Sugarland Crossing Gwinnett County, Georgia

Transcription

1 Sugarland Crossing Gwinnett County, Georgia S IGNAL W ARRANT A NALYSIS For the Intersection of: Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway Prepared for: Tahoe Development Group, LLC 2170 Satellite Blvd. Suite 375 Duluth, Georgia Prepared by: A&R Engineering Inc Kingston Court, Suite O Marietta, GA Tel: (770) Fax: (770) July 25, 2008 A&R Project No:

2 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Item Page Introduction... 1 Existing Traffic... 4 Existing 24-hour Traffic Volumes... 4 Existing Peak Hour Traffic... 5 Future Traffic... 7 Future 24-hour Traffic Volumes... 7 Future Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix

3 L IST OF T ABLES Table Page 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Operations Trip Generation Estimated Site Generated Volumes Future Traffic Volumes Future Traffic Operations Without Signal Future Traffic Volumes With Signal and Associated Lane Geometry Improvements...11 L IST OF F IGURES Figure Page 1 Location Map Site Plan Existing Weekday Peak Hour Volumes Outer leg and Internal Distribution New Site Generated Peak Hour Volumes Future Peak Hour Volumes...14

4 I NTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to determine if signalization is warranted at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway after the addition of site-generated traffic from the proposed Sugarland Crossing development. The proposed development is to the south of the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway in Gwinnett County, Georgia. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed development has been assumed to consist of 75,300 s.f. of retail space, 83,000 s.f. of office space, 76,800 s.f. of mini-warehouse space and three retail outparcels. It is estimated that the outparcels will be developed at the rate of 6,000 s.f. per acre (( ) acres x 6,000 s.f. = 16,500 s.f.) which results in a total retail size of 75,300 s.f. (58, ,500 = 75,300 s.f.). A map showing the location of the proposed development is included in Figure 1. A site plan for Sugarland Crossing is shown in Figure 2. In addition to the main driveway at the existing median break, the site also proposes four right-in / right-out driveways along Sugarloaf Parkway. In order to determine if signalization is warranted at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway, the eight signal warrants described in Section 4C of the 2003 edition of the Federal Highway Administration s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were tested using the projected volumes. In addition to the signal Warrant analysis, existing and future capacity analyses have also been evaluated for the study intersection. 1 A&R Engineering Inc.

5

6 RI/RO 12,00 S.F. Retail Full Access RI/RO RI/RO Proposed Outparcel # Acres 0.93 Acres Proposed Retail Building 18,200 S.F. RI/RO

7 E XISTING T RAFFIC Existing 24-hour Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were recorded at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway. The traffic volumes were recorded for a full twenty-four hour period on a weekday; however, due to the nature of the proposed development only the counts from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. will be used to evaluate signal warrants. The existing counts at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway are shown in Table 1. T a b l e 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway Time Southbound (Richards Middle Eastbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) Westbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) School Drwy) Total Total Total 7:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M :00 A.M. 9:00 A.M :00 A.M. 10:00 A.M :00 A.M. 11:00 A.M :00 A.M. 12:00 Noon :00 Noon 1:00 P.M :00 P.M. 2:00 P.M :00 P.M. 3:00 P.M :00 P.M. 4:00 P.M :00 P.M. 5:00 P.M :00 P.M. 6:00 P.M :00 P.M. 7:00 P.M :00 P.M. 8:00 P.M :00 P.M. 9:00 P.M :00 P.M. 10:00 P.M A&R Engineering Inc.

8 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Existing peak hour traffic counts and intersection geometric data were collected at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway during the AM and PM peak hours. All turning movement counts were recorded during the AM and PM peak hours between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM. and 6:00 PM, respectively. The four consecutive 15-minute interval volumes that summed to produce the highest volume at the intersection were then determined. The existing traffic counts at this intersection are shown graphically in Figure 3. Existing traffic operations were analyzed at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway in accordance with the HCM methodology. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. Intersection Sugarloaf Pkwy / Richards Middle School Drwy -Eastbound Left -Westbound Left -Northbound Approach -Southbound Approach Table 2 Existing Intersection Operations A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Control LOS Delay LOS Delay Stop Controlled on Richards Middle School Drwy / Private Home Drwy D B F F B C F F The analysis of existing condition indicates that the northbound and southbound approaches to the study intersection are operating at LOS F during both the AM and the PM peak hours. 5 A&R Engineering Inc.

9

10 F UTURE T RAFFIC Future 24-hour Traffic Volumes In order to estimate the future volumes that will exist at the intersections in the vicinity of the site, a projection was made for the trip generation characteristics of the proposed development. This projection was made using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report, 7 th edition. The 24-hour trip generation rates are shown in Table 3. Due to the nature of the development, mixed-use and pass-by reductions have been applied to the estimated trip generation. Land Use Size Table 3 Trip Generation A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 24-Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 2-way 820 Shopping center 75,300 s.f ,647 - Mixed-Use Reduction Pass-By Reduction (0%) 34%* ,720** 710 General Office 83,000 s.f ,156 - Mixed-Use Reduction Mini-Warehouse 76,800 s.f Total without Reductions ,985 Total with Reductions ,869 * (AM Pass-by %) PM Pass-by % ** 24 hour pass-by reductions have been calculated by assuming the total PM peak hour trip reduction is 10% of the total daily pass-by reduction. The estimated overall trip distribution for the site is shown in Figure 4. The trip distribution was based on the location of the site relative to the adjacent major roadways and highways in the vicinity of the site that will bring traffic to and from the development. Hourly distributions based on historic data for the proposed land uses were used to determine the hourly volumes for use in evaluating signal warrants at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway. The estimated site-generated traffic volumes for the study intersection are shown in Table 4. Due to the nature of the development, only the trip generation from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM was used to evaluate signal warrants. 7 A&R Engineering Inc.

11 T a b l e 4 Estimated Site-Generated Traffic Volumes from proposed Development At Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway Time Northbound (Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy) Southbound (Richards Middle School Drwy) Eastbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) Westbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) Total Total Total Total 7:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M :00 A.M. 9:00 A.M :00 A.M. 10:00 A.M :00 A.M. 11:00 A.M :00 A.M. 12:00 Noon :00 Noon 1:00 P.M :00 P.M. 2:00 P.M :00 P.M. 3:00 P.M :00 P.M. 4:00 P.M :00 P.M. 5:00 P.M :00 P.M. 6:00 P.M :00 P.M. 7:00 P.M :00 P.M. 8:00 P.M :00 P.M. 9:00 P.M :00 P.M. 10:00 P.M The site-generated volumes were then added to the existing traffic volumes in order to estimate the total future volumes at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway due to the proposed Sugarland Crossing development. The future traffic volumes for the study intersection are shown in Table 5. 8 A&R Engineering Inc.

12 T a b l e 5 Future Traffic Volumes At Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway Time Northbound (Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy) Southbound (Richards Middle School Drwy) Eastbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) Westbound (Sugarloaf Pkwy) Total Total Total Total 7:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M :00 A.M. 9:00 A.M :00 A.M. 10:00 A.M :00 A.M. 11:00 A.M :00 A.M. 12:00 Noon :00 Noon 1:00 P.M :00 P.M. 2:00 P.M :00 P.M. 3:00 P.M :00 P.M. 4:00 P.M :00 P.M. 5:00 P.M :00 P.M. 6:00 P.M :00 P.M. 7:00 P.M :00 P.M. 8:00 P.M :00 P.M. 9:00 P.M :00 P.M. 10:00 P.M A&R Engineering Inc.

13

14 Future Peak Hour Traffic In order to evaluate future traffic operations in this area, a projection was made of future traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. The base traffic volumes are made up of the existing traffic volumes and expected growth in the area. The Georgia Department of Transportation recorded average daily traffic volumes at several locations in the vicinity of the site. Reviewing the growth over the last several years revealed a growth of approximately 3% per year in the area. Volumes were increased for one year to represent the volumes that will be on the roadway in the future. The traffic that will be generated by the site, shown in Figure 5, was added to the future base year volumes. These volumes were used to analyze future traffic operations at the study intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway. The future peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. The peak hour volumes were used to evaluate the future traffic conditions at the study intersection. The results of the future traffic operation analysis, both without and with the recommended signal, are shown in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 Future Intersection Operations without signal A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay Sugarloaf Pkwy / Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy -Eastbound Left -Westbound Left -Northbound Approach -Southbound Approach D B F F B D F F Table 7 Future Intersection Operations with signal and associated lane geometry improvements A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS (Delay) v/c ratio LOS (Delay) v/c ratio Sugarloaf Pkwy / Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy B (11.8) 0.79 C (24.8) 0.94 As can be seen from the results of the capacity analysis, without a signal the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection will operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the installation of a traffic signal, the intersection will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Signal warrants have been evaluated for 11 A&R Engineering Inc.

15 the study intersection and the results are shown on pages 15 through 18. The results of the future traffic operations and signal warrant analyses are discussed in detail in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report. 12 A&R Engineering Inc.

16

17

18 S IGNAL W ARRANT A NALYSIS S UGARLOAF P ARKWAY / R ICHARDS M IDDLE S CHOOL D RIVEWAY / S UGARLAND C ROSSING M AIN S ITE D RIVEWAY A signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway was performed using a main street approach speed of 45 mph with the intersection geometry of a two-lane main street and single-lane side streets. To be conservative, northbound and southbound right turn reductions of 100% were applied for the side streets to account for any right turners that may arrive at the intersection and turn right without waiting for a gap in the eastbound and westbound through traffic on Sugarloaf Parkway. From the signal warrant evaluation, it was found that warrants 1, 2 and 3 will be satisfied for the proposed traffic conditions at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway. A more complete description of each warrant evaluated is as follows: Section 4C.02: Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume This warrant is applied where there is a large volume of intersecting traffic or where the traffic on the main street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict entering or crossing the major street. The required traffic volumes must be present for at least 8 hours of an average weekday. The minimum volumes vary according to the number of lanes on the intersecting streets, the speed of traffic on the main street, and the community size. Two standards are evaluated that compares specific percentages of the proposed volumes. Each standard has two conditions: A and B. The required traffic volumes for both conditions A and B are shown in Table 4C-1 in the MUTCD. Warrant 1 is satisfied if either Standard 1 or 2 is satisfied. Standard 1 Number of hours required traffic is present for Condition A: and Number of hours required traffic is present for Condition B: Warrant 1 is: Satisfied 15 A&R Engineering Inc.

19 Section 4C.03: Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume This warrant is similar to warrant 1, except that the required traffic volumes must be present for at least four hours of an average weekday. The traffic volumes required are based on curves (Figure 4C-1 and 4C-2) shown in the MUTCD. Number of hours required traffic present: 11 Warrant 2 is: Satisfied Section 4C.04: Warrant 3, Peak Hour The Peak Hour signal warrant is applied where traffic conditions are heavy during a minimum of one hour for an average day, causing undue delay during this time period to side street volumes entering or crossing the major street. The MUTCD states that this warrant is intended for application where a land use attracts or discharges a large number of vehicles over a short time. Number of hours required traffic present: 11 Warrant 3 is: Satisfied Section 4C.05: Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume The pedestrian volume signal warrant is intended for application where pedestrians experience excessive delay or an unsafe situation in crossing the major street due to the heavy volume of traffic. This warrant evaluates the number of pedestrians during the peak periods of an average day and the available gaps in main street traffic flow. The pedestrian volume signal warrant shall not be applied where the distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Warrant 4 is: Not Evaluated Section 4C.06: Warrant 5, School Crossing 16 A&R Engineering Inc.

20 An established school crossing may require signal protection if an engineering study reveals that there is less than one gap per minute during the period of crossing usage and there are a minimum of 20 students crossing during the highest crossing hour. The school crossing signal warrant shall not be applied where the distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Warrant 5 is: Not Applicable Section 4C.06: Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 6 is intended for application where a traffic signal is needed to maintain platooning of vehicles within a coordinated signal system. This warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of the signals would be less than 1,000 feet. Warrant 6 is: Not Applicable Section 4C.07: Warrant 7, Crash Experience Many traffic signals are installed on the premise of reducing accidents; however, it must be recognized that signals may actually increase some types of accidents. The result is often contrary to the intended goal. Four conditions must be met before a signal is installed solely to reduce accidents: a) Less restrictive solutions have been tried and enforced with unsatisfactory results; b) There have been five or more accidents of types preventable by traffic signals in the last 12 months; and c) Warrant 1 is met to not less than 80 percent of their respective requirements or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80% of the requirements specified in the pedestrian volume warrant. A signal installed solely under this warrant should be traffic actuated. Warrant 7 is: Section 4C.09: Warrant 8, Roadway Network Not Evaluated 17 A&R Engineering Inc.

21 Warrant 8 is applied where there is a need to encourage a shift in travel patterns to organize traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant is satisfied if one or both of the following criteria are met: a) the intersection has a total or immediately projected volume of at least 1,000 vehicles during the peak hour and has a projected 5-year volume that will meet Warrant 1, 2, or 3 during an average weekday; or b) the intersection has a total existing or immediately projected volume or at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a Saturday or Sunday. Warrant 8 is: Not Applicable 18 A&R Engineering Inc.

22 C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Signal warrants were evaluated at the intersection of Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway after the addition of traffic from the proposed Sugarland Crossing development. The proposed development will consist of 75,300 s.f. of retail space, 83,000 s.f. of office space, 76,800 s.f. of mini-warehouse and three retail outparcels. It is estimated that the outparcels will be developed at the rate of 6,000 s.f. per acre (( ) acres x 6,000 s.f. = 16,500 s.f.) which results in a total retail size of 75,300 s.f. (58, ,500 = 75,300 s.f.). The results of the signal warrant analysis indicates that the traffic volumes at the intersection will satisfy signal warrants 1, 2 and 3 after the completion of the proposed Sugarland Crossing development. Therefore, it is recommended that a signal be installed at this intersection. It is also recommended that the Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway have a separate left turn lane and a shared through / right turn lane for traffic exiting the development. A left turn phase analysis was also completed to determine if a protected + permissive signal phase will be warranted for any left turn movements. The analysis revealed that the intersection will meet the criteria required for a protected + permissive left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound left turn movements at the intersection. Therefore, a protected + permissive signal phase is recommended for the eastbound and westbound left turn movements. The left turn phase criteria graphics for this intersection are included in the Appendix. 19 A&R Engineering Inc.

23 Appendix

24 Existing Traffic Counts

25 TMC Data Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Tel: (770) Fax: (770) File Name : Site Code : Start Date : 2/6/2008 Page No : 1 Private Home Drwy Northbound Groups Printed- Cars, Trucks & Buses Richards Middle Sugarloaf Pkwy School Drwy Eastbound Southbound App. App. Sugarloaf Pkwy Westbound Start Time Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ Left Thru Righ App. Int. t Total t Total t Total t Total Total 07:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM Total :00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM Total *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM :15 PM :30 PM :45 PM Total :00 PM :15 PM :30 PM :45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total %

26 TMC Data Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Tel: (770) Fax: (770) File Name : Site Code : Start Date : 2/6/2008 Page No : 2 Private Home Drwy Northbound Richards Middle School Drwy Southbound Sugarloaf Pkwy Eastbound Sugarloaf Pkwy Westbound Start Time Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Int. t Total t Total t Total t Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM :00 AM :15 AM :30 AM Total Volume % App. Total PHF Richards Middle School Drwy Out In Total Right 0 Thru 12 Left Peak Hour Data Sugarloaf Pkwy Out In Total Left 1281 Thru 0 Right North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Cars, Trucks & Buses Right Thru Left Out In Total Sugarloaf Pkwy Left 1 Thru 0 Right Out In Total Private Home Drwy

27 TMC Data Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Tel: (770) Fax: (770) File Name : Site Code : Start Date : 2/6/2008 Page No : 3 Private Home Drwy Northbound Richards Middle School Drwy Southbound Sugarloaf Pkwy Eastbound Sugarloaf Pkwy Westbound Start Time Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Left Thru Righ App. Int. t Total t Total t Total t Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM :45 PM :00 PM :15 PM Total Volume % App. Total PHF Richards Middle School Drwy Out In Total Right 0 Thru 21 Left Peak Hour Data Sugarloaf Pkwy Out In Total Left 2039 Thru 1 Right North Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Cars, Trucks & Buses Right Thru Left Out In Total Sugarloaf Pkwy Left 1 Thru 0 Right Out In Total Private Home Drwy

28 Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Page 1 Tel: (770) Fax: (770) reliabletraffic@msn.com Site Code: Station ID: 8570 Sugarloaf Pkwy West of Richards Middle School Drwy Latitude: 0' Undefined Start 06-Feb-08 Eastbound Hour Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Total Percent 29.9% 70.1% Grand Total Percent 29.9% 70.1% ADT Not Calculated

29 Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Page 1 Tel: (770) Fax: (770) reliabletraffic@msn.com Site Code: Station ID: 8135 Sugarloaf Pkwy East of Richards Middle School Drwy Latitude: 0' Undefined Start 06-Feb-08 Westbound Hour Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Total Percent 48.7% 51.3% Grand Total Percent 48.7% 51.3% ADT Not Calculated

30 Reliable Traffic Data Services, LLC Page 1 Tel: (770) Fax: (770) reliabletraffic@msn.com Site Code: Station ID: 5556 Richards School Drwy North of Sugarloaf Pkwy Latitude: 0' Undefined Start 06-Feb-08 Southbound Hour Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Total Percent 42.2% 57.8% Grand Total Percent 42.2% 57.8% ADT Not Calculated

31 Existing Intersection Analysis

32 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Control Delay (s) Err Lane LOS D B F F Approach Delay (s) Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

33 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS B C F F Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 15.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

34 Future Intersection Analysis

35 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future AM - Without Signal 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err Control Delay (s) Err Err Lane LOS D B F F Approach Delay (s) Err Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

36 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future PM - Without Signal 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Err Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err Control Delay (s) Err Err Lane LOS B D F F Approach Delay (s) Err Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

37 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future AM - With Signal 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm 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 c c v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service C A A B A E D D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS A B E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

38 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future PM - With Signal 1: Sugarloaf Pkwy & Richards Middle School Drwy 7/11/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm 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 0.00 c0.67 c v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service A C D A A F D D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C B F D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 6 Report A & R Engineering Inc. Page 1

39 Left Turn Phase Criteria

40

41

42 Signal Warrant Analysis Summary

43 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT - Sugarloaf Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy Project Number : Report Date : July 10, 2008 Counts Date : February 6, 2008 Major Street : Sugarloaf Pkwy Minor Street : Speed on Major Street : Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy 45 mph Intersection : Major Street - 2 Minor Street - 1 Analyst : BPD WARRANT 1, EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 1 SATISFIED STANDARD 1 SATISFIED CONDITION A 10 HOURS CONDITION B 11 HOURS WARRANT 2, FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 2 SATISFIED 11 HOURS WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR WARRANT 3 SATISFIED 11 HOURS WARRANT 4, PEDESTRIAN VOLUME WARRANT 4 NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 5, SCHOOL CROSSING WARRANT 5 NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 6, COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 6 NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 7, CRASH EXPERIENCE WARRANT 7 NOT SATISFIED 0 CRASHES WARRANT 8, ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT 8 NOT APPLICABLE REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 6

44 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS REPORT - Sugarloaf Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy Project Number : Report Date : July 10, 2008 Counts Date : February 6, 2008 Major Street : Sugarloaf Pkwy Minor Street : Speed on Major Street : Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy 45 mph Intersection : Major Street - 2 Minor Street - 1 Analyst : BPD 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TABLE 1 Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site DrwyRichards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy Time Northbound Southbound With With 24 Hours Right % Right 100% RT Turn Total Tube Right % Right 100% RT Turn Total Tube Count Turn Turn Reduction Count Turn Turn Reduction 12:00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM Total REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 1

45 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TABLE 2 Sugarloaf Pkwy Sugarloaf Pkwy Time Eastbound Westbound With With 24 Hours Right % Right 0% RT Turn Total Tube Right % Right 0% RT Turn Total Tube Count Turn Turn Reduction Count Turn Turn Reduction 12:00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM Total REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 2

46 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. WARRANT ANALYSIS RESULTS - Sugarloaf Richards Middle School Drwy / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Drwy WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 1* SATISFIED STANDARD 1 SATISFIED CONDITION A 10 HOURS CONDITION B 11 HOURS STANDARD 2 SATISFIED CONDITION A 9 HOURS CONDITION B 11 HOURS 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME EVALUATION TABLE 3 HOUR OF DAY MAJOR ST TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES MINOR ST HIGH VOLUME APPROACH WARRANT 1 STANDARD 1 STANDARD 2 CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B 12:00 AM 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 5:00 AM 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 7:00 AM MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR 8:00 AM MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR 9:00 AM MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR 10:00 AM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 11:00 AM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 12:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 1:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 2:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 3:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 4:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 5:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 6:00 PM BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH 7:00 PM BOTH BOTH MAJOR BOTH 8:00 PM MAJOR BOTH MAJOR BOTH 9:00 PM MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR 10:00 PM :00 PM 0 0 TOTAL CRITERIA** WITH 70% REDUCTION OPTION STANDARD MAJOR ST MINOR ST NO. OF HOURS MET *Note: Standard 1 is SATISFIED if either CONDITION A or B is satisfied for any eight hours. STANDARD 2 is SATISFIED if CONDITION A and B are satisfied. WARRANT 1 is SATISFIED if either STANDARD 1 or STANDARD 2 is satisfied. **Note: Criteria for minimum volumes for WARRANT 1 are based on the figures from TABLE 4C-1, Page 4C-5 in section C of the MUTCD 2003 edition. REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 3

47 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. WARRANT 2, FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 2* SATISFIED 11 HOURS Minor Street - High Volume Approach - VPH FIG 4C-2. Warrant 2 - (OPTION) Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR MORE ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) INSTRUCTIONS: SEARCH FOR THE CORRECT GRAPH FROM THE "CURVES" TAB 300 THE CORRECT GRAPH HAS THE TEXT "GRAPH FOR W2" IN RED NEXT TO IT 250 COPY AND PASTE THE CORRECT GRAPH FOR W2 IN HERE, AND RESIZE TO FIT BOX 200 (Detailed instructions are provided in the "CURVES" Tab) Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR WARRANT 3* SATISFIED 11 HOURS Minor Street - High Volume Approach -VPH FIG 4C-4. Warrant 3 - (OPTION) Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) INSTRUCTIONS: SEARCH FOR THE CORRECT GRAPH FROM THE "CURVES" TAB THE CORRECT GRAPH HAS THE TEXT "GRAPH FOR W3" IN RED ON ITS LEFT SIDE COPY AND PASTE THE CORRECT GRAPH FOR W2 IN HERE, AND RESIZE TO FIT BOX (Detailed instructions are provided in the "CURVES" Tab) Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH *Note: Curves for minimum volumes are based on the curves from FIGURES 4C-1 & 4C-2, Page 4C-7 for WARRANT 2, and FIGURES 4C-3 & 4C-4, Page 4C-9 in section C of the MUTCD 2003 edition for WARRANT 3. REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 4

48 A&R ENGINEERING, INC. WARRANT 4, PEDESTRIAN VOLUME WARRANT 4 NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 5, SCHOOL CROSSING WARRANT 5 NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 6, COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 6 NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 7, CRASH EXPERIENCE WARRANT 7 NOT SATISFIED 0 CRASHES WARRANT 8, ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT 8 NOT APPLICABLE REPORT BASED ON THE MUTCD 2003 EDITION PAGE 5

49 Volumes Worksheet

50 Sugarloaf Commercial Project - Lawrenceville - GA A&R Engineering Traffic Volumes Future Conditions Sugarloaf Parkway / Richards Middle School Driveway / Sugarland Crossing Main Site Driveway) July-08 A.M. Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Condition L T R Tot L T R Tot L T R Tot L T R Tot Existing: Growth Factor (%): Base Condition: Total New Trips: Future Traffic Volumes: P.M. Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Condition L T R Tot L T R Tot L T R Tot L T R Tot Existing: Growth Factor (%): Base Condition: Pass-By Trips: Total New Trips: Future Traffic Volumes: