound.

Improvement Recommendations at US 501 Southbound Ramp Intersection Intersection Eastbound Eastbound Right Right Southbound Southbound Right Right Overall* Overall*

Level Level of of Service Service (Delay (Delay in in Seconds) Seconds) 2040 2040 2040 No No Build Build 2040 Build Build AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM E FF (144.1) AA (<5.0) AA (<5.0) E (56.7) (56.7) (144.1) (<5.0) (<5.0) FF (173.0) FF (173.0) AA (<5.0) AA (<5.0) (173.0) (173.0) (<5.0) (<5.0) D E AA (9.3) AA (<5.0) D (38.2) (38.2) E (75.0) (75.0) (9.3) (<5.0)

* Represents the intersection's average delay.

*Represents *Represents the the intersection’s intersection’s average average delay. delay.

Intersection Intersection

ksi

av Gr

ill R

Eastbound Eastbound Right Right Southbound Southbound Right Right Overall* Overall*

thb

*Represents the sum of all approach queues. *Represents *Represents the the sum sum of of all all approach approach queues. queues.

ive

Project Benefits

The US 501 southbound ramp will be widened to accommodate two lanes that will merge to a single lane, before on to ramp The US 501merging southbound US 501. US 501 southbound ramp willThe be widened to accommodate

be widened to accommodate twowill lanes that will merge to a two lane, lanesbefore that will merge on to ato single merging 25 50 before 100 150 200 ft. on to N501.0 lane, merging USsingle US 501.

LEGEND EXISTING ROADWAY

LEGEND LEGEND

PARCEL LINE*

EXISTING ROADWAY www.gravesmillplan.com EXISTING ROADWAY PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION

0 25 50

100

150 200 ft.

25Database. 50 100 N City’s0 GIS *Parcel boundary is an approximation based on the

PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION

PARCEL LINE* PARCEL LINE*

th 95 95th Percentile Percentile Queuing Queuing (in (in Feet) Feet) 2040 No Build 2040 2040 No Build 2040 Build Build AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 340’ 1,698’ <50’ <50’ 340’ 1,698’ <50’ <50’ 383’ 826’ Free Free 383’ 826’ Free Flow Flow Free Flow Flow 1,381’ 3,177’ 981’ 278’ 1,381’ 3,177’ 981’ 278’

150 200 ft.

*Parcel boundary is an approximation based on the City’s GIS Database. *Parcel boundary is an approximation based on the City’s GIS Database.

▪▪ Substantial reduction in movement delay and overall delay. ▪▪ Overall queues are reduced by over 30 percent for the AM peak, and over 90 percent for the PM peak. ▪▪ Better lane management improves safety conditions and reduces lane bias; thereby reducing eastbound queuing at Creekside Drive and Old Graves Mill Road.

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY Priority I Projects: Key improvements for locations that exhibit existing safety and operational challenges that are intensified with

future growth. These locations were also a focal point during the first public meeting. The Priority I projects will be considered for the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Plan, and other regional and local transportation plans.

Location: Gristmill Drive Existing Conditions

Project Description

▪▪ Gristmill Drive functions as a cut-through to avoid US 221 at Graves Mill Road. ▪▪ At times, unable to clear westbound movement in a single cycle length. ▪▪ Lack of a dedicated westbound left turn lane (shared thru-left) creates heavy queuing during the PM peak. ▪▪ Northbound right is consistent and heavy due to cut-through traffic, generating lengthy queues during the AM peak.

▪▪ Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate a single westbound left turn lane (protectedpermissive phasing). ▪▪ Widen Gristmill Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes (overlap phasing). ▪▪ Provide a pedestrian crossing and countdown timer across Gristmill Drive. If sidewalks are 2040 No Build Conditions (Coordinated Network Implemented) eventually implemented along the north side of ▪▪ Queuing and delays increase substantially. Graves Mill Corridor Plan Improvement Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/GristmillGraves Drive Mill Road, then pedestrian crossings ▪▪ Unable to clear the intersection for multiple cycle lengths. could be installed at that time. ▪▪ Safety conditions likely to deteriorate due to congestion and increased driver frustration.

Graves Mill Corridor Plan

Improvement Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/Gristmill Drive

Planning Level Costs

Improvement Recommendations at Graves Mill Road/Gristmill Drive Graves Mill Corridor Plan

Improvement Recommendation at Graves Mill Road/Gristmill Drive

Phase Grav

es M

ill Ro

Gris

tmill

Driv

25 50

100

150

200 ft.

LEGEND EXISTING ROADWAY

LEGEND

N N

PARCEL LINE*

LEGEND

PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION

EXISTING ROADWAY

EXISTING ROADWAY PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION

PROPOSED ROADWAY ADDITION

www.gravesmillplan.com

025 50 25 50100

150 100

200150 ft.

200 ft.

*Parcel boundary is an approximation based on the City’s GIS Database. PARCEL LINE*

PARCEL LINE*

*Parcel boundary is an approximation based on the City’s GIS Database.

Six Year Improvement Program

Preliminary Engineering

$ 430,568

ROW/Utility

$ 132,632

Construction

$ 2,289,807

Total Costs

$ 2,853,007

• NoNorthbound right is(Coordinated consistent and heavy Implemented) due to cut-through traffic, generating lengthy 2040 Build Conditions Network queues during the AM peak. • Queuing and delays increase substantially. • Unable to clear the intersection for multiple cycle lengths. 2040 No Build Conditions (Coordinated Network Implemented) • Safety conditions likely to deteriorate due to congestion and increased driver frustratio • Queuing and delays increase substantially. • Unable to clear Project Description (C) the intersection for multiple cycle lengths. • Safety conditions due to congestion and increased driver frustratio • Widen Graves Milllikely Roadtotodeteriorate accommodate a single westbound left turn lane (protected

permissive phasing). Project Description (C) • Widen Gristmill Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes (overlap • phasing). Widen Graves Mill Road to accommodate a single westbound left turn lane (protected permissive phasing). • Provide a pedestrian crossing and countdown timer across Gristmill Drive. If sidewalks • are Widen Gristmillimplemented Drive to accommodate dual side northbound right turn lanes (overlap eventually along the north of Graves Mill Road, then pedestrian phasing). crossings could be installed at that time. • Provide a pedestrian crossing and countdown timer across Gristmill Drive. If sidewalks are eventually implemented along the north side of Graves Mill Road, then pedestrian Level of Service crossings could be installed at that (Delay time. in Seconds) 2040 No Build 2040 Build Intersection AM PM AM PM Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) Westbound Approach F (122.8) F (195.0) D (41.8)* B (17.6)* 2040 No Build 2040 Build Intersection Northbound Right F (193.6) F (>200.0) D (45.2) D (45.1) AM PM AM PM Overall** F (107.8) F (164.9) C (26.4) B (17.6)* (18.0) Westbound Approach F (122.8) F (195.0) D (41.8)* B Northbound Rightleft turn lane. F (193.6) F (>200.0) D (45.1) *New westbound Approach for AM is D B (45.2) (14.4) and for PM is *New westbound left turn lane. Approach for AM is B (14.4) and for PM is A (7.0). Overall** F (107.8) F (164.9) C (26.4) B (18.0) A (7.0). **Represents the intersection’s average delay.

**Represents average *New westboundthe leftintersection’s turn lane. Approach for AMdelay. is B (14.4) and for PM is A (7.0).

Queuing (in Feet) 95th Percentile **Represents the intersection’s average delay. Intersection 2040 No Build 2040 Build AM PM (in Feet) AM PM 95th Percentile Queuing Westbound Approach 596’ 1,397’ 230’* 206’* Intersection 2040 No Build 2040 Build Northbound Right 1,007’ 902’ 352’ 269’ AM PM AM PM Overall** 1,955’ 2,467’ 991’ 992’ Westbound Approach 596’ 1,397’ 230’* 206’*

Northbound Right 1,007’ 902’ 352’ 269’ *New westbound left turn lane. Thru movement approach for AM is <50’ and for PM is 51’. Overall** 1,955’ 2,467’ 991’ 992’ **Represents the sum of all approach queues.

*New westbound Thru movement approach for AM *New westbound leftleft turnturn lane.lane. Thru movement approach for AM is <50’ and is for<50’ PM is 51’. Benefits and for PM is 51’. **Represents the sum of all approach queues. • Substantial reduction in movement delay and overall delay. • Queues are 50 percent for both peak hours. **Represents thereduced sum ofby allover approach queues. Benefits • Better lane management improves safety conditions. • Substantial reduction in movement delay and overall delay. • Queues are reduced by over 50 percent for both peak hours. • Better lane management improves safety conditions.

Project Benefits

▪▪ Substantial reduction in movement delay and overall delay. ▪▪ Overall queues are reduced by over 50 percent for both peak hours. ▪▪ Better lane management improves safety conditions.

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY Priority II Projects: Secondary improvements that were determined as part of the future conditions analysis, and offer support to Priority 1 projects. These projects are more targeted and may eventually be considered for regional and local transportation plans.

Issues

Project Description Operations

Creekside Drive

▪▪ Under future conditions, northbound right operates at LOS E (LOS F for shared thru/left movement) ▪▪ Under future conditions, queuing for the northbound right exceed 600’.

▪▪ Widen the connector at Creekside Drive to accommodate dual northbound right turn lanes. ▪▪ Install pedestrian crossings and countdowns.

Sketch Concept ve

Creekside

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM D (51.4) E (78.1) C (31.8) D (44.2) C (21.2) C (21.3)

95th Percentile Queuing in Feet 2040 with only Priority I Projects AM PM NB Left/Through 49 197 NB Left/Through NB Right 596 647 NB Right Overall 2031 1904 Overall

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM 49 197 234 285 1677 1434

Dri

Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) 2040 with only Priority I Projects AM PM NB Left/Through E (72.0) F (117.8) NB Left/Through NB Right E (55.2) E (65.2) NB Right Overall D (40.9) C (27.2) Overall

ide eks Cre

Location

oad ill R

M ves Gra

Connec

EB Left/Through WB NB Overall

95th Percentile Queuing in Feet 2040 with only Priority I Projects 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM AM PM 380 73 EB Left/Through 75 25 Millrace 20 433 WB 0 225 130 463 NB 75 75 671 1110 Overall Level of Service200 375 (Delay in Seconds)

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM A (9.5) A (5.5) A (5.8) D (33.8) B (14.7) B (11.5) A (8.1) C (16.2)

le d

a Ro

oad ill R

M ves Gra

es av Gr d

oa ll R

▪▪ Provide an eastbound right turn lane. ▪▪ Maintain existing access, but consider bringing north side driveway into signalization.

EB Left/Through WB NB Overall

Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) 2040 with only Priority I Projects AM PM F (73.4) C (23.0) EB Left/Through B (13.5) F (122.2) WB D (25.4) F (134.1) NB E (37.5) F (84.5) Overall

il nv

▪▪ Under future conditions, the eastbound right meets turn lane warrants, per VDOT standards.

▪▪ Install a full size roundabout with a raised island. ▪▪ Maintain the eastbound right slip lane.

Millrace Drive

▪▪ Under future conditions, extensive queuing occurs, primarily with movements associated with Nationwide Drive. ▪▪ Under future conditions, several movements will operate at LOS F, including the overall intersection during the PM peak.

McConville Road

tor

McConville

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM A (5.2) B (13.2) A (2.4) A (8.9) A (4.9) B (14.0)

Millrace

EB Through EB Right Overall

Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM EB Through A (5.2) B (13.2) EB Right A (2.4) A (8.9) Overall A (4.9) B (14.0)

95th Percentile Queuing in Feet 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM EB Through 362 553 EB Right 2 7 Overall 469 1258

Consider bringing into signalization at some point in the future.

Graves Mill Road

Millrace Drive

95th Percentile Queuing in Feet 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM EB Through 362 553 EB Right 2 7 Overall 469 1258

www.gravesmillplan.com

▪▪ The landscaped median should help to reduce the occurrence of rear-end crashes associated with eastbound and westbound lefts. ▪▪ if full access opening is not considered for the landscaped median, northbound and southbound lefts could make u-turns at the nearest signalized intersection.

12’

10’

10’ MULTI-USE PATH OR SIDEWALK

TOTAL ROW: 80’

BUFFER

▪▪ Provide a landscaped median with left turn lanes between Millrace Drive and Millside Drive. ▪▪ The landscaped median would connect with the westbound left at Millrace Drive and support the potential Millside Drive improvements as dedicated left turn lanes. ▪▪ The improvement would require widening Graves Mill Road to accommodate the additional lane. ▪▪ The project would be enhanced by a multiuse path or sidewalk along the south side of Graves Mill Road (previous multimodal recommendation).

TRAVEL LANE

▪▪ Numerous accidents clustered near the Lillian Lane intersection. ▪▪ Difficulty making an eastbound left and southbound left. ▪▪ High speeds and steeper grade along this portion of Graves Mill Road. ▪▪ Under future conditions, the eastbound and westbound left movements at Millside Drive meet turn lane warrants, per VDOT standards.

TRAVEL LANE

Millrace Drive to Millside Drive

Operations

Median (Dedicated Turn Lane Provided)

Project Description

TRAVEL LANE

Issues

TRAVEL LANE

Location

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY Priority III Projects: Building on Priority II Projects, these recommended improvements will be needed if a maximum buildout and growth scenario occurs along the corridor. Priority III projects should be monitored over time as conditions dictate.

Location

Issues

Project Description

Old Graves Mill Road and Creekside Drive

▪▪ Under future conditions, heavy eastbound movement results in long delays, particularly for westbound left movements (priority given to Graves Mill Road). ▪▪ Lane bias may remain an issue with only two lanes. ▪▪ Eastbound queuing over 1,000’ at Old Graves Mill Road. ▪▪ Queues extends beyond available storage for several left turn lanes.

▪▪ Provide an additional eastbound through lane, beginning west of Old Graves Mill Road and connecting with the Priority I lane addition at Creekside Drive. ▪▪ Provide dual westbound left turn lanes at Old Graves Mill Road. This will require two receiving lanes on Old Graves Mill Road. ▪▪ The additional northbound right at Creekside Drive included as part of complete concept.

Sketch Concept

Operations OGM/Creekside

e ide Driv

Creeks

Grav es M

Priority I

ill Ro

Old Graves Mill Road

Priority II project included as part of complete concept design.

Note: Future study needed to identify appropriate intersection for Old Graves Mill Road and Connector Road.

www.gravesmillplan.com

Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) 2040 with only Priority I Projects Old Graves Mill Road AM PM EB Approach A (8.6) C (23.5) EB Approach WB Left F (248.5) F (164.9) WB Left WB Approach C (30.5) D (40.3) WB Approach Overall C (20.8) C (34.2) Overall 2040 with only Priority I Projects Creekside Drive AM PM EB Approach B (19.3) B (15.6) EB Approach Overall C (21.2) C (21.3) Overall

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM A (6.7) B (14.3) D (45.9) D (51.5) A (6.7) B (15.9) B (10.6) B (19.0) 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM B (12.2) B (17.0) B (18.1) B (19.8)

95th Percentile Queuing in Feet 2040 with only Priority I Projects Old Graves Mill Road AM PM EB Approach 283 1088 EB Approach WB Left 268 706 WB Left WB Approach 284 956 WB Approach Overall 795 2354 Overall 2040 with only Priority I Projects Creekside Drive AM PM EB Approach 754 176 EB Approach Overall 1677 1434 Overall

2040 with Priority II Project AM PM 161 441 96 236 112 485 501 1236 2040 with Priority II Project AM PM 314 154 1237 1357

GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

INNOVATIVE INTERCHANGES

Navigating a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)

Priority III Projects: DDI at US 501 Building on Priority II Projects, these recommendedINNOVATIVE improvements will be needed if a INTERCHANGES

Navigating a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) To turn right from a

maximum buildout and growth scenario occurs along the corridor. Priority III projects should be monitored over time as conditions dictate.

To turn right onto aInterchange (DDI) Diverging Diamond

Ǧ Depending on their level of comfort, cyclists may navigate the intersection using vehicle or pedestrian paths from a freeway ramp, Ǧ Depending on their level of comfort, cyclists may navigate the intersection markings and traffic signals using vehicle or pedestrian paths

To turn left freeway ramp from the What are the benefits of a DDI? follow lane arterial, use the right-turn ▪▪ Improved safety: Reduces the number of points where vehicles may cross paths to stay on the left side of the arterial, ▪▪ Increasedlane efficiency: Crossovers can operate with only two traffic signal phases, which like at a conventional use marked to the right side after allows the interchange to handle a greater volume of traffic and operate with less delayand then cross Pedestrians diamond interchange to safely ▪▪ Easier access to freeway: Design allows traffic to enter and exit the freeway without passing throughcrosswalks the interchange navigate the interchange crossing opposing lanes of traffic ▪▪ Cost effective: Since there are no left-turn lanes on the arterial, a DDI can have a narrower cross section and may be more cost effective than a retrofit or new NOT TO SCALE interchange construction

q q

Pedestrians use marked crosswalks to safely navigate the interchange

freeway ramp, use the continue straight onright-turn the äToarterial, lane like at a follow lane markings conventional diamond and traffic signals to cross to continue straight on the left side of the arterial, ätheToarterial, interchange follow lane markings

h h

To turn left onto a freeway ramp from the arterial, follow lane markings and To turn left onto a freeway traffic signals to cross to the ramp from thearterial, arterial,and left side of the follow lane then turn leftmarkings onto theand ramp traffic signals to cross to the left side of the arterial, and then turn left onto the ramp

and then cross to the right andafter trafficpassing signalsthrough to cross to side the left side of the arterial, the interchange and then to the right Note: Forcross simplicity, only two directions of traffic side after passing through are shown. Opposing traffic follows similar routes. the interchange

 Visit www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections to learn more.

g g

Concept at US 501 Interchange

▪▪ Preliminary results suggest the DDI offers the greatest reduction in delay and queuing, when compared to more conventional designs. ▪▪ Would likely be implemented when the Graves Mill Road / US 501 interchange bridge needs replacing. ▪▪ Because the bridge would be replaced, ensure the new one is also wide enough to accommodate a multiuse path or sidewalk. ▪▪ Need for additional analysis to advance the concept further.

www.gravesmillplan.com

g g

To turn right from a To turn right onto a freeway ramp, use the To turn left from a freeway ramp, freeway ramp from the right-turn lane like at a follow lane markings and traffic signals arterial, use the right-turn To turn right diamond from a conventional to stay on the left side of the arterial, To turn onto a lane like right at a conventional freeway ramp, use the To turn from freeway ramp, interchange and thenleft cross to athe right side after freeway ramp from the diamond interchange right-turn lane like at a follow lane markings and traffic signals passing through the interchange arterial, use the right-turn conventional diamond to stay on the left side of the arterial, Note: For simplicity, only two directions traffic lane like at a conventional Note: For simplicity, only two directions ofthen traffic areto shown. Opposing traffic follows similar routes.interchange Diagram not toofscale. and cross the right side after are shown. Opposing traffic follows similar routes. NOT TO SCALE diamond interchange passing through the interchange

h h

www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections to learn more.  Visit NOT TO SCALE

 Visit www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections to learn more.

Note: For simplicity, only two directions of traffic are shown. Opposing traffic follows similar routes.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix B Detailed Crash Data

ID 13 18 23 31 34 35 40 64 77 83 88 7 51 3 12 14 25 41 59 69 71 87 19 81 86

DOCUMENT 110910421 110875284 110905042 111465069 111665057 111665064 111875090 112715136 113215143 113405052 120055214 110875193 112145181 110875164 110875249 110940575 110975034 111795195 112505259 112925085 113050147 120055183 110875371 113275143 120055181

DATE 2/10/2011 3/6/2011 3/28/2011 5/20/2011 6/6/2011 6/9/2011 6/23/2011 9/23/2011 11/4/2011 11/26/2011 12/30/2011 1/14/2011 7/29/2011 1/3/2011 2/7/2011 2/16/2011 3/30/2011 6/23/2011 8/30/2011 10/11/2011 10/19/2011 12/21/2011 3/10/2011 11/16/2011 12/18/2011

DAY OF WEEK Thursday Sunday Monday Friday Monday Thursday Thursday Friday Friday Saturday Friday Friday Friday Monday Monday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Wednesday Sunday

Time 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 6PM TO 9PM 3AM TO 6AM 9PM TO 12AM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM 9AM TO 12PM 12PM TO 3PM 6PM TO 9PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 6PM TO 9PM 9PM TO 12AM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 10. Deer 16. Other 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 3. Head On 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road

SEVERITY PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only

LIGHT CONDITIO ROADWAY CONDI Alcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 1. Dawn 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N ALCOHOL 4. Darkness ‐ Roa1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa1. Dry 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N N 5. Darkness ‐ Roa2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa2. Wet 1. Dawn 2. Wet N N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa1. Dry

Unbelted? UNBELTED N N N N N N N N N N N N N UNBELTED N N N N N N N UNBELTED N N

Speeding? N SPEED N N N N N N N SPEED N N N SPEED N N N N N N N N N N N

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

ID 116 118 133 134 138 1 2 6 17 135 104 110 111 130 137 5 15 28 20 24 90

DOCUMENT 121105138 121155121 121645385 121725127 121945145 122295210 122295211 122505171 123065198 121805064 120685097 120875179 120965082 121655192 121885072 122505099 130585199 123535189 123165176 123325216 120265058

DATE 4/14/2012 4/19/2012 6/12/2012 6/13/2012 7/5/2012 8/14/2012 8/14/2012 8/25/2012 10/26/2012 6/15/2012 3/2/2012 3/26/2012 3/29/2012 6/7/2012 6/30/2012 8/20/2012 10/17/2012 12/3/2012 11/9/2012 11/13/2012 1/9/2012

DAY OF WEEK Saturday Thursday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Saturday Friday Friday Friday Monday Thursday Thursday Saturday Monday Wednesday Monday Friday Tuesday Monday

Time 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 9PM TO 12AM 6AM TO 9AM 6PM TO 9PM 12PM TO 3PM 9AM TO 12PM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 16. Other 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road

SEVERITY PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury

LIGHT CONDITION ROADWAY COND Alcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L 2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L 1. Dry ALCOHOL

Unbelted? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Speeding? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N SPEED

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

ID 33 46 47 48 78 79 95 98 117 115 37 49 50 97 101 103 107 121

DOCUMENT 130245105 130585244 130515137 130575262 131775237 131855193 132615165 132765054 133535100 133535076 130245155 130585262 130595195 132745173 132845084 132975178 133065214 133535218

DATE 1/8/2013 2/18/2013 2/20/2013 2/22/2013 6/17/2013 6/25/2013 9/10/2013 9/27/2013 11/26/2013 11/21/2013 1/17/2013 2/22/2013 2/26/2013 9/25/2013 10/4/2013 10/7/2013 10/31/2013 12/10/2013

DAY OF WEEK Tuesday Monday Wednesday Friday Monday Tuesday Tuesday Friday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Friday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Monday Thursday Tuesday

Time 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 9AM TO 12PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 9AM TO 12PM 12PM TO 3PM 6PM TO 9PM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM 6PM TO 9PM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 10. Deer 16. Other 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 3. Head On

SEVERITY B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only K.Fatal Injury B.Visible Injury

LIGHT CONDITION ROADWAY CONDITIOAlcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 5. Darkness ‐ Road N1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L 1. Dry N

Unbelted? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Speeding? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N SPEED N

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

ID 140 9 27 30 32 36 55 60 61 63 65 127 136 11 21 38 70 74 66 128 10 67 75

DOCUMENT DATE DAY OF WEEK 140725243 3/6/2014 Thursday 141285181 4/23/2014 Wednesday 141745298 6/23/2014 Monday 142115193 7/17/2014 Thursday 142335147 8/12/2014 Tuesday 142415212 8/25/2014 Monday 142905298 10/11/2014 Saturday 143185265 11/3/2014 Monday 143185280 11/7/2014 Friday 143255211 11/13/2014 Thursday 143295418 11/21/2014 Friday 140135308 1/5/2014 Sunday 140375186 1/26/2014 Sunday 141285254 5/7/2014 Wednesday 141635176 6/3/2014 Tuesday 142475169 9/1/2014 Monday 143495076 12/9/2014 Tuesday 143645116 12/29/2014 Monday 143355413 11/26/2014 Wednesday 140135312 1/5/2014 Sunday 141285200 4/28/2014 Monday 143395290 12/2/2014 Tuesday 150065254 12/31/2014 Wednesday

Time 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 6PM TO 9PM 3PM TO 6PM 6PM TO 9PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 6AM TO 9AM 9AM TO 12PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 9AM TO 12PM 9AM TO 12PM 6AM TO 9AM 6PM TO 9PM 12PM TO 3PM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 6PM TO 9PM 6AM TO 9AM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road

SEVERITY PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only A.Ambulatory Injury C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury

LIGHT CONDITIO ROADWAY CONDITAlcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 4. Icy N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 1. Dawn 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa2. Wet N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa4. Icy N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 4. Darkness ‐ Roa2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N

Unbelted? N N N N N N UNBELTED N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Speeding? N N SPEED N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

ID 76 82 85 94 99 106 120 131 132 139 141 8 22 26 80 108 112 119 124 129 142 16 4 105 92 113

DOCUMENT DATE 150065257 150285219 150505126 150775184 150925311 151255229 151735254 152245135 152305118 152665143 152795171 153145153 153635248 160125116 150265257 151315220 151415087 151695103 151955195 152195206 152875270 153415184 153015301 151185181 150705082 151465362

1/2/2015 1/26/2015 2/13/2015 3/11/2015 4/1/2015 4/28/2015 6/16/2015 8/10/2015 8/11/2015 9/21/2015 9/28/2015 11/7/2015 12/18/2015 12/30/2015 1/21/2015 5/4/2015 5/19/2015 6/15/2015 7/13/2015 8/7/2015 10/12/2015 12/2/2015 10/26/2015 4/21/2015 3/4/2015 5/19/2015

DAY OF WEEK Friday Monday Friday Wednesday Wednesday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Tuesday Monday Monday Saturday Friday Wednesday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Monday Monday Friday Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Tuesday

Time 12PM TO 3PM 6AM TO 9AM 6AM TO 9AM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 9PM TO 12AM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM 12PM TO 3PM 6AM TO 9AM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 3. Head On 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road

SEVERITY PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury B.Visible Injury B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury

LIGHT CONDITION ROADWAY CONDITAlcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 1. Dawn 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road Li 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 1. Dawn 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 9. Water (Standing N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N

Unbelted? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Speeding? N N N N SPEED N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

ID 29 42 43 53 54 58 62 68 84 89 96 100 102 122 123 44 52 57 73 91 93 109 125 114 45 56 126 39 72

DOCUMENT DATE DAY OF WEEK 160145205 1/13/2016 Wednesday 160615260 2/25/2016 Thursday 160685195 3/3/2016 Thursday 160975106 3/31/2016 Thursday 160975044 4/1/2016 Friday 161175116 4/20/2016 Wednesday 161325103 5/5/2016 Thursday 161535207 5/26/2016 Thursday 162095302 7/20/2016 Wednesday 162455137 8/26/2016 Friday 162725158 9/22/2016 Thursday 162795113 10/4/2016 Tuesday 162945276 10/14/2016 Friday 163435158 12/2/2016 Friday 163435166 12/5/2016 Monday 160685193 3/3/2016 Thursday 160905160 3/22/2016 Tuesday 161125532 4/20/2016 Wednesday 161955201 6/16/2016 Thursday 162435342 8/29/2016 Monday 162525255 9/1/2016 Thursday 163145126 11/2/2016 Wednesday 170035373 12/14/2016 Wednesday 163335387 11/12/2016 Saturday 160705169 3/9/2016 Wednesday 161165228 4/17/2016 Sunday 163575189 12/17/2016 Saturday 160605103 2/21/2016 Sunday 161655348 6/8/2016 Wednesday

Time 3PM TO 6PM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 9AM TO 12PM 6AM TO 9AM 12PM TO 3PM 9AM TO 12PM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM 9PM TO 12AM 3PM TO 6PM 3PM TO 6PM 9AM TO 12PM 6PM TO 9PM 9AM TO 12PM 3PM TO 6PM 6AM TO 9AM

TYPE 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 1. Rear End 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 2. Angle 3. Head On 4. Sideswipe ‐ Same Direction 5. Sideswipe ‐ Opposite Direction 8. Non‐Collision 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road 9. Fixed Object ‐ Off Road

SEVERITY PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only C.Non‐Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only B.Visible Injury B.Visible Injury PDO.Property Damage Only PDO.Property Damage Only

LIGHT CONDITION ROADWAY CONAlcohol? 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 3. Dusk 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry ALCOHOL 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N 4. Darkness ‐ Road L1. Dry N 2. Daylight 4. Icy N 2. Daylight 2. Wet N 2. Daylight 1. Dry N

Unbelted? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Speeding? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Bike? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ped? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Vehicle# 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix C Raw Traffic Counts

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

From North Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 0 0 0 0 0

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

0 0 0 0 0

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Gristmill From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 27 0 109 94 0 3 0 36 0 126 120 0 2 0 50 0 172 174 0 4 0 70 0 191 156 0 7 0 183 0 598 544 0 16 0

0 0 0 0 0

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 82 90 122 121 415

0 0 0 0 0

101 132 127 121 481

53 53 39 21 166

0 0 0 0 0

154 185 166 142 647

115 96 102 83 396

0 0 0 0 0

3 2 1 2 8

0 0 0 0 0

174 158 183 207 722

61 80 84 90 315

0 0 0 0 0

235 238 267 297 1037

99 67 76 84 326

0 0 0 0 0

212 202 187 139 740

90 65 66 71 292

0 0 0 0 0

302 267 253 210 1032

109 81 77 62 329

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2358 71.2 32.6 2335 99 23 1

956 28.8 13.2 956 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3314

1595 95.4 22 1591 99.7 4 0.3

App. Total

: Graves Mill and Gristmill : 33333333 : 9/6/2017 :1

Graves Mill From West Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

97 122 178 163 560

Right 3 3 1 7 14

Thru 147 153 208 159 667

0 0 0 0 0

118 98 103 85 404

1 4 1 2 8

129 113 149 147 538

0 0 0 0 0

3 3 8 11 25

0 0 0 0 0

102 70 84 95 351

2 3 5 7 17

130 130 127 109 496

0 0 0 0 0

12 5 3 8 28

0 0 0 0 0

121 86 80 70 357

3 33 3 3 42

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

77 4.6 1.1 74 96.1 3 3.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1672

81 3.6 1.1 81 100 0 0

App. Total

150 156 209 166 681

Int. Total 356 404 559 520 1839

0 0 0 0 0

130 117 150 149 546

402 400 419 376 1597

0 0 0 0 0

132 133 132 116 513

469 441 483 508 1901

158 103 111 102 474

0 0 0 0 0

161 136 114 105 516

584 489 447 385 1905

2175 96.4 30 2149 98.8 26 1.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2256

7242

31.2 2230 98.8 26 1.2

7186 99.2 56 0.8

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

0 0 0 0 0

45.8 3291 99.3 23 0.7

23.1 1665 99.6 7 0.4

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

90 122 121 101 434 67.5 .889 428 98.6 6 1.4

36 50 70 53 209 32.5 .746 209 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

126 172 191 154 643

120 174 156 115 565 97.2 .812 563 99.6 2 0.4

.842 637 99.1 6 0.9

Gristmill From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

2 4 7 3 16 2.8 .571 15 93.8 1 6.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

122 178 163 118 581

3 1 7 1 12 1.8 .429 12 100 0 0

.816 578 99.5 3 0.5

: Graves Mill and Gristmill : 33333333 : 9/6/2017 :2

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

153 208 159 129 649 98.2 .780 642 98.9 7 1.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

156 209 166 130 661

404 559 520 402 1885

.791 654 98.9 7 1.1

.843 1869 99.2 16 0.8

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out

In 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

Total 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 0 Left 0 12 642 0 0 7 0 12 649 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 654 7 661 Out 443 7 450

209 0 0 0 209 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Left Thru Right Peds 15 0 563 0 1 0 2 0 16 0 565 0 221 0 221 Out

578 3 581 In Gristmill

799 3 802 Total

Graves Mill In Total 637 1842 6 15 643 1857

Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Out 1205 9 1214

North

0 428 0 6 0 434 Right Thru

Total 1097 14 1111

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Gristmill : 33333333 : 9/6/2017 :3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

183 207 212 202 804 71 .948 801 99.6 3 0.4

84 90 90 65 329 29 .914 329 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

267 297 302 267 1133

76 84 109 81 350 90.7 .803 350 100 0 0

.938 1130 99.7 3 0.3

Gristmill From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

8 11 12 5 36 9.3 .750 36 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

84 95 121 86 386

5 7 3 33 48 8.8 .364 48 100 0 0

.798 386 100 0 0

: Graves Mill and Gristmill : 33333333 : 9/6/2017 :4

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

127 109 158 103 497 91.2 .786 492 99.0 5 1.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

132 116 161 136 545

483 508 584 489 2064

.846 540 99.1 5 0.9

.884 2056 99.6 8 0.4

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out

In 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

Total 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 0 Left 0 48 492 0 0 5 0 48 497 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 540 5 545 Out 837 3 840

329 0 0 0 329 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Left Thru Right Peds 36 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 350 0 377 0 377 Out

386 0 386 In Gristmill

763 0 763 Total

Graves Mill In Total 1130 1972 3 8 1133 1980

Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Out 842 5 847

North

0 801 0 3 0 804 Right Thru

Total 1377 8 1385

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Gristmill : 33333333 : 9/6/2017 :5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

From North Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 0 0 0 0 0

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

0 0 0 0 0

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Millrace From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 21 0 114 4 0 2 0 11 0 142 2 0 1 0 19 0 197 3 0 5 0 20 0 232 4 0 3 0 71 0 685 13 0 11 0

0 0 0 0 0

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 93 131 178 212 614

0 0 0 0 0

163 185 152 137 637

20 14 19 11 64

0 0 0 0 0

183 199 171 148 701

2 4 4 4 14

0 0 0 0 0

3 1 10 2 16

0 0 0 0 0

200 213 234 245 892

1 4 3 4 12

0 0 0 0 0

201 217 237 249 904

48 10 23 17 98

0 0 0 0 0

254 241 210 197 902

8 9 7 1 25

0 0 0 0 0

262 250 217 198 927

44 40 77 17 178

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3045 94.7 41.1 3027 99.4 18 0.6

172 5.3 2.3 167 97.1 5 2.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3217

303 65.4 4.1 293 96.7 10 3.3

App. Total

: Graves Mill and Millrace : 34444444 : 9/6/2017 :1

Graves Mill From West Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 3 8 7 24

Right 16 9 13 20 58

Thru 214 269 355 286 1124

0 0 0 0 0

5 5 14 6 30

14 10 12 9 45

214 189 209 242 854

0 0 0 0 0

26 13 11 18 68

0 0 0 0 0

74 23 34 35 166

3 2 3 7 15

223 204 191 208 826

0 0 0 0 0

20 14 26 5 65

0 0 0 0 0

64 54 103 22 243

2 4 1 2 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

160 34.6 2.2 157 98.1 3 1.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

463

127 3.4 1.7 126 99.2 1 0.8

App. Total

230 278 368 306 1182

Int. Total 350 423 573 545 1891

0 0 0 0 0

228 199 221 251 899

416 403 406 405 1630

0 0 0 0 0

226 206 194 215 841

501 446 465 499 1911

239 217 182 164 802

0 0 0 0 0

241 221 183 166 811

567 525 503 386 1981

3606 96.6 48.6 3575 99.1 31 0.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3733

7413

50.4 3701 99.1 32 0.9

7345 99.1 68 0.9

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

0 0 0 0 0

43.4 3194 99.3 23 0.7

6.2 450 97.2 13 2.8

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

131 178 212 163 684 90.7 .807 676 98.8 8 1.2

11 19 20 20 70 9.3 .875 69 98.6 1 1.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

142 197 232 183 754

2 3 4 2 11 47.8 .688 10 90.9 1 9.1

.813 745 98.8 9 1.2

Millrace From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

1 5 3 3 12 52.2 .600 12 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

3 8 7 5 23

9 13 20 14 56 4.7 .700 56 100 0 0

.719 22 95.7 1 4.3

: Graves Mill and Millrace : 34444444 : 9/6/2017 :2

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

269 355 286 214 1124 95.3 .792 1116 99.3 8 0.7

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

278 368 306 228 1180

423 573 545 416 1957

.802 1172 99.3 8 0.7

.854 1939 99.1 18 0.9

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out

In 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

Total 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 0 Left 0 56 1116 0 0 8 0 56 1124 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 1172 8 1180 Out 688 8 696

69 0 1 0 70 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Left Thru Right Peds 12 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 11 0 125 1 126 Out

22 1 23 In Millrace

147 2 149 Total

Graves Mill In Total 745 1871 9 18 754 1889

Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Out 1126 9 1135

North

0 676 0 8 0 684 Right Thru

Total 1860 16 1876

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Millrace : 34444444 : 9/6/2017 :3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

245 254 241 210 950 97.1 .935 948 99.8 2 0.2

4 8 9 7 28 2.9 .778 28 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

249 262 250 217 978

17 44 40 77 178 69.5 .578 175 98.3 3 1.7

.933 976 99.8 2 0.2

Millrace From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

18 20 14 26 78 30.5 .750 77 98.7 1 1.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

35 64 54 103 256

7 2 4 1 14 1.6 .500 14 100 0 0

.621 252 98.4 4 1.6

: Graves Mill and Millrace : 34444444 : 9/6/2017 :4

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

208 239 217 182 846 98.4 .885 840 99.3 6 0.7

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

215 241 221 183 860

499 567 525 503 2094

.892 854 99.3 6 0.7

.923 2082 99.4 12 0.6

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out

In 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

Total 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 0 Left 0 14 840 0 0 6 0 14 846 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 854 6 860 Out 1025 3 1028

28 0 0 0 28 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Left Thru Right Peds 77 0 175 0 1 0 3 0 78 0 178 0 42 0 42 Out

252 4 256 In Millrace

294 4 298 Total

Graves Mill In Total 976 1991 2 11 978 2002

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Out 1015 9 1024

North

0 948 0 2 0 950 Right Thru

Total 1879 9 1888

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Millrace : 34444444 : 9/6/2017 :5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

Driveway From North Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 0 0 0 0 0

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

0 0 0 0 0

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

0 0 1 2 3

0 0 0 1 1

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

3 60 0 3 100 0 0

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Old Graves Mill From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 8 0 114 9 0 25 0 13 0 149 7 0 24 0 24 0 193 13 0 34 0 30 0 215 15 0 37 0 75 0 671 44 0 120 0

0 0 0 0 0

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 106 136 169 185 596

0 0 0 0 0

165 171 155 126 617

17 28 12 19 76

0 0 0 0 0

182 199 167 145 693

12 9 19 15 55

0 0 0 0 0

18 43 23 29 113

0 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 3 5

0 0 0 0 0

160 189 199 215 763

28 38 37 48 151

0 0 0 0 0

188 227 236 263 914

6 8 6 15 35

0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

231 209 175 167 782

78 74 55 29 236

0 0 0 0 0

309 283 230 196 1018

14 10 11 6 41

1 20 0 1 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2758 83.7 34.8 2739 99.3 19 0.7

538 16.3 6.8 519 96.5 19 3.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3296

175 27.4 2.2 168 96 7 4

App. Total

: Graves Mill and Old Graves Mill : 35555555 : 9/6/2017 :1 Graves Mill From West Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 31 47 52 164

Right 14 31 25 45 115

Thru 197 229 299 254 979

0 0 0 0 0

30 52 42 44 168

37 27 25 30 119

194 174 182 221 771

0 0 0 0 0

31 24 25 29 109

0 0 0 0 0

37 33 31 44 145

42 42 41 34 159

205 171 183 203 762

0 0 0 0 0

26 39 23 33 121

0 0 0 0 0

40 49 34 39 162

57 54 51 34 196

1 0.2 0 1 100 0 0

463 72.5 5.8 455 98.3 8 1.7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

639

589 14.8 7.4 578 98.1 11 1.9

App. Total

211 260 324 299 1094

Int. Total 359 440 564 566 1929

0 0 0 0 0

231 201 207 251 890

443 452 416 440 1751

0 0 0 0 0

247 213 224 237 921

472 473 493 547 1985

244 233 241 158 876

1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

302 287 292 192 1073

651 619 556 427 2253

3388 85.2 42.8 3359 99.1 29 0.9

1 0 0 1 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3978

7918

50.2 3938 99 40 1

7825 98.8 93 1.2

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

0.1 5 100 0 0

41.6 3258 98.8 38 1.2

8.1 624 97.7 15 2.3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Driveway From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

169 185 165 171 690 87.5 .932 682 98.8 8 1.2

24 30 17 28 99 12.5 .825 96 97.0 3 3.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

193 215 182 199 789

13 15 12 9 49 27.1 .817 46 93.9 3 6.1

.917 778 98.6 11 1.4

Old Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

34 37 18 43 132 72.9 .767 128 97.0 4 3.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

47 52 30 52 181

25 45 37 27 134 12.7 .744 130 97.0 4 3.0

.870 174 96.1 7 3.9

: Graves Mill and Old Graves Mill : 35555555 : 9/6/2017 :2 Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

299 254 194 174 921 87.3 .770 916 99.5 5 0.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

324 299 231 201 1055

564 566 443 452 2025

.814 1046 99.1 9 0.9

.894 1998 98.7 27 1.3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out 0 0 0

Driveway In 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

Total 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 130 916 0 4 5 0 134 921 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 1046 9 1055 Out 810 12 822

0 0 0 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 128 0 46 0 4 0 3 0 132 0 49 0 226 174 400 7 7 14 233 181 414 Out In Total Old Graves Mill

96 0 3 0 99 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 778 1740 11 19 789 1759

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Out 962 8 970

North

0 682 0 8 0 690 Right Thru

Total 1856 21 1877

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Old Graves Mill : 35555555 : 9/6/2017 :3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Driveway From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 2 1 0 0 3 % App. Total 66.7 33.3 0 0 PHF .250 .250 .000 .000 .250 2 1 0 0 3 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 100 100 0 0 100 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

215 231 209 175 830 76.5 .898 828 99.8 2 0.2

48 78 74 55 255 23.5 .817 250 98.0 5 2.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

263 309 283 230 1085

15 14 10 11 50 29.9 .833 49 98.0 1 2.0

.878 1078 99.4 7 0.6

Old Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

29 26 39 23 117 70.1 .750 115 98.3 2 1.7

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

44 40 49 34 167

34 57 54 51 196 17.5 .860 195 99.5 1 0.5

.852 164 98.2 3 1.8

: Graves Mill and Old Graves Mill : 35555555 : 9/6/2017 :4 Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

203 244 233 241 921 82.4 .944 912 99.0 9 1.0

0 1 0 0 1 0.1 .250 1 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

237 302 287 292 1118

547 651 619 556 2373

.925 1108 99.1 10 0.9

.911 2353 99.2 20 0.8

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out 1 0 1

Driveway In 3 0 3

2 1 0 0 2 1 Right Thru

Total 4 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 195 912 0 1 9 0 196 921 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 1108 10 1118 Out 945 4 949

1 0 1 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 115 0 49 0 2 0 1 0 117 0 50 0 446 164 610 6 3 9 452 167 619 Out In Total Old Graves Mill

250 0 5 0 255 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 1078 2039 7 17 1085 2056

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Out 961 10 971

North

0 828 0 2 0 830 Right Thru

Total 2053 14 2067

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Old Graves Mill : 35555555 : 9/6/2017 :5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

Creekside From North Left Peds 6 0 6 0 7 0 6 0 25 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 0 1 4 8 13

Thru 2 1 2 2 7

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

2 3 6 5 16

4 1 2 0 7

12 11 14 20 57

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

15 10 8 11 44

5 7 6 5 23

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

12 5 7 8 32

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

105 24 1.1 99 94.3 6 5.7

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Old Graves Mill From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 40 0 157 45 2 1 0 35 0 184 67 3 5 0 55 0 263 92 2 1 0 62 0 282 124 3 1 0 192 0 886 328 10 8 0

8 8 13 16 45

Right 4 9 9 30 52

Thru 113 140 199 190 642

0 0 0 0 0

18 15 22 25 80

18 20 15 26 79

175 186 156 130 647

64 65 50 47 226

0 0 0 0 0

257 271 221 203 952

72 78 64 66 280

2 6 7 4 19

3 2 5 7 17

26 28 19 24 97

0 0 0 0 0

46 45 33 40 164

23 25 25 25 98

158 219 201 258 836

42 56 45 48 191

0 0 0 0 0

223 300 271 331 1125

58 64 60 90 272

4 4 4 5 17

0 6 4 9 19

34 16 20 27 97

0 0 0 0 0

46 27 31 44 148

24 37 24 25 110

270 258 205 185 918

43 65 47 48 203

0 0 0 0 0

337 360 276 258 1231

87 88 74 57 306

56 12.8 0.6 54 96.4 2 3.6

276 63.2 2.9 272 98.6 4 1.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

437

339 8.1 3.6 330 97.3 9 2.7

3043 72.6 32.2 2994 98.4 49 1.6

812 19.4 8.6 783 96.4 29 3.6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4194

1186 87.7 12.6 1150 97 36 3

App. Total

: Graves Mill and Creekside : 00033396 : 9/6/2017 :1 Graves Mill From West Left Peds 1 0 5 0 4 0 7 0 17 0

48 75 95 128 346

Right 4 2 0 3 9

Thru 201 209 301 285 996

0 0 0 0 0

77 86 76 77 316

4 3 3 6 16

185 165 185 215 750

9 11 3 7 30

12 2 15 5 34

0 0 0 0 0

74 70 79 100 323

2 3 1 2 8

188 164 172 204 728

8 3 5 1 17

19 8 13 5 45

0 0 0 0 0

114 99 92 63 368

1 1 1 0 3

63 4.7 0.7 59 93.7 4 6.3

104 7.7 1.1 98 94.2 6 5.8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1353

36 1 0.4 29 80.6 7 19.4

App. Total

206 216 305 295 1022

Int. Total 419 483 676 721 2299

0 0 0 0 0

198 179 191 228 796

550 551 510 533 2144

12 12 7 11 42

0 0 0 0 0

202 179 180 217 778

545 594 563 688 2390

216 237 214 162 829

9 8 11 9 37

0 0 0 0 0

226 246 226 171 869

723 732 625 536 2616

3303 95.3 35 3244 98.2 59 1.8

126 3.6 1.3 124 98.4 2 1.6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3465

9449

36.7 3397 98 68 2

9236 97.7 213 2.3

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

4.6 425 97.3 12 2.7

44.4 4107 97.9 87 2.1

14.3 1307 96.6 46 3.4

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Creekside From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 4 2 7 0 13 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 8 2 6 0 16 2 4 12 0 18 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 3 1 11 0 15 Total Volume 17 9 36 0 62 % App. Total 27.4 14.5 58.1 0 PHF .531 .563 .750 .000 .861 Passenger Veh 16 9 34 0 59 % Passenger Veh 94.1 100 94.4 0 95.2 Trucks 1 0 2 0 3 % Trucks 5.9 0 5.6 0 4.8

Right

9 30 18 20 77 7.2 .642 73 94.8 4 5.2

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

199 190 175 186 750 69.9 .942 736 98.1 14 1.9

55 62 64 65 246 22.9 .946 240 97.6 6 2.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

263 282 257 271 1073

92 124 72 78 366 94.8 .738 351 95.9 15 4.1

.951 1049 97.8 24 2.2

Old Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

2 3 2 6 13 3.4 .542 13 100 0 0

1 1 3 2 7 1.8 .583 7 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

95 128 77 86 386

0 3 4 3 10 1 .625 9 90.0 1 10.0

.754 371 96.1 15 3.9

: Graves Mill and Creekside : 00033396 : 9/6/2017 :2

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

301 285 185 165 936 95.8 .777 923 98.6 13 1.4

4 7 9 11 31 3.2 .705 29 93.5 2 6.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

305 295 198 179 977

676 721 550 551 2498

.801 961 98.4 16 1.6

.866 2440 97.7 58 2.3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: Graves Mill and Creekside : 00033396 : 9/6/2017 :3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Creekside From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 11 5 24 0 40 05:00 PM 12 0 34 0 46 05:15 PM 5 6 16 0 27 05:30 PM 7 4 20 0 31 Total Volume 35 15 94 0 144 % App. Total 24.3 10.4 65.3 0 PHF .729 .625 .691 .000 .783 33 15 93 0 141 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 94.3 100 98.9 0 97.9 Trucks 2 0 1 0 3 % Trucks 5.7 0 1.1 0 2.1

Right

25 24 37 24 110 8.4 .743 110 100 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

258 270 258 205 991 76 .918 985 99.4 6 0.6

48 43 65 47 203 15.6 .781 199 98.0 4 2.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

331 337 360 276 1304

90 87 88 74 339 83.7 .942 336 99.1 3 0.9

.906 1294 99.2 10 0.8

Old Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

5 8 3 5 21 5.2 .656 19 90.5 2 9.5

5 19 8 13 45 11.1 .592 43 95.6 2 4.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

100 114 99 92 405

2 1 1 1 5 0.5 .625 3 60.0 2 40.0

.888 398 98.3 7 1.7

: Graves Mill and Creekside : 00033396 : 9/6/2017 :4

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

204 216 237 214 871 95.2 .919 857 98.4 14 1.6

11 9 8 11 39 4.3 .886 39 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

217 226 246 226 915

688 723 732 625 2768

.930 899 98.3 16 1.7

.945 2732 98.7 36 1.3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out 168 2 170

Creekside In 141 3 144

33 15 2 0 35 15 Right Thru

Total 309 5 314

93 0 1 0 94 0 Left Peds

0 3 857 0 2 14 0 5 871 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 899 16 915 Out 1061 10 1071

39 0 39 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 43 19 336 0 2 2 3 0 45 21 339 0 217 398 615 6 7 13 223 405 628 Out In Total Old Graves Mill

199 0 4 0 203 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 1294 2580 10 28 1304 2608

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Out 1286 18 1304

North

110 985 0 6 110 991 Right Thru

Total 1960 26 1986

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and Creekside : 00033396 : 9/6/2017 :5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

Expressway Off Ramp From North Thru Left Peds 0 13 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 51 0 0 109 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 25 40 57 49 171

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

52 49 33 47 181

1 0 0 0 1

31 23 25 40 119

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

63 63 53 72 251

0 0 0 2 2

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

94 112 72 48 326

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

929 74.8 9.4 901 97 28 3

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Expressway On Ramp From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 15 0 148 0 0 0 0 22 0 166 0 0 0 0 39 0 245 0 0 0 0 29 0 262 0 0 0 0 105 0 821 0 0 0 0

38 60 82 100 280

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 133 144 206 233 716

0 0 0 0 0

84 72 58 87 301

0 0 0 0 0

205 222 188 156 771

17 9 26 31 83

0 0 0 0 0

222 231 214 187 854

0 0 0 0 0

12 7 9 16 44

0 0 0 0 0

75 70 62 90 297

0 0 0 0 0

160 237 218 259 874

33 29 41 43 146

0 0 0 0 0

193 266 259 302 1020

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

11 12 8 6 37

0 0 0 0 0

106 124 80 54 364

0 0 0 0 0

243 248 204 210 905

79 60 31 33 203

0 0 0 0 0

322 308 235 243 1108

0 0 0 0 0

4 0.3 0 4 100 0 0

309 24.9 3.1 296 95.8 13 4.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1242

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3266 85.9 33.2 3206 98.2 60 1.8

537 14.1 5.5 529 98.5 8 1.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3803

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

App. Total

: Graves Mill and W Side of Expressway Ramps : 00000223 : 9/6/2017 :1 Graves Mill From West Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Right 200 209 281 238 928

Thru 53 73 119 179 424

0 0 0 0 0

149 152 147 171 619

120 105 116 137 478

0 0 0 0 0

197 180 192 221 790

79 78 59 98 314

0 0 0 0 0

240 248 203 177 868

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3205 66.9 32.6 3087 96.3 118 3.7

App. Total

253 282 400 417 1352

Int. Total 439 508 727 779 2453

0 0 0 0 0

269 257 263 308 1097

575 560 535 582 2252

0 0 0 0 0

276 258 251 319 1104

544 594 572 711 2421

97 94 105 72 368

0 0 0 0 0

337 342 308 249 1236

765 774 623 546 2708

1584 33.1 16.1 1579 99.7 5 0.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4789

9834

48.7 4666 97.4 123 2.6

9602 97.6 232 2.4

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

12.6 1201 96.7 41 3.3

38.7 3735 98.2 68 1.8

0 0 0 0 0

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Expressway Off Ramp From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 57 0 25 0 82 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 49 0 51 0 100 52 1 31 0 84 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 49 0 23 0 72 Total Volume 207 1 130 0 338 % App. Total 61.2 0.3 38.5 0 PHF .908 .250 .637 .000 .845 Passenger Veh 195 1 125 0 321 % Passenger Veh 94.2 100 96.2 0 95.0 Trucks 12 0 5 0 17 % Trucks 5.8 0 3.8 0 5.0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

206 233 205 222 866 90.2 .929 854 98.6 12 1.4

39 29 17 9 94 9.8 .603 93 98.9 1 1.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

245 262 222 231 960

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

.916 947 98.6 13 1.4

: Graves Mill and W Side of Expressway Ramps : 00000223 : 9/6/2017 :2

Expressway On Ramp From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

0 0 0 0 0

281 238 149 152 820 61.1 .730 788 96.1 32 3.9

.000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

119 179 120 105 523 38.9 .730 520 99.4 3 0.6

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

400 417 269 257 1343

727 779 575 560 2641

.805 1308 97.4 35 2.6

.848 2576 97.5 65 2.5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: Graves Mill and W Side of Expressway Ramps : 00000223 : 9/6/2017 :3

Expressway Off Ramp Out In Total 0 321 321 0 17 17 0 338 338 195 1 12 0 207 1 Right Thru

125 0 5 0 130 0 Left Peds

0 788 520 0 32 3 0 820 523 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 1308 35 1343 Out 1049 24 1073

0 0 0 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 882 0 882 33 0 33 915 0 915 Out In Total Expressway On Ramp

93 0 1 0 94 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 947 1592 13 21 960 1613

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Out 645 8 653

North

0 854 0 12 0 866 Right Thru

Total 2357 59 2416

Peak Hour Data

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Expressway Off Ramp From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 72 2 16 0 90 05:00 PM 94 1 11 0 106 05:15 PM 112 0 12 0 124 05:30 PM 72 0 8 0 80 Total Volume 350 3 47 0 400 % App. Total 87.5 0.8 11.8 0 PHF .781 .375 .734 .000 .806 347 3 45 0 395 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 99.1 100 95.7 0 98.8 Trucks 3 0 2 0 5 % Trucks 0.9 0 4.3 0 1.3

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

259 243 248 204 954 81.7 .921 947 99.3 7 0.7

43 79 60 31 213 18.3 .674 211 99.1 2 0.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

302 322 308 235 1167

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

.906 1158 99.2 9 0.8

: Graves Mill and W Side of Expressway Ramps : 00000223 : 9/6/2017 :4

Expressway On Ramp From South Thru Left Peds

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

0 0 0 0 0

221 240 248 203 912 69.8 .919 894 98.0 18 2.0

.000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

98 97 94 105 394 30.2 .938 392 99.5 2 0.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

319 337 342 308 1306

711 765 774 623 2873

.955 1286 98.5 20 1.5

.928 2839 98.8 34 1.2

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: Graves Mill and W Side of Expressway Ramps : 00000223 : 9/6/2017 :5

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

Lynchburg Expwy On Ramp From North Thru Left Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 0 0 0 0 0

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

0 0 0 0 0

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

: Graves Milll and E Side of Expressway Ramps : 00006243 : 9/7/2017 :1

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Graves Mill Lynchburg Expwy Off Ramp From East From South Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total 0 0 26 18 0 129 0 147 0 0 35 28 0 153 0 181 0 0 93 42 0 170 0 212 0 0 93 74 0 185 0 259 0 0 247 162 0 637 0 799

0 0 0 0 0

Right 5 6 10 16 37

Thru 21 29 83 77 210

0 0 0 0 0

14 13 19 25 71

65 69 66 58 258

0 0 0 0 0

79 82 85 83 329

38 29 42 56 165

0 0 0 0 0

135 140 143 130 548

0 0 0 0 0

29 27 28 34 118

65 91 104 134 394

0 0 0 0 0

94 118 132 168 512

18 20 17 20 75

1 0 0 0 1

145 171 161 158 635

0 0 0 0 0

41 27 29 26 123

158 111 72 84 425

0 0 0 0 0

199 138 101 110 548

14 14 18 13 59

0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

349 21.3 5.4 341 97.7 8 2.3

1287 78.7 19.7 1234 95.9 53 4.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1636

461 15.6 7.1 456 98.9 5 1.1

2 0.1 0 2 100 0 0

App. Total

Graves Mill From West Left Peds 48 0 53 0 70 0 72 0 243 0

Right 0 0 0 0 0

Thru 41 50 86 134 311

89 103 156 206 554

Int. Total 262 319 461 558 1600

173 169 185 186 713

0 0 0 0 0

96 68 85 97 346

60 69 50 51 230

0 0 0 0 0

156 137 135 148 576

408 388 405 417 1618

0 0 0 0 0

164 191 178 178 711

0 0 0 0 0

44 47 37 55 183

43 46 38 52 179

0 0 0 0 0

87 93 75 107 362

345 402 385 453 1585

170 199 158 139 666

0 0 0 0 0

184 214 176 152 726

0 0 0 0 0

58 43 64 34 199

62 77 62 46 247

0 0 0 0 0

120 120 126 80 446

503 472 403 342 1720

2486 84.3 38.1 2415 97.1 71 2.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2949

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1039 53.6 15.9 1036 99.7 3 0.3

899 46.4 13.8 887 98.7 12 1.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1938

6523

29.7 1923 99.2 15 0.8

6371 97.7 152 2.3

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

0 0 0 0 0

25.1 1575 96.3 61 3.7

45.2 2873 97.4 76 2.6

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Lynchburg Expwy On Ramp From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

10 16 14 13 53 15.3 .828 50 94.3 3 5.7

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

83 77 65 69 294 84.7 .886 281 95.6 13 4.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

93 93 79 82 347 .933 331 95.4 16 4.6

: Graves Milll and E Side of Expressway Ramps : 00006243 : 9/7/2017 :2

Lynchburg Expwy Off Ramp From South Right Thru Left Peds App. Total

42 74 38 29 183 22.5 .618 183 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

170 185 135 140 630 77.5 .851 614 97.5 16 2.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

212 259 173 169 813 .785 797 98.0 16 2.0

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

86 134 96 68 384 58.6 .716 382 99.5 2 0.5

70 72 60 69 271 41.4 .941 266 98.2 5 1.8

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

156 206 156 137 655

461 558 408 388 1815

.795 648 98.9 7 1.1

.813 1776 97.9 39 2.1

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: Graves Milll and E Side of Expressway Ramps : 00006243 : 9/7/2017 :3

Lynchburg Expwy On Ramp Out In Total 316 0 316 8 0 8 324 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 382 0 0 2 0 0 384 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 648 7 655 Out 895 29 924

266 5 271 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 614 0 183 0 16 0 0 0 630 0 183 0 0 0 0

797 797 16 16 813 813 Out In Total Lynchburg Expwy Off Ramp

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 331 896 16 18 347 914

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Out 565 2 567

North

50 281 3 13 53 294 Right Thru

Total 1543 36 1579

Peak Hour Data

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Lynchburg Expwy On Ramp From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

34 41 27 29 131 21.6 .799 130 99.2 1 0.8

Graves Mill From East Thru Left Peds

134 158 111 72 475 78.4 .752 470 98.9 5 1.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

168 199 138 101 606 .761 600 99.0 6 1.0

: Graves Milll and E Side of Expressway Ramps : 00006243 : 9/7/2017 :4

Lynchburg Expwy Off Ramp From South Right Thru Left Peds App. Total

20 14 14 18 66 8.8 .825 66 100 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0.1 .250 1 100 0 0

158 170 199 158 685 91.1 .861 677 98.8 8 1.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

178 184 214 176 752 .879 744 98.9 8 1.1

Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

55 58 43 64 220 46.5 .859 219 99.5 1 0.5

52 62 77 62 253 53.5 .821 251 99.2 2 0.8

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

107 120 120 126 473

453 503 472 403 1831

.938 470 99.4 3 0.6

.910 1814 99.1 17 0.9

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: Graves Milll and E Side of Expressway Ramps : 00006243 : 9/7/2017 :5

Lynchburg Expwy On Ramp Out In Total 382 0 382 3 0 3 385 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 0 219 0 0 1 0 0 220 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 470 3 473 Out 1147 13 1160

251 2 253 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 677 1 66 0 8 0 0 0 685 1 66 0 0 0 0

744 744 8 8 752 752 Out In Total Lynchburg Expwy Off Ramp

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Graves Mill In Total 600 885 6 7 606 892

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Out 285 1 286

North

130 470 1 5 131 475 Right Thru

Total 1617 16 1633

Peak Hour Data

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Start Time

McConville From North Thru Left Peds 6 0 0 8 1 0 13 5 0 8 2 0 35 8 0

07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Right 16 31 49 30 126

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

27 10 21 30 88

7 7 6 3 23

1 2 1 0 4

04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

22 26 25 32 105

5 6 5 7 23

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

29 26 23 17 95

Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Veh

414 78.1 11.8 413 99.8 1 0.2

Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Nationwide Graves Mill From East From South Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds 2 0 0 2 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 21 0 6 1 0 7 14 6 36 0 18 1 0 19 30 2 41 0 26 2 0 28 61 13 106 0

22 40 67 40 169

Right 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

35 19 28 33 115

1 1 0 0 2

14 18 19 27 78

0 1 2 1 4

0 0 0 0 0

15 20 21 28 84

15 14 7 6 42

5 3 5 4 17

24 29 32 20 105

0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

27 33 30 39 129

0 2 2 1 5

44 57 56 67 224

10 8 5 13 36

0 0 0 0 0

54 67 63 81 265

2 3 4 4 13

16 6 11 12 45

9 3 4 5 21

0 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

38 29 28 22 117

3 2 2 1 8

92 46 31 26 195

20 6 1 3 30

0 0 0 0 0

115 54 34 30 233

3 2 0 2 7

102 19.2 2.9 99 97.1 3 2.9

14 2.6 0.4 14 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

530

15 2.5 0.4 15 100 0 0

523 85.7 14.9 515 98.5 8 1.5

72 11.8 2.1 72 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

610

123 14.1 3.5 117 95.1 6 4.9

App. Total

: Graves Mill and McConville : 00101010 : 9/6/2017 :1

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds 27 6 0 52 7 0 67 10 0 114 12 0 260 35 0

14 37 56 73 180

Right 32 37 51 73 193

0 0 0 0 0

44 46 44 30 164

44 38 46 48 176

65 60 62 61 248

6 7 10 16 39

34 30 50 57 171

0 0 0 0 0

52 39 65 73 229

27 33 31 35 126

19 10 10 15 54

16 14 10 11 51

82 62 50 49 243

0 0 0 0 0

101 78 60 62 301

53 36 42 16 147

126 14.4 3.6 121 96 5 4

625 71.5 17.8 616 98.6 9 1.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

874

642 43.1 18.3 621 96.7 21 3.3

App. Total

65 96 128 199 488

Int. Total 103 173 258 331 865

0 0 0 0 0

115 105 118 125 463

209 190 211 216 826

21 26 19 28 94

0 0 0 0 0

67 69 60 78 274

200 208 218 271 897

4 1 4 5 14

21 33 32 19 105

0 0 0 0 0

78 70 78 40 266

332 231 200 154 917

576 38.6 16.4 575 99.8 1 0.2

273 18.3 7.8 270 98.9 3 1.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1491

3505

42.5 1466 98.3 25 1.7

3448 98.4 57 1.6

App. Total

*** BREAK ***

% Passenger Veh

Trucks % Trucks

15.1 526 99.2 4 0.8

17.4 602 98.7 8 1.3

24.9 854 97.7 20 2.3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No McConville From North Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 49 13 5 0 67 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 30 8 2 0 40 27 7 1 0 35 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 10 7 2 0 19 Total Volume 116 35 10 0 161 % App. Total 72 21.7 6.2 0 PHF .592 .673 .500 .000 .601 116 33 10 0 159 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 100 94.3 100 0 98.8 0 2 0 0 2 Trucks % Trucks 0 5.7 0 0 1.2

Right

0 0 1 1 2 3.3 .500 2 100 0 0

Nationwide From East Thru Left Peds

6 18 14 18 56 91.8 .778 52 92.9 4 7.1

1 1 0 1 3 4.9 .750 3 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

7 19 15 20 61

14 30 15 14 73 33.3 .608 70 95.9 3 4.1

.763 57 93.4 4 6.6

Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

6 2 5 3 16 7.3 .667 16 100 0 0

36 41 24 29 130 59.4 .793 126 96.9 4 3.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

56 73 44 46 219

51 73 44 38 206 37.7 .705 198 96.1 8 3.9

.750 212 96.8 7 3.2

: Graves Mill and McConville : 00101010 : 9/6/2017 :2

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

67 114 65 60 306 55.9 .671 306 100 0 0

10 12 6 7 35 6.4 .729 35 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

128 199 115 105 547

258 331 209 190 988

.687 539 98.5 8 1.5

.746 967 97.9 21 2.1

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out 53 0 53

McConville In Total 159 212 2 2 214 161

116 33 0 2 116 35 Right Thru

10 0 0 0 10 0 Left Peds

0 198 306 0 8 0 0 206 306 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 539 8 547 Out 294 8 302

35 0 35 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 126 16 70 0 4 0 3 0 130 16 73 0 234 10 244 Out

212 446 7 17 219 463 In Total Graves Mill

3 0 0 0 3 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Nationwide In Total 57 443 4 7 61 450

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Out 386 3 389

North

2 52 0 4 2 56 Right Thru

Total 833 16 849

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and McConville : 00101010 : 9/6/2017 :3

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No McConville From North Left Peds App. Total Start Time Right Thru Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 25 5 0 0 30 04:45 PM 32 7 0 0 39 05:00 PM 29 9 0 0 38 26 3 0 0 29 05:15 PM Total Volume 112 24 0 0 136 % App. Total 82.4 17.6 0 0 PHF .875 .667 .000 .000 .872 112 24 0 0 136 Passenger Veh % Passenger Veh 100 100 0 0 100 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0

Right

2 1 3 2 8 2.6 .667 8 100 0 0

Nationwide From East Thru Left Peds

56 67 92 46 261 83.4 .709 260 99.6 1 0.4

5 13 20 6 44 14.1 .550 44 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

63 81 115 54 313

4 4 3 2 13 4.1 .813 12 92.3 1 7.7

.680 312 99.7 1 0.3

Graves Mill From South Thru Left Peds

11 12 16 14 53 16.7 .828 53 100 0 0

50 57 82 62 251 79.2 .765 250 99.6 1 0.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Right

65 73 101 78 317

31 35 53 36 155 54.2 .731 151 97.4 4 2.6

.785 315 99.4 2 0.6

: Graves Mill and McConville : 00101010 : 9/6/2017 :4

Graves Mill From West Thru Left Peds

10 15 4 1 30 10.5 .500 30 100 0 0

19 28 21 33 101 35.3 .765 101 100 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0

App. Total

Int. Total

60 78 78 70 286

218 271 332 231 1052

.917 282 98.6 4 1.4

.792 1045 99.3 7 0.7

Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Out 162 0 162

McConville In Total 136 298 0 0 298 136

112 24 0 0 112 24 Right Thru

0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Peds

0 151 30 0 4 0 0 155 30 Peds Right Thru

Graves Mill In 282 4 286 Out 622 2 624

101 0 101 Left

Left Thru Right Peds 250 53 12 0 1 0 1 0 251 53 13 0 219 4 223 Out

315 534 2 6 317 540 In Total Graves Mill

44 0 0 0 44 0 Left Peds

Passenger Veh Trucks

Nationwide In Total 312 354 1 2 313 356

Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Out 42 1 43

North

8 260 0 1 8 261 Right Thru

Total 904 6 910

Peak Hour Data

: Graves Mill and McConville : 00101010 : 9/6/2017 :5

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix D Traffic Forecasting Memorandum

MEMORANDUM

TO: W. SCOTT SMITH

FROM: DREW DRAPER, PTP BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2017

ORGANIZATION: VIRGINIA’S REGION 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PHONE NUMBER:

SENDER’S REFERENCE NUMBER:

RE: GRAVES MILL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY – TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY

YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:

 URGENT

X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT  PLEASE REPLY

 PLEASE RECYCLE

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the method used to develop traffic projections for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study in Lynchburg, Virginia. Multiple sources have been reviewed to determine an appropriate growth rate for a 23-year time horizon (2017 to 2040) including: • • • • • •

Existing traffic demand Historical traffic demand Land use context (transportation analysis zones) Statewide Planning System Travel demand projections Planned development

The traffic projections methodology will be applied to existing traffic counts to develop traffic volumes for use in the analysis of future conditions for the study corridor. A map of the study area has been provided as an Attachment.

Existing (2017) Traffic Demand A traffic operational assessment is currently being completed for existing conditions and, to date, has identified pockets of congestion that experience high delays for typical weekdays. Due to heavy commuter traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, the heaviest congestion during peak conditions along the corridor is experienced between Old Graves Mill Road and the ramp intersections. Additionally, the westbound approach to Gristmill Road experiences a lot of queuing due to heavy left turn demand and no dedicated turn lane. These results were confirmed with field observations. As the economy improves and local and regional growth continues to increase, traffic demand will likely grow with it. This growth will exacerbate existing operational and safety issues. Traffic intersection turning movement counts collected during the weekday AM and PM peak hour are included as an Attachment. 1

Historical Traffic Demand

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) maintains a statewide traffic count database that is updated on an annual basis. Recent average daily traffic (ADT) counts indicate Graves Mill Road west of the interchange serves approximately 22,000 to 27,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the study area. However, it’s important to recognize traffic demand has fluctuated over the last decade, perhaps due to the recent recession. Table 1 illustrates the trends and annual changes in ADTs on Graves Mill Road over the last decade. Table 1: Graves Mill Road Traffic Trends Location

2007

Between Expressway and Old Graves Mill Road Between Old Graves Mill Road and City Limits

25,000

Combined Locations

19,000 44,000

2008 26,000 4.0% 20,000 5.3% 46,000 4.5%

2009 25,000 -3.8% 19,000 -5.0% 44,000 -4.3%

2010 25,000 0.0% 19,000 0.0% 44,000 0.0%

2011 24,000 -4.0% 19,000 0.0% 43,000 -2.3%

2012 24,000 0.0% 19,000 0.0% 43,000 0.0%

2013 25,000 4.2% 20,000 5.3% 45,000 4.7%

2014 25,000 0.0% 20,000 0.0% 45,000 0.0%

2015 26,000 4.0% 21,000 5.0% 47,000

2016 27,000 3.8% 22,000 4.8% 49,000

4.4%

4.3%

Average Growth Rate 0.91% 1.70%

1.25%

Source: VDOT’s Count Program, between City Limits and the Expressway.

Considering the economic downturn, the historical trend indicates rather aggressive annual growth. In fact, positive annual changes range from 4% to 5%. When each location is combined, the annual growth rate (linear) equates to 1.25%.

Land Use Context

The abutting land use context is another source to consider when determining an appropriate traffic growth rate. Changes in land use will ultimately impact traffic demand. The adjacent land use along the corridor is fairly undeveloped, but anchored on both ends by extensive commercial, retail and office uses. There are also some industrial and warehouse uses along the south side of the corridor. Transportation analysis zones (TAZs) are a component of the regional travel demand model. The TAZs provide important land use information on population rates, number of households, and employment statistics for existing (2010), and future (2040). Table 2 summarizes the six (6) primary TAZs that are adjacent to the corridor. Table 2: TAZ Summary Location E/O the Expressway S/O Old Graves and Mcconville N/O Expressway and City Limits S/O Old Graves and City Limits N/O City Limits and 221 S/O City Limits and 221 Totals

Population 2010 2040 695 695 87 82 1,551 1,669 363 775 254 245 177 177 3,127 3,643

Households 2010 2040 323 323 48 48 866 932 168 359 131 131 113 113 1,649 1,906

Employment 2010 2040 1,200 1,700 215 415 1,101 1,301 1,875 2,025 367 1,167 755 955 5,513 7,563

Population 2040 Rate 0.00% -0.19% 0.25% 3.78% -0.12% 0.00% 0.55%

Households 2040 Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 3.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.52%

Employment 2040 Rate 1.39% 3.10% 0.61% 0.27% 7.27% 0.88% 1.24%

Source: Regional Travel Demand Model

Based on this TAZ data, average growth rates for total population, households, and employment will range from approximately 0.5% annually to 1.24% annually. To note, these figures do not appear to reflect recent planned developments along the corridor. Furthermore, this data is localized and does not consider regional data. 2

VDOT Statewide Planning System VDOT’s resources for statewide planning include a database of projected traffic volumes for key routes throughout the state. This database, referred to as the Statewide Planning System (SPS), provides guidance to planners relative to using a consistent system for traffic forecasting. The SPS data is generally derived through inspection of historical growth rates, and in areas that utilize a regional travel demand model, the SPS data considers the model output which corresponds to forecasted growth within the model area. Data from SPS for the Graves Mill Road corridor has been summarized in Table 3. Table 3: SPS Summary Location

2014 8,938 25,218 25,218 19,976 79,350

McConnville to Expressway Expressway to Old Graves Old Graves to Gristmill Gristmill to 221 Totals

ADT 2035 16,418 29,263 41,579 25,500 112,760

2045 19,070 31,189 48,819 28,130 127,208

2035 Rate

2040 Rate

3.99% 0.76% 3.09% 1.32% 2.00%

3.66% 0.76% 3.02% 1.32% 1.95%

Source: VDOT SPS Data

Data on projected population and employment is subsequently converted to vehicle trips and included in the transportation network. The 2014 traffic counts on Graves Mill Road are estimated to increase by nearly 2.0% per year by 2040.

Travel Demand Model Projections The Central Virginia MPO maintains a regional travel demand model (TDM). A TDM is an analytical tool to support policy decision making and utilizes a traditional four-step trip-based model process consisting of trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. The model has a base year of 2007, a 2035 mid-year, and a planning horizon year of 2040. Growth rates are based on interpolation between the base year and 2040. Linear growth rates by segment along Graves Mill Road are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: TDM Summary ADT 2007 2040 4,315 11,095 31,418 32,628 18,264 28,417 19,372 21,277 24,900 20,514 24,900 115,160 150,357

Location McConville to Expressway Expressway to Old Graves Old Graves and Commercial Entrance Commercial Entrance and Millrace Millrace and Gristmill Gristmill and 221 Totals

2040 Rate 4.76% 0.12% 1.68% 1.41% 0.52% 0.65% 0.93%

Source: Central Virginia MPO TDM (2040)

The projected annual growth rates along Graves Mill Road range from nearly flat growth (0.12%) to nearly 5%. When averaged by all 2007 and 2040 ADTs, the annual rate is anticipated to be approximately 1% for the corridor.

Planned Development Planned and approved developments adjacent to, or near the corridor should be considered when developing future traffic projects. At times, these developments are not accounted for in regional modeling efforts (i.e. TDM, SPS, TAZ); therefore, may need to be considered independently. There are two (2) developments currently planned along or near the corridor: Rosedale Farms Development – The proposed development is located just west of the existing Home Depot side off of Graves Mill Road. The proposed site includes three entrance locations on Graves Mill Road – one right in only, one right out only and one full entrance. The site is planned to be constructed in three phases with an ultimate build-out year of 2024. The proposed land uses include a mix of residential, office, retail, grocery, service and restaurant land uses with the potential to generate over 15,000 new daily trips.1 Elements at Old Graves Mill Road – The proposed development is located on Old Graves Mill Road, approximately 500’ south of Graves Mill Road. The site will have one entrance to Old Graves Mill Road. The site is currently moving forward with construction and will include a mix of residential and office land uses with the potential to generate over 2,000 new daily trips. While many trips are expected to head south along Old Graves Mill Road, some will travel north to Graves Mill Road to access either Route 501 or Route 221.2 Figure 1: Anticipated New Trips Generated by Rosedale Farms at Full Build-Out

1 2

Rosedale Farms Traffic Impact Analysis, November 2013 (revised January 2014). Elements at Old Graves Mill Road Traffic Impact Analysis, June 2016 (supplemental revision August 2016).

Figure 2: Anticipated New Trips Generated by Rosedale Farms at Full Build-Out

OGM: Old Graves Mill Road GM: Graves Mill Road

Recommendation

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the method used to develop traffic projections for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study. Multiple sources were reviewed to determine an appropriate growth rate for a 23-year time horizon (2017 to 2040). Based on: 1) TAZ, SPS, and TDM linear growth rates that range from 0.5% to 2.0% annually (1.25% average rate), 2) new traffic anticipated from Rosedale Farms and Elements at Old Graves Mill Road, and 3) 1.25% annual historical growth likely to continue that is unrelated to planned developments, A 1.25% annual background growth rate, plus the site generated traffic from the planned developments is recommended through 2040. The 1.25% linear rate will be applied to all existing – or “background” – traffic counts collected in the study area that is unrelated to traffic generated specifically by developments proposed along Graves Mill Road. Then, site generated trips from each of the two (2) developments will be applied. To note, trips from Rosedale Farms will be distributed west through the study area based on existing travel patterns. With the application of a 1.25% rate, plus the addition of the site generated trips, the effective annual growth rate along the corridor will be approximately 2% in the morning peak, and 2.5% in the evening peak. The following attachments are included: Attachment A: Study Area Attachment B: Existing 2017 Traffic Volumes Attachment C: Planned Development Site Generated Trips Attachment D: Future 2040 Traffic Volumes (1.25% background rate, plus site generated trips)

Attachment A Study Area and Intersections Route 221

N A

Grav

es M

ill Ro

Lillian Lane

mill D r

ive

Millside

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

Millrace Drive

Grist

400 200

800 ft.

McConville Road

ll R Mi oa

de ksi ee

Cr iv Dr

oad

es rav

lR Mil

Rou

4 Old Graves Mill Road

400 200

800 ft.

av Gr

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

te 5

01 S

Attachment B: Existing 2017 Traffic Volumes Route 221

Millside

ive

16/36

565/350

Lillian Lane

32/37 1221/979 460/247

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

17/35 9/15 36/94

oad

es rav

Rou

130/251 16/53 73/13

lR Mil

4 Old Graves Mill Road

400 200

800 ft.

523/394 820/912

2/8 56/261 3/44

116/112 35/24 10/0

te 5

01 S

B 185/449 62/13

132/117 0/0 49/50

7/45 13/21 366/339

0/2 0/1 0/0

630/685 0/1 183/66

ll R Mi

35/101 306/30 206/155

271/253 384/220

Graves Mill

iv Dr

McConville Road

de ksi ee

McConville

800 ft.

Connector

501 NB

200

866/954 94/213

Graves Mill

Old Graves Mill

53/131 294/475

Graves Mill

31/39 936/871 10/5

400

0/1 921/921 134/196

Graves Mill

av Gr

Graves Mill

501 SB 207/350 1/3 130/47

Creekside 77/110 750/991 246/203

Millside

Route 221

0/0 690/830 99/255

17/10 1036/1058 58/9

Millrace Drive

80/120 158/176 6/54

Millrace

ill Ro

mill D r

Gristmill

es M

Grist

Graves Mill

Grav

1124/846 56/14

Graves Mill

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

3/16 129/307

Connector

214/141 419/231

92/95 741/1279 189/221

649/497 12/48

Graves Mill

5/44 0/0 8/44

Graves Mill

121/249 135/164 249/440

684/950 70/28

12/78

12/10 772/930 38/9

8/17 0/0 11/17

434/804 209/329

11/178

Old Graves Mill

Attachment C: Planned Development Site Generated Trips Route 221

Millside

0/0

Gristmill

es M

Grist 0/0 0/0 73/36

65/149 229/458

29/45 0/0 0/0

0/0 0/0 0/0 14/14 0/0 0/0

0/0 7/29 0/0

6 oad

es rav

lR Mil

Rou

400 800 ft.

01 S

B 42/106 0/0

Old Graves Mill Road

200

te 5

14/29 0/0 0/0

80/107 0/0 0/0

Proposed Rosedale Main Entrance

3/13 30/4 22/21

Graves Mill

37/58 55/38

270/424 -48/-87

iv Dr

Graves Mill

ll R Mi

McConville

92/96 138/225

de ksi ee

Connector

501 NB

McConville Road

123/225 36/1

Graves Mill

Old Graves Mill

0/0 34/72

800 ft.

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

0/0 18/24

Connector

58/54 73/36

0/0 0/0 73/81

0/0 0/0 0/0

46/49 0/0 12/4

0/0 158/285 0/0

200 Rosedale

115/179 0/0

Graves Mill

400

0/0 146/281 34/88

Graves Mill

501 SB

av Gr

Graves Mill

Millrace Drive

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

0/0 125/200 18/24

Millside

Creekside

0/0 222/338 0/0

Lillian Lane

Route 221

0/0 117/183 8/17

Graves Mill

Millrace

ill Ro

mill D r

0/0 24/51 0/0

Grav

ive

0/0 0/0 24/71

Graves Mill

222/338 0/0

100/135

122/203 0/0

21/52 21/35 43/87

Graves Mill

0/0 127/248 0/0

0/0 0/0 0/0

Graves Mill

0/0

127/248 0/0

0/0 0/0 0/0

85/173 42/74

0/0

Old Graves Mill

Attachment D: Future 2040 Traffic Volumes (1.25% background rate, plus site generated trips) Route 221

Millside

ive

21/46

827/586

Lillian Lane

41/47 1572/1260 665/399

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

9/58 17/27 544/472 3/10 79/365 4/57

163/159 45/31 13/0

65/149 229/458

22/45 12/19 46/121

Proposed Rosedale Main Entrance

6 oad

es rav

Rou

181/352 21/68 94/17

lR Mil

4 Old Graves Mill Road

400 200

800 ft.

te 5

01 S

B 281/684 80/17

0/3 0/1 0/0

891/989 0/1 236/85

48/144 424/42 287/221

Graves Mill

386/383 550/322

270/424 1311/1353

iv Dr

Graves Mill

McConville

766/604 1194/1399

Graves Mill

800 ft.

McConville Road

123/225 1094/1222

de ksi ee

Connector

501 NB 68/169 413/683

Old Graves Mill

200

ll R Mi

216/200 0/0 75/68

40/50 1363/1406 13/6

400

Rosedale

1230/1407 121/274

Graves Mill

0/1 1332/1467 207/341

Graves Mill

av Gr

Graves Mill

501 SB 295/495 1/4 167/61

Creekside 99/142 1091/1476 335/285

Millside

Route 221

0/0 1006/1251 135/345

22/13 1556/1700 74/12

Millrace Drive

103/154 227/278 8/69

Millrace

ill Ro

mill D r

Gristmill

es M

Grist

Graves Mill

Grav

1669/1427 72/18

Graves Mill

Note: Intersections A & B are considered for traffic operational purpose only.

4/21 184/419

Connector

333/235 613/333

119/122 954/1647 268/355

958/843 15/62

Graves Mill

7/56 0/0 10/56

Graves Mill

177/372 196/246 363/653

1008/1471 90/36

15/100

15/13 1121/1445 49/12

10/21 0/0 15/21

644/1208 311/498

14/229

Old Graves Mill

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix E Public Meeting Summaries

MEMORANDUM

TO: SCOTT SMITH

FROM: DREW DRAPER, PTP BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE DATE: JANUARY 4, 2018

ORGANIZATION: VIRGINIA’S REGION 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PHONE NUMBER: 434-845-3491

SENDER’S REFERENCE NUMBER:

Re: MEETING SUMMARY – GRAVES MILL ROAD COMMUNITY MEETING #1

YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:

 URGENT

X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT  PLEASE REPLY

 PLEASE RECYCLE

A public meeting for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study was held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at the Lynchburg Humane Society in Lynchburg, Virginia. The meeting was organized as an openhouse format and was open to the general public from 4:00 – 6:30 pm. Advertisement for the meeting included: • • • • • •

The goal of this meeting was for the public to 1) learn about the study, 2) review information about the corridor, and 3) share comments regarding concerns, opportunities, and improvement ideas. Attendees were encouraged to provide feedback and offer suggestions that would help to inform the project development process. Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), City of Lynchburg, Virginia’s Region 2000 Local Government Council, and project consultants were available to explain materials, answer questions, and record feedback. Information boards were set up in the meeting space that presented the following subjects: • • • • •

•

General information on innovative intersection ideas applicable to the corridor

In addition to the information boards, large table-top maps of the corridor were available for attendees to gather around and mark-up. Comment sheets were also made available for participants. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 people (that signed in), including business owners/representatives along the corridor. There were also several local news organizations that covered the meeting (WDBJ7, NewsAdvance, WSLS, and WLNI). A consistent flow of attendees began right at 4:00 PM and continued through approximately 6:00 PM. Representatives were provided sufficient time to walk attendees through the study and answer questions, as needed. Several news organization interviews were provided by the public and agency representatives. Overall, attendees were very pleased City officials were attempting to stay in front of potential growth that could exceed 50% over the next 20 years. In additional to managing traffic congestion, attendees were also pleased attention was being paid to transit, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along the corridor. It was further suggested by multiple attendees the City (or other agencies) undergo a study along Old Graves Mill Road between Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road. Specific Public Comments The following public comments were written on comment sheets that were provided at the meeting, or emailed via the project website (specific identifying information has been removed, and at times, comments are paraphrased): I was not able to attend the meeting. One suggestion (and it might be a long shot) is to have Graves Mill Road 3 lanes each way. However, a more feasible suggestion would be signage. An issue with accidents in Lynchburg is the lack of signs. People from out of town that use Graves Mill to go to the expressway merge over at the very end and back end or swipe other cars. Every street that intersects with the expressway should have a sign like the one on Timberlake Rd. I have heard from transportation officials that "signs are expensive" but this is one of the key reasons for congestion from 3-6pm weekdays. I have lived in this area since 1976. There used to be little traffic even though it was a cut thru. Now, I can hardly get out of my street. The traffic from Timberlake Road is awful. From McConville Rd to 221 there are too many lights & way too much traffic. Traffic isn't flowing, a light needs to be at Nationwide Dr., that "annex" is a nightmare, it's like crossing 3 lanes & you take your life in your hands using it. People block that light at Bella Rosa. Lots of times it

turns green but you can't go because of cars blocking it. People fly from 221 to just get to the exit for the expressway. There are lots of things that can be done to help traffic. I was not able to attend the meeting, and I don't know if a stop light at Lillian Ln or Millside Center is part of the discussion, but there are currently a lot of senior citizens that are trying to access this area of Graves Mill with no safe and/or easy way to do it. I'm not sure if a turn lane in this stretch or a stop light is a good solution, but if there is a master plan being developed, I think something like this would be quite helpful. Has any thought been given to a roundabout at the intersection of Graves Mill Rd. and McConville Rd.? With Lynchburg's consideration of roundabouts throughout the City, this seems to me to be one place that one would work well. The four-way stop is confusing at best and dangerous at worst, especially during times of heavy traffic. Sync lights so the thru traffic doesn’t have to stop at every light. Plan a stop light for the Bella Rose community development. Do not add sidewalks directly beside the road. Needs separation by 3’ – 5’ from road. The same goes for bike lanes. Road milling contributes to uneven lanes and vehicles crashing. Add lights so they are on both sides of the road. Keep speed limit at 45 mph. Access to highway is currently acceptable. Roundabout absolutely needed at McConville Rd. My concerns relate to Old Graves Mill Road. As the area has grown, there has been a tremendous increase in traffic on Old Graves Mill Road between Timberlake Road and Graves Mill Road. Old Graves Mill needs traffic control to better manage cars and commercial truck traffic. Sidewalks throughout the section should also be installed. Old Graves Mill Road is also too narrow and has not been updated since it was originally designed as a rural road. I attended the recent public meeting at the Lynchburg Humane Society which presented the Graves Mill Road Plan. I was disappointed that the Plan did not include a study of Old Graves Mill Road between Timberlake Road and Graves Mill Road. As a homeowner off Old Graves Mill road, I have no choice but the travel this section of road daily and am increasingly concerned whether this section of road can safely handle traffic. Recent years have seen a marked increase in traffic along Old Graves Mill Road as more drivers use it as a short cut to and from the Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road areas. Recent development of the Old Graves Mill Road and Graves Mill Road areas has also dramatically added to this traffic. The planned development of this corridor in the near future will surely further increase traffic on Old Graves Mill Road. As you know, the section of Old Graves Mill Road north of Timberlake Road still has a narrow section without shoulders or sidewalks that dates back to an earlier and rural age. In addition, there is considerable commercial truck traffic to and from the Tomahawk Industrial Park not to speak of the number of school buses that pick up children throughout this neighborhood. All this makes for periods of heavy, unregulated traffic that result in the neighbors having difficulty turning onto Old Graves Mill Road from side streets and driveways. Also, please note that the speed limit of 35 MPH is routinely and grossly exceeded. I personally have had cars pass me on Old Graves Mill Road while I am driving the speed limit! I hope that you, VDOT and Lynchburg engineers find my concern warrant further interest. Specifically, I hope that consideration will be given to regulating traffic flow with a

stoplight at the intersection of Tomahawk Industrial Park and Old Graves Mill Road. I believe that a traffic light at that intersection would greatly add to the safety along this stretch of road. The following public comments were written on table top maps that were provided at the meeting, or on blank note boards located between the informational boards. The comments are typically more specific and relate to intersection level improvements. The memorandum ENDS after these comments. However, the following attachments are then included: • •

Sign-in sheets Summary of news coverage

Corridor-wide comments

McConville Road to Gristmill Drive • Finish & Connect Sidewalks  along Old Graves Mill (OGM) as well • Currently, no pedestrians (might walk if felt more protected from high speed traffic) • More street lights at night • Need a roundabout at OGM, McConville Rd, and Nationwide • Eastbound: speed limit feels artificial o No posted speed limit signs other than the 35 mph and reduced speed ahead • New expressway to connect 460 to 221 • Add lane along entire length (eastbound) dedicated to right turns

Gristmill Drive & Graves Mill Road Intersection)

(T-

Observed Conditions • Water pools between intersections #1 & #2 (Millrace Drive) to the east

Proposals • Add center left turn lane (full length) • Eliminate left turns entering/exiting Graves Mill Shopping Center parking lot • Take away left turn on to 221 from Gristmill

Intersection #1

Intersection #2

Millrace Drive & Graves Mill Road (T-Intersection) Observed Conditions • Can’t enter Graves Mill Rd from northside (State Farm Building) between 3-6pm • High speeds

Intersection #3 Millside Drive & Graves Mill Road

Observed Conditions • Westbound right turn too abrupt • Between #3 & I#4  water pools • Difficulty making a left across Graves Mill Road

Intersection #4

Old Graves Mill Road & Graves Mill Road Observed Conditions • Danger: Westbound turning/veering left cars have flipped • From Old GM Rd., can’t pull out onto GM Rd. during peak hours (‘lacks gaps’) • Bumper to bumper towards Timberlake Rd. (southbound) o Old GM Rd. shouldn’t be a cut through

Proposals • Old Graves Mill Road  Need a Study! • Add double left turn lanes Westbound o Add permissive phase • Open up the end of Tomahawk Dr. • Change name of either Tomahawk Dr. or Tomahawk Industrial Park

Creekside & Old Graves Mill Road Observed Conditions • Not enough turn length on GM from interchange to OGM • Gas station entrance at Creekside is challenging • Heavy queuing

Proposals • The cut through from OGM to GM (that turns into Creekside Drive after GM) should be made one way • GM/OGM – disconnect or right turn only • Overpass for OGM to Creekside • Creekside: extend around Rosedale to Millrace • Extend Creekside north to 221 and Breezewood Drive (parallels 501)

Intersection #5

Intersection #6

501 Southbound & Graves Mill Road Observed Conditions • Danger: LT/RT EB/WB conflicts  crashes  sight/distance issue • Heavy queuing

Proposals • Add two right turn-only lanes eastbound onto Rt. 501 southbound • Salt Facility needs to stay on this side of town • Replace westbound left with a SB loop on the north side

501 Northbound & Graves Mill Road Observed Conditions • While the southbound tends to be the problem, northbound queu€ing can be long • Eastbound left queuing can spill back out of turn lane

Intersection #7

Intersetion #8

McConville Road & Graves Mill Road Observed Conditions • Yield sign confusion • 700 block is too narrow

Proposals • Consider a roundabout (multiple references)

Note: Public Information Meeting attendee lists (including personal contact information)have been removed to protect privacy.

Media Summary Source 1: WDBJ7: http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Public-reacts-to-Graves-Mill-Study--463787483.html LYNCHBURG, Va. (WDBJ7) Region 2000 leaders are calling the Graves Mill Road Corridor a “congested corridor”.

Gristmill Drive in Bedford County to McConville Road in Lynchburg is a popular commuter road in the region and, with that congestion in mind, Region 2000 is looking to make a plan for the future. The Graves Mill Study was launched three months ago. Region 2000 and the Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization as well as Bedford County, the City of Lynchburg and the Virginia Department of Transportation have teamed up to conduct the study. EPR, a firm out of Charlottesville, has been brought in and paid about $65,000 to conduct the study. The study has revealed that while the corridor is congested now, the area surrounding it is expecting to grow more than 50 percent in the next 20 years. Current projects like the Rosedale development and a new apartment complex on Old Graves Mill Road will bring more traffic to the area. “We really need to stay in front of that demand,” said Drew Draper, Principal Planner with EPR. “To create a safer…more multimodal environment.”

Tuesday night the public came out to learn more about the results of the study so far and to voice their opinions. “In the morning and night there’s so much traffic you have to slow down,” said Albert Turner, who lives on Graves Mill Road. “I try to avoid it sometimes of the day, but it’s not always possible,” said Laura Dooley, who travels the corridor daily. The study not only showed how congested the corridor is, but also revealed higher than average crash rates. Leaders say high crash rates are typic of a congested corridor.

The study will be looking at short term and long term solutions. Ranging from signal lights and bike paths, to bigger projects like a roundabout or diverging diamond intersection. This is the grassroots level of the study, they are working on things to consider moving forward with the future growth in mind. “It seems as though they really understand that there’s these issues because they are addressed in a lot of the pictures here so I’m kind of hopeful that something really good will come of this,” said Dooley. The leaders of the study will now take the public comments from Tuesday’s meeting and evaluate them further. They will hold another meeting sometime in February for public input and are hoping to have the study finished by early springtime. The goal of the study is to help plan things out so the project can be prioritized and implemented sooner.

To learn more about the project, go to their website: www.gravesmillplan.com

Source 1 Continued: WDBJ7: http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Corridor-study-underway-for-Graves-Mill-Road-inLynchburg-462389983.html LYNCHBURG, Va. (WDBJ7) -- Lynchburg City leaders are conducting a study on what is considered a congested stretch of road.

Graves Mill Road (WDBJ7) The corridor study is looking at Graves Mill Rd. to make improvements to help with traffic flow and the crash rate. The stretch of road is traveled by more than 27,000 vehicles daily; an amount of traffic that doesn't surprise Sherei Scott, who works at Moore's County store at the corner of Graves Mill and Creekside Dr. "It's hectic. It can get hectic … I mean you can sit at the light for five minutes just trying to get up the street," explained Scott. That exact same intersection also has the highest crash rate on the corridor. So, now, city leaders want to make improvements. "We'll be looking at different lane configurations, different types of intersections, different types of signal configurations, pedestrian accommodations, bicycle accommodation," said Scott Smith, the Transportation Director with Region 2000.

The study includes the stretch of road from McConville to Grist Mill Rd., an area that is also seeing growth. "We have future developments that have been proposed. We want to get ahead of that make sure we can accommodate those developments," said Smith.

The new developments include Rosedale and a new apartment complex that is already under construction. Smith says the study will help them determine what improvements to make to help with traffic flow and crash rates - which for most of the corridor is higher than other roads in the city and state. "If we can improve the through-put, the capacity of the corridor, while also reducing crashes then we're doing the right thing and that's what we're looking at," said Smith. Project leaders will host a public workshop on Tuesday, Dec. 12 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Lynchburg Humane Society.

Source 2 - NewsAdvance ---http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/regional-officials-look-to-alleviate-traffic-problems-ongraves-mill/article_eaa782a4-dfa0-11e7-9fd8-136b1fae48a7.html Graves Mill Road has served as a transportation corridor since the 1700s, and it has been growing with traffic and business ever since — and regional officials looked at shaping the road’s future at a Tuesday public meeting at the Lynchburg Humane Society. After Lynchburg and Bedford County planning and transportation officials informed Region 2000 Local Government Council about the concerns for high traffic volume and a higher-than-average vehicular crash rate, a plan to improve traffic in the corridor was developed. “There is rather extensive growth in this area,” Scott Smith, transportation planning director of Region 2000, said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We wanted to get ahead of the growth and identify ways to address these issues.”

The meeting allowed area residents to see data on possible plans for the road. Region 2000 Local Government Council and Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization, in partnership with Bedford County and the city of Lynchburg and with assistance from Charlottesville-based engineering company EPR P.C., are conducting the study of Graves Mill Road between Gristmill Road and McConville Road in Lynchburg. The study began this summer and will be concluded next spring.

The planning process began in the summer and cost $65,000. It has been funded mostly by Region 2000, with some money from Lynchburg. “Our job on a regional level is to help identify and prioritize projects and help get them ready for funding,” Smith said. The area has grown during the past several years with new businesses like The Home Depot and Moore’s Country Store and will continue to grow with developments like Rosedale — a community that hopes to soon build and attract a hotel, grocery store, restaurants, a brewery and office space — as well as Elements at Old Graves Mill Road — new apartments being constructed. “Graves Mill serves a larger purpose, and that is to get people from Forest to Lynchburg,” Smith said. “Forest is one of the fastest-growing areas of Bedford County and is one of the fastestgrowing areas of Lynchburg metro. Even if no other businesses are proposed, we’re going to have increased traffic. It’s the connector of choice for most people.” Every intersection between McConville Road and Gristmill Drive, except for one, has a higher than average crash rate than all of Lynchburg and the state, Smith said. There are seven signalized intersections and two with no signals in the corridor. The highest is Creekside Drive, where The Home Depot is located. Bill Wuensch, principal transportation engineer and planner for EPR, has collected all of the data and looked at crash history. Most crashes are caused by rear-ending and angle crashes — where drivers make turns and hit another vehicle. There is one reported fatality on Graves Mill Road since 2006, which occurred in 2013 near Bulls Steakhouse. Kelly Duff Smith, of Amherst County — who works on Nationwide Drive, which intersects with Graves Mill Road — said she has to drive on the road on a daily basis. There is a four-way stop sign at the intersection of Nationwide Drive, Graves Mill Road and McConville Road. In her opinion, she said drivers don’t know how to use it. “When everyone is getting off at 5 o’clock p.m., it’s a madhouse and very dangerous because people don’t wait their turn to go, and it causes others to stop so they don’t get hit,” she said. “It has gotten worse and is more dangerous.” She thinks there needs to be a stoplight instead of the four-way stop.

“These other stoplights truly do help out this traffic,” she said. “It’s a lot more people using the Graves Mill Road exit to cut through to get to [the U.S.] 221 Forest area or even Timberlake [Road.]” Wuensch said based off of the data found, traffic is anticipated to grow 1.25 percent per year by 2040, when it will reach traffic capacity. Don DeBerry, Lynchburg traffic engineer, said the city has submitted a grant application for $500,000 to the Virginia Department of Transportation to install an adaptive signal system on the road that would consist of five signals that would coordinate signals and better utilize green light time during heavy traffic periods. Smith said data only is being gathered now, but in the next few weeks, the team of transportation planners will be looking at possible solutions. “It could be as simple as reprogramming traffic signals; it can be as complicated as building new roads,” he said. There will be another public meeting held in the spring on possible solutions, and then funding for the project will be applied for through VDOT. Since the study is underway, they haven’t offered up figures for how much the traffic work will cost. “We have to look at our biggest bang for our buck. These things cost a lot of money,” he said.

Source 3 - WSLS: https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/lynchburg/lynchburg-officials-need-public-s-input-on-gravesmill-road-cooridor LYNCHBURG, Va. - Moore’s Country Store has been on Creekside Lane in Lynchburg for almost two years. Store manager, Mark Emerson says they have three exits for customers to get out onto Graves Mill Road. “Other than the construction we had a few months ago. But when it got up here close, near the bottom there, it affected us a little bit with people getting in and out of the shop here. But we haven't experienced a lot of wrecks or anything,” Emerson said. Though Emerson said Moore’s Country Store hasn't seen any accidents lately, officials with Virginia’s Region 2000 say, the Creekside Lane -Graves Mill Road intersection has had the most accidents compared to the city and state average.

"As you can see, a majority of the crashes are rear-end crashes,” said Scott Smith, transportation planning director for Virginia's Region 2000 Local Government Council, pointing to a Google image on their corridor study. Graves Mill Road is a major connector between Lynchburg and Forest and many businesses have been developed over the years. And new developments are coming to the area soon. “Because of the growth happening all along this corridor. We want to try to work out in the future and get ahead of that growth so that we can make plans to keep this corridor functioning well,” Smith said. Officials say the study will cost about $60,000 paid for by the Local Government Council and a bit by Lynchburg. They will look from Nationwide Drive in Lynchburg to Gristmill Drive in Bedford County. "We're going to be looking at the width of the lanes, can we add additional lanes without increasing the asphalt. We're going to be looking at synchronizing the traffic signals to make sure they're all working together properly. We're looking at pedestrian and transit accommodations to make sure other folks not using cars can get through here well,” Smith said. On Tuesday from 4 to 6:30 p.m. at the Lynchburg Humane Society, 1211 Old Graves Mill Road, officials will host an open-house format for members of the public to drop in and discuss concerns about Graves Mill Road. To read more about the study, click here.

Source 4 - WLNI: https://wlni.com/local-news/public-information-meeting-set-for-graves-mill-road-corridor-study A public information workshop for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study is scheduled for a week from tomorrow. The study is focusing on Graves Mill between McConville Road in Lynchburg and Gristmill Drive in Bedford County. The workshop is set for December 12th at the Lynchburg Humane Society on Old Graves Mill Road; it runs between 4:00 and 6:30 pm. Click here for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study website. (Continue reading for the Region 2000 Local Government Council news release.)

LYNCHBURG— A public information workshop for the Graves Mill Road Corridor Study will be held between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday December 12th, 2017 at the

Lynchburg Humane Society at 1211 Old Graves Mill Rd, Lynchburg, VA 24502. The meeting will be held in an open-house format; members of the public may stop by at any time during the event. Area residents, employees, commuters, shoppers, and business and property owners are encouraged to attend the workshop to learn about the study, review information about the corridor, and share comments regarding concerns, opportunities, and improvement ideas. The study, which focuses on the Graves Mill Road corridor between McConville Road in Lynchburg and Gristmill Drive in Bedford County, is being conducted by the Region 2000 Local Government Council and Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization in partnership with Bedford County, the City of Lynchburg and the Virginia Department of Transportation. EPR, P.C. of Charlottesville is providing engineering and planning assistance on the project which began in August 2017 and will conclude next spring. Graves Mill Road is an important roadway that serves heavy commuter traffic while also providing access to commercial interests. This corridor planning study will: Investigate existing traffic conditions and consider what kinds of road improvements may be needed if future traffic continues to increase, Assess existing and desired conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of transit, (multimodal options), and Address safety issues. The study effort will develop short and long-term recommendations that will help to minimize congestion and improve travel conditions and safety along this important corridor. Once the study is complete, the projects can be prioritized so that funding and implementation strategies can be pursued. For more information on the study, please visit www.gravesmillplan.com. For more information about this public information workshop or the study, please contact Scott Smith (Transportation Planning Director, Region 2000 Local Government Council) prior to the meeting at 434-845-3491 or by email at ssmith@region2000.org.

MEMORANDUM

TO: SCOTT SMITH

FROM: DREW DRAPER, PTP BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE DATE: MAY 9, 2018

ORGANIZATION: VIRGINIA’S REGION 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PHONE NUMBER: 434-845-3491

SENDER’S REFERENCE NUMBER:

Re: MEETING SUMMARY – GRAVES MILL ROAD COMMUNITY MEETING #2

YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:

 URGENT

X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT  PLEASE REPLY

 PLEASE RECYCLE

The goal of this meeting was for the public to 1) learn more about the study and progress to date, 2) review draft short- and long-term roadway improvements, and 3) share comments and thoughts on bicycle and pedestrian needs. Attendees were encouraged to provide feedback and offer suggestions that would help to inform the project development process. Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), City of Lynchburg, Virginia’s Region 2000 Local Government Council, and project consultants were available to explain materials, answer questions, and record feedback. Information boards were set up in the meeting space that presented the following subjects: • • •

Welcome and purpose of the meeting Information about the study Priority I recommendations 1

• • • •

Priority II recommendations Priority III recommendations Information on roundabout and diverging diamond interchanges Overview of existing multimodal conditions

In addition to the information boards, posters illustrating existing and future traffic conditions, and historical crash data that were shared at the first meeting were also available for review on surrounding tables. Large table-top maps of the corridor were available for attendees to gather around and mark-up regarding multimodal needs and desires. Comment sheets were also made available for participants. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 people (that signed in), including business owners/representatives along the corridor. Local news organizations covered the first meeting extensively, and gathered information via the project website and Virginia’s Region 2000 Local Government Council for meeting #2. A consistent flow of attendees began right at 4:00 PM and continued through approximately 5:30 PM. Representatives were provided sufficient time to walk attendees through the study recommendations and answer questions, as needed. Overall, attendees were very pleased of the recommendations presented and that transportation representatives were attempting to stay in front of potential growth that could exceed 50% over the next 20 years. I key topic that was discussed included project implementation and funding opportunities. While some focus was paid to transit, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along the corridor, the majority of attention was on the draft recommendations. To note, this was consistent with the first meeting, as many participants recognize this is a higher speed, cut-through road. However, multimodal recommendations included additional sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and enhanced transit stop amenities. It was further suggested, in this meeting and at the first, that City (or other agencies) undergo a study along Old Graves Mill Road between Graves Mill Road and Timberlake Road. Specific Public Comments The following public comments were written on comment sheets that were provided at the meeting, or emailed via the project website (specific identifying information has been removed, and at times, comments are paraphrased): Please address no turn lanes from Graves Mill Road to Lillian. There are many rear end accidents that occur.

The following comments were noted on the table top map above: •

Be sure to consider adaptive signals. To note, the City has applied for adaptive signal technology that covers the eastern intersections of Graves Mill Road. 3

• •

Consider connecting Enterprise Drive with Graves Mill Road. This would ease conditions from Old Graves Mill Road to 221. It would also add relief to Enterprise Drive. Bump up the roundabout priority.

End of the memorandum. However, the following attachments are included: •

Sign-in sheets

Note: Public Information Meeting attendee lists (including personal contact information)have been removed to protect privacy.

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix F HCM and Queuing Reports

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

649 649 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3565 1.00 3565 0.84 773 2 785 1% NA 2

12 12 1900 12

209 209 1900 12

434 434 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 0.98 3528 0.54 1951 0.84 517 0 766 1% NA 6

16 16 1900 11 2% 5.3 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.95 1630 0.84 19 0 19 6% Prot 4

565 565 1900 12

34.5 34.5 0.56 6.5 3.0 1321 c0.08 0.25 0.58 8.6 1.00 0.6 9.2 A 9.2 A

14.8 14.8 0.24 5.3 2.0 394 0.01

0.84 14 0 0 0%

0.84 249 0 0 0% pm+pt 1 6

19.5 19.5 0.32 6.5 3.0 1137 c0.22 0.69 18.2 1.00 1.8 20.0 B 20.0 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

44.8 0.86 61.1 63.1% 15

0.05 17.7 1.00 0.0 17.8 B 112.4 F

5.3 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.84 673 234 439 1% Perm 4 14.8 14.8 0.24 5.3 2.0 383 c0.28 1.15 23.1 1.00 92.0 115.1 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

D 18.3 B

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1124 1124 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3550 1.00 3550 0.85 1322 3 1385 1% NA 6

56 56 1900 12

70 70 1900 11

684 684 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.85 805 0 805 1% NA 2

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.95 1719 0.85 14 0 14 0% Prot 4

11 11 1900 11

45.0 45.0 0.79 5.0 3.5 2821 c0.23

2.0 2.0 0.04 5.0 2.0 60 c0.01

0.29 1.6 1.00 0.1 1.7 A 1.9 A

0.23 26.8 1.00 0.7 27.5 C 27.0 C

0.85 66 0 0 0%

35.2 35.2 0.62 5.0 3.5 2192 c0.39 0.63 6.8 1.00 0.6 7.5 A 7.5 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1728 0.12 225 0.85 82 0 82 1% pm+pt 5 2 45.0 45.0 0.79 4.5 2.0 317 0.02 0.18 0.26 3.7 1.00 0.2 3.9 A

5.5 0.58 57.0 52.1% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1411 1.00 1411 0.85 13 13 0 9% Perm 4 2.0 2.0 0.04 5.0 2.0 49 0.00 0.01 26.5 1.00 0.0 26.6 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 14.5 A

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

921 921 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.89 1035 0 1035 1% NA 2

134 134 1900 12

99 99 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

132 132 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 16 3%

0 0 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1736 0.95 1736 0.89 111 0 111 3% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1856 0.95 1856 0.89 0 0 148 0% NA 8

49 49 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1544 1.00 1544 0.89 151 79 72 3% Perm

690 690 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.89 775 0 775 1% NA 6

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 0 0 0 0% Prot 5

31.3 31.3 0.48 5.0 3.0 1677 c0.29 0.62 12.8 1.00 0.7 13.4 B 12.9 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

2 31.3 31.3 0.48 5.0 3.0 735 0.05 0.10 9.4 1.00 0.1 9.5 A

11.9 0.63 65.7 51.1% 15

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 148 0 0 3% Split 8

8.3 8.3 0.13 5.0 3.0 219 c0.06

44.6 44.6 0.68 5.0 3.0 2487 0.21

11.1 11.1 0.17 5.0 3.0 313 c0.08

0.51 26.8 1.00 1.8 28.6 C

0.31 4.3 1.00 0.1 4.4 A 7.4 A

0.47 24.7 1.00 1.1 25.8 C 25.0 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1614 1.00 1614 0.89 55 46 9 6% Perm 8 11.1 11.1 0.17 5.0 3.0 272 0.01 0.03 22.8 1.00 0.1 22.9 C

0.0 A B 20.0 A

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

31 31 1900 12

936 936 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3512 1.00 3512 0.87 1076 1 1086 1% NA 2

10 10 1900 12

246 246 1900 12

750 750 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.87 862 0 862 2% NA 6

77 77 1900 12

7 7 1900 12

13 366 13 366 1900 1900 11 10 -2% 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1823 1464 0.98 1.00 1823 1464 0.87 0.87 15 421 0 123 23 298 0% 4% NA pm+ov 8 1 8 2.4 20.5 2.4 20.5 0.03 0.26 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 54 468 0.01 c0.14 0.06 0.43 0.64 38.0 26.3 1.00 1.00 5.3 2.8 43.3 29.1 D C 29.9 C

36 36 1900 11

17 17 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.87 41 0 41 6% Split 7

9 9 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1566 1.00 1566 0.87 10 19 11 0% NA 7

4.3 4.3 0.05 5.0 3.0 87 c0.03

4.3 4.3 0.05 5.0 3.0 84 0.01

0.47 36.6 1.00 4.0 40.6 D

0.13 35.9 1.00 0.7 36.6 D 38.9 D

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.33 575 0.87 36 0 36 7% pm+pt 5 2 37.0 37.0 0.46 5.0 3.0 295 0.00 0.05 0.12 11.7 1.00 0.2 11.9 B

0.87 11 0 0 10%

34.9 34.9 0.44 5.0 3.0 1537 c0.31 0.71 18.2 1.00 1.5 19.7 B 19.5 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

16.8 0.72 79.7 65.5% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.13 233 0.87 283 0 283 2% pm+pt 1 6 58.0 58.0 0.73 5.0 3.0 518 0.12 0.27 0.55 11.9 1.00 1.2 13.1 B

50.9 50.9 0.64 5.0 3.0 2260 0.24 0.38 6.9 1.00 0.1 7.0 A 8.3 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.87 89 32 57 5% Perm

0.87 8 0 0 0% Split 8

6 50.9 50.9 0.64 5.0 3.0 982 0.04 0.06 5.4 1.00 0.0 5.4 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.87 20 0 0 6%

B 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

523 523 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.85 615 0 615 1% NA 2

820 820 1900 12

94 94 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

130 130 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.33 616 0.85 111 0 111 1% pm+pt 1 6 40.5 40.5 0.65 5.0 5.0 528 0.02 0.11 0.21 4.6 1.00 0.4 5.0 A

1 1 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1658 0.95 1658 0.85 1 0 154 0% NA 8

207 207 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.85 965 496 469 4% Perm

866 866 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.85 1019 0 1019 1% NA 6

0.85 0 0 0 0%

28.7 28.7 0.46 5.0 5.0 1646 0.17 0.37 10.9 1.00 0.3 11.2 B 14.1 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

2 28.7 28.7 0.46 5.0 5.0 715 c0.30 0.66 13.0 1.00 2.9 15.9 B

12.4 0.61 62.3 76.4% 15

0.85 0 0 0 0%

0.85 153 0 0 4% Split 8

40.5 40.5 0.65 5.0 5.0 2323 c0.29

11.8 11.8 0.19 5.0 5.0 314 c0.09

0.44 5.3 1.00 0.3 5.6 A 5.6 A

0.49 22.6 1.00 2.5 25.1 C 25.1 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1451 1.00 1451 0.85 244 117 127 6% Perm 8 11.8 11.8 0.19 5.0 5.0 274 0.09 0.46 22.4 1.00 2.6 25.0 C

B 15.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

271 271 1900 12

384 384 1900 12 0% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.81 474 0 474 1% NA 6

0 0 1900 12

294 294 1900 12 -3% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3523 1.00 3523 0.81 363 0 363 4% NA 2

53 53 1900 12

630 630 1900 11

183 183 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1546 1.00 1546 0.81 65 52 13 6% Perm

5.0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1585 0.95 1585 0.81 778 0 513 3% Split 4

0 0 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 0.93 0.97 1586 0.97 1586 0.81 0 88 403 0% NA 4

0.81 226 0 0 0%

0.81 0 0 0 2%

15.1 15.1 0.30 5.0 2.5 472 c0.32

15.1 15.1 0.30 5.0 2.5 473 0.25

1.09 17.8 1.00 66.9 84.7 F

0.85 16.7 1.00 13.7 30.4 C 58.1 E

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.36 667 0.81 335 0 335 2% pm+pt 1 6 24.5 24.5 0.48 5.0 2.5 527 c0.12 c0.19 0.64 8.7 1.00 2.2 10.9 B

0.81 0 0 0 0%

24.5 24.5 0.48 6.0 2.5 1730 0.13

10.1 10.1 0.20 6.0 2.5 703 0.10

0.27 7.8 1.00 0.1 7.8 A 9.1 A

0.52 18.1 1.00 0.5 18.6 B 18.2 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

32.8 0.89 50.6 76.4% 15

2 10.1 10.1 0.20 6.0 2.5 308 0.01 0.04 16.3 1.00 0.0 16.4 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A C 16.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Forest & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

80 80 1900 10 6.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1604 0.95 1604 0.84 95 0 95 5% Split 4

158 158 1900 11 6.7 0.95 0.99 1.00 3333 1.00 3333 0.84 188 2 193 4% NA 4

6 6 1900 11

249 249 1900 12 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1687 0.95 1687 0.84 296 0 296 7% Split 3

135 135 1900 12 7.7 1.00 0.93 1.00 1659 1.00 1659 0.84 161 26 279 5% NA 3

121 121 1900 12

32 32 1900 11 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1745 0.95 1745 0.84 38 0 38 0% Prot 1

12.2 12.2 0.09 6.7 3.5 151 c0.06

12.2 12.2 0.09 6.7 3.5 315 0.06

19.3 19.3 0.15 7.7 3.5 252 c0.18

19.3 19.3 0.15 7.7 3.5 248 0.17

5.9 5.9 0.05 7.7 3.5 79 0.02

0.63 56.2 1.00 8.3 64.5 E

0.61 56.1 1.00 3.7 59.8 E 61.4 E

1.17 54.9 1.00 112.2 167.1 F

1.13 54.9 1.00 95.6 150.5 F 158.6 F

0.48 60.1 1.00 5.4 65.4 E

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

0.84 7 0 0 8%

64.9 1.00 129.0 88.3% 15

0.84 144 0 0 8%

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBT

NBR

SBL

1221 460 1221 460 1900 1900 12 11 5.7 7.7 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3505 1531 1.00 1.00 3505 1531 0.84 0.84 1454 548 0 40 1454 508 3% 2% NA pm+ov 6 3 6 57.4 76.7 57.4 76.7 0.44 0.59 5.7 7.7 5.0 3.5 1559 910 c0.41 0.08 0.25 0.93 0.56 34.0 15.9 1.00 1.00 10.9 0.8 44.9 16.7 D B 37.7 D

189 189 1900 11 7.4 1.00 1.00 0.95 1694 0.95 1694 0.84 225 0 225 3% Prot 5 12.6 12.6 0.10 7.4 3.5 165 c0.13 1.36 58.2 1.00 197.5 255.7 F

SBT

SBR

741 92 741 92 1900 1900 11 11 5.8 6.7 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3388 1473 1.00 1.00 3388 1473 0.84 0.84 882 110 0 45 882 65 3% 6% NA pm+ov 2 4 2 63.7 75.9 63.7 75.9 0.49 0.59 5.8 6.7 5.0 3.5 1672 866 c0.26 0.01 0.04 0.53 0.07 22.3 11.4 1.00 1.00 0.6 0.0 22.9 11.5 C B 64.9 E

E 27.9 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio

02/23/2018

EBT 787 0.69 21.5 0.0 21.5 130 165 1043

WBT 766 0.58 9.2 0.0 9.2 73 93 605

NBL 19 0.05 20.4 0.0 20.4 5 20 674

1963 0 0 0 0.40

1775 0 0 0 0.43

393 0 0 0 0.05

NBR 673 1.09 81.0 0.0 81.0 ~193 #367 180 616 0 0 0 1.09

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1388 0.56 8.4 0.0 8.4 84 240 952 2468 0 0 0 0.56

02/23/2018

WBL 82 0.22 2.9 0.0 2.9 0 12 330 499 0 0 0 0.16

WBT 805 0.25 1.7 0.0 1.7 0 50 1251

NBL 14 0.08 25.4 0.0 25.4 4 18 593

3234 0 0 0 0.25

507 0 0 0 0.03

NBR 13 0.09 15.0 0.0 15.0 0 12 240 425 0 0 0 0.03

Intersection Summary

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBT 1035 0.61 16.0 0.0 16.0 160 269 1348 1955 0 0 0 0.53

02/23/2018

EBR 151 0.18 2.2 0.0 2.2 0 22

WBL 111 0.41 32.1 0.0 32.1 40 95

280 936 0 0 0 0.16

310 413 0 0 0 0.27

WBT 775 0.32 4.9 0.0 4.9 54 92 700

NBT 148 0.47 31.6 0.0 31.6 52 118 365

NBR 55 0.13 0.6 0.0 0.6 0 0

2877 0 0 0 0.27

589 0 0 0 0.25

633 0 0 0 0.09

Intersection Summary

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 36 0.09 7.7 0.0 7.7 4 17 250 594 0 0 0 0.06

EBT 1087 0.71 23.0 0.0 23.0 210 382 700 1960 0 0 0 0.55

WBL 283 0.49 14.4 0.0 14.4 42 156 420 719 0 0 0 0.39

02/23/2018

WBT 862 0.32 8.2 0.0 8.2 47 206 797 2706 0 0 0 0.32

WBR 89 0.07 1.3 0.0 1.3 0 11 300 1204 0 0 0 0.07

NBT 23 0.13 40.1 0.0 40.1 10 36 519 582 0 0 0 0.04

NBR 421 0.74 22.9 0.0 22.9 111 219

SBL 41 0.22 39.7 0.0 39.7 18 54

160 692 0 0 0 0.61

190 284 0 0 0 0.14

SBT 30 0.15 23.7 0.0 23.7 4 31 443 291 0 0 0 0.10

Intersection Summary

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBT 615 0.37 12.5 0.0 12.5 84 115 797 1826 0 0 0 0.34

02/23/2018

EBR 965 0.79 7.9 0.0 7.9 10 56

WBL 111 0.20 5.0 0.0 5.0 14 27

280 1242 0 0 0 0.78

250 591 0 0 0 0.19

WBT 1019 0.45 6.2 0.0 6.2 88 111 663

SBT 154 0.48 30.3 0.0 30.3 57 104 620

2641 0 0 0 0.39

366 0 0 0 0.42

SBR 244 0.62 19.0 0.0 19.0 36 93 125 433 0 0 0 0.56

Intersection Summary

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

Queues 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBL 335 0.62 13.0 0.0 13.0 55 85 170 555 0 0 0 0.60

02/23/2018

EBT 474 0.27 8.1 0.0 8.1 40 54 663

WBT 363 0.52 20.9 0.0 20.9 51 74 458

3120 0 0 0 0.15

2026 0 0 0 0.18

WBR 65 0.16 2.7 0.0 2.7 0 7

NBL 513 1.09 91.5 0.0 91.5 ~191 #329

NBT 491 0.88 34.5 0.0 34.5 108 #245 755

180 935 0 0 0 0.07

471 0 0 0 1.09

559 0 0 0 0.88

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

Queues 9: Forest & Graves Mill

EBL 95 0.62 72.1 0.0 72.1 76 125 90 169 0 0 0 0.56

02/23/2018

EBT 195 0.60 62.2 0.0 62.2 80 112 661

WBL 296 1.15 148.6 0.0 148.6 ~287 #422

WBT 305 1.09 125.4 0.0 125.4 ~262 #401 1043

353 0 0 0 0.55

258 0 0 0 1.15

279 0 0 0 1.09

NBL 38 0.30 61.5 0.0 61.5 30 61 200 170 0 0 0 0.22

NBT 1454 0.96 51.0 0.0 51.0 606 #644 1143 1511 0 0 0 0.96

NBR 548 0.55 13.1 0.0 13.1 197 257

SBL 225 1.33 225.8 0.0 225.8 ~241 #367

360 1000 0 0 0 0.55

250 169 0 0 0 1.33

SBT 882 0.51 23.9 0.0 23.9 275 323 649 1713 0 0 0 0.51

SBR 110 0.12 1.6 0.0 1.6 0 12 280 933 0 0 0 0.12

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.3

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 5 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 944 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 735 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 735 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

02/23/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1043 3 6 802 14 0 0 6 6 0 3 1043 3 6 802 14 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 - 140 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1227 4 7 944 16 0 0 7 7 0 4

0 -

Major2 0 1227 4.1 2.2 - 575 - 575 -

EB 0.1

WB 0.2

NBLn1 EBL 418 735 0.017 0.006 13.8 9.9 B A 0.1 0

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

0 -

Minor1 0 1722 2194 - 1236 1236 - 486 958 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 44 32 - 154 204 - 495 288 42 30 42 30 - 151 200 - 479 281

Minor2 614 1581 2194 - 958 958 - 623 1236 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 418 116 84 - 366 442 - 529 353

472 6.4 3.3 581 -

418 -

581 -

NB 13.8 B

110 110 358 509

80 80 431 345

SB 30.6 D

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 575 - 151 - 0.012 - 0.07 0.1 - 11.3 0.1 - 30.6 A B A D 0 0.2

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

02/23/2018

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 20 Intersection LOS C Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

35 35 0.75 0 47 0

306 306 0.75 0 408 1

130 130 0.75 3 173 0

16 16 0.75 0 21 1

10 10 0.75 0 13 0

35 35 0.75 6 47 1

206 206 0.75 4 275 1

Approach EB Opposing Approach WB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach RightNB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 23.9 HCM LOS C Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

3 3 0.75 0 4 0 WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 12 B

56 56 0.75 7 75 1

2 2 0.75 0 3 0

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 18.5 C

73 73 0.75 4 97 0

116 116 0.75 0 155 1

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 11.9 B

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 59% 10% 0% 5% 22% 0% 7% 90% 0% 92% 78% 0% 33% 0% 100% 3% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 219 341 206 61 45 116 130 35 0 3 10 0 16 306 0 56 35 0 73 0 206 2 0 116 292 455 275 81 60 155 6 7 7 6 7 7 0.56 0.806 0.429 0.169 0.125 0.29 6.904 6.382 5.619 7.479 7.476 6.75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 520 564 634 481 482 535 4.996 4.171 3.407 5.491 5.176 4.45 0.562 0.807 0.434 0.168 0.124 0.29 18.5 30.7 12.6 12 11.2 12.2 C D B B B B 3.4 7.9 2.2 0.6 0.4 1.2

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Old Graves Mill & Connector

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

02/23/2018

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 129 3 214 419 62 185 Future Vol, veh/h 129 3 214 419 62 185 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 255 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 0 3 2 2 5 Mvmt Flow 145 3 240 471 70 208 Major/Minor Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 823 Stage 1 476 Stage 2 347 Critical Hdwy 6.46 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.46 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.46 Follow-up Hdwy 3.554 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 338 Stage 1 617 Stage 2 707 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 Stage 1 617 Stage 2 644 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

WB 26.3 D

Major1 476 0 6.2 3.3 593 593 -

Major2 0 711 - 4.12 - 2.218 - 888 - 888 -

NB 0

SB 2.4

0 -

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL - 308 593 888 - 0.471 0.006 0.078 - 26.7 11.1 9.4 D B A 2.4 0 0.3

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing AM EPR

SBT 0 A -

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

497 497 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 0.99 1.00 3530 1.00 3530 0.88 565 12 608 1% NA 2

48 48 1900 12

329 329 1900 12

804 804 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 0.99 3533 0.59 2099 0.88 914 0 1288 1% NA 6

36 36 1900 11 2% 5.3 1.00 1.00 0.95 1727 0.95 1727 0.88 41 0 41 0% Prot 4

350 350 1900 12

32.7 32.7 0.63 6.5 3.0 1548 c0.14 c0.38 0.83 7.7 1.00 4.0 11.6 B 11.6 B

7.8 7.8 0.15 5.3 2.0 257 0.02

0.88 55 0 0 0%

0.88 374 0 0 0% pm+pt 1 6

17.6 17.6 0.34 6.5 3.0 1187 0.17 0.51 13.9 1.00 0.4 14.3 B 14.3 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

13.9 0.83 52.3 67.3% 15

0.16 19.4 1.00 0.1 19.5 B 20.0 B

5.3 1.00 0.85 1.00 1599 1.00 1599 0.88 398 329 69 0% Perm 4 7.8 7.8 0.15 5.3 2.0 238 c0.04 0.29 19.8 1.00 0.2 20.0 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

B 18.3 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Bus Blockages (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

846 846 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3552 1.00 3552 0.92 920 1 934 1% 2 NA 6

14 14 1900 12

28 28 1900 11

950 950 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 1033 0 1033 1% 0 NA 2

78 78 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.92 85 0 85 1% 0 Prot 4

178 178 1900 11

29.9 29.9 0.64 5.0 3.5 2278 c0.29

7.0 7.0 0.15 5.0 2.0 254 c0.05

0.45 4.3 1.00 0.2 4.5 A 4.5 A

0.33 17.9 1.00 0.3 18.1 B 17.6 B

0.92 15 0 0 0% 0

23.6 23.6 0.50 5.0 3.5 1787 c0.26 0.52 7.9 1.00 0.3 8.2 A 8.2 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1745 0.22 396 0.92 30 0 30 0% 0 pm+pt 5 2 29.9 29.9 0.64 4.5 2.0 304 0.00 0.06 0.10 3.9 1.00 0.1 4.0 A

7.6 0.51 46.9 43.2% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1508 1.00 1508 0.92 193 164 29 2% 0 Perm 4 7.0 7.0 0.15 5.0 2.0 225 0.02 0.13 17.3 1.00 0.1 17.4 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 14.5 A

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1 1900 12

921 921 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.91 1012 0 1012 1% NA 2

196 196 1900 12

255 255 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

117 117 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

1 1 1900 16 3% 5.0 1.00 0.91 1.00 1930 1.00 1930 0.91 1 2 1 0% NA 4

2 2 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1753 0.95 1753 0.91 280 0 280 2% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1874 0.95 1874 0.91 0 0 129 0% NA 8

50 50 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.91 215 127 88 1% Perm

830 830 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.91 912 0 912 1% NA 6

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.95 1778 0.91 1 0 1 0% Prot 5 0.3 0.3 0.00 5.0 3.0 6 0.00

32.7 32.7 0.41 5.0 3.0 1444 c0.29

0.17 39.6 1.00 12.8 52.3 D

0.70 19.5 1.00 1.6 21.0 C 19.9 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

2 32.7 32.7 0.41 5.0 3.0 646 0.06 0.14 14.7 1.00 0.1 14.8 B

19.7 0.69 79.7 65.2% 15

0.91 0 0 0 0%

0.91 129 0 0 2% Split 8

15.4 15.4 0.19 5.0 3.0 338 c0.16

47.8 47.8 0.60 5.0 3.0 2197 0.25

10.6 10.6 0.13 5.0 3.0 249 c0.07

0.83 30.9 1.00 15.3 46.2 D

0.42 8.5 1.00 0.1 8.6 A 17.4 B

0.52 32.2 1.00 1.8 34.0 C 32.8 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.91 55 48 7 2% Perm

0.91 0 0 0 0% 4

8 10.6 10.6 0.13 5.0 3.0 223 0.00 0.03 30.1 1.00 0.1 30.1 C

0.91 2 0 0 0%

1.0 1.0 0.01 5.0 3.0 24 c0.00 0.04 38.9 1.00 0.7 39.6 D 39.6 D

B 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

39 39 1900 12

871 871 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3474 1.00 3474 0.95 917 1 922 2% NA 2

5 5 1900 12

203 203 1900 12

991 991 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1043 0 1043 1% NA 6

110 110 1900 12

45 45 1900 12

21 339 21 339 1900 1900 11 10 -2% 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1694 1507 0.97 1.00 1694 1507 0.95 0.95 22 357 0 98 69 259 10% 1% NA pm+ov 8 1 8 6.6 17.8 6.6 17.8 0.09 0.24 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 151 466 0.04 c0.08 0.09 0.46 0.56 31.8 24.5 1.00 1.00 2.2 1.4 34.0 25.9 C C 27.2 C

94 94 1900 11

35 35 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 99 0 99 1% Split 7

15 15 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.95 16 33 20 0% NA 7

7.2 7.2 0.10 5.0 3.0 166 c0.06

7.2 7.2 0.10 5.0 3.0 151 0.01

0.60 31.9 1.00 5.7 37.5 D

0.13 30.4 1.00 0.4 30.8 C 35.2 D

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.25 459 0.95 41 0 41 0% pm+pt 5 2 31.8 31.8 0.43 5.0 3.0 253 0.01 0.06 0.16 12.3 1.00 0.3 12.6 B

0.90 6 0 0 40%

28.7 28.7 0.39 5.0 3.0 1352 c0.27 0.68 18.7 1.00 1.4 20.1 C 19.8 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

18.4 0.68 73.7 62.9% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 292 0.95 214 0 214 2% pm+pt 1 6 44.9 44.9 0.61 5.0 3.0 402 0.08 0.24 0.53 9.4 1.00 1.4 10.7 B

36.8 36.8 0.50 5.0 3.0 1784 c0.29 0.58 13.0 1.00 0.5 13.5 B 12.8 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 116 58 58 0% Perm

0.95 47 0 0 4% Split 8

6 36.8 36.8 0.50 5.0 3.0 806 0.04 0.07 9.6 1.00 0.0 9.6 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 37 0 0 6%

B 20.0 B

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

394 394 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.93 424 0 424 1% NA 2

912 912 1900 12

213 213 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

47 47 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.42 788 0.93 229 0 229 1% pm+pt 1 6 41.2 41.2 0.64 5.0 5.0 655 0.05 0.17 0.35 5.1 1.00 0.7 5.7 A

3 3 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1665 0.95 1665 0.93 3 0 54 0% NA 8

350 350 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 981 482 499 2% Perm

954 954 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.93 1026 0 1026 1% NA 6

0.93 0 0 0 0%

26.5 26.5 0.41 5.0 5.0 1472 0.12 0.29 12.6 1.00 0.2 12.8 B 19.6 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

2 26.5 26.5 0.41 5.0 5.0 652 c0.32 0.77 16.2 1.00 6.3 22.5 C

17.2 0.75 64.3 86.6% 15

0.93 0 0 0 0%

0.93 51 0 0 4% Split 8

41.2 41.2 0.64 5.0 5.0 2290 c0.29

13.1 13.1 0.20 5.0 5.0 339 0.03

0.45 5.8 1.00 0.3 6.1 A 6.0 A

0.16 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.5 C 42.3 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1523 1.00 1523 0.93 376 113 263 1% Perm 8 13.1 13.1 0.20 5.0 5.0 310 c0.17 0.85 24.6 1.00 20.6 45.3 D

B 15.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

253 253 1900 12

220 220 1900 12 0% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.91 242 0 242 1% NA 6

0 0 1900 12

475 475 1900 12 -3% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3628 1.00 3628 0.91 522 0 522 1% NA 2

131 131 1900 12

685 685 1900 11

66 66 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1623 1.00 1623 0.91 144 108 36 1% Perm

5.0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1617 0.95 1617 0.91 753 0 414 1% Split 4

1 1 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 0.97 0.96 1649 0.96 1649 0.91 1 10 403 0% NA 4

0.91 73 0 0 0%

0.91 0 0 0 0%

15.1 15.1 0.28 5.0 2.5 458 c0.26

15.1 15.1 0.28 5.0 2.5 467 0.24

0.90 18.4 1.00 20.9 39.3 D

0.86 18.1 1.00 15.0 33.1 C 36.2 D

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.30 570 0.91 278 0 278 1% pm+pt 1 6 27.2 27.2 0.51 5.0 2.5 494 c0.09 c0.19 0.56 8.1 1.00 1.2 9.3 A

0.91 0 0 0 0%

27.2 27.2 0.51 6.0 2.5 1823 0.07

13.3 13.3 0.25 6.0 2.5 905 0.14

0.13 6.9 1.00 0.0 6.9 A 8.2 A

0.58 17.5 1.00 0.7 18.3 B 17.7 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

22.8 0.75 53.3 86.6% 15

2 13.3 13.3 0.25 6.0 2.5 404 0.02 0.09 15.4 1.00 0.1 15.4 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A C 16.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Forest & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

120 120 1900 10 6.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1636 0.95 1636 0.88 136 0 136 3% Split 4

176 176 1900 11 6.7 0.95 0.96 1.00 3233 1.00 3233 0.88 200 18 243 3% NA 4

54 54 1900 11

440 440 1900 12 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.88 500 0 500 3% Split 3

164 164 1900 12 7.7 1.00 0.91 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.88 186 33 436 1% NA 3

249 249 1900 12

37 37 1900 11 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1694 0.95 1694 0.88 42 0 42 3% Prot 1

221 221 1900 11 7.4 1.00 1.00 0.95 1711 0.95 1711 0.88 251 0 251 2% Prot 5

19.5 19.5 0.12 6.7 3.5 202 c0.08

19.5 19.5 0.12 6.7 3.5 401 0.08

37.4 37.4 0.24 7.7 3.5 416 c0.29

37.4 37.4 0.24 7.7 3.5 407 0.25

8.1 8.1 0.05 7.7 3.5 87 0.02

0.67 65.8 1.00 8.9 74.7 E

0.60 65.2 1.00 2.7 67.9 E 70.2 E

1.20 59.9 1.00 111.8 171.7 F

1.07 59.9 1.00 65.1 125.0 F 149.1 F

0.48 72.5 1.00 4.9 77.4 E

979 247 979 247 1900 1900 12 11 5.7 7.7 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1473 1.00 1.00 3539 1473 0.88 0.88 1112 281 0 74 1113 207 2% 6% NA pm+ov 6 3 6 55.2 92.6 55.2 92.6 0.35 0.59 5.7 7.7 5.0 3.5 1242 867 0.31 0.06 0.08 0.90 0.24 48.3 15.4 1.00 1.00 9.3 0.2 57.6 15.6 E B 49.9 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

0.88 61 0 0 8%

92.1 1.10 157.2 96.3% 15

0.88 283 0 0 1%

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

17.6 17.6 0.11 7.4 3.5 191 c0.15 1.31 69.8 1.00 173.5 243.3 F

SBT

SBR

1279 95 1279 95 1900 1900 11 11 5.8 6.7 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3421 1516 1.00 1.00 3421 1516 0.88 0.88 1453 108 0 38 1453 70 2% 3% NA pm+ov 2 4 2 64.3 83.8 64.3 83.8 0.41 0.53 5.8 6.7 5.0 3.5 1399 808 c0.42 0.01 0.04 1.04 0.09 46.4 18.0 1.00 1.00 34.7 0.1 81.1 18.0 F B 99.8 F

F 27.9 F

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT 620 0.52 15.6 0.0 15.6 71 131 1043

WBT 1288 0.83 13.9 0.0 13.9 87 #225 605

NBL 41 0.16 21.3 0.0 21.3 12 33 674

2285 0 0 0 0.27

2160 0 0 0 0.60

489 0 0 0 0.08

NBR 398 0.70 10.7 0.0 10.7 3 60 180 730 0 0 0 0.55

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 935 0.50 9.0 0.0 9.0 48 162 952 2523 0 0 0 0.37

02/23/2018

WBL 30 0.07 3.8 0.0 3.8 2 9 330 579 0 0 0 0.05

WBT 1033 0.48 5.7 0.0 5.7 56 106 1251

NBL 85 0.32 21.8 0.0 21.8 14 62 593

3309 0 0 0 0.31

603 0 0 0 0.14

NBR 193 0.48 8.8 0.0 8.8 0 47 240 659 0 0 0 0.29

Intersection Summary

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBL 1 0.02 41.0 0.0 41.0 0 6 380 51 0 0 0 0.02

EBT 1012 0.72 22.4 0.0 22.4 178 340 1348 1770 0 0 0 0.57

02/23/2018

EBR 215 0.29 3.7 0.0 3.7 0 43

WBL 280 0.74 43.6 0.0 43.6 113 #321

280 898 0 0 0 0.24

310 377 0 0 0 0.74

WBT 912 0.37 7.2 0.0 7.2 63 216 700

NBT 129 0.47 35.9 0.0 35.9 51 122 355

NBR 55 0.14 0.7 0.0 0.7 0 0

SBT 3 0.02 30.0 0.0 30.0 0 10 176

2593 0 0 0 0.35

538 0 0 0 0.24

608 0 0 0 0.09

417 0 0 0 0.01

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 41 0.12 10.3 0.0 10.3 8 23 250 339 0 0 0 0.12

EBT 923 0.71 26.2 0.0 26.2 196 #368 700 1306 0 0 0 0.71

WBL 214 0.51 14.2 0.0 14.2 47 99 420 804 0 0 0 0.27

02/23/2018

WBT 1043 0.52 16.7 0.0 16.7 207 296 797 2340 0 0 0 0.45

WBR 116 0.12 2.1 0.0 2.1 0 20 300 1107 0 0 0 0.10

NBT 69 0.33 36.7 0.0 36.7 30 72 519 291 0 0 0 0.24

NBR 357 0.64 18.7 0.0 18.7 86 164

SBL 99 0.44 38.3 0.0 38.3 43 96

160 914 0 0 0 0.39

190 292 0 0 0 0.34

SBT 53 0.22 18.0 0.0 18.0 7 40 443 298 0 0 0 0.18

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBT 424 0.29 13.0 0.0 13.0 56 84 797 1677 0 0 0 0.25

02/23/2018

EBR 981 0.87 13.2 0.0 13.2 40 #356

WBL 229 0.35 6.2 0.0 6.2 31 55

280 1178 0 0 0 0.83

250 660 0 0 0 0.35

WBT 1026 0.45 6.4 0.0 6.4 89 122 663

SBT 54 0.16 24.3 0.0 24.3 19 47 620

2517 0 0 0 0.41

338 0 0 0 0.16

SBR 376 0.89 43.0 0.0 43.0 98 #256 125 423 0 0 0 0.89

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

Queues 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBL 278 0.55 11.2 0.0 11.2 44 78 170 530 0 0 0 0.52

02/23/2018

EBT 242 0.13 6.8 0.0 6.8 18 32 663

WBT 522 0.58 20.4 0.0 20.4 77 117 458

2968 0 0 0 0.08

1986 0 0 0 0.26

WBR 144 0.28 5.1 0.0 5.1 0 32

NBL 414 0.91 48.6 0.0 48.6 133 #330

NBT 413 0.87 41.8 0.0 41.8 127 #322 755

180 953 0 0 0 0.15

457 0 0 0 0.91

476 0 0 0 0.87

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

Queues 9: Forest & Graves Mill

EBL 136 0.67 80.8 0.0 80.8 135 206 90 298 0 0 0 0.46

02/23/2018

EBT 261 0.62 65.6 0.0 65.6 124 169 661

WBL 500 1.19 156.1 0.0 156.1 ~616 #877

WBT 469 1.06 109.4 0.0 109.4 ~491 #747 1043

606 0 0 0 0.43

420 0 0 0 1.19

443 0 0 0 1.06

NBL 42 0.39 82.4 0.0 82.4 42 87 200 134 0 0 0 0.31

NBT 1113 0.91 61.2 0.0 61.2 570 #731 1143 1237 0 0 0 0.90

NBR 281 0.29 5.8 0.0 5.8 40 92

SBL 251 1.30 217.8 0.0 217.8 ~327 #528

360 982 0 0 0 0.29

250 193 0 0 0 1.30

SBT 1453 1.03 75.9 0.0 75.9 ~864 #1082 649 1413 0 0 0 1.03

SBR 108 0.13 3.7 0.0 3.7 8 28 280 909 0 0 0 0.12

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.6

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 Future Vol, veh/h 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 3 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1018 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 689 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

02/23/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1088 1 4 937 8 1 0 12 18 0 8 1088 1 4 937 8 1 0 12 18 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 - 140 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1183 1 4 1018 9 1 0 13 20 0 9

0 -

Major2 0 1183 4.1 2.2 - 597 - 597 -

EB 0

WB 0.1

NBLn1 EBL 255 689 0.055 0.005 19.9 10.2 C B 0.2 0

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

0 -

Minor1 0 1707 2216 - 1189 1189 - 518 1027 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 45 31 - 166 216 - 471 265 43 30 43 30 - 164 213 - 456 261

Minor2 591 1625 2216 - 1027 1027 - 598 1189 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 433 109 82 - 339 418 - 544 367

509 6.4 3.3 552 -

433 -

552 -

NB 19.9 C

103 103 335 521

80 80 411 362

SB 38 E

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 597 - 137 - 0.007 - 0.206 0 - 11.1 0.1 38 A B A E 0 0.7

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

02/23/2018

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh31.9 Intersection LOS D Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

101 101 0.79 0 128 0

30 30 0.79 0 38 1

251 251 0.79 1 318 0

53 53 0.79 0 67 1

0 0 0.79 0 0 0

24 24 0.79 0 30 1

155 155 0.79 3 196 1

Approach EB Opposing Approach WB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach RightNB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 15.3 HCM LOS C Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

44 44 0.79 0 56 0 WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 41.3 E

261 261 0.79 1 330 1

8 8 0.79 0 10 0

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 45.6 E

13 13 0.79 8 16 0

112 112 0.79 0 142 1

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 13.5 B

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 79% 77% 0% 14% 0% 0% 17% 23% 0% 83% 100% 0% 4% 0% 100% 3% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 317 131 155 313 24 112 251 101 0 44 0 0 53 30 0 261 24 0 13 0 155 8 0 112 401 166 196 396 30 142 6 7 7 6 7 7 0.877 0.384 0.393 0.851 0.072 0.306 7.866 8.33 7.208 7.732 8.493 7.766 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 461 431 498 468 421 462 5.915 6.088 4.966 5.784 6.257 5.531 0.87 0.385 0.394 0.846 0.071 0.307 45.6 16.2 14.6 41.3 11.9 13.9 E C B E B B 9.2 1.8 1.9 8.6 0.2 1.3

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Old Graves Mill & Connector

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

02/23/2018

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 307 16 141 231 13 449 Future Vol, veh/h 307 16 141 231 13 449 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 255 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 1 3 8 3 Mvmt Flow 334 17 153 251 14 488 Major/Minor Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 795 Stage 1 279 Stage 2 516 Critical Hdwy 6.41 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 358 Stage 1 770 Stage 2 601 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 352 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 352 Stage 1 770 Stage 2 591 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

WB 67.6 F

Major1 279 0 6.2 3.3 765 765 -

Major2 0 404 - 4.18 - 2.272 - 1123 - 1123 -

NB 0

SB 0.2

0 -

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL - 352 765 1123 - 0.948 0.023 0.013 - 70.6 9.8 8.2 F A A - 10.1 0.1 0

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan Existing PM EPR

SBT 0 A -

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

958 958 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.88 1089 1 1105 1% NA 2

15 15 1900 12

311 311 1900 12

644 644 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 0.98 3528 0.52 1878 0.88 732 0 1085 1% NA 6

21 21 1900 11 2% 5.3 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.95 1630 0.88 24 0 24 6% Prot 4

827 827 1900 12

53.5 53.5 0.49 6.5 3.0 989 c0.05 c0.48 2.29dl 28.2 0.39 58.4 69.5 E 69.5 E

44.7 44.7 0.41 5.3 2.0 662 0.01

0.88 17 0 0 0%

0.88 353 0 0 0% pm+pt 1 6

41.9 41.9 0.38 6.5 3.0 1358 0.31 0.81 30.5 1.01 1.9 32.7 C 32.7 C

0.04 19.7 1.00 0.0 19.7 B 189.3 F

5.3 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.88 940 82 858 1% Perm 4 44.7 44.7 0.41 5.3 2.0 643 c0.54 1.33 32.6 1.00 161.0 193.6 F

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 93.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

F 18.3 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1669 1669 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3554 1.00 3554 0.88 1897 2 1977 1% NA 6

72 72 1900 12

90 90 1900 11

1008 1008 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1145 0 1145 1% NA 2

15 15 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.95 1719 0.88 17 0 17 0% Prot 4

14 14 1900 11

96.6 96.6 0.88 5.0 3.5 3138 0.32

3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 53 c0.01

0.36 1.2 0.06 0.3 0.3 A 3.5 A

0.32 52.2 1.00 1.3 53.4 D 52.6 D

85.5 85.5 0.78 5.0 3.5 2762 c0.56 0.72 6.1 1.16 0.1 7.3 A 7.3 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 82 0 0 0%

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1728 0.07 122 0.88 102 0 102 1% pm+pt 5 2 96.6 96.6 0.88 4.5 2.0 203 c0.03 0.41 0.50 11.5 3.37 0.6 39.2 D

6.3 0.69 110.0 68.8% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1411 1.00 1411 0.88 16 16 0 9% Perm 4 3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 43 0.00 0.01 51.7 1.00 0.0 51.7 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 14.5 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

1332 1332 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.89 1497 0 1497 1% NA 2

207 207 1900 12

135 135 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

216 216 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 16 3%

0 0 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1736 0.95 1736 0.89 152 0 152 3% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1856 0.95 1856 0.89 0 0 243 0% NA 8

75 75 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1544 1.00 1544 0.89 233 57 176 3% Perm

1006 1006 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.89 1130 0 1130 1% NA 6

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 0 0 0 0% Prot 5

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 957

68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 2183 c0.43

0.11 0.18 9.0 0.67 0.4 6.4 A

0.69 13.8 0.70 1.5 11.1 B 10.5 B

21.8 0.79 110.0 68.8% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 243 0 0 3% Split 8

7.0 7.0 0.06 5.0 3.0 110 c0.09

80.2 80.2 0.73 5.0 3.0 2671 0.31

19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 334 c0.13

1.38 51.5 0.67 214.8 249.3 F

0.42 5.8 0.12 0.4 1.1 A 30.6 C

0.73 42.6 1.00 7.7 50.2 D 46.9 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1614 1.00 1614 0.89 84 69 15 6% Perm 8 19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 290 0.01 0.05 37.3 1.00 0.1 37.4 D

0.0 A C 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900 12

1363 1363 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3513 1.00 3513 0.88 1549 1 1563 1% NA 2

13 13 1900 12

335 335 1900 12

1091 1091 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.88 1240 0 1240 2% NA 6

99 99 1900 12

9 9 1900 12

17 544 17 544 1900 1900 11 10 -2% 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1824 1464 0.98 1.00 1824 1464 0.88 0.88 19 618 0 43 29 575 0% 4% NA pm+ov 8 1 8 3.0 40.9 3.0 40.9 0.03 0.37 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 49 610 0.02 c0.32 0.07 0.59 0.94 52.9 33.4 1.03 0.96 17.7 23.0 72.2 55.1 E E 55.9 E

46 46 1900 11

22 22 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.88 52 0 52 6% Split 7

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.88 14 24 15 0% NA 7

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 58 c0.03

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 57 0.01

0.90 52.8 1.00 80.9 133.7 F

0.26 51.6 1.00 2.4 54.0 D 99.6 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.23 394 0.88 45 0 45 7% pm+pt 5 2 49.2 49.2 0.45 5.0 3.0 223 0.01 0.08 0.20 19.0 0.41 0.3 8.2 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 15 0 0 10%

45.1 45.1 0.41 5.0 3.0 1440 c0.45 1.09 32.5 0.64 48.2 69.1 E 67.4 E 41.4 1.06 110.0 88.4% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.08 149 0.88 381 0 381 2% pm+pt 1 6 88.0 88.0 0.80 5.0 3.0 677 0.19 0.26 0.56 22.8 1.26 0.8 29.5 C

78.9 78.9 0.72 5.0 3.0 2538 0.35 0.49 6.8 0.36 0.5 3.0 A 8.8 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.88 112 32 81 5% Perm

0.88 10 0 0 0% Split 8

6 78.9 78.9 0.72 5.0 3.0 1103 0.05 0.07 4.6 0.48 0.1 2.3 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.88 25 0 0 6%

D 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

766 766 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 870 0 870 1% NA 2

1194 1194 1900 12

121 121 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

167 167 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.27 510 0.88 138 0 138 1% pm+pt 1 6 84.0 84.0 0.76 5.0 5.0 470 0.02 0.21 0.29 4.3 1.05 0.4 5.0 A

1 1 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1657 0.95 1657 0.88 1 0 191 0% NA 8

295 295 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.88 1357 319 1038 4% Perm

1230 1230 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1398 0 1398 1% NA 6

0.88 0 0 0 0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 72.0 72.0 0.65 5.0 5.0 1016

72.0 72.0 0.65 5.0 5.0 2339 0.24 0.37 8.7 0.58 0.1 5.1 A 36.6 D

c0.67 1.02 19.0 1.96 19.4 56.7 E

38.2 1.03 110.0 102.4% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

0.88 0 0 0 0%

0.88 190 0 0 4% Split 8

84.0 84.0 0.76 5.0 5.0 2729 c0.39

16.0 16.0 0.15 5.0 5.0 241 0.12

0.51 5.0 1.58 0.4 8.4 A 8.1 A

0.79 45.4 1.00 18.4 63.8 E 133.3 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1451 1.00 1451 0.88 335 82 253 6% Perm 8 16.0 16.0 0.15 5.0 5.0 211 c0.17 1.20 47.0 1.00 126.0 173.0 F

D 15.0 G

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

386 386 1900 12

550 550 1900 12 0% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 625 0 625 1% NA 6

0 0 1900 12

413 413 1900 12 -3% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3523 1.00 3523 0.88 469 0 469 4% NA 2

68 68 1900 12

891 891 1900 11

236 236 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1546 1.00 1546 0.88 77 63 14 6% Perm

5.0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1585 0.95 1585 0.88 1012 0 658 3% Split 4

0 0 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 0.94 0.97 1590 0.97 1590 0.88 0 43 580 0% NA 4

0.88 268 0 0 0%

0.88 0 0 0 2%

49.6 49.6 0.45 5.0 2.5 714 c0.42

49.6 49.6 0.45 5.0 2.5 716 0.36

0.92 28.4 1.00 17.3 45.7 D

0.81 26.1 1.00 6.6 32.7 C 39.4 D

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 438 0.88 439 0 439 2% pm+pt 1 6 49.4 49.4 0.45 5.0 2.5 483 c0.20 c0.21 0.91 23.8 0.85 19.3 39.6 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 0 0 0 0%

49.4 49.4 0.45 6.0 2.5 1605 0.17

20.7 20.7 0.19 6.0 2.5 662 0.13

0.39 20.2 0.56 0.7 11.9 B 23.3 C

0.71 41.8 1.00 6.3 48.1 D 46.5 D 34.8 0.94 110.0 102.4% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

2 20.7 20.7 0.19 6.0 2.5 290 0.01 0.05 36.6 1.00 0.3 36.9 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A C 16.0 G

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Forest & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

103 103 1900 10 6.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1604 0.95 1604 0.88 117 0 117 5% Split 4

227 227 1900 11 6.7 0.95 0.99 1.00 3334 1.00 3334 0.88 258 2 265 4% NA 4

8 8 1900 11

363 363 1900 12 7.7 0.97 1.00 0.95 3273 0.95 3273 0.88 412 0 413 7% Split 3

196 196 1900 12 7.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.88 223 0 223 5% NA 3

177 177 1900 12 7.7 1.00 0.85 1.00 1495 1.00 1495 0.88 201 173 28 8% Perm

41 41 1900 11 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1745 0.95 1745 0.88 47 0 47 0% Prot 1

9.1 9.1 0.08 6.7 3.5 132 0.07

9.1 9.1 0.08 6.7 3.5 275 c0.08

15.3 15.3 0.14 7.7 3.5 455 c0.13

15.3 15.3 0.14 7.7 3.5 251 0.12

0.89 49.9 1.00 46.2 96.2 F

0.96 50.3 1.00 44.4 94.6 F 95.1 F

0.91 46.7 0.53 8.4 33.3 C

0.89 46.5 0.53 11.6 36.4 D 55.2 E

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 9 0 0 8%

51.1 0.99 110.0 85.2% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan2040 No Build AM EPR

3 15.3 15.3 0.14 7.7 3.5 207 0.02 0.14 41.5 2.91 0.1 120.9 F

6.4 6.4 0.06 7.7 3.5 101 0.03 0.47 50.1 1.00 4.0 54.1 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

1572 665 1572 665 1900 1900 12 11 5.7 7.7 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 5036 1531 1.00 1.00 5036 1531 0.88 0.88 1786 756 0 94 1786 662 3% 2% NA pm+ov 6 3 6 38.9 54.2 38.9 54.2 0.35 0.49 5.7 7.7 5.0 3.5 1780 754 c0.35 0.12 0.31 1.00 0.88 35.5 24.9 1.00 1.00 22.1 11.5 57.7 36.4 E D 51.4 D

268 268 1900 11 7.4 1.00 1.00 0.95 1694 0.95 1694 0.88 305 0 305 3% Prot 5

954 119 954 119 1900 1900 11 11 5.8 6.7 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 4868 1473 1.00 1.00 4868 1473 0.88 0.88 1084 135 0 61 1084 74 3% 6% NA pm+ov 2 4 2 51.3 60.4 51.3 60.4 0.47 0.55 5.8 6.7 5.0 3.5 2270 808 0.22 0.01 0.04 0.48 0.09 20.1 11.8 1.00 1.00 0.7 0.1 20.9 11.8 C B 37.3 D

19.2 19.2 0.17 7.4 3.5 295 c0.18 1.03 45.4 1.00 61.5 106.9 F

SBR

D 27.9 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT 1106 0.81 33.1 0.0 33.1 352 m384 1043

WBT 1085 2.29dl 72.5 0.0 72.5 ~90 #407 605

NBL 24 0.04 20.0 0.0 20.0 10 27 674

1360 0 0 0 0.81

990 0 0 0 1.10

662 0 0 0 0.04

NBR 940 1.30 169.8 0.0 169.8 ~794 #1007 180 725 0 0 0 1.30

Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1979 0.70 7.7 0.0 7.7 414 m342 952 2831 0 0 0 0.70

02/23/2018

WBL 102 0.50 29.4 0.0 29.4 23 m48 330 267 0 0 0 0.38

WBT 1145 0.35 0.3 0.0 0.3 3 3 1251

NBL 17 0.21 56.5 0.0 56.5 12 35 593

3281 0 0 0 0.35

83 0 0 0 0.20

NBR 16 0.20 27.6 0.0 27.6 0 23 240 83 0 0 0 0.19

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBT 1497 0.69 12.0 0.0 12.0 132 289 1348 2182 0 0 0 0.69

02/23/2018

EBR 233 0.23 3.2 0.0 3.2 4 22

WBL 152 1.38 246.0 0.0 246.0 ~142 #269

280 1013 0 0 0 0.23

310 110 0 0 0 1.38

WBT 1130 0.42 1.2 0.0 1.2 7 16 700

NBT 243 0.73 54.7 0.0 54.7 164 228 365

NBR 84 0.20 1.0 0.0 1.0 0 0

2670 0 0 0 0.42

506 0 0 0 0.48

563 0 0 0 0.15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 45 0.18 5.1 0.0 5.1 5 m7 250 251 0 0 0 0.18

EBT 1564 1.02 47.1 0.0 47.1 ~641 #750 700

WBL 381 0.56 28.0 0.0 28.0 162 m226

1536 0 0 0 1.02

420 682 0 0 0 0.56

02/23/2018

WBT 1240 0.46 2.9 0.0 2.9 31 m88 797 2697 0 0 0 0.46

WBR 113 0.09 0.6 0.0 0.6 0 m4 300 1200 0 0 0 0.09

NBT NBR 29 618 0.35 0.99 64.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 62.0 20 397 m49 m#597 519 160 84 626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.99

SBL 52 0.71 98.3 0.0 98.3 37 #102 190 73 0 0 0 0.71

SBT 39 0.41 39.9 0.0 39.9 10 44 443 95 0 0 0 0.41

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBT EBR 870 1357 0.37 1.02 5.2 28.3 0.0 3.6 5.2 32.0 78 ~372 m78 m#340 797 280 2339 1335 0 15 0 0 0 0 0.37 1.03

02/23/2018

WBL 138 0.29 4.5 0.0 4.5 21 m31 250 470 0 0 0 0.29

WBT 1398 0.51 8.5 0.3 8.8 278 311 663

SBT 191 0.79 69.3 0.0 69.3 132 #238 620

2729 592 0 0 0.65

241 0 0 0 0.79

SBR 335 1.14 128.3 0.0 128.3 ~216 #383 125 293 0 0 0 1.14

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

Queues 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBL 439 0.90 42.8 0.0 42.8 207 m#393 170 497 0 0 0 0.88

02/23/2018

EBT 625 0.39 12.4 0.0 12.4 73 94 663

WBT 469 0.71 49.8 0.0 49.8 170 #235 458

1604 0 0 0 0.39

664 0 0 0 0.71

WBR 77 0.22 10.8 0.0 10.8 0 40

NBL 658 0.92 47.8 0.0 47.8 428 #645

NBT 623 0.82 32.6 0.0 32.6 334 484 755

180 354 0 0 0 0.22

749 0 0 0 0.88

792 0 0 0 0.79

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

Queues 9: Forest & Graves Mill

EBL 117 0.89 103.7 0.0 103.7 83 #187 90 132 0 0 0 0.89

02/23/2018

EBT 267 0.96 96.3 0.0 96.3 100 #180 661

WBL 413 0.91 36.5 0.0 36.5 138 m130

277 0 0 0 0.96

300 455 0 0 0 0.91

WBT 223 0.89 41.4 0.0 41.4 144 m140 1043

WBR 201 0.48 8.8 0.0 8.8 37 m35

NBL 47 0.37 57.6 0.0 57.6 32 70

300 418 0 0 0 0.48

200 126 0 0 0 0.37

251 0 0 0 0.89

NBT 1786 1.04 69.9 0.0 69.9 ~501 #575 1143 1712 0 0 0 1.04

NBR 756 0.94 34.3 0.0 34.3 239 #485

SBL 305 0.96 86.3 0.0 86.3 215 #374

360 805 0 0 0 0.94

250 318 0 0 0 0.96

SBT 1084 0.46 20.7 0.0 20.7 192 226 649 2338 0 0 0 0.46

SBR 135 0.14 2.1 0.0 2.1 0 23 280 958 0 0 0 0.14

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

2.5

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 6 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1318 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 531 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 531 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

02/23/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1565 4 8 1160 18 0 0 8 8 0 4 1565 4 8 1160 18 0 0 8 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 - 140 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1778 5 9 1318 20 0 0 9 9 0 5

0 -

Major2 0 1778 4.1 2.2 - 354 - 354 -

EB 3.9

WB 0.6

NBLn1 EBL - 531 - 0.011 - 11.9 B 0

0 -

Minor1 0 2467 3126 - 1790 1790 - 677 1336 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 11 7 64 100 - 369 180 0 0 64 0 - 329 162

Minor2 889 2237 3126 - 1336 1336 - 901 1790 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 270 44 27 - 239 325 - 390 221

659 6.4 3.3 450 -

270 -

450 -

239 -

0 0 293 0

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 354 - 0.026 3.9 - 15.4 0.5 A C A 0.1 -

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

02/23/2018

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh37.5 Intersection LOS E Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

48 48 0.88 0 55 0

424 424 0.88 0 482 1

181 181 0.88 3 206 0

21 21 0.88 0 24 1

13 13 0.88 0 15 0

45 45 0.88 6 51 1

Approach EB Opposing Approach WB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach RightNB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 51.8 HCM LOS F Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

287 287 0.88 4 326 1

4 4 0.88 0 5 0 WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 13.5 B

79 79 0.88 7 90 1

3 3 0.88 0 3 0

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 25.4 D

94 94 0.88 4 107 0

163 163 0.88 0 185 1

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 13.7 B

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 61% 10% 0% 5% 22% 0% 7% 90% 0% 92% 78% 0% 32% 0% 100% 3% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 296 472 287 86 58 163 181 48 0 4 13 0 21 424 0 79 45 0 94 0 287 3 0 163 336 536 326 98 66 185 6 7 7 6 7 7 0.688 1.03 0.557 0.218 0.145 0.37 7.49 6.915 6.149 8.215 8.084 7.352 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 484 531 590 440 446 493 5.49 4.615 3.849 6.215 5.784 5.052 0.694 1.009 0.553 0.223 0.148 0.375 25.4 73.4 16.3 13.5 12.2 14.3 D F C B B B 5.2 15.2 3.4 0.8 0.5 1.7

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Old Graves Mill & Connector

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

02/23/2018

26.7

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 184 4 333 613 80 281 Future Vol, veh/h 184 4 333 613 80 281 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 255 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 0 3 2 2 5 Mvmt Flow 207 4 374 689 90 316 Major/Minor Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 1215 Stage 1 719 Stage 2 496 Critical Hdwy 6.46 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.46 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.46 Follow-up Hdwy 3.554 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 197 Stage 1 475 Stage 2 604 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 164 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 164 Stage 1 475 Stage 2 503

Major1 719 0 6.2 3.3 432 432 -

Major2 0 1063 - 4.12 - 2.218 - 655 - 655 -

Approach WB HCM Control Delay, s 207.5 HCM LOS F

NB 0

SB 2.5

0 -

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL - 164 432 655 - 1.261 0.01 0.137 - 211.7 13.4 11.4 F B B - 11.9 0 0.5

Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity

$: Delay exceeds 300s

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build AM EPR

SBT 0 A -

+: Computation Not Defined

*: All major volume in platoon

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

843 843 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 0.99 1.00 3540 1.00 3540 0.88 958 6 1022 1% NA 2

62 62 1900 12

498 498 1900 12

1208 1208 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 0.99 3533 0.50 1791 0.88 1373 0 1939 1% NA 6

46 46 1900 11 2% 5.3 1.00 1.00 0.95 1727 0.95 1727 0.88 52 0 52 0% Prot 4

586 586 1900 12

108.5 108.5 0.72 6.5 3.0 1809 c0.32 c0.46 1.07 20.8 0.77 42.1 58.1 E 58.1 E

29.7 29.7 0.20 5.3 2.0 341 0.03

0.88 70 0 0 0%

0.88 566 0 0 0% pm+pt 1 6

57.7 57.7 0.38 6.5 3.0 1361 0.29 0.75 39.9 0.91 1.9 38.4 D 38.4 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

102.5 1.23 150.0 93.4% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

0.15 49.7 1.00 0.1 49.8 D 314.0 F

5.3 1.00 0.85 1.00 1599 1.00 1599 0.88 666 168 498 0% Perm 4 29.7 29.7 0.20 5.3 2.0 316 c0.31 1.58 60.1 1.00 274.5 334.6 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

F 18.3 F

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Bus Blockages (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

02/23/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1427 1427 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3554 1.00 3554 0.92 1551 1 1570 1% 2 NA 6

18 18 1900 12

36 36 1900 11

1471 1471 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 1599 0 1599 1% 0 NA 2

100 100 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.92 109 0 109 1% 0 Prot 4

229 229 1900 11

53.9 53.9 0.72 5.0 3.5 2568 c0.45

11.1 11.1 0.15 5.0 2.0 251 0.06

0.62 5.4 1.25 0.9 7.6 A 7.8 A

0.43 29.1 1.00 0.4 29.5 C 35.6 D

46.9 46.9 0.63 5.0 3.5 2222 c0.44 0.71 9.4 1.75 1.0 17.5 B 17.5 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.92 20 0 0 0% 0

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1745 0.10 189 0.92 39 0 39 0% 0 pm+pt 5 2 54.4 54.4 0.73 4.5 2.0 188 0.01 0.14 0.21 12.0 1.21 0.2 14.6 B

14.9 0.72 75.0 62.5% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1508 1.00 1508 0.92 249 93 156 2% 0 Perm 4 11.1 11.1 0.15 5.0 2.0 223 c0.10 0.70 30.4 1.00 7.8 38.2 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

B 14.5 B

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1 1900 12

1467 1467 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.91 1612 0 1612 1% NA 2

341 341 1900 12

345 345 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

200 200 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

1 1 1900 16 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1906 1.00 1906 0.91 1 3 1 0% NA 4

3 3 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1753 0.95 1753 0.91 379 0 379 2% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1874 0.95 1874 0.91 0 0 220 0% NA 8

68 68 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.91 375 90 285 1% Perm

1251 1251 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.91 1375 0 1375 1% NA 6

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.95 1778 0.91 1 0 1 0% Prot 5 1.4 1.4 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 0.00

78.9 78.9 0.53 5.0 3.0 1852 c0.46

0.06 73.6 1.18 1.3 88.5 F

0.87 31.1 0.58 4.8 22.7 C 19.9 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 78.9 78.9 0.53 5.0 3.0 828 0.18 0.34 20.6 0.32 0.9 7.5 A

31.5 0.91 150.0 89.9% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

0.91 0 0 0 0%

0.91 220 0 0 2% Split 8

27.0 27.0 0.18 5.0 3.0 315 c0.22

104.5 104.5 0.70 5.0 3.0 2552 0.38

22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 284 c0.12

1.20 61.5 0.76 113.4 160.1 F

0.54 11.0 0.38 0.7 4.8 A 38.4 D

0.77 61.1 1.00 12.4 73.5 E 68.7 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.91 75 64 11 2% Perm

0.91 0 0 0 0% 4

8 22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 254 0.01 0.04 54.3 1.00 0.1 54.4 D

0.91 3 0 0 0%

1.3 1.3 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 c0.00 0.06 73.7 1.00 1.7 75.4 E 75.4 E

C 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

50 50 1900 12

1406 1406 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.95 1480 0 1487 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 12

285 285 1900 12

1476 1476 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1554 0 1554 1% NA 6

142 142 1900 12

58 58 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.07 136 0.95 53 0 53 0% pm+pt 5 2 81.4 81.4 0.54 5.0 3.0 194 0.02 0.13 0.27 46.8 0.78 0.5 37.0 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.90 7 0 0 40%

70.4 70.4 0.47 5.0 3.0 1632 c0.43 0.91 36.9 0.41 6.1 21.2 C 21.8 C 27.1 0.93 150.0 87.5% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.05 99 0.95 300 0 300 2% pm+pt 1 6 113.0 113.0 0.75 5.0 3.0 493 0.15 0.31 0.61 40.2 1.03 1.3 42.9 D

97.0 97.0 0.65 5.0 3.0 2311 0.43 0.67 16.6 0.32 1.0 6.2 A 11.4 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 149 53 96 0% Perm

0.95 61 0 0 4% Split 8

6 97.0 97.0 0.65 5.0 3.0 1044 0.06 0.09 10.0 0.25 0.1 2.6 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

27 472 27 472 1900 1900 11 10 -2% 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1694 1507 0.97 1.00 1694 1507 0.95 0.95 28 497 0 35 89 462 10% 1% NA pm+ov 8 1 8 9.2 46.8 9.2 46.8 0.06 0.31 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 103 520 0.05 c0.22 0.08 0.86 0.89 69.8 49.1 1.00 0.99 48.2 16.7 117.7 65.2 F E 73.1 E

121 121 1900 11

45 45 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 127 0 127 1% Split 7

19 19 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.95 20 43 24 0% NA 7

12.8 12.8 0.09 5.0 3.0 145 c0.07

12.8 12.8 0.09 5.0 3.0 132 0.02

0.88 67.8 1.00 40.3 108.1 F

0.18 63.7 1.00 0.7 64.4 E 93.0 F

0.95 47 0 0 6%

C 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

604 604 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.93 649 0 649 1% NA 2

1399 1399 1900 12

274 274 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

61 61 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.34 643 0.93 295 0 295 1% pm+pt 1 6 100.0 100.0 0.67 5.0 5.0 482 0.03 0.38 0.61 13.7 0.64 2.0 10.8 B

4 4 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1665 0.95 1665 0.93 4 0 70 0% NA 8

495 495 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 1504 393 1111 2% Perm

1407 1407 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.93 1513 0 1513 1% NA 6

0.93 0 0 0 0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 88.0 88.0 0.59 5.0 5.0 928

88.0 88.0 0.59 5.0 5.0 2096 0.18 0.31 15.7 0.59 0.2 9.4 A 103.5 F

c0.70 1.20 31.0 1.62 94.0 144.1 F

75.0 1.19 150.0 120.1% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

0.93 0 0 0 0%

0.93 66 0 0 4% Split 8

100.0 100.0 0.67 5.0 5.0 2382 c0.42

40.0 40.0 0.27 5.0 5.0 444 0.04

0.64 14.5 0.91 0.8 14.0 B 13.5 B

0.16 42.1 1.00 0.3 42.5 D 157.8 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1523 1.00 1523 0.93 532 38 494 1% Perm 8 40.0 40.0 0.27 5.0 5.0 406 c0.32 1.22 55.0 1.00 118.0 173.0 F

E 15.0 H

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

383 383 1900 12

322 322 1900 12 0% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.91 354 0 354 1% NA 6

0 0 1900 12

683 683 1900 12 -3% 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3628 1.00 3628 0.91 751 0 751 1% NA 2

169 169 1900 12

989 989 1900 11

85 85 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1623 1.00 1623 0.91 186 87 99 1% Perm

5.0 0.95 1.00 0.95 1617 0.95 1617 0.91 1087 0 598 1% Split 4

1 1 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 0.98 0.96 1652 0.96 1652 0.91 1 5 578 0% NA 4

0.91 93 0 0 0%

0.91 0 0 0 0%

59.7 59.7 0.40 5.0 2.5 643 c0.37

59.7 59.7 0.40 5.0 2.5 657 0.35

0.93 43.2 1.00 20.1 63.3 E

0.88 41.8 1.00 13.0 54.9 D 59.1 E

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.20 379 0.91 421 0 421 1% pm+pt 1 6 80.3 80.3 0.54 5.0 2.5 470 c0.17 c0.31 0.90 43.5 0.65 18.8 47.3 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.91 0 0 0 0%

79.3 79.3 0.53 6.0 2.5 1889 0.10

45.8 45.8 0.31 6.0 2.5 1107 0.21

0.19 18.5 0.43 0.2 8.1 A 29.4 C

0.68 45.6 1.00 3.4 49.0 D 47.1 D 47.3 0.94 150.0 120.1% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

2 45.8 45.8 0.31 6.0 2.5 495 0.06 0.20 38.6 1.00 0.9 39.5 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.0 A D 16.0 H

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Forest & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

154 154 1900 10 6.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1636 0.95 1636 0.88 175 0 175 3% Split 4

278 278 1900 11 6.7 0.95 0.97 1.00 3256 1.00 3256 0.88 316 14 380 3% NA 4

69 69 1900 11

653 653 1900 12 7.7 0.97 1.00 0.95 3400 0.95 3400 0.88 742 0 742 3% Split 3

246 246 1900 12 7.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1881 1.00 1881 0.88 280 0 280 1% NA 3

372 372 1900 12 7.7 1.00 0.85 1.00 1599 1.00 1599 0.88 423 307 116 1% Perm

47 47 1900 11 7.7 1.00 1.00 0.95 1694 0.95 1694 0.88 53 0 53 3% Prot 1

16.6 16.6 0.11 6.7 3.5 181 0.11

16.6 16.6 0.11 6.7 3.5 360 c0.12

31.3 31.3 0.21 7.7 3.5 709 c0.22

31.3 31.3 0.21 7.7 3.5 392 0.15

0.97 66.4 1.00 56.9 123.3 F

1.05 66.7 1.00 62.6 129.3 F 127.5 F

1.05 59.4 0.63 25.2 62.8 E

0.71 55.2 0.62 0.6 35.0 D 45.9 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 78 0 0 8%

64.2 1.05 150.0 95.4% 15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

3 31.3 31.3 0.21 7.7 3.5 333 0.07 0.35 50.6 0.47 0.1 23.7 C

6.4 6.4 0.04 7.7 3.5 72 0.03 0.74 71.0 1.00 32.9 103.8 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

1260 399 1260 399 1900 1900 12 11 5.7 7.7 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 5085 1473 1.00 1.00 5085 1473 0.88 0.88 1432 453 0 71 1432 382 2% 6% NA pm+ov 6 3 6 40.8 72.1 40.8 72.1 0.27 0.48 5.7 7.7 5.0 3.5 1383 708 c0.28 0.11 0.15 1.04 0.54 54.6 27.3 1.00 1.00 33.9 0.9 88.5 28.2 F C 74.8 E

355 355 1900 11 7.4 1.00 1.00 0.95 1711 0.95 1711 0.88 403 0 403 2% Prot 5

1647 122 1647 122 1900 1900 11 11 5.8 6.7 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 4916 1516 1.00 1.00 4916 1516 0.88 0.88 1872 139 0 61 1872 78 2% 3% NA pm+ov 2 4 2 67.8 84.4 67.8 84.4 0.45 0.56 5.8 6.7 5.0 3.5 2222 853 0.38 0.01 0.04 0.84 0.09 36.4 15.1 1.00 1.00 4.1 0.1 40.5 15.2 D B 51.7 D

33.8 33.8 0.23 7.4 3.5 385 c0.24 1.05 58.1 1.00 58.6 116.7 F

SBR

E 27.9 F

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

02/23/2018

EBT 1028 0.75 37.4 0.0 37.4 436 m397 1043

WBT 1939 1.07 65.9 0.0 65.9 ~776 #850 605

NBL 52 0.15 51.2 0.0 51.2 43 82 674

2262 0 0 0 0.45

1810 0 0 0 1.07

341 0 0 0 0.15

NBR 666 1.38 211.8 0.0 211.8 ~690 #902 180 484 0 0 0 1.38

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1571 0.68 18.2 0.0 18.2 672 m575 952 2310 0 0 0 0.68

02/23/2018

WBL 39 0.17 7.4 0.0 7.4 7 m16 330 229 0 0 0 0.17

WBT 1599 0.62 8.4 0.0 8.4 285 430 1251

NBL 109 0.43 33.2 0.0 33.2 46 88 593

2568 0 0 0 0.62

340 0 0 0 0.32

NBR 249 0.79 34.5 0.0 34.5 61 134 240 388 0 0 0 0.64

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBL 1 0.01 81.0 0.0 81.0 1 m1 380 82 0 0 0 0.01

EBT 1612 0.79 18.3 0.0 18.4 493 #974 1348 2039 0 16 0 0.80

02/23/2018

EBR WBL 375 379 0.38 1.41 3.8 239.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 239.9 14 ~495 112 m#705 280 992 0 0 0 0.38

310 268 0 0 0 1.41

WBT 1375 0.50 4.2 0.1 4.2 19 196 700

NBT 220 0.77 78.8 0.0 78.8 210 290 355

NBR 75 0.21 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 6

SBT 4 0.05 49.8 0.0 49.8 1 14 176

2747 264 0 0 0.55

374 0 0 0 0.59

434 0 0 0 0.17

383 0 0 0 0.01

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 53 0.26 13.8 0.0 13.8 6 m14 250 208 0 0 0 0.25

EBT 1487 0.90 20.7 0.5 21.2 635 164 700

WBL 300 0.62 47.6 0.0 47.6 255 m252

1668 31 0 0 0.91

420 482 0 0 0 0.62

02/23/2018

WBT 1554 0.67 6.3 0.1 6.4 216 m210 797 2481 178 0 0 0.67

WBR NBT NBR 149 89 497 0.13 0.86 0.91 0.5 124.4 64.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.5 124.4 69.2 0 87 426 m5 m#197 m#647 519 300 160 1166 104 544 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0.13 0.86 0.96

SBL 127 0.88 114.3 0.0 114.3 125 #248 190 147 0 0 0 0.86

SBT 67 0.38 31.8 0.0 31.8 18 70 443 177 0 0 0 0.38

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 4

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBT 649 0.31 9.5 0.0 9.5 97 m108 797 2096 0 0 0 0.31

02/23/2018

EBR 1504 1.14 84.1 0.3 84.4 ~1467 #1698

WBL 295 0.61 10.7 0.0 10.7 72 m77

280 1321 86 0 0 1.22

250 482 0 0 0 0.61

WBT 1513 0.64 14.2 0.8 15.0 437 372 663

SBT 70 0.16 43.4 0.0 43.4 53 96 620

2382 509 0 0 0.81

444 0 0 0 0.16

SBR 532 1.20 151.1 0.0 151.1 ~591 #826 125 444 0 0 0 1.20

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 5

Queues 7: NB Ramp & Graves Mill

EBL 421 0.90 52.6 0.0 52.6 293 #452 170 517 0 0 0 0.81

02/23/2018

EBT 354 0.19 8.4 0.0 8.4 42 56 663

WBT 751 0.68 51.2 0.0 51.2 370 442 458

1889 0 0 0 0.19

1116 0 0 0 0.67

WBR 186 0.32 17.1 0.0 17.1 47 117

NBL 598 0.93 64.8 0.0 64.8 562 #804

NBT 583 0.88 56.8 0.0 56.8 525 #713 755

180 586 0 0 0 0.32

679 0 0 0 0.88

698 0 0 0 0.84

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 6

Queues 9: Forest & Graves Mill

EBL 175 0.97 123.9 0.0 123.9 173 #319 90 181 0 0 0 0.97

02/23/2018

EBT 394 1.05 120.8 0.0 120.8 ~213 #314 661

WBL 742 1.05 62.7 0.0 62.7 ~396 m321

374 0 0 0 1.05

300 709 0 0 0 1.05

WBT 280 0.71 35.9 0.0 35.9 216 m194 1043

WBR 423 0.66 3.8 0.0 3.8 15 m12

NBL 53 0.59 94.9 0.0 94.9 52 #109

300 640 0 0 0 0.66

200 90 0 0 0 0.59

392 0 0 0 0.71

NBT 1432 1.08 99.1 0.0 99.1 ~569 #641 1143 1332 0 0 0 1.08

NBR 453 0.61 14.7 0.0 14.7 133 194

SBL 403 1.00 101.9 0.0 101.9 ~398 #600

360 747 0 0 0 0.61

250 402 0 0 0 1.00

SBT 1872 0.82 39.7 0.0 39.7 598 642 649 2272 0 0 0 0.82

SBR 139 0.14 2.3 0.0 2.3 0 27 280 981 0 0 0 0.14

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 7

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

4.6

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 4 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1580 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 422 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS

02/23/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1739 1 5 1454 10 1 0 15 23 0 10 1739 1 5 1454 10 1 0 15 23 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 - 140 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1890 1 5 1580 11 1 0 16 25 0 11

0 -

Major2 0 1890 4.1 2.2 - 321 - 321 -

EB 0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL

WB 0.7

NBLn1 70 0.248 72.7 F 0.9

EBL 422 0.01 13.6 B 0

0 -

Minor1 0 2700 3490 - 1899 1899 - 801 1591 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 7 4 53 87 - 305 129 6 3 6 3 53 87 - 256 111

Minor2 945 2545 3490 - 1591 1591 - 954 1899 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 246 28 17 - 178 263 - 367 201

790 6.4 3.3 376 -

246 -

376 -

NB 72.7 F

~ 23 ~ 23 178 343

15 15 227 201

SB $ 384.5 F

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 321 32 - 0.017 - 1.121 0 - 16.4 0.7 -$ 384.5 A C A F 0.1 3.9

$: Delay exceeds 300s

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

+: Computation Not Defined

*: All major volume in platoon

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

02/23/2018

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh84.5 Intersection LOS F Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

144 144 0.88 0 164 0

42 42 0.88 0 48 1

352 352 0.88 1 400 0

68 68 0.88 0 77 1

0 0 0.88 0 0 0

31 31 0.88 0 35 1

Approach EB Opposing Approach WB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach RightNB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 22.2 HCM LOS C Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

221 221 0.88 3 251 1

57 57 0.88 0 65 0 WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 122.2 F

365 365 0.88 1 415 1

10 10 0.88 0 11 0

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 134.1 F

17 17 0.88 8 19 0

159 159 0.88 0 181 1

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 18.1 C

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 81% 77% 0% 13% 0% 0% 16% 23% 0% 84% 100% 0% 4% 0% 100% 2% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 437 186 221 432 31 159 352 144 0 57 0 0 68 42 0 365 31 0 17 0 221 10 0 159 497 211 251 491 35 181 6 7 7 6 7 7 1.183 0.523 0.546 1.15 0.09 0.425 9.083 9.925 8.786 9.065 10.179 9.442 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 402 366 414 403 354 385 7.083 7.625 6.486 7.065 7.879 7.142 1.236 0.577 0.606 1.218 0.099 0.47 134.1 23 21.6 122.2 13.9 18.9 F C C F B C 18.5 2.9 3.2 17.3 0.3 2.1

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Old Graves Mill & Connector

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

02/23/2018

162.2

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 419 21 235 333 17 684 Future Vol, veh/h 419 21 235 333 17 684 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 255 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 1 3 8 3 Mvmt Flow 455 23 255 362 18 743 Major/Minor Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 1216 Stage 1 436 Stage 2 780 Critical Hdwy 6.41 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 201 Stage 1 654 Stage 2 ~ 454 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 194 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 194 Stage 1 654 Stage 2 ~ 439

Major1 436 0 6.2 3.3 625 625 -

Major2 0 617 - 4.18 - 2.272 - 934 - 934 -

Approach WB HCM Control Delay, s$ 629.7 HCM LOS F

NB 0

SB 0.2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 - 194 625 - 2.348 0.037 -$ 660.7 11 F B - 37.3 0.1

Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity

$: Delay exceeds 300s

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 2040 No Build PM EPR

0 -

SBL 934 0.02 8.9 A 0.1

SBT 0 A -

+: Computation Not Defined

*: All major volume in platoon

Synchro 9 Report Page 3

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

766 766 1900 12 0% 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1881 1.00 1881 0.88 870 0 870 1% NA 2

1194 1194 1900 12

121 121 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

167 167 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.16 298 0.88 138 0 138 1% pm+pt 1 6 81.7 81.7 0.74 5.0 5.0 336 0.03 0.27 0.41 12.8 1.59 1.0 21.4 C

1 1 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1657 0.95 1657 0.88 1 0 191 0% NA 8

295 295 1900 11

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2733 1.00 2733 0.88 1357 516 841 4% Perm

1230 1230 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1398 0 1398 1% NA 6

0.88 0 0 0 0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 5.0 1166 c0.46 0.75 14.8 0.67 1.0 10.9 B 4.9 A

2 68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 5.0 1694 0.31 0.50 11.5 0.07 0.2 1.1 A

9.3 0.73 110.0 78.0% 15

0.88 0 0 0 0%

0.88 190 0 0 4% Split 8

81.7 81.7 0.74 5.0 5.0 2654 c0.39

18.3 18.3 0.17 5.0 5.0 275 c0.12

0.53 6.0 1.81 0.5 11.3 B 12.2 B

0.69 43.2 1.00 9.3 52.5 D 19.3 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

0.0 A

4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1451 1.00 1451 0.88 335 0 335 6% Free Free 110.0 110.0 1.00

1451 0.23 0.23 0.0 1.00 0.4 0.4 A

A 15.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBT 870 0.75 11.9 0.9 12.7 283 m279 797

EBR 1357 0.61 0.3 0.0 0.3 0 m0

WBL 138 0.41 9.2 0.0 9.2 33 m48

1165 103 0 0 0.82

2209 0 0 0 0.61

250 336 0 0 0 0.41

WBT 1398 0.53 12.1 0.4 12.4 388 458 663

SBT 191 0.69 56.4 0.0 56.4 127 196 620

2653 632 0 0 0.69

316 0 0 0 0.60

SBR 335 0.23 0.4 0.0 0.4 0 0 300 1451 0 0 0 0.23

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

604 604 1900 12 0% 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1881 1.00 1881 0.93 649 0 649 1% NA 2

1399 1399 1900 12

274 274 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 12 3%

0 0 1900 12

61 61 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.34 644 0.93 295 0 295 1% pm+pt 1 6 129.0 129.0 0.86 5.0 5.0 643 0.04 0.36 0.46 4.2 0.23 0.6 1.6 A

4 4 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1665 0.95 1665 0.93 4 0 70 0% NA 8

495 495 1900 11

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2787 1.00 2787 0.93 1504 294 1210 2% Perm

1407 1407 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.93 1513 0 1513 1% NA 6

0.93 0 0 0 0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

112.2 112.2 0.75 5.0 5.0 1406 0.34 0.46 7.3 0.53 0.5 4.4 A 1.7 A

2 112.2 112.2 0.75 5.0 5.0 2084 c0.43 0.58 8.4 0.00 0.5 0.6 A

2.6 0.58 150.0 83.4% 15

0.93 0 0 0 0%

0.93 66 0 0 4% Split 8

129.0 129.0 0.86 5.0 5.0 3073 c0.42

11.0 11.0 0.07 5.0 5.0 122 c0.04

0.49 2.5 0.42 0.3 1.4 A 1.4 A

0.57 67.2 1.00 10.0 77.2 E 9.5 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

0.93 0 0 0 0%

0.0 A

4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1523 1.00 1523 0.93 532 0 532 1% Free Free 150.0 150.0 1.00

1523 0.35 0.35 0.0 1.00 0.6 0.6 A

A 15.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 6: SB Ramp & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBT 649 0.46 4.9 0.4 5.3 116 m159 797

EBR 1504 0.63 0.6 0.3 0.9 0 0

WBL 295 0.46 1.9 0.0 1.9 0 m0

1418 335 0 0 0.60

2388 289 0 0 0.72

250 732 0 0 0 0.40

WBT 1513 0.48 1.5 0.4 1.9 0 0 663

SBT 70 0.49 77.0 0.0 77.0 66 119 620

3120 914 0 0 0.69

166 0 0 0 0.42

SBR 532 0.35 0.6 0.0 0.6 0 0 300 1523 0 0 0 0.35

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

958 958 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.88 1089 1 1105 1% NA 2

15 15 1900 12

311 311 1900 12

644 644 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 732 0 732 1% NA 6

21 827 21 827 1900 1900 11 12 2% 5.3 6.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1630 2786 0.95 1.00 1630 2786 0.88 0.88 24 940 0 39 24 901 6% 1% Prot pm+ov 4 1 4 3.9 39.2 3.9 39.2 0.04 0.36 5.3 6.5 2.0 1.5 57 992 0.01 c0.29 0.03 0.42 0.91 51.9 33.7 1.00 1.00 1.8 11.5 53.8 45.2 D D 45.4 D

52.5 52.5 0.48 6.5 3.0 1702 c0.31 0.65 21.8 0.96 0.6 21.6 C 21.6 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 17 0 0 0%

6.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.14 262 0.88 353 0 353 0% pm+pt 1 6 94.3 94.3 0.86 6.5 1.5 719 0.16 0.26 0.49 13.9 2.99 0.2 41.8 D

26.4 0.76 110.0 66.7% 15

94.3 94.3 0.86 6.5 3.0 3063 0.20 0.24 1.4 0.74 0.2 1.2 A 14.4 B

NBR

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

C 18.3 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

EBT 1106 0.62 21.7 0.0 21.7 320 m350 1043 1772 0 0 0 0.62

06/07/2018

WBL 353 0.49 29.7 0.0 29.7 176 230 300 769 0 0 0 0.46

WBT 732 0.23 1.1 0.0 1.1 50 15 605

NBL 24 0.26 56.8 0.0 56.8 17 44 674

3221 0 0 0 0.23

96 0 0 0 0.25

NBR 940 0.85 36.1 0.0 36.1 304 352 180 1189 0 0 0 0.79

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

06/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

843 843 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 0.99 1.00 3540 1.00 3540 0.88 958 3 1025 1% NA 2

62 62 1900 12

498 498 1900 12

1208 1208 1900 12 0% 6.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1373 0 1373 1% NA 6

46 586 46 586 1900 1900 11 12 2% 5.3 6.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1727 2814 0.95 1.00 1727 2814 0.88 0.88 52 666 0 57 52 609 0% 0% Prot pm+ov 4 1 4 7.9 46.3 7.9 46.3 0.05 0.31 5.3 6.5 2.0 1.5 90 990 0.03 c0.16 0.06 0.58 0.62 69.4 44.3 1.00 1.00 5.5 0.8 74.9 45.1 E D 47.2 D

85.4 85.4 0.57 6.5 3.0 2015 0.29 0.51 19.6 0.91 0.4 18.2 B 18.2 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 70 0 0 0%

6.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.21 407 0.88 566 0 566 0% pm+pt 1 6 130.3 130.3 0.87 6.5 1.5 711 c0.20 c0.49 0.80 18.6 0.68 5.0 17.6 B

18.0 0.82 150.0 73.1% 15

130.3 130.3 0.87 6.5 3.0 3104 0.38 0.44 2.1 1.07 0.4 2.6 A 7.0 A

NBR

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

B 18.3 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 1: Gristmill & Graves Mill

EBT 1028 0.50 20.0 0.0 20.0 308 m372 1043 2044 0 0 0 0.50

06/07/2018

WBL 566 0.79 23.4 0.0 23.4 260 206 300 948 0 0 0 0.60

WBT 1373 0.43 2.8 0.0 2.8 158 51 605

NBL 52 0.50 83.6 0.0 83.6 50 94 674

3169 0 0 0 0.43

129 0 0 0 0.40

NBR 666 0.67 38.9 0.0 38.9 278 269 180 1208 0 0 0 0.55

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900 12

1363 1363 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3513 1.00 3513 0.88 1549 1 1563 1% NA 2

13 13 1900 12

335 335 1900 12

1091 1091 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.88 1240 0 1240 2% NA 6

99 99 1900 12

9 9 1900 12

46 46 1900 11

22 22 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.88 52 0 52 6% Split 7

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.88 14 24 15 0% NA 7

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 58 c0.03

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 57 0.01

0.90 52.8 1.00 80.9 133.7 F

0.26 51.6 1.00 2.4 54.0 D 99.6 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.23 394 0.88 45 0 45 7% pm+pt 5 2 49.2 49.2 0.45 5.0 3.0 223 0.01 0.08 0.20 19.0 0.40 0.3 7.9 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 15 0 0 10%

45.1 45.1 0.41 5.0 3.0 1440 c0.45 1.09 32.5 0.52 48.2 65.2 E 63.6 E 40.9 1.06 110.0 88.4% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.08 149 0.88 381 0 381 2% pm+pt 1 6 88.0 88.0 0.80 5.0 3.0 677 0.19 0.26 0.56 22.8 1.32 1.0 31.1 C

78.9 78.9 0.72 5.0 3.0 2538 0.35 0.49 6.8 0.72 0.6 5.5 A 11.2 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.88 112 32 81 5% Perm

0.88 10 0 0 0% Split 8

6 78.9 78.9 0.72 5.0 3.0 1103 0.05 0.07 4.6 1.56 0.1 7.3 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

0.88 25 0 0 6%

D 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 45 0.18 5.0 0.0 5.0 5 m7 250 251 0 0 0 0.18

EBT 1564 1.02 43.9 1.7 45.6 ~633 #747 700 1536 0 8 0 1.02

WBL 381 0.56 29.6 0.0 29.6 193 288 420 682 0 0 0 0.56

03/07/2018

WBT 1240 0.46 5.4 0.0 5.4 64 184 797

WBR 113 0.09 1.7 0.0 1.7 0 14

2697 0 0 0 0.46

1200 0 0 0 0.09

NBT NBR 29 618 0.35 0.99 63.8 62.1 0.0 0.0 63.8 62.1 20 397 m49 m#596 519 160 84 626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.99

SBL 52 0.71 98.3 5.2 103.5 37 #102 190 73 0 5 0 0.76

SBT 39 0.41 39.9 0.0 39.9 10 44 443 95 0 0 0 0.41

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

50 50 1900 12

1406 1406 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.95 1480 0 1487 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 12

285 285 1900 12

1476 1476 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1554 0 1554 1% NA 6

142 142 1900 12

58 58 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.07 136 0.95 53 0 53 0% pm+pt 5 2 81.4 81.4 0.54 5.0 3.0 194 0.02 0.13 0.27 46.8 0.76 0.5 36.1 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.90 7 0 0 40%

70.4 70.4 0.47 5.0 3.0 1632 c0.43 0.91 36.9 0.37 6.1 19.8 B 20.3 C 27.2 0.93 150.0 87.5% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.05 99 0.95 300 0 300 2% pm+pt 1 6 113.0 113.0 0.75 5.0 3.0 493 0.15 0.31 0.61 40.2 0.97 1.9 41.0 D

97.0 97.0 0.65 5.0 3.0 2311 0.43 0.67 16.6 0.41 1.4 8.2 A 12.5 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 149 53 96 0% Perm

0.95 61 0 0 4% Split 8

6 97.0 97.0 0.65 5.0 3.0 1044 0.06 0.09 10.0 0.04 0.2 0.6 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

121 121 1900 11

45 45 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 127 0 127 1% Split 7

19 19 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.95 20 43 24 0% NA 7

12.8 12.8 0.09 5.0 3.0 145 c0.07

12.8 12.8 0.09 5.0 3.0 132 0.02

0.88 67.8 1.00 40.3 108.1 F

0.18 63.7 1.00 0.7 64.4 E 93.0 F

0.95 47 0 0 6%

C 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 53 0.26 13.5 0.0 13.5 3 m14 250 208 0 0 0 0.25

EBT 1487 0.90 19.2 0.5 19.8 644 164 700 1668 31 0 0 0.91

WBL 300 0.62 46.7 0.0 46.7 244 350 420 482 0 0 0 0.62

03/07/2018

WBT 1554 0.67 8.2 0.0 8.3 287 214 797 2481 17 0 0 0.63

WBR NBT NBR 149 89 497 0.13 0.86 0.91 0.3 124.4 64.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 124.4 64.5 0 87 425 0 m#197 m#647 519 160 1166 104 544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.86 0.91

SBL 127 0.88 114.3 0.0 114.3 125 #248 190 147 0 0 0 0.86

SBT 67 0.38 31.8 0.0 31.8 18 70 443 177 0 0 0 0.38

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900 12

1363 1363 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3513 1.00 3513 0.88 1549 1 1563 1% NA 2

13 13 1900 12

335 335 1900 12

1091 1091 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.88 1240 0 1240 2% NA 6

99 99 1900 12

9 9 1900 12

17 17 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1824 0.98 1824 0.88 19 0 29 0% NA 8

544 544 1900 10

46 46 1900 11

22 22 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2576 1.00 2576 0.88 618 0 618 4% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.88 52 0 52 6% Split 7

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.88 14 24 15 0% NA 7

38.2 38.2 0.35

894 c0.24

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 58 c0.03

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 57 0.01

0.69 30.8 0.96 2.3 31.8 C

0.90 52.8 1.00 80.9 133.7 F

0.26 51.6 1.00 2.4 54.0 D 99.6 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.23 394 0.88 45 0 45 7% pm+pt 5 2 56.8 56.8 0.52 5.0 3.0 249 0.01 0.09 0.18 14.5 0.36 0.3 5.5 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 15 0 0 10%

52.8 52.8 0.48 5.0 3.0 1686 c0.45 0.93 26.8 0.43 8.3 19.7 B 19.3 B 21.2 0.90 110.0 78.4% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.07 129 0.88 381 0 381 2% pm+pt 1 6 84.0 84.0 0.76 5.0 3.0 489 c0.19 0.41 0.78 31.6 1.14 6.9 42.9 D

75.0 75.0 0.68 5.0 3.0 2412 0.35 0.51 8.6 0.65 0.7 6.3 A 14.5 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.88 112 36 77 5% Perm

0.88 10 0 0 0% Split 8

6 75.0 75.0 0.68 5.0 3.0 1048 0.05 0.07 5.9 1.56 0.1 9.2 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

7.0 7.0 0.06 5.0 3.0 116 0.02 0.25 49.0 1.03 1.1 51.4 D 32.7 C

0.88 25 0 0 6%

C 20.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 45 0.17 4.0 0.0 4.0 3 m7 250 268 0 0 0 0.17

EBT 1564 0.91 21.0 0.0 21.0 288 #747 700 1719 0 0 0 0.91

WBL 381 0.78 40.3 0.0 40.3 197 296 420 606 0 0 0 0.63

03/07/2018

WBT 1240 0.50 5.9 0.0 5.9 64 184 797

WBR 113 0.10 1.7 0.0 1.7 0 14

NBT 29 0.25 58.0 0.0 58.0 20 m49 519

2476 0 0 0 0.50

1112 0 0 0 0.10

115 0 0 0 0.25

NBR 618 0.69 33.6 0.0 33.6 205 m234

SBL 52 0.71 98.3 0.0 98.3 37 #102

160 1077 0 0 0 0.57

190 73 0 0 0 0.71

SBT 39 0.41 39.9 0.0 39.9 10 44 443 95 0 0 0 0.41

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

50 50 1900 12

1406 1406 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.95 1480 0 1487 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 12

285 285 1900 12

1476 1476 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1554 0 1554 1% NA 6

142 142 1900 12

58 58 1900 12

27 27 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1694 0.97 1694 0.95 28 0 89 10% NA 8

472 472 1900 10

121 121 1900 11

45 45 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2653 1.00 2653 0.95 497 0 497 1% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 127 0 127 1% Split 7

19 19 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.95 20 43 24 0% NA 7

47.3 47.3 0.32

836 c0.19

13.4 13.4 0.09 5.0 3.0 152 c0.07

13.4 13.4 0.09 5.0 3.0 138 0.02

0.59 43.3 1.00 1.1 44.2 D

0.84 67.2 1.00 30.9 98.1 F

0.18 63.2 1.00 0.6 63.8 E 86.3 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.08 148 0.95 53 0 53 0% pm+pt 5 2 81.1 81.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 153 0.02 0.17 0.35 46.4 0.66 0.9 31.4 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.90 7 0 0 40%

74.3 74.3 0.50 5.0 3.0 1722 c0.43 0.86 33.4 0.34 3.9 15.1 B 15.6 B 21.3 0.82 150.0 80.7% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.06 108 0.95 300 0 300 2% pm+pt 1 6 109.6 109.6 0.73 5.0 3.0 414 c0.15 0.38 0.72 43.1 0.86 5.6 42.8 D

97.8 97.8 0.65 5.0 3.0 2330 0.43 0.67 16.1 0.29 1.4 6.1 A 11.2 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 149 52 97 0% Perm

0.95 61 0 0 4% Split 8

6 97.8 97.8 0.65 5.0 3.0 1052 0.06 0.09 9.7 0.03 0.2 0.4 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

12.0 12.0 0.08 5.0 3.0 135 0.05 0.66 67.0 1.00 11.1 78.1 E 49.4 D

0.95 47 0 0 6%

C 20.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 53 0.32 12.7 0.0 12.7 3 m12 250 168 0 0 0 0.32

EBT 1487 0.85 15.1 0.3 15.4 640 164 700 1748 31 0 0 0.87

WBL 300 0.75 50.6 0.0 50.6 242 244 420 482 0 0 0 0.62

03/07/2018

WBT 1554 0.66 6.1 0.0 6.1 287 214 797

WBR NBT 149 89 0.13 0.66 0.3 88.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 88.8 0 83 0 m#197 519

2482 17 0 0 0.63

1166 0 0 0 0.13

135 0 0 0 0.66

NBR 497 0.61 47.0 0.0 47.0 223 m285

SBL 127 0.84 106.6 0.0 106.6 125 #248

160 811 0 0 0 0.61

190 153 0 0 0 0.83

SBT 67 0.37 31.3 0.0 31.3 18 70 443 182 0 0 0 0.37

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

03/07/2018

37.5 E

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

48 48 0.88 0 55 0

424 424 0.88 0 482 1

287 287 0.88 4 326 1

4 4 0.88 0 5 0

79 79 0.88 7 90 1

3 3 0.88 0 3 0

181 181 0.88 3 206 0

21 21 0.88 0 24 1

94 94 0.88 4 107 0

13 13 0.88 0 15 0

45 45 0.88 6 51 1

163 163 0.88 0 185 1

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 2 NB 1 51.8 F

Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q

WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 13.5 B

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 25.4 D

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 13.7 B

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 61% 10% 0% 5% 22% 0% 7% 90% 0% 92% 78% 0% 32% 0% 100% 3% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 296 472 287 86 58 163 181 48 0 4 13 0 21 424 0 79 45 0 94 0 287 3 0 163 336 536 326 98 66 185 6 7 7 6 7 7 0.688 1.03 0.557 0.218 0.145 0.37 7.49 6.915 6.149 8.215 8.084 7.352 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 484 531 590 440 446 493 5.49 4.615 3.849 6.215 5.784 5.052 0.694 1.009 0.553 0.223 0.148 0.375 25.4 73.4 16.3 13.5 12.2 14.3 D F C B B B 5.2 15.2 3.4 0.8 0.5 1.7

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

03/07/2018

84.5 F

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

144 144 0.88 0 164 0

42 42 0.88 0 48 1

221 221 0.88 3 251 1

57 57 0.88 0 65 0

365 365 0.88 1 415 1

10 10 0.88 0 11 0

352 352 0.88 1 400 0

68 68 0.88 0 77 1

17 17 0.88 8 19 0

0 0 0.88 0 0 0

31 31 0.88 0 35 1

159 159 0.88 0 181 1

Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS

EB WB 1 SB 2 NB 1 22.2 C

WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 2 122.2 F

NB SB 2 EB 2 WB 1 134.1 F

SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 2 18.1 C

NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 81% 77% 0% 13% 0% 0% 16% 23% 0% 84% 100% 0% 4% 0% 100% 2% 0% 100% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 437 186 221 432 31 159 352 144 0 57 0 0 68 42 0 365 31 0 17 0 221 10 0 159 497 211 251 491 35 181 6 7 7 6 7 7 1.183 0.523 0.546 1.15 0.09 0.425 9.083 9.925 8.786 9.065 10.179 9.442 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 402 366 414 403 354 385 7.083 7.625 6.486 7.065 7.879 7.142 1.236 0.577 0.606 1.218 0.099 0.47 134.1 23 21.6 122.2 13.9 18.9 F C C F B C 18.5 2.9 3.2 17.3 0.3 2.1

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Roundabout 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

8.1 A

Approach Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Designated Moves Assumed Moves RT Channelized Lane Util Critical Headway, s Entry Flow, veh/h Cap Entry Lane, veh/h Entry HV Adj Factor Flow Entry, veh/h Cap Entry, veh/h V/C Ratio Control Delay, s/veh LOS 95th %tile Queue, veh

03/07/2018

EB 1 1 863 876 74 493 3.186 0 1.000 5.9 A Left LT LT 1.000 5.193 537 1049 1.000 537 1049 0.512 9.5 A 3

WB 1 1 98 104 291 608 3.186 0 1.000 5.8 A Bypass R R Free 339 1976 0.962 326 1900 0.172 0.0 A 1

NB 1 1 337 347 552 59 3.186 0 1.000 14.7 B

SB 1 1 251 254 313 82 3.186 0 1.000 7.9 A

Left LTR LTR

1.000 5.193 104 845 0.940 98 794 0.123 5.8 A 0

1.000 5.193 347 651 0.971 337 632 0.533 14.7 B 3

1.000 5.193 254 826 0.988 251 816 0.307 7.9 A 1

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 Roundabout 8: Graves Mill & Nationwide & McConville

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

16.2 C

03/07/2018

EB 1 1 463 471 100 1004 3.186 0 1.000 2.5 A Left LT LT 1.000 5.193 212 1022 1.000 212 1022 0.207 5.5 A 1

WB 1 1 491 495 645 69 3.186 0 1.000 33.8 D Bypass R R Free 259 1957 0.971 251 1900 0.132 0.0 A 0

NB 1 1 496 502 212 100 3.186 0 1.000 11.5 B

SB 1 1 216 216 888 252 3.186 0 1.000 16.6 C

Left LTR LTR

1.000 5.193 495 593 0.992 491 588 0.835 33.8 D 9

1.000 5.193 502 914 0.988 496 903 0.549 11.5 B 3

1.000 5.193 216 465 1.000 216 465 0.465 16.6 C 2

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1669 1669 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 0.99 1.00 3554 1.00 3554 0.88 1897 2 1977 1% NA 6

72 72 1900 12

90 90 1900 11

1008 1008 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1145 0 1145 1% NA 2

15 15 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.95 1719 0.88 17 0 17 0% Prot 4

14 14 1900 11

96.6 96.6 0.88 5.0 3.5 3138 0.32

3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 53 c0.01

0.36 1.2 0.06 0.3 0.3 A 3.5 A

0.32 52.2 1.00 1.3 53.4 D 52.6 D

85.5 85.5 0.78 5.0 3.5 2762 c0.56 0.72 6.1 0.69 1.1 5.4 A 5.4 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 82 0 0 0%

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1728 0.07 122 0.88 102 0 102 1% pm+pt 5 2 96.6 96.6 0.88 4.5 2.0 203 c0.03 0.41 0.50 11.5 3.32 0.6 38.6 D

5.1 0.69 110.0 68.8% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1411 1.00 1411 0.88 16 16 0 9% Perm 4 3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 43 0.00 0.01 51.7 1.00 0.0 51.7 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

A 14.5 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1979 0.70 5.6 0.0 5.6 119 410 952 2831 0 0 0 0.70

03/07/2018

WBL 102 0.50 29.1 0.0 29.1 25 m47 330 267 0 0 0 0.38

WBT 1145 0.35 0.3 0.0 0.3 3 3 1251

NBL 17 0.21 56.5 0.0 56.5 12 35 593

3281 0 0 0 0.35

83 0 0 0 0.20

NBR 16 0.20 27.6 0.0 27.6 0 23 240 83 0 0 0 0.19

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Bus Blockages (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

03/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1427 1427 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3554 1.00 3554 0.92 1551 1 1570 1% 2 NA 6

18 18 1900 12

36 36 1900 11

1471 1471 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 1599 0 1599 1% 0 NA 2

100 100 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.92 109 0 109 1% 0 Prot 4

229 229 1900 11

53.9 53.9 0.72 5.0 3.5 2568 c0.45

11.1 11.1 0.15 5.0 2.0 251 0.06

0.62 5.4 1.27 0.9 7.7 A 7.9 A

0.43 29.1 1.00 0.4 29.5 C 35.6 D

46.9 46.9 0.63 5.0 3.5 2222 c0.44 0.71 9.4 1.22 1.7 13.2 B 13.2 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.92 20 0 0 0% 0

4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1745 0.10 189 0.92 39 0 39 0% 0 pm+pt 5 2 54.4 54.4 0.73 4.5 2.0 188 0.01 0.14 0.21 12.0 1.20 0.2 14.5 B

13.0 0.72 75.0 62.5% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1508 1.00 1508 0.92 249 93 156 2% 0 Perm 4 11.1 11.1 0.15 5.0 2.0 223 c0.10 0.70 30.4 1.00 7.8 38.2 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

B 14.5 B

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1571 0.68 13.5 0.0 13.5 155 562 952 2310 0 0 0 0.68

03/07/2018

WBL 39 0.17 7.4 0.0 7.4 7 m16 330 229 0 0 0 0.17

WBT 1599 0.62 8.5 0.0 8.5 250 429 1251

NBL 109 0.43 33.2 0.0 33.2 46 88 593

2568 0 0 0 0.62

340 0 0 0 0.32

NBR 249 0.79 34.5 0.0 34.5 61 134 240 388 0 0 0 0.64

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1669 1669 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1897 0 1897 1% NA 6

72 72 1900 12

8 8 1900 12

90 90 1900 11 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1726 0.08 141 0.88 102 0 111 1% pm+pt 5 2 96.6 96.6 0.88 4.5 2.0 216 c0.03 0.42 0.51 9.4 3.62 0.7 34.8 C

15 15 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.95 1719 0.88 17 0 17 0% Prot 4

14 14 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.88 0.88 82 9 18 0 64 0 0% 2% Perm custom

1008 1008 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.88 1145 0 1145 1% NA 2 96.6 96.6 0.88 5.0 3.5 3138 0.32

3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 53 c0.01

0.36 1.2 0.06 0.3 0.3 A 3.4 A

0.32 52.2 1.00 1.3 53.4 D 52.6 D

85.7 85.7 0.78 5.0 3.5 2784 c0.53 0.68 5.7 0.74 1.0 5.2 A 5.1 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

6 85.7 85.7 0.78 5.0 3.5 1258

0.04 0.05 2.8 0.83 0.1 2.4 A

4.9 0.66 110.0 67.0% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1411 1.00 1411 0.88 16 16 0 9% Perm 4 3.4 3.4 0.03 5.0 2.0 43 0.00 0.01 51.7 1.00 0.0 51.7 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

A 14.5 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1897 0.67 5.4 0.0 5.4 145 362 952 2849 0 0 0 0.67

03/07/2018

EBR 82 0.06 0.8 0.0 0.8 1 m2

WBL 111 0.51 25.3 0.0 25.3 28 m44

300 1303 0 0 0 0.06

330 281 0 0 0 0.40

WBT 1145 0.35 0.3 0.0 0.3 3 3 1251

NBL 17 0.21 56.5 0.0 56.5 12 35 593

3281 0 0 0 0.35

83 0 0 0 0.20

NBR 16 0.20 27.6 0.0 27.6 0 23 240 83 0 0 0 0.19

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Bus Blockages (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

03/07/2018

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

1427 1427 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3560 1.00 3560 0.92 1551 0 1551 1% 2 NA 6

18 18 1900 12

23 23 1900 12

36 36 1900 11 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1731 0.10 189 0.92 39 0 64 0% 0 pm+pt 5 2 53.7 53.7 0.72 4.5 2.0 186 0.01 0.23 0.34 13.7 1.21 0.3 16.9 B

100 100 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.92 109 0 109 1% 0 Prot 4

229 229 1900 11

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.92 0.92 20 25 8 0 12 0 0% 2% 0 0 Perm custom

1471 1471 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 1599 0 1599 1% 0 NA 2 53.2 53.2 0.71 5.0 3.5 2535 c0.45

11.8 11.8 0.16 5.0 2.0 267 0.06

0.63 5.7 1.53 0.9 9.7 A 10.0 A

0.41 28.5 1.00 0.4 28.8 C 36.5 D

46.2 46.2 0.62 5.0 3.5 2192 c0.44 0.71 9.8 1.17 1.7 13.2 B 13.1 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

6 46.2 46.2 0.62 5.0 3.5 994

0.01 0.01 5.6 1.60 0.0 8.9 A

14.0 0.73 75.0 69.0% 15

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1508 1.00 1508 0.92 249 75 174 2% 0 Perm 4 11.8 11.8 0.16 5.0 2.0 237 c0.12 0.73 30.1 1.00 9.7 39.8 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

B 14.5 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 2: Millrace & Graves Mill

EBT 1551 0.68 13.3 0.0 13.3 153 553 952 2281 0 0 0 0.68

03/07/2018

EBR 20 0.02 4.6 0.0 4.6 1 m7

WBL 64 0.28 10.3 0.0 10.3 13 m22

300 1041 0 0 0 0.02

330 229 0 0 0 0.28

WBT 1599 0.63 10.5 0.0 10.5 348 428 1251

NBL 109 0.41 32.0 0.0 32.0 45 88 593

2536 0 0 0 0.63

340 0 0 0 0.32

NBR 249 0.80 38.4 0.0 38.4 70 #160 240 372 0 0 0 0.67

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

2.5

03/07/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

0 -

Major2 0 1778 4.1 2.2 - 354 - 354 -

EB 3.9

WB 0.6

NBLn1 EBL - 531 - 0.011 - 11.9 B 0

0 -

Minor1 0 2467 3126 - 1790 1790 - 677 1336 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 11 7 64 100 - 369 180 0 0 64 0 - 329 162

Minor2 889 2237 3126 - 1336 1336 - 901 1790 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 270 44 27 - 239 325 - 390 221

659 6.4 3.3 450 -

270 -

450 -

239 -

0 0 293 0

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 354 - 0.026 3.9 - 15.4 0.5 A C A 0.1 -

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

4.6

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 4 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1580 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 422 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS

03/07/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

0 -

Major2 0 1890 4.1 2.2 - 321 - 321 -

EB 0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL

0 -

Minor1 0 2700 3490 - 1899 1899 - 801 1591 8.1 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.5 4 7 4 53 87 - 305 129 6 3 6 3 53 87 - 256 111

WB 0.7

NBLn1 70 0.248 72.7 F 0.9

EBL 422 0.01 13.6 B 0

Minor2 945 2545 3490 - 1591 1591 - 954 1899 7.2 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 3.5 4 246 28 17 - 178 263 - 367 201

790 6.4 3.3 376 -

246 -

376 -

NB 72.7 F

~ 23 ~ 23 178 343

15 15 227 201

SB $ 384.5 F

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 321 32 - 0.017 - 1.121 0 - 16.4 0.7 -$ 384.5 A C A F 0.1 3.9

$: Delay exceeds 300s

+: Computation Not Defined

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

*: All major volume in platoon

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.1

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length 300 Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 6 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1318 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 531 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 531 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

03/07/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1573 4 8 1160 18 0 0 8 0 0 4 1573 4 8 1160 18 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 300 - 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1788 5 9 1318 20 0 0 9 0 0 5

0 -

Major2 0 1788 4.1 2.2 - 351 - 351 -

EB 0

WB 0.1

NBLn1 EBL 267 531 0.034 0.011 19 11.9 C B 0.1 0

0 -

Minor1 0 0 0 0 -

0 0 0

Minor2 894 7.2 3.3 267 0 0 0

0 0 0

659 6.4 3.3 450 -

267 -

450 -

NB 19 C

SB 13.1 B

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 351 - 450 - 0.026 - 0.01 - 15.5 - 13.1 C B 0.1 0

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Graves Mill & Millside

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.3

Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length 300 Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 Mvmt Flow 4 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1582 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 421 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 421 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

03/07/2018

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

NBL

NBT NBR

SBL

SBT SBR

1762 1 5 1455 10 0 0 16 0 0 33 1762 1 5 1455 10 0 0 16 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - None - None - None - None - 140 300 - 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 5 3 -5 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1915 1 5 1582 11 0 0 17 0 0 36

0 -

Major2 0 1915 4.1 2.2 - 314 - 314 -

EB 0

0 -

Minor1 0 0 0 0 -

WB 0.1

NBLn1 241 0.072 21.1 C 0.2

EBL 421 0.01 13.6 B 0

0 0 0

Minor2 958 7.2 3.3 241 0 0 0

0 0 0

791 6.4 3.3 376 -

241 -

376 -

NB 21.1 C

SB 15.6 C

EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 - 314 - 376 - 0.017 - 0.095 - 16.7 - 15.6 C C 0.1 0.3

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900 12

1363 1363 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3513 1.00 3513 0.88 1549 1 1563 1% NA 2

13 13 1900 12

335 335 1900 12

1091 1091 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.88 1240 0 1240 2% NA 6

99 99 1900 12

9 9 1900 12

17 17 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1824 0.98 1824 0.88 19 0 29 0% NA 8

544 544 1900 10

46 46 1900 11

22 22 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2576 1.00 2576 0.88 618 0 618 4% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.88 52 0 52 6% Split 7

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.88 14 24 15 0% NA 7

38.2 38.2 0.35

894 c0.24

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 58 c0.03

4.0 4.0 0.04 5.0 3.0 57 0.01

0.69 30.8 0.96 2.3 31.8 C

0.90 52.8 1.00 80.9 133.7 F

0.26 51.6 1.00 2.4 54.0 D 99.6 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.23 394 0.88 45 0 45 7% pm+pt 5 2 56.8 56.8 0.52 5.0 3.0 249 0.01 0.09 0.18 14.5 0.36 0.3 5.5 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 15 0 0 10%

52.8 52.8 0.48 5.0 3.0 1686 c0.45 0.93 26.8 0.43 8.3 19.7 B 19.3 B 21.2 0.90 110.0 78.4% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.07 129 0.88 381 0 381 2% pm+pt 1 6 84.0 84.0 0.76 5.0 3.0 489 c0.19 0.41 0.78 31.6 1.14 6.9 42.9 D

75.0 75.0 0.68 5.0 3.0 2412 0.35 0.51 8.6 0.65 0.7 6.3 A 14.5 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.88 112 36 77 5% Perm

0.88 10 0 0 0% Split 8

6 75.0 75.0 0.68 5.0 3.0 1048 0.05 0.07 5.9 1.56 0.1 9.2 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

7.0 7.0 0.06 5.0 3.0 116 0.02 0.25 49.0 1.03 1.1 51.4 D 32.7 C

0.88 25 0 0 6%

C 20.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 45 0.17 4.0 0.0 4.0 3 m7 250 268 0 0 0 0.17

EBT 1564 0.91 21.0 0.0 21.0 288 #747 700 1719 0 0 0 0.91

WBL 381 0.78 40.3 0.0 40.3 197 296 420 606 0 0 0 0.63

03/07/2018

WBT 1240 0.50 5.9 0.0 5.9 64 184 797

WBR 113 0.10 1.7 0.0 1.7 0 14

NBT 29 0.25 58.0 0.0 58.0 20 m49 519

2476 0 0 0 0.50

1112 0 0 0 0.10

115 0 0 0 0.25

NBR 618 0.69 33.6 0.0 33.6 205 m234

SBL 52 0.71 98.3 0.0 98.3 37 #102

160 1077 0 0 0 0.57

190 73 0 0 0 0.71

SBT 39 0.41 39.9 0.0 39.9 10 44 443 95 0 0 0 0.41

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

1332 1332 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.89 1497 0 1497 1% NA 2

207 207 1900 12

135 135 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

216 216 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 16 3%

0 0 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1736 0.95 1736 0.89 152 0 152 3% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1856 0.95 1856 0.89 0 0 243 0% NA 8

75 75 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1544 1.00 1544 0.89 233 57 176 3% Perm

1006 1006 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.89 1130 0 1130 1% NA 6

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 0 0 0 0% Prot 5

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 2183 c0.43 0.69 13.8 0.56 1.5 9.2 A 8.6 A

2 68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 957 0.11 0.18 9.0 0.49 0.4 4.7 A

20.8 0.79 110.0 68.8% 15

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 243 0 0 3% Split 8

7.0 7.0 0.06 5.0 3.0 110 c0.09

80.2 80.2 0.73 5.0 3.0 2671 0.31

19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 334 c0.13

1.38 51.5 0.67 213.9 248.5 F

0.42 5.8 0.12 0.4 1.1 A 30.5 C

0.73 42.6 1.00 7.7 50.2 D 46.9 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1614 1.00 1614 0.89 84 69 15 6% Perm 8 19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 290 0.01 0.05 37.3 1.00 0.1 37.4 D

0.0 A C 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBT 1497 0.69 9.9 0.0 9.9 171 263 1348 2182 0 0 0 0.69

03/07/2018

EBR 233 0.23 2.4 0.0 2.4 7 20

WBL 152 1.38 245.1 0.0 245.1 ~139 #268

280 1013 0 0 0 0.23

310 110 0 0 0 1.38

WBT 1130 0.42 1.2 0.0 1.2 13 16 700

NBT 243 0.73 54.7 0.0 54.7 164 228 365

NBR 84 0.20 1.0 0.0 1.0 0 0

2670 0 0 0 0.42

506 0 0 0 0.48

563 0 0 0 0.15

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

50 50 1900 12

1406 1406 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3478 1.00 3478 0.95 1480 0 1487 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 12

285 285 1900 12

1476 1476 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1554 0 1554 1% NA 6

142 142 1900 12

58 58 1900 12

27 27 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1694 0.97 1694 0.95 28 0 89 10% NA 8

472 472 1900 10

121 121 1900 11

45 45 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2653 1.00 2653 0.95 497 0 497 1% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 127 0 127 1% Split 7

19 19 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.95 20 43 24 0% NA 7

47.3 47.3 0.32

836 c0.19

13.4 13.4 0.09 5.0 3.0 152 c0.07

13.4 13.4 0.09 5.0 3.0 138 0.02

0.59 43.3 1.00 1.1 44.2 D

0.84 67.2 1.00 30.9 98.1 F

0.18 63.2 1.00 0.6 63.8 E 86.3 F

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.08 148 0.95 53 0 53 0% pm+pt 5 2 81.1 81.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 153 0.02 0.17 0.35 46.4 0.66 0.9 31.4 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.90 7 0 0 40%

74.3 74.3 0.50 5.0 3.0 1722 c0.43 0.86 33.4 0.34 3.9 15.1 B 15.6 B 21.3 0.82 150.0 80.7% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.06 108 0.95 300 0 300 2% pm+pt 1 6 109.6 109.6 0.73 5.0 3.0 414 c0.15 0.38 0.72 43.1 0.86 5.6 42.8 D

97.8 97.8 0.65 5.0 3.0 2330 0.43 0.67 16.1 0.29 1.4 6.1 A 11.2 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 149 52 97 0% Perm

0.95 61 0 0 4% Split 8

6 97.8 97.8 0.65 5.0 3.0 1052 0.06 0.09 9.7 0.03 0.2 0.4 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

12.0 12.0 0.08 5.0 3.0 135 0.05 0.66 67.0 1.00 11.1 78.1 E 49.4 D

0.95 47 0 0 6%

C 20.0 D

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 53 0.32 12.7 0.0 12.7 3 m12 250 168 0 0 0 0.32

EBT 1487 0.85 15.1 0.3 15.4 640 164 700 1748 31 0 0 0.87

WBL 300 0.75 50.6 0.0 50.6 242 244 420 482 0 0 0 0.62

03/07/2018

WBT 1554 0.66 6.1 0.0 6.1 287 214 797

WBR NBT 149 89 0.13 0.66 0.3 88.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 88.8 0 83 0 m#197 519

2482 17 0 0 0.63

1166 0 0 0 0.13

135 0 0 0 0.66

NBR 497 0.61 47.0 0.0 47.0 223 m285

SBL 127 0.84 106.6 0.0 106.6 125 #248

160 811 0 0 0 0.61

190 153 0 0 0 0.83

SBT 67 0.37 31.3 0.0 31.3 18 70 443 182 0 0 0 0.37

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1 1900 12

1467 1467 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.91 1612 0 1612 1% NA 2

341 341 1900 12

345 345 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

200 200 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

1 1 1900 16 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1906 1.00 1906 0.91 1 3 1 0% NA 4

3 3 1900 12

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1753 0.95 1753 0.91 379 0 379 2% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1874 0.95 1874 0.91 0 0 220 0% NA 8

68 68 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.91 375 90 285 1% Perm

1251 1251 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.91 1375 0 1375 1% NA 6

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.95 1778 0.91 1 0 1 0% Prot 5 1.4 1.4 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 0.00

78.9 78.9 0.53 5.0 3.0 1852 c0.46

0.06 73.6 0.98 1.3 73.4 E

0.87 31.1 0.71 4.8 26.9 C 23.5 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 78.9 78.9 0.53 5.0 3.0 828 0.18 0.34 20.6 0.39 0.9 8.9 A

34.2 0.91 150.0 89.9% 15

0.91 0 0 0 0%

0.91 220 0 0 2% Split 8

27.0 27.0 0.18 5.0 3.0 315 c0.22

104.5 104.5 0.70 5.0 3.0 2552 0.38

22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 284 c0.12

1.20 61.5 0.83 113.6 164.9 F

0.54 11.0 0.48 0.7 6.0 A 40.3 D

0.77 61.1 1.00 12.4 73.5 E 68.7 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.91 75 64 11 2% Perm

0.91 0 0 0 0% 4

8 22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 254 0.01 0.04 54.3 1.00 0.1 54.4 D

0.91 3 0 0 0%

1.3 1.3 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 c0.00 0.06 73.7 1.00 1.7 75.4 E 75.4 E

C 20.0 E

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBL 1 0.01 67.0 0.0 67.0 1 m1 380 82 0 0 0 0.01

EBT 1612 0.79 21.6 0.0 21.7 407 #974 1348 2039 0 16 0 0.80

03/07/2018

EBR 375 0.38 4.4 0.0 4.4 9 113

WBL 379 1.41 242.4 0.0 242.4 ~494 #706

280 992 0 0 0 0.38

310 268 0 0 0 1.41

WBT 1375 0.50 5.2 0.1 5.2 47 250 700

NBT 220 0.77 78.8 0.0 78.8 210 290 355

NBR 75 0.21 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 6

SBT 4 0.05 49.8 0.0 49.8 1 14 176

2747 264 0 0 0.55

374 0 0 0 0.59

434 0 0 0 0.17

383 0 0 0 0.01

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

40 40 1900 12

1363 1363 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5047 1.00 5047 0.88 1549 1 1563 1% NA 2

13 13 1900 12

335 335 1900 12

1091 1091 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.88 1240 0 1240 2% NA 6

99 99 1900 12

9 9 1900 12

17 17 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1824 0.98 1824 0.88 19 0 29 0% NA 8

544 544 1900 10

46 46 1900 11

22 22 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2576 1.00 2576 0.88 618 0 618 4% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1621 0.95 1621 0.88 52 0 52 6% Split 7

12 12 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.88 14 24 15 0% NA 7

39.6 39.6 0.36

927 c0.24

5.6 5.6 0.05 5.0 3.0 82 c0.03

5.6 5.6 0.05 5.0 3.0 80 0.01

0.67 29.6 0.97 1.8 30.5 C

0.63 51.2 1.00 14.9 66.1 E

0.19 50.0 1.00 1.2 51.2 D 59.7 E

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1662 0.23 394 0.88 45 0 45 7% pm+pt 5 2 53.8 53.8 0.49 5.0 3.0 238 0.01 0.09 0.19 14.8 0.43 0.4 6.6 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.88 15 0 0 10%

49.8 49.8 0.45 5.0 3.0 2284 0.31 0.68 23.9 0.45 1.5 12.4 B 12.2 B 18.1 0.82 110.0 66.9% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.07 137 0.88 381 0 381 2% pm+pt 1 6 80.3 80.3 0.73 5.0 3.0 478 c0.18 c0.40 0.80 29.9 1.13 8.1 42.0 D

71.3 71.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 2293 0.35 0.54 10.5 0.77 0.8 8.9 A 16.4 B

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1538 1.00 1538 0.88 112 40 73 5% Perm

0.88 10 0 0 0% Split 8

6 71.3 71.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 996 0.05 0.07 7.1 1.72 0.1 12.4 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

9.1 9.1 0.08 5.0 3.0 150 0.02 0.19 47.0 1.03 0.6 49.2 D 31.4 C

0.88 25 0 0 6%

B 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 45 0.17 5.1 0.0 5.1 5 m9 250 259 0 0 0 0.17

EBT 1564 0.67 12.4 0.0 12.4 193 305 700 2335 0 0 0 0.67

WBL 381 0.79 41.2 0.0 41.2 200 292 420 606 0 0 0 0.63

03/07/2018

WBT 1240 0.53 8.2 0.0 8.2 123 184 797

WBR 113 0.11 1.9 0.0 1.9 1 14

NBT 29 0.19 55.5 0.0 55.5 20 m49 519

2453 0 0 0 0.51

1102 0 0 0 0.10

149 0 0 0 0.19

NBR 618 0.67 32.5 0.0 32.5 205 238

SBL 52 0.52 70.0 0.0 70.0 35 #102

160 1125 0 0 0 0.55

190 100 0 0 0 0.52

SBT 39 0.32 34.0 0.0 34.0 9 44 443 121 0 0 0 0.32

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

0 0 1900 12

1332 1332 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5059 1.00 5059 0.89 1497 0 1497 1% NA 2

207 207 1900 12

135 135 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

216 216 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

0 0 1900 16 3%

0 0 1900 12

5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3369 0.95 3369 0.89 152 0 152 3% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1856 0.95 1856 0.89 0 0 243 0% NA 8

75 75 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1544 1.00 1544 0.89 233 82 151 3% Perm

1006 1006 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.89 1130 0 1130 1% NA 6

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 0 0 0 0% Prot 5

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 3136 c0.30 0.48 11.3 0.58 0.4 7.0 A 6.7 A

2 68.2 68.2 0.62 5.0 3.0 957 0.10 0.16 8.8 0.53 0.3 4.9 A

10.6 0.58 110.0 58.1% 15

0.89 0 0 0 0%

0.89 243 0 0 3% Split 8

7.0 7.0 0.06 5.0 3.0 214 c0.05

80.2 80.2 0.73 5.0 3.0 2671 0.31

19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 334 c0.13

0.71 50.5 0.72 9.4 45.9 D

0.42 5.8 0.16 0.4 1.4 A 6.7 A

0.73 42.6 1.00 7.7 50.2 D 46.9 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1614 1.00 1614 0.89 84 69 15 6% Perm 8 19.8 19.8 0.18 5.0 3.0 290 0.01 0.05 37.3 1.00 0.1 37.4 D

0.0 A B 20.0 B

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBT 1497 0.48 7.4 0.0 7.4 116 147 1348 3135 0 0 0 0.48

03/07/2018

EBR 233 0.22 1.5 0.0 1.5 4 14

WBL 152 0.71 53.7 0.0 53.7 55 #96

280 1038 0 0 0 0.22

310 214 0 0 0 0.71

WBT 1130 0.42 1.5 0.0 1.5 5 16 700

NBT 243 0.73 54.7 0.0 54.7 164 228 365

NBR 84 0.20 1.0 0.0 1.0 0 0

2670 0 0 0 0.42

506 0 0 0 0.48

563 0 0 0 0.15

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 7:30 am 10/10/2017 Future AM Build - Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

50 50 1900 12

1406 1406 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 4997 1.00 4997 0.95 1480 1 1486 2% NA 2

6 6 1900 12

285 285 1900 12

1476 1476 1900 12 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.95 1554 0 1554 1% NA 6

142 142 1900 12

58 58 1900 12

27 27 1900 11 -2% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1694 0.97 1694 0.95 28 0 89 10% NA 8

472 472 1900 10

121 121 1900 11

45 45 1900 12

5.0 0.88 0.85 1.00 2653 1.00 2653 0.95 497 0 497 1% pt+ov 81

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1702 0.95 1702 0.95 127 0 127 1% Split 7

19 19 1900 11 3% 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.95 20 42 25 0% NA 7

53.0 53.0 0.35

937 c0.19

14.6 14.6 0.10 5.0 3.0 165 c0.07

14.6 14.6 0.10 5.0 3.0 151 0.02

0.53 38.6 1.00 0.6 39.1 D

0.77 66.1 1.00 19.2 85.3 F

0.16 62.1 1.00 0.5 62.6 E 77.4 E

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.07 131 0.95 53 0 53 0% pm+pt 5 2 72.5 72.5 0.48 5.0 3.0 119 0.02 0.20 0.45 54.3 0.90 2.3 51.1 D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

0.90 7 0 0 40%

67.4 67.4 0.45 5.0 3.0 2245 0.30 0.66 32.4 0.45 1.3 15.8 B 17.0 B 19.8 0.69 150.0 70.8% 15

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.09 176 0.95 300 0 300 2% pm+pt 1 6 107.7 107.7 0.72 5.0 3.0 501 0.14 0.29 0.60 31.7 0.69 1.8 23.7 C

97.6 97.6 0.65 5.0 3.0 2325 c0.43 0.67 16.2 0.35 1.4 7.1 A 9.1 A

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 149 52 97 0% Perm

0.95 61 0 0 4% Split 8

6 97.6 97.6 0.65 5.0 3.0 1050 0.06 0.09 9.7 0.05 0.2 0.7 A

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

12.7 12.7 0.08 5.0 3.0 143 0.05 0.62 66.3 1.00 8.2 74.7 E 44.5 D

0.95 47 0 0 6%

B 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 5: Connector/Creekside & Graves Mill

EBL 53 0.40 26.1 0.0 26.1 9 m52 250 134 0 0 0 0.40

EBT 1487 0.65 16.1 0.0 16.1 351 102 700 2492 0 0 0 0.60

WBL 300 0.61 30.6 0.0 30.6 125 206 420 536 0 0 0 0.56

03/07/2018

WBT 1554 0.66 7.2 0.0 7.2 311 214 797

WBR NBT 149 89 0.13 0.62 0.3 84.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 84.3 0 83 0 m#197 519

2482 17 0 0 0.63

1167 0 0 0 0.13

143 0 0 0 0.62

NBR 497 0.54 41.0 0.0 41.0 210 268

SBL 127 0.77 93.8 0.0 93.8 120 #248

160 919 0 0 0 0.54

190 167 0 0 0 0.76

SBT 67 0.35 30.0 0.0 30.0 18 70 443 195 0 0 0 0.34

Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

03/07/2018

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

1 1 1900 12

1467 1467 1900 12 3% 5.0 0.91 1.00 1.00 5059 1.00 5059 0.91 1612 0 1612 1% NA 2

341 341 1900 12

345 345 1900 11

0 0 1900 12

200 200 1900 12

0 0 1900 12

1 1 1900 16 3% 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1906 1.00 1906 0.91 1 3 1 0% NA 4

3 3 1900 12

5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3402 0.95 3402 0.91 379 0 379 2% Prot 1

0 0 1900 13 -5% 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1874 0.95 1874 0.91 0 0 220 0% NA 8

68 68 1900 13

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1575 1.00 1575 0.91 375 124 251 1% Perm

1251 1251 1900 12 -5% 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3664 1.00 3664 0.91 1375 0 1375 1% NA 6

5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1778 0.95 1778 0.91 1 0 1 0% Prot 5 1.4 1.4 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 0.00

81.1 81.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 2735 c0.32

0.06 73.6 0.98 1.3 73.4 E

0.59 23.2 0.65 0.8 16.0 B 14.3 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

2 81.1 81.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 851 0.16 0.29 18.8 0.33 0.7 6.8 A

19.0 0.63 150.0 70.7% 15

0.91 0 0 0 0%

0.91 220 0 0 2% Split 8

24.8 24.8 0.17 5.0 3.0 562 c0.11

104.5 104.5 0.70 5.0 3.0 2552 0.38

22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 284 c0.12

0.67 58.8 0.83 2.6 51.5 D

0.54 11.0 0.49 0.7 6.1 A 15.9 B

0.77 61.1 1.00 12.4 73.5 E 68.7 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.91 75 64 11 2% Perm

0.91 0 0 0 0% 4

8 22.8 22.8 0.15 5.0 3.0 254 0.01 0.04 54.3 1.00 0.1 54.4 D

0.91 3 0 0 0%

1.3 1.3 0.01 5.0 3.0 16 c0.00 0.06 73.7 1.00 1.7 75.4 E 75.4 E

B 20.0 C

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Queues 4: Old Graves Mill & Graves Mill

EBL 1 0.01 67.0 0.0 67.0 1 m1 380 82 0 0 0 0.01

EBT 1612 0.54 13.6 0.0 13.6 265 369 1348 3004 0 0 0 0.54

03/07/2018

EBR 375 0.36 2.5 0.0 2.5 6 71

WBL 379 0.80 63.2 0.0 63.2 185 236

280 1045 0 0 0 0.36

310 521 0 0 0 0.73

WBT 1375 0.50 5.3 0.1 5.4 36 250 700

NBT 220 0.77 78.8 0.0 78.8 210 290 355

NBR 75 0.21 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 6

SBT 4 0.05 49.8 0.0 49.8 1 14 176

2747 320 0 0 0.57

374 0 0 0 0.59

434 0 0 0 0.17

383 0 0 0 0.01

Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Graves Mill Road Corridor Plan 10/10/2017 Future Build Priority 1 EPR

Synchro 9 Report Page 1

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix G Turn Lane Warrants

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

4 vph 822 vph

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

3 vph 949 vph

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road WB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

6 vph 1050 vph

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road WB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

4 vph 1092 vph

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millrace Drive

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Volume Right Turns: Peak Hour Volume Approach Total: Conclusion:

56 vph 1180 vph

Full-width Turn Lane and Taper Required F-75

NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).

Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study Graves Mill Road/Millrace Drive

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Volume Right Turns: Peak Hour Volume Approach Total: Conclusion:

14 vph 860 vph

Taper Required F-75

NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

5 vph 1186 vph

No Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

4 vph 1469 vph

50’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road WB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

8 vph 1574 vph

100’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millside

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road WB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Left Turns (VL): Opposing Volume (VO): Conclusion:

5 vph 1744 vph

125’ Left Turn Storage Lane Required

Warrants for Left Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highways

At-Grade, Unsignalized intersections S=Storage Length Required

FIGURE 3-3 WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS

F-52

Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millrace Drive

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: AM Peak Hour Volume Right Turns: Peak Hour Volume Approach Total: Conclusion:

72 vph 1741 vph

Full-width Turn Lane and Taper Required F-75

NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).

Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Four-Lane Highway Project: Intersection:

Graves Mill Corridor Study (2040 No Build Scenario) Graves Mill Road/Millrace Drive

Approach Direction: Graves Mill Road EB Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour Volume Right Turns: Peak Hour Volume Approach Total: Conclusion:

18 vph 1445 vph

Taper Required F-75

NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).

Gr av es Mi ll R o ad Co r r ido r Imp ro vem ent S tudy – T echn ic al A ppe ndix

Appendix H Detailed Cost Estimates

UPC: 109702

Project Cost Estimating System SUMMARY PAGE LYNCHBURG

DISTRICT PROJECT NUMBER

Graves Mill and Gristmill

CONSTRUCTION END YEAR

FY2018

AD YEAR

FY2018

RATE OF INFLATION TO AD

N/A

FY2018

INFLATION RATE

N/A

ESTIMATE YEAR Date of previous estimate

UPC

DURING CN

09/21/17

Bill Wuensch

PROJECT MANAGER / DESIGNER

Preliminary Engineering Estimate:

PCES

Construction Estimate:

PCES

Right-of-Way Estimate:

PCES

Utilities Estimate:

PCES

DATE

109702

6/8/2018

THE FOLLOWING DATA WILL BE PROVIDED UPON COMPLETION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE WORKBOOK, WHICH IS ACCESSED BY SELECTING THE CONST, RW, & UTIL TABS BELOW Bridge PE ESTIMATE Bridge CN ESTIMATE Bridge RW ESTIMATE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ESTIMATE (excluding Bridge PE) CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (excluding Bridge CN) RIGHT-OF-WAY & UTILITIES ESTIMATE(excluding Bridge RW)

TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE (excluding Bridge estimate)

$0 $0 $0 $430,568 $2,289,807 $132,632

$2,853,007

Estimate Class: Blank

Version 7.00

UPC: 109702

Project Cost Estimating System SUMMARY PAGE LYNCHBURG

DISTRICT PROJECT NUMBER

Graves Mill and 501

CONSTRUCTION END YEAR

FY2018

AD YEAR

FY2018

RATE OF INFLATION TO AD

N/A

FY2018

INFLATION RATE

N/A

ESTIMATE YEAR Date of previous estimate

UPC

DURING CN

09/21/17

Bill Wuensch

PROJECT MANAGER / DESIGNER

Preliminary Engineering Estimate:

PCES

Construction Estimate:

PCES

Right-of-Way Estimate:

PCES

Utilities Estimate:

PCES

DATE

6/8/2018

TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE (excluding Bridge estimate)

$0 $0 $0 $697,821 $4,993,528 $473,149

$6,164,498

Estimate Class: Blank

Version 7.00

Graves Mill Road Corridor Improvement Study

Articles inside

Nationwide WB WBL/WBT/WBR 15

Graves Mill EB EBT/EBR 240

Table 10 – Draft Project Summary (Pre Final Public Meeting

Graves Mill EB EBL/EBT 198

Other Considerations

Graves Mill EB EBR 210 22

Figure 8 – Future (2040) LOS and Delay

Graves Mill WB WBT 74

Table 9 – Comprehensive Project Screening Results

Creekside SB SBT/SBR 31