US ROUTE 460 CORRIDOR STUDY ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY TPO T11-03 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION JULY 2011

Transcription

1 US ROUTE 460 CORRIDOR STUDY ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY TPO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION JULY 2011 T11-03

2 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION VOTING MEMBERS Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON Alan P. Krasnoff W. Eugene Hunt, Jr. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Christian D. Rilee Kenneth I. Wright HAMPTON SUFFOLK Molly J. Ward Linda T. Johnson ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH Stan D. Clark William D. Sessoms, Jr. JAMES CITY COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG Bruce C. Goodson Clyde A. Haulman NEWPORT NEWS YORK COUNTY McKinley Price Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. NORFOLK Paul D. Fraim MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable John C. Miller The Honorable Yvonne B. Miller MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable G. Glenn Oder The Honorable John A. Cosgrove TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Philip A. Shucet, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Amy Inman, Manager of Transit Planning VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director

3 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-VOTING MEMBERS CHESAPEAKE JAMES CITY COUNTY PORTSMOUTH William E. Harrell Robert C. Middaugh Kenneth L. Chandler GLOUCESTER COUNTY NEWPORT NEWS SUFFOLK Brenda G. Garton Neil A. Morgan Selena Cuffee-Glenn HAMPTON NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH Mary Bunting Marcus Jones James K. Spore ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY POQUOSON WILLIAMSBURG W. Douglas Caskey J. Randall Wheeler Jackson C. Tuttle YORK COUNTY James O. McReynolds FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Irene Rico, Division Administrator Virginia Division FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Letitia A. Thompson, Regional Administrator, Region 3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Jeffrey W. Breeden, Airport Planner, Washington Airports District Office VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Randall P. Burdette, Director PENINSULA AIRPORT COMMISSION Ken Spirito, Executive Director NORFOLK AIRPORT AUTHORITY Wayne E. Shank, Executive Director CHAIR CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE William W. Harrison, Jr. CHAIR FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Bell, Co-Chair (Nonvoting Board Member) Stan D. Clark, Co-Chair (Voting Board Member) MILITARY LIAISONS Glenn K. Grothe, Colonel, U.S. Army Mary Jackson, Captain, U.S. Navy Mark S. Ogle, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard PROJECT STAFF Camelia Ravanbakht, Ph.D. Robert B. Case, P.E. Samuel S. Belfield Keith Nichols, P.E. Stephanie L. Shealey Michael Long Christopher Vaigneur Deputy Executive Director, HRTPO Principal Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Transportation Engineer Assistant General Service Manager Reprographics Coordinator

4 US Corridor Study Isle of Wight County PREPARED BY: JULY 2011

5 Report Documentation TITLE: US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County AUTHORS: Stephanie L. Shealey Samuel S. Belfield PROJECT MANAGER: Samuel S. Belfield ABSTRACT: Isle of Wight County requested that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) staff complete a corridor study for US in Isle of Wight County, from the City of Suffolk line to the Southampton County line. This route serves as a major thoroughfare between the Hampton Roads Southside and points north and west. This task was included in the HRTPO FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). This study includes a safety analysis and capacity analysis of the corridor to identify improvements that would be necessary along the corridor in the next twenty years if the new alignment of US were not constructed. Thirteen intersections were studied in detail along US. Capacity analysis was performed for seven scenarios, in both the AM and PM peak hours, to determine the extent of improvements that will be necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow. These scenarios include the 2010 Existing, 2010 Optimized, 2030 No-Build (100%, 2030 No-Build (50%, 2030 Countywide Transportation Plan, 2030 HRTPO Staff, and 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded. REPORT DATE: July 2011 GRANT/SPONSORING AGENCY: FHWA/FTA/VDOT/DRPT/Local Funds ORGANIZATION NAME, ADDRESS, & TELEPHONE: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This report was prepared by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Isle of Wight County, and the Town of Windsor. The contents of this report reflect the views of the HRTPO. The HRTPO staff is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA or VDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does is constitute the approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternative may be necessary. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 2

6 Table of Contents Contents Introduction... 4 Study Area... 5 Previous Studies... 7 Land Use... 9 Socioeconomic Data Roadway Characteristics Safety Analysis Crash Data Driveway Width Intersection Clearance Clearance Intervals Bicycle Considerations Pedestrian Considerations Safety Improvements Capacity Analysis Traffic Volumes Historic Traffic Growth Existing Volumes Projected Future Volumes Analysis Scenarios Methodology Analysis Results Norfolk Southern Railroad Driveway Spacing and Interparcel Connectivity Capacity Improvements Conclusions Recommendations Safety Recommendations Capacity Recommendations Public Comments Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes Appendix B - Delay and Level of Service Tables by Movement US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 3

7 Introduction Introduction Isle of Wight County requested that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) staff perform a corridor study for US in Isle of Wight County, from the City of Suffolk line to the Southampton County line. US in Isle of Wight County is primarily a four-lane, undivided highway and a major commercial artery through the Town of Windsor. It serves as a major thoroughfare between the Hampton Roads Southside and points north and west and is also an evacuation route. Weekday daily traffic volumes along this corridor vary from about 9,700 vehicles per day on the western end to about 14,000 vehicles per day on the eastern end. The fatality rate of the study corridor is nearly three times greater than the Hampton Roads regional average. In 2009, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), upon completion of a safety crash analysis of intersections in Isle of Wight County, provided several interim safety measures along US within the Town of Windsor, including limiting turning movements at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection, and recommended completion of an access management study for the town. not occur, traffic conditions along the existing corridor will continue to worsen. This study provides an analysis of the existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic conditions as well as several future 2030 improvement scenarios for US without the new alignment. This study builds on the HRTPO analysis completed in June 2010 for the City of Suffolk for the US corridor (Pruden Boulevard Corridor Study 1 ). That study provided recommendations to the US corridor that extended from the Isle of Wight County line to Godwin Boulevard in the City of Suffolk. Corridors of Statewide Significance The Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment recently identified twelve Corridors of Statewide Significance within VTrans2035, the Commonwealth s statewide long-range multimodal transportation plan. 2 It is envisioned that high priority multimodal projects within these corridors would be given increased consideration for funding over singlemode solutions. Within the eleven Corridors of Statewide Significance, US has been identified as part of the Heartland Corridor, which connects Hampton Roads to points in western Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky and is paralleled by Norfolk Southern's Heartland Corridor. This study analyzes crash data along the study corridor in order to identify causes and potential safety countermeasures. Implementing small scale safety and capacity improvements to the existing roadway may be critical in order to facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods into the future. VDOT is currently in the process of obtaining approval and funding for the new Corridor Improvement Project via a Public-Private Transportation Agreement (PPTA). The new roadway would be a 55 mile limited access, 4-lane, divided highway built to interstate design standards that connects I-295 in Prince George County to the US Route 58 bypass in the City of Suffolk. VDOT has completed a conceptual level cost estimate ranging from $1.5 to $2 billion ($2012) and anticipates tolls being a revenue source. If the construction of the new US alignment does 1 Pruden Boulevard Corridor Study, HRTPO, June Northern Virginia North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance, Commonwealth Transportation Board Resolution, May 18, US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 4

8 Introduction Study Area This study focuses on US within Isle of Wight County. The corridor is 9.6 miles long and extends from the Southampton County line to the City of Suffolk line, as seen on Map 1. This corridor passes through the Town of Windsor and the Zuni community. US currently serves as an alternate route between Hampton Roads Southside and points north and west, the primary route being I-64 and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel which are often congested, and is one of the evacuation routes for the Hampton Roads Southside. The corridor is heavily used by trucks, including those traveling from the Port of Virginia to points westward, and parallels a Norfolk Southern rail line. A few distribution centers and warehouses have been recently constructed along the US corridor in both Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk and there are more under consideration which, if built, will increase the number of trucks moving through this corridor. Along the US corridor, thirteen intersections are analyzed in this study (see Map 2 on page 6). 1. Zuni Circle 2. Zuni Circle/Fire Tower Road 3. Yellow Hammer Road 4. Ecella Road 5. Winston Drive 6. Cut Thru Road 7. Stave Mill Road 8. US Route Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street 10. Roberts Avenue 11. Food Lion 12. Dominion Way 13. Old Mill Road Source: HRTPO The thirteen study intersections include four intersections that are currently signalized near Windsor: US Route 258 Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street Food Lion Dominion Way Map 1 - Location of Study There are currently no plans to signalize any of the unsignalized intersections. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 5

9 Source: HRTPO Introduction Map 2 - Study Intersections US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 6

10 Introduction Previous Studies Several studies have been performed in recent years along the US corridor between Richmond/Petersburg and Hampton Roads, including studies of the relocation of US, safety recommendations from VDOT, the Isle of Wight Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and the comprehensive plans for Isle of Wight County and the Town of Windsor. This section provides a brief overview of each study. TransAmerica Corridor As part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, federal funding was provided to study a new coast-to-coast corridor. No feasible alternatives were found for a new coast-tocoast corridor built to interstate design standards, but portions of the corridor were seen as feasible. The National Highway System Act of 1995 funded the TransAmerica Corridor Feasibility Study for the Beckley, West Virginia to Hampton Roads corridor. 3 The study concluded that localized improvements to the existing route and a limited-access roadway were both feasible, but the limited-access roadway provided greater net benefits. In order to facilitate future funding and construction ventures, the study divided the entire corridor into smaller study areas, including the US corridor from Petersburg to Hampton Roads. US Route 258 Corridor Study The VDOT Transportation Planning Division completed the US Route 258 Corridor Study in April Throughout the plan, three alternatives for the US /US Route 258 intersection were presented. As a short-range improvement, the study recommended adding a right-turn lane on all approaches to the intersection, along with left-turn lanes on US Route 258. For a long-range improvement, the study recommended an alternative alignment of US Route 258 around the 3 TransAmerica Corridor Feasibility Study: Beckley, West Virginia to Hampton Roads, Virginia, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., May Route 258 Isle of Wight County Corridor Study, Virginia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, April Town of Windsor, including a new interchange with US, west of the existing intersection. The third option for this intersection did not realign US Route 258, but proposed an additional through lane in each direction of US Route 258 with the left-turn and rightturn lanes already proposed in the short-term alignment. US Location Study The US Location Study was completed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and VDOT in May 2005 to analyze alternatives for the east-west corridor between Hampton Roads and Petersburg. 5 The alternatives included a No-Build Alternative, Transportation Systems Management Alternative, and three Candidate Build Alternatives. The Candidate Build Alternatives included a new alignment south of the existing roadway, a new alignment north of the existing roadway, and an alignment that maintained the existing alignment with bypasses around communities. In 2008, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) voted to approve Candidate Build Alternative 1, the new alignment south of the existing US, as seen in Map 3 on page 8. US PPTA In February 2006, VDOT began the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA) process for the US 6 Corridor Improvements Project. Three teams submitted Conceptual Proposals for the project, and all three were invited to submit a detailed proposal in December However, VDOT terminated the original PPTA process in May 2010 due to changes in market conditions since the procurement process began in A second PPTA process was begun in May 2010 and three teams have submitted conceptual proposals. While many details of the proposals have not been revealed, the conceptual proposal from 460 Partners LLC includes traffic calming measures (primarily 5 US Location Study: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation, May US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 7

11 Introduction approach to the Town of Windsor, restricting left-turns and access at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection and re-routing school bus traffic from the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection. The final recommendation from the report was that the Town of Windsor could create a comprehensive access management plan for the Town of Windsor, especially at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection. Map 3 - Candidate Build Alternative 1 Source: reduction in speed limits) and through truck restrictions on the existing US corridor. All three teams have been asked to submit detailed proposals. VDOT Safety Recommendations In the summer of 2009, VDOT analyzed safety concerns on US within the Town of Windsor at the request of the Windsor Town Council. 7 The results showed that safety problems on US in the Town of Windsor ranked comparatively lower than other areas in Isle of Wight County and did not qualify for Federal safety money. The report also detailed safety measures that VDOT has applied to US since the 1980's, including rumble strips, pavement markings, reduced speed limits, and emergency traffic signals. VDOT also determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at Roberts Avenue and that the current signal timing plan at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection is the optimal plan. VDOT recommended a few additional changes to improve US through Isle of Wight County, including installing rumble strips on the westbound 7 Letter from Dennis Heuer, Hampton Roads District Administrator, to Mayor Crocker, Town of Windsor on June 26, Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan The Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan was completed in July The plan showed that the sidewalks in the Town of Windsor from US Route 258 to Holland Drive are adjacent to the curb, and therefore do not provide any separation from highspeed traffic. Furthermore, the plan showed that no bicycle facilities currently exist on US. The plan recommended adding pedestrian crossings to the signals at the US Route 258 and Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersections as well as constructing a sidewalk on the north side of US from Holland Drive to Lovers Lane. The plan did not include adding bicycle facilities on US. Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan The Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan was completed by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission in September The plan stated that the Town of Windsor places priority on the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection and recommended a traffic signal at the intersection of US and Roberts Avenue. 8 Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan, Toole Design Group, July 2006, Updated August Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, September US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 8

12 Introduction Isle of Wight Comprehensive Plan The Isle of Wight Comprehensive Plan was completed in October The plan includes an intersection improvement project at the intersection of US and US Route 258 that is included in the drafts of the FY HRTPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The plan also recognizes that increased throughtraffic combined with increased local traffic may require additional capacity and realignment to accommodate traffic flow by It also recommends that new park and ride facilities be built along the US corridor. Isle of Wight Countywide Transportation Plan The Isle of Wight Countywide Transportation Plan is currently in draft form, and is scheduled to be approved by Isle of Wight County in June The transportation plan includes improvements for the US Route 258 intersection, the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection, and the Old Mill Road intersection on US. These improvements are included as a scenario in the capacity analysis in this report. Pruden Boulevard Corridor Study The HRTPO staff undertook a study in 2010 to identify roadway capacity, traffic signal, access management and other near-term improvements that would be necessary along Pruden Boulevard (US ) in Suffolk, Virginia within the next ten years. 12 The objectives of this study included an assessment of the corridor and the identification of alternatives to 10 Isle of Wight Comprehensive Plan, Adopted October 16, Draft Isle of Wight County Countywide Transportation Plan, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., August Pruden Boulevard Corridor Study, HRTPO, June Map 4 - Land Uses along US Map Source: Isle of Wight Comprehensive Plan, October improve traffic flow in the future with anticipated traffic growth and further development of the area. Twelve intersections were studied in detail along Pruden Boulevard. Traffic analysis was performed for the AM Peak Hour to determine the extent of improvements that will be necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow. The two scenarios analyzed were the 2010 Existing and 2020 scenarios. The scenario provided acceptable capacity for future traffic, thus no additional scenarios were analyzed. The study also included an evaluation of the access management conditions along the length of the corridor and presented a methodology for controlling the access of future development. Recommendations from the study included adding a median along US and closing or consolidating driveways that do not meet the VDOT minimum spacing standards. Land Use The land uses along the US corridor in Isle of Wight are generally characterized as rural, with most of the land being set aside for farming and forestry. However, the corridor also includes the Town of Windsor, which includes light commercial and residential properties and the Zuni community, which is US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 9

13 Percent Growth from 2000 to 2034 Introduction mainly residential. As a growing freight corridor, distribution centers and warehouses are being developed along US. The Shirley T. Holland Commerce Park is one such facility located along the corridor. The commerce park encompasses 1,500 acres on the southeast end of the US corridor and is publically owned. The Isle of Wight Comprehensive Plan highlights multiple land uses in the US corridor area. As seen in Map 4 on page 9, approximately half of the corridor, from Cut Thru Road to the City of Suffolk line including the Town of Windsor, falls into a Development Service District (DSD), identified in orange on the map. The Zuni community is a Village Center, and the rest of the corridor falls into the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District. The Windsor Development Service District includes land planned for industrial development, while the remaining areas are designated for Conservation Development, which limits residential density. As a Village Center, the Zuni community is expected to remain small in population and area, providing limited, localized commercial services and employment opportunities. The entire corridor is classified in the comprehensive plan as a Highway Corridor Overlay District, which serves to maintain aesthetics and access through buffering requirements, special standards for signage and lights, landscaping, 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% US Study Area (TAZ's: 727,729,746) Isle of Wight Hampton Roads Map 5 - Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) on US Corridor Source: HRTPO sectional service roads, reverse lot frontage concepts, and scenic easements. Socioeconomic Data The HRTPO and area localities have developed population, household, and employment forecasts through the year This socioeconomic data shows how neighborhoods, work centers and undeveloped land will change over the next 20 years. For socioeconomic characteristic purposes, the US corridor study area is defined by three Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) as shown on Map 5. TAZs are the basic unit of geography used in the regional travel demand model. Socioeconomic forecasting and allocation to the TAZ level is conducted as part of the process of developing the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Along the US corridor (TAZs 727, 729, and 746), the growth in population, households, automobiles, workers, and employment in Isle of Wight County is expected to grow approximately 100% more in each Figure 1 - Expected Percent Growth in Socioeconomic Data, US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 10

14 Introduction category than Hampton Roads, as seen in Figure 1 on page 10. The US study area is expected to grow at approximately the same rate as Isle of Wight County in population, households, automobiles, and workers. However, employment in the study area is expected to grow at a rate over double that of Isle of Wight County, and approximately thirteen times the rate of Hampton Roads. As seen in Table 1, this expected growth is predominately located in TAZ 729 and is likely due to the planned addition of warehouses and distribution facilities along US in the Town of Windsor. Roadway Characteristics Roadway characteristics for the US study corridor were obtained from a combination of online aerial photos and field observations by the HRTPO staff (winter 2011). Except through the Town of Windsor, US is a rural principal arterial that is 4-lanes wide and undivided. This roadway is both a passenger and freight corridor that provides a long-distance connection between the Hampton Roads Southside and points north and west. Trucks currently account for approximately 25% of the total daily traffic on US Route 460, making up approximately 19% of the AM Peak traffic and 13% of the PM peak traffic. The characteristics of the roadway itself can be divided into three major segments, broken up by the eastern and western limits of the Town of Windsor (see Figure 2 on page 12). Although classified as a transitioning principal arterial, due to low speeds and high business activity, US functions as a local collector roadway through the Town of Windsor. These roadway characteristics were used to develop the Synchro 7 Traffic Signal Coordination/SimTraffic Models for the study corridor for the existing and future traffic conditions, which are described in the capacity analysis section of this report. Table 1 - Socioeconomic Data by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Data Source: Hampton Roads 2030 and 2034 Socioeconomic Data by TAZ, May Population 2000 Households 2000 Automobiles 2000 Workers 2000 Employment 2034 Population 2034 Households 2034 Automobiles 2034 Workers 2034 Employment TAZ ,932 1,549 3,329 1,824 1,063 8,936 3,660 9,218 4,200 1,686 TAZ ,965 1,113 3,009 1,413 1,368 6,606 2,559 8,168 3,190 9,768 TAZ , , ,464 1,839 4,891 1, ,941 3,478 8,176 4,127 2,847 20,006 8,058 22,277 9,360 12,037 Isle of Wight 29,728 11,319 26,062 13,809 14,954 68,600 27,200 73,900 32,600 36,100 Hampton Roads 1,530, ,666 1,084, , ,009 2,015, ,900 1,773, ,900 1,200,400 US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 11

15 Introduction West of Windsor 4-lane, undivided Speed limit of 55 mph (45 mph in Zuni) No sidewalk or bicycle lanes 1-2' paved shoulder Within Windsor 4-lane, undivided Speed limit between mph Sidewalks Curb and gutter East of Windsor 4-lane, undivided Speed limit of 55 mph No sidewalks or bicycle lanes 1-2' paved shoulder Figure 2 - US Roadway Characteristics US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 12

16 Safety Analysis Safety Analysis Crash Data The HRTPO staff compiled a list of crashes on US in Isle of Wight County from 2006 to 2008 from the VDOT database and crash reports from the Virginia State Police, Isle of Wight Sheriff, and Windsor Police Departments. Upon review of the local and state police crash reports, 38 additional crash records (23% of the total crashes) were identified that had not been reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and VDOT, even though they met the criteria for reportable crashes. 13 The VDOT database provides a summary of the crashes, including type of collision, number of injuries/fatalities, and contributing factors, while the crash reports provides greater detail as to the location of the crash and the actions of each driver. Crash Rate (per million VMT) Fatality Rate (per 100 million VMT) US Study Corridor Isle of Wight County Hampton Roads VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled Figure 3 - Crash and Fatality Rates for US, Isle of Wight County, and the Hampton Roads Region, County was 1.18, lower than both the Isle of Wight County and Hampton Roads overall rates. However, the fatality rate on US (2.90) was higher than the Isle of Wight County rate of 2.28 and much higher than the Hampton Roads rate of From 2006 to 2008, there were 163 crashes on US, with 4 fatalities. As seen in Figure 3, the overall crash rate for US in Isle of Wight Table 2- Summary of Collision Types in Hampton Roads and on the US Corridor, Collision Type Hampton Roads US Study Corridor Angle 35% 20% Backed Into 1% 2% Deer 0% 9% Fixed Object In Road 14% 2% Fixed Object Off Road 0% 22% Head On 2% 1% Other 3% 0% Other Animal 0% 1% Pedestrian 3% 0% Rear End 34% 34% Sideswipe - Same Direction 5% 8% Sideswipe - Opposite Direction 2% 1% 13 Reportable crashes are defined by Virginia State code as crashes that result in injury or death of any person or have a total property damage over $1000. Table 2 compares the proportion of collision types between the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) and US. The US had a larger proportion of fixed object off road (22%) and deer (9%) collisions than the Hampton Roads averages of 0% for both collision types. The fixed object off road collisions can be attributed to the geometry of the US study corridor, where the roadway has little to no shoulders. Two of the four fatalities on US Route 460 were caused by a vehicle running off the road. In one of these cases, the vehicle overcorrected and crossed into the opposing lanes of traffic, hitting another vehicle. It is recommended that wider shoulders be added along the length of US to provide a safe place for drivers to correct the path of their vehicle before hitting something on the roadside. The crash analysis revealed that 69% of the deer collisions occurred between the months of October and December during the three year analysis period, while the remaining 31% occurred between the months of May and July. These two periods of deer collisions align with the birthing period and the mating period of deer. While very little can be done to prevent deer collisions, US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 13

17 Safety Analysis the seasonal nature of these incidents could lead to seasonal warnings. It is recommended that additional "Deer Crossing" signs be installed along the US Route 460 corridor and that all "Deer Crossing" signs be enhanced with warning flags during the months of May- July and October-December. Additionally, a public awareness campaign through local newspapers or radio could be used to raise awareness of deer in the October/November time period. The review of the crash reports for the US study corridor shows that 69% of the rear end collisions (the largest category of crashes) and 58% of the sideswipes (totaling 40 out of the 163 crashes) on US are due to vehicles slowing and/or stopping in the through lane in order to make a turn. Out of these 40 crashes, 30 (75%) occurred with a vehicle turning left from the through lane, one of which was a fatality. It is recommended that a two-way left-turn lane be added throughout the corridor where no removal of existing structures is required, which would provide a refuge area for turning vehicles and also provide separation between opposing traffic. Within downtown Windsor a two-way left-turn lane is not as feasible due to the location of existing buildings. Instead, the number of conflict points could be reduced in order to simplify the driving task and give drivers a better opportunity to anticipate the behaviors of other vehicles, as detailed in the "Driveway Spacing and Interparcel Connectivity" section on page 31. To provide vehicles with advanced notice of unsignalized intersections, the Figure 4 - Intersection Warning Sign Example installation of intersection warning signs (Figure 4), accompanied by the name of the roadway is recommended. Driveway Width Proper driveway design is important to the safety of the corridor. If driveways are too narrow or the turning radius is too small, vehicles must slow down more than anticipated or even stop in the through lane of the roadway in order to complete the turn safely. If a driveway is too wide, conflicts between entering and exiting vehicles develop, which may lead to crashes. Appendix F - Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections from the VDOT Road Design Manual states that the driveway width could be between 16 and 20 feet for a one-way driveway and between 24 and 40 feet for a two-way driveway, with a minimum radius of 25 feet. 14 The locations along the US corridor with driveways that do not meet this standard are detailed below. It is recommended that Isle of Wight County and the Town of Windsor work with VDOT and local businesses to reduce excessive driveway widths to the VDOT Road Design Manual standards. 14 N Figure 5 - Driveway Widths for Dairy Queen and Supreme Gas Aerial Source: Google Earth VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F, Virginia Department of Transportation, Volume 1, US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 14

18 Safety Analysis Dairy Queen As seen in Figure 5 on page 14, Dairy Queen has five driveways, ranging from 48 to 121 feet wide. While it appears that the large driveways were designed to allow tractor trailers to enter the parking lot, a wider turning radius with a properly sized driveway is recommended as a safer option for all vehicles. Supreme Gas Station The Supreme Gas Station (in Figure 5 on page 14) has driveway widths of 45 feet and 144 feet. The wide driveways allow vehicles to enter at a higher rate of speed, and the location of the gas pumps creates conflicts between vehicles on the property and those entering from the main roadway. Upon review of the crash reports from , four crashes were found at these driveways, one of which struck the utility pole located in the middle of the 144 foot driveway. To improve safety at this location, it is recommended that the 144 foot driveway be narrowed to VDOT standards. Dominos Pizza The Dominos Pizza parking lot poses a safety hazard to vehicles entering and exiting the lot. The driveway width for Dominos Pizza is 78 feet, the entire width of the parking lot, as seen in Figure 6. The current configuration of the driveway allows vehicles to turn directly into parking spaces from US, resulting in many conflict points for entering and exiting vehicles. It is recommended that the Dominos Pizza parking lot be reconfigured to have an entrance-only Figure 6 - Dominos Pizza Parking Lot Source: HRTPO driveway, angled parking along the building, and an exit-only driveway with a barrier preventing access except at the entrance and exit (see Figure 7). Anna's Ristorante Italiano As seen in Figure 8, the driveway for Anna's Ristorante Italiano is over 100 feet wide, but is divided into two individual driveways (each over 50 feet wide) by the sign for the restaurant. The sign is only guarded by concrete bumpers used to mark the end of parking spaces, which is a potential safety hazard. The combination of the wide driveways and the configuration of the parking lot creates a situation where the natural paths of vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot conflict with one another and with N Figure 7 - Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration for Buildings Located Close to US Figure 8 - Driveway Widths for Anna's Ristorante Italiano Aerial Source: Google Earth. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 15

19 Safety Analysis parked vehicles. It is recommended that the western driveway be narrowed to VDOT standards and close the eastern driveway so the restaurant's sign would not be located in the middle of traffic. Hardy's Florist The driveway for Hardy's Florist is 171 feet wide, and presents many of the same issues as the Dominos Pizza driveway, as seen in Figure 10. This wide unrestricted access allows vehicles to turn directly from US Route 460 into parking spaces. Exiting vehicles have minimal space to back out of the parking lot before they enter US. Due to this configuration, there are many conflict points for entering and exiting vehicles. It is recommended that the Hardy's Florist parking lot be reconfigured to have a driveway meeting VDOT design standards, with angled parking near the building, as is shown in Figure 7. Windsor Cafe The Windsor Cafe driveway is 87 feet wide, as shown in Figure 10. The parking spaces in front of the restaurant are exposed by the existing driveway, which can cause conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. It is recommended that this driveway be narrowed to VDOT design standards, which will provide a barrier between restaurant parking and US. Intersection Clearance When there are additional driveways in the area surrounding an intersection, the number of conflict points increases and can cause safety problems. According to Appendix F - Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections from the N Figure 10 - Driveway Width for Hardy's Florist and Windsor Cafe Aerial Source: Google Earth. VDOT Road Design Manual, entrances shall not be placed within the functional area of any intersection (see Figure 9). The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Access Management Manual provides corner clearance criteria for controlled intersections, as seen in Figure 11 on page 17. Interpolating from the values on the table for 35 mph posted speeds gives the minimum clearances needed for US in the Town of Windsor. On the major roadway (US ), the upstream driveways is recommended to be a minimum of 345 feet plus the queue storage length from the intersection, and the downstream driveways are recommended to be a minimum of 253 feet from the intersection. On the minor street approaches to the intersection, driveways are recommended to be a minimum of 50 feet, plus the queue length on the upstream side of the intersection, and a minimum of 295 feet downstream of the intersection. Out of the four signalized intersections, the US Route 258 and the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersections have driveways violating intersection clearance recommendations. Figure 9 - Physical and Functional Area of an Intersection Source: VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F. US Route 258 Using the FHWA Access Management Manual's Corner Clearance Criteria and the 95% queue lengths found in the analysis of the existing traffic volumes (see capacity analysis section of the report), the approximate functional area of the US Route 258 intersection was US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 16

20 Safety Analysis calculated, as seen in Figure 12 on page 18. All of the existing driveways for Dairy Queen fall within the functional area of the intersection. While it is not feasible to close every driveway into the Dairy Queen, it is recommended that the two easternmost driveways on US be closed, along with the northernmost driveway on US Route 258. For both the Exxon Gas Station and the Supreme Gas Station, it is recommended that the driveway closest to US Route 258 be closed. Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street The corner clearance criteria was combined with the queue lengths found in the existing traffic capacity analysis to determine the approximate functional area Clearance Type A-Upstream on Major St B-Downstream on Major St C- Side on Minor St D-Departure Side on Minor Volume in Lane Adjacent to Access 50 vph, ~500 ADT 100 vph, ~1,000 ADT Intersection Capacity of the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection, as seen in Figure 13 on page 18. All of the driveways for the Southern Food Store are within the functional area of the intersection and the westernmost driveway on US is within the physical area of the intersection. In the review of the crash reports from , there were three angle crashes that occurred at this driveway, as the vehicle exiting the gas station violated the right-of-way of a vehicle who had a green light. It is recommended that the westernmost driveway on US for Southern Food Store be closed for safety reasons, as it is located in the intersection. As the other driveways also fall within the functional area of the intersection, it is recommended that the driveways for the Southern Food Store and True Value Hardware be combined, providing access to the Southern Food Store via the existing driveway on Court Street for True Value Hardware. The driveways for the US Post Office also fall within the functional area of the intersection, and it is recommended that alternate access be provided via the existing driveways for the Town Posted Min. Corner Clearance Speed 20 mph 115 ft + queue storage 30 mph 270 ft + queue storage 40 mph 420 ft + queue storage 50 mph 610 ft + queue storage 30 mph 200 ft 40 mph 305 ft 50 mph 425 ft <100 vph (Stop control 100 ft with high cross traffic) >100 vph (Stop control 50 ft with low cross traffic) <100 vph (Stop control 100 ft with high cross traffic) <200 vph (Stop control 75 ft with low cross traffic) >200 vph (Signal control) 50 ft + queue storage 20 mph 115 ft 30 mph 225 ft 40 mph 365 ft 50 mph 535 ft Figure 11 - Corner Clearance Criteria at Controlled Intersections Source: FHWA Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2003 of Windsor municipal building, if possible. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 17

21 Safety Analysis N Figure 12 - Functional Area of the US Route 258 Intersection Aerial Source: Google Earth N Figure 13 - Functional Area of the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street Intersection Aerial Source: Google Earth US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 18

22 Safety Analysis Clearance Intervals Currently, the yellow change and all-red intervals for the signalized intersections on the US study corridor do not conform to existing engineering standards and recommended practices. At signalized intersections, the yellow change interval allows time for vehicles to safely stop prior to the red light phase. Allred intervals allow vehicles to safely clear the intersection prior to other vehicles entering the intersection from other approaches. VDOT issued a memorandum on the Calculation of Clearance Intervals in 2001, which established a statewide standard in accordance with standards set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as shown below. 15 The formula for the yellow change interval is: where t is the reaction time (seconds), V is the posted speed limit (feet/second), a is the deceleration rate (feet/second 2 ), and g is the grade of the roadway (%). The reaction time is assumed to be 1 second unless there is a situation which warrants an increase to 1.5 seconds. The deceleration rate is assumed to be 10 feet/second 2, except in cases where there is heavy truck traffic where it can be decreased to 8-9 feet/sec 2. For the purposes of US, the deceleration rate was assumed to be 8 feet/sec 2 along US and 10 feet/second 2 otherwise. The formula for the all-red interval is: where w is the width of the intersection (feet), l is the vehicle length (feet), and V is the posted speed limit Table 3 - Clearance Intervals for Signalized Intersections Intersection Route 258 Court/Church/ Bank Roberts Ave Food Lion Dominion Way (feet/sec). The vehicle length is assumed to be 20 feet. The HRTPO staff calculated the yellow change intervals and the all-red intervals for all traffic signals along the US study corridor (including a signal at Roberts Avenue, which is a proposed improvement in the capacity analysis section of this report). It is recommended that the signal timings along US Route 460 be adjusted to reflect the yellow change intervals and all-red intervals shown in Table 3. Bicycle Considerations There are no dedicated bicycle facilities currently located on the US corridor, and the Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan does not include US as a bicycle route. County officials discourage bicycles from using US Route 460 for safety reasons, due to the corridor's current roadway design and traffic characteristics. Pedestrian Considerations The existing sidewalks within the Town of Windsor are in poor condition and do not provide a safe travel environment for pedestrians. In many locations, the sidewalk has little or no separation from the roadway, which puts pedestrians within a few feet of vehicles traveling at high speeds. Also, due to their proximity to the roadway, the sidewalks have uneven grades where the sidewalk becomes part of the driveway (see Figure 14 on page 20). Yellow Change Interval (s) All Red Interval (s) Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Route Court St Church St Bank St N/A 5.0 N/A 1.5 Roberts Ave N/A 3.5 N/A Food Lion Dominion Way VDOT Traffic Engineering Division Memorandum 306: Calculation of Clearance Intervals, August 16, US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 19

23 Safety Analysis The HRTPO staff concurs with the recommendations in the Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan to extend sidewalks from Windsor Pharmacy to Food Lion and add crosswalks at the Court/Church/Bank Street intersection. To improve pedestrian safety in the Town of Windsor, it is also recommended that the existing sidewalks be relocated away from the roadway and pedestrian crossings be added at the Route 258 intersection. Safety Improvements The improvements recommended above for improving safety on the US corridor are summarized below: Widen shoulders along the length of US Route 460. Install additional "Deer Crossing" signs along the US corridor and enhance all "Deer Crossing" signs with warning flags during the months of May-July and October- December. Use a public awareness campaign through local newspaper or radio to raise awareness of the active deer seasons. Add a two-way left-turn lane throughout the corridor outside of downtown Windsor. Add intersection warning signs for unsignalized intersections on the corridor. Narrow the driveways at the following businesses to between feet, according to VDOT guidelines: o Dairy Queen o Supreme Gas Station o Dominos Pizza o Anna's Ristorante Italiano o Hardy's Florist o Windsor Cafe Close driveways that are located in the functional area of the following intersections: o US Route 258 o Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street Adjust the yellow interval and all-red intervals at the signalized intersections to reflect the Figure 14 - Example of Sidewalks on US calculated values from the VDOT recommended formulas. Extend sidewalks from Windsor Pharmacy to Food Lion. Relocate sidewalks away from roadway. Add pedestrian crosswalks at the following intersections: o US Route 258 o Church Street/Court Street/Bank Street US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 20

24 Capacity Analysis Capacity Analysis Traffic Volumes Historic Traffic Growth VDOT collects average daily traffic counts on a threeyear cycle for most locations, with a smaller number of continuous count stations spread throughout the region. On the US study corridor, the most recent traffic counts along the study corridor were collected in Between 1999 and 2008, the traffic counts completed by VDOT have shown little growth in traffic volumes on US, as seen in Table 4. Traffic volumes on the corridor were the highest between 2002 and 2005, but declined by 2008 probably due to the recession. Historic traffic growth over the last decade at all of these locations has remained relatively flat. Existing Volumes Existing weekday morning and afternoon peak hour intersection turning movement counts were collected by VDOT between 2007 and 2009, and supplemented by counts from the Cambridge Villas Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). During this time period, the VDOT continuous count station, located on US in Southampton County between the Towns of Wakefield and Ivor, showed that traffic volumes have not changed. Therefore, all turning movement counts (TMCs) collected between 2007 and 2009 were assumed to be "2010" counts. The HRTPO staff adjusted and balanced TMCs at specific locations along the corridor to ensure reasonable traffic flow from intersection to intersection for the Synchro traffic models which were used for the capacity analysis. Appendix A shows the existing traffic TMCs used for Table 4 - Historic Traffic Growth Source: VDOT Traffic Counts this study. Projected Future Volumes For this study, a 20-year forecast period was used, growing the 2010 TMCs to the projected 2030 TMC's. Isle of Wight County requested that this study analyze 2030 traffic conditions along the existing US corridor, assuming no construction of the new US Route 460 alignment. While the new US alignment is a priority in the Governor s Transportation Plan, this study analyzes future traffic conditions without the new roadway, which provides a worst-case scenario for the existing US. The 20-year forecast volumes were based on a combination of the 2030 traffic volumes (by highway segment) developed as part of the HRTPO 2030 Amended Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) for three planned developments on the corridor. The HRTPO 2030 Amended LRTP traffic projections provide daily traffic volumes along US and US Route 258; the three TIAs provide turning movements for individual intersections. Two of the planned developments are neighborhoods located near downtown Windsor, Cambridge Villas and Holland Meadows. 16 The other development is a large warehousing development off of US Route 258, known as the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park. 17 The Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park TIA concluded that the full development of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park would not be feasible without the construction of the new US alignment. Therefore, two sets of projected development volumes were developed for analysis in this study one that incorporated 100% of the projected traffic for the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park Roadway Segment Southampton County Line to Route 258 9,356 11,754 10,356 9,697 Route 258 to Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street 12,735 13,097 14,666 13,942 Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street to Suffolk City Line 12,955 14,531 14,939 13,236 (identified in the analysis scenarios 16 Holland Meadows Traffic Impact Study, March 2009 and Cambridge Villas Traffic Impact Analysis, April Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park Traffic Impact Report, July US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 21

25 Vehicles in the Peak Hour Capacity Analysis as 100% Intermodal Park ) and one that incorporated 50% of the projected traffic for the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park, representing partial build-out of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park (identified as 50%. The future volume TMCs are shown in Appendix A. Overall, the number of vehicles expected to travel on or across US in the peak hours is expected to double in the next 20 years, as seen in Figure AM PM (100% 2030 (50% Analysis Scenarios Seven scenarios were analyzed for the US corridor - two current year scenarios, and five future year (2030) scenarios. For each scenario, both the AM and PM peak hours were analyzed in order to capture the differences in traffic patterns during these peak hours. The last three scenarios test the impact of various geometric improvements Existing The 2010 Existing scenario provides a baseline analysis for comparison to other scenarios, using the existing geometry, signal timings, and traffic volumes to model the network as it currently functions Optimized The 2010 Optimized scenario uses the existing geometry and traffic volumes, but updates the traffic signal timings. As discussed in the safety section of this report, the existing yellow and all-red clearance times are not sufficient according to VDOT's guidelines. This scenario includes optimized traffic signal timings as well as adjustments to the yellow and all-red intervals for the US corridor No-Build (100% Although the TIA for the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park development states that the project will need to be scaled back if the new US is not constructed, the network was analyzed with "100% Intermodal Park" future volumes to determine the severity of the resulting congestion. All No-Build scenarios keep the existing roadway geometry, optimize Figure 15 - Projected Growth in Traffic Volumes the traffic signal timings using the updated yellow and all-red clearance times, and includes the forecasted "100% Intermodal Park" TMCs No-Build (50% This scenario is the same as the previous scenario, except it includes the "50% Intermodal Park" TMCs Countywide Transportation Plan This scenario is the same as the previous scenario, except it includes improvements recommended in the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) which Isle of Wight County is in the process of creating, as seen in Table 5. The draft report provides improvements for three intersections along the US Corridor: US Route 258, Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street, and Old Mill Road. Table 5 - Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements US Route Add left-turn lane on northbound and southbound US Route 258 approaches - Add right-turn lane on all four approaches Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street - Close southbound Court Street approach - Close northbound Bank Street approach Old Mill Road - Realign southbound Old Mill Road approach to 90 intersection US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 22

26 Capacity Analysis At the US Route 258 intersection, the at-grade improvements to the existing intersection recommended by the CTP were used for this scenario. The other option, a grade-separated interchange, is analyzed as a part of the 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements scenario below due to the high cost of construction. The CTP recommended changes for the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection involve closing both the southbound Court Street and northbound Bank Street approaches to the intersection. The northbound Court Street approach would be realigned to intersect US at a 90 angle. At Old Mill Road, the option that involves creating a 90 approach was considered as part of this scenario. The other option for Old Mill Road, which included closing the southbound approach, was not considered in this study due to the low existing and projected traffic volumes on this approach HRTPO Staff Intermodal The 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario is the same as the 2030 No-Build (50% scenario except incorporates lower cost improvements to improve traffic operations along the US study corridor, as seen in Table 6. In this scenario, improvements were limited to adding additional turn lanes, changing traffic signal phases/timings, adding traffic signals, and closing approaches. In order to determine the improvements for this scenario, the HRTPO staff tested a variety of combinations of improvements for each intersection. The best options for each intersection were combined to form the HRTPO Staff Improvements. At the US Route 258 intersection, the improvements from the Countywide Transportation Plan were used. At the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection, the HRTPO Staff Improvements include closing the Church Street and Bank Street approaches. By closing the Church Street approach, traffic that would otherwise use Church Street is rerouted to Roberts Avenue. As a result of increased traffic at Roberts Avenue, a traffic signal has been included in this scenario. Table 6 - HRTPO Staff Improvements HRTPO Staff Improvements US Route Add left-turn lane on northbound and southbound US Route 258 approaches - Add right-turn lane on all four approaches Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street - Close southbound Church Street approach - Close northbound Bank Street approach Roberts Avenue - Signalize intersection 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded The 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements scenario is the same as the previous alternative except it includes additional roadway improvements that address capacity as well as safety issues, as seen in Table 7. This option includes improvements that may require additional right-of-way acquisition. Specifically, this alternative includes a grade-separated interchange for the Route 258 intersection, along with a two-way left-turn lane along US outside of downtown Windsor. At the existing US Route 258 intersection, a left-turn lane was added on the northbound and southbound US Route 258 approaches. Table 7 - HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements US Route Create grade-seperated bypass, west of existing intersection - Add left-turn lane on northbound and southbound US Route 258 approaches Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street - Close southbound Church Street approach - Close northbound Bank Street approach Roberts Avenue - Signalize intersection US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 23

27 Capacity Analysis Methodology Each scenario was modeled with Synchro 7 Traffic Signal Coordination software in order to determine the morning and afternoon peak hour Levels of Service (LOS) of the intersections along US. Based on the traffic counts, the AM peak hour was determined to be 7:15-8:15 am and the PM peak hour was 4:30-5:30 pm. Due to the limitations of the Synchro/Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis of unsignalized intersections in congested conditions with vehicular spillback through upstream intersections (which is prevalent in the future capacity scenarios), SimTraffic was used to simulate traffic and calculate delay on the approaches to intersections. The delays calculated with SimTraffic account for all changes from free flow speed between intersections, including acceleration and deceleration due to vehicles turning on or off the main through street, acceleration or deceleration when a speed limit changes, and signal delay. From the delays given by the simulation, the HRTPO staff calculated the LOS for each movement, approach, and intersection. LOS is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and is measured on a scale from "A" to "F". Each LOS is defined in Table 8. According to HCM Table 8 - Definition of Levels of Service Source: Highway Capacity Manual engineering standards, LOS "A" through "D" are considered acceptable operating conditions, while LOS "E" and "F" are considered unacceptable. Analysis Results Table 9 on page 25 and Table 10 on page 26 show the approach and intersection levels of service for all scenarios in the AM and PM peak hours. The level of service by movement can be found in Appendix B. For all of the analysis scenarios, the intersections west of Stave Mill Road all operate at LOS A, with the majority of approaches operating at LOS A or B. The differences in delay and levels of service between the scenarios were the result of the performance of the US Route 258 and Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersections and the traffic queues formed at these intersections. Two performance measures were used to compare the overall performance of the scenarios. The first measure is of the average delay of all vehicles on the US Route 460 corridor, as shown in Figure 16 on page 27. The second performance measure is the travel time from the Southampton County line to the City of Suffolk line as shown in Figure 17 on page 27. The differences in the scenarios are detailed by scenario below. Level of Service A B C D E F Definition -Free Flow Traffic -High Speed, Low Density -No Congestion -Good Flow -Good Speed -Very Little Congestion -Stable Operations -Moderate Speed -Restricted Maneuverability -Borderline Unstable Flow -Lower Speed, Some Delays -Limited Maneuverability -Extremely Unstable Flow -At or Near Capacity -Significant Congestion -Stop and Go Traffic -Demand Exceeds Capacity -Severe Congestion Unsignalized Intersection Delay (s/veh) Signalized Intersection Delay (s/veh) > > > > > > > > > 50 > 80 US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 24

28 Capacity Analysis Table 9 - Level of Service (LOS) by - AM Peak Hour Intersection Number 2010 AM Existing 2010 AM Optimized 2030 AM (100% Intermodal 2030 AM 2030 AM Countywide Transportation Plan 2030 AM HRTPO Staff Improvements 2030 AM HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Zuni Cir NB 3.7 A 3.5 A 6.8 A 5.6 A 1.9 A 5.7 A 5.8 A Rte 460 EB 0.6 A 0.7 A 2.1 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 1.9 A 1.9 A Rte 460 WB 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.5 A 1.7 A 1.8 A 1.8 A 1.8 A Intersection Total 1.1 A 1.1 A 2.2 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.1 A Zuni Cir NB 6.1 A 5.9 A 13.9 B 14.6 B 19.9 C 13.0 B 15.4 C Fire Tower Rd SB 3.1 A 3.5 A 5.3 A 7.8 A 9.1 A 8.7 A 9.9 A Rte 460 EB 0.6 A 0.6 A 1.6 A 1.6 A 1.5 A 1.5 A 1.5 A Rte 460 WB 3.6 A 3.5 A 4.8 A 5.6 A 5.9 A 5.8 A 5.8 A Intersection Total 2.0 A 2.0 A 2.7 A 3.3 A 3.6 A 3.5 A 3.5 A Yellow Hammer Rd NB 4.3 A 4.4 A 6.9 A 6.4 A 8.2 A 7.9 A 7.8 A Yellow Hammer Rd SB 5.2 A 5.1 A 7.5 A 8.1 A 8.3 A 8.2 A 7.9 A Rte 460 EB 2.1 A 2.1 A 5.2 A 4.9 A 4.7 A 4.6 A 4.8 A Rte 460 WB 3.1 A 3.0 A 4.4 A 5.0 A 5.7 A 5.6 A 5.2 A Intersection Total 2.7 A 2.6 A 5.0 A 5.0 A 5.2 A 5.1 A 5.1 A Ecella Rd NB 6.9 A 6.2 A 11.8 B 13.1 B 10.4 B 9.1 A 10.9 B Rte 460 EB 3.2 A 3.2 A 6.5 A 6.2 A 6.0 A 6.0 A 6.2 A Rte 460 WB 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A Intersection Total 2.0 A 2.0 A 4.9 A 4.1 A 3.7 A 3.7 A 3.8 A Winston Dr SB 2.8 A 2.6 A 3.6 A 4.2 A 4.1 A 4.6 A 4.7 A Rte 460 EB 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.4 A Rte 460 WB 2.2 A 2.0 A 2.8 A 3.6 A 4.1 A 4.1 A 3.3 A Intersection Total 1.1 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.5 A 1.9 A 1.9 A 1.6 A Cut Thru Rd NB 4.7 A 5.4 A 10.1 B 9.8 A 10.5 B 11.2 B 10.5 B Cut Thru Rd SB 5.4 A 5.5 A 8.7 A 9.5 A 12.1 B 11.5 B 11.6 B Rte 460 EB 3.3 A 3.3 A 5.8 A 5.7 A 5.5 A 5.5 A 5.6 A Rte 460 WB 2.1 A 1.8 A 3.1 A 3.9 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 3.2 A Intersection Total 3.0 A 2.9 A 5.3 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 5.3 A 4.9 A Stave Mill Rd SB 5.4 A 5.7 A 67.4 F 11.1 B 16.5 C 14.0 B 15.9 C Rte 460 EB 4.3 A 4.1 A 65.4 F 7.1 A 6.7 A 6.8 A 6.7 A Rte 460 WB 4.1 A 4.3 A 5.7 A 6.0 A 6.2 A 6.3 A 1.0 A Intersection Total 4.2 A 4.2 A 49.8 E 6.8 A 6.7 A 6.8 A 4.6 A Rte 258 NB 14.7 B 15.8 B F F 89.3 F F 19.3 B Rte 258 SB 22.2 C 23.2 C F F F 48.0 D 24.7 C Rte 460 EB 14.3 B 15.9 B F F 61.5 E 60.3 E 20.1 C Rte 460 WB 11.8 B 12.3 B F F 25.7 C 24.8 C 16.1 B Intersection Total 15.3 B 16.5 B F F F F 18.7 B Bank St NB 32.1 C 33.4 C 80.4 F 55.6 E Court St NB 23.5 C 23.3 C F 31.4 C 51.3 D 21.1 C 18.3 B Church St SB 28.7 C 24.7 C F 36.2 D 43.7 D Court St SB 27.0 C 25.5 C F F 34.3 C 26.9 C Rte 460 EB 13.8 B 14.2 B 42.8 D 59.4 E 27.5 C 16.2 B 16.4 B Rte 460 WB 11.8 B 12.3 B F F 25.7 C 24.8 C 16.1 B Intersection Total 16.0 B 16.2 B F F 29.5 C 21.7 C 17.2 B Roberts Ave SB 5.7 A 5.8 A F 36.1 E 16.1 B 17.4 B 22.4 C Rte 460 EB 3.9 A 4.0 A 5.5 A 6.1 A 6.6 A 11.8 B 10.7 B Rte 460 WB 1.6 A 1.6 A F 11.9 B 4.0 A 10.3 B 8.5 A Intersection Total 3.2 A 3.3 A F 9.2 A 5.6 A 11.5 B 10.4 B Food Lion SB 10.8 B 9.7 A 40.3 D 12.8 B 11.6 B 13.2 B 12.2 B Rte 460 EB 3.4 A 3.4 A 5.4 A 4.7 A 5.2 A 6.6 A 3.8 A Rte 460 WB 3.6 A 4.1 A F 7.4 A 7.1 A 8.0 A 7.6 A Intersection Total 3.6 A 3.7 A F 6.1 A 6.1 A 7.3 A 5.5 A Dominion Wy NB 4.1 A 6.5 A 42.7 D 19.8 B 18.1 B 17.7 B 22.3 C Rte 460 EB 8.8 A 11.8 B 9.9 A 11.8 B 12.8 B 13.9 B 14.7 B Rte 460 WB 6.9 A 8.1 A 74.6 E 10.0 A 8.7 A 10.0 A 9.9 A Intersection Total 8.1 A 10.5 B 45.8 D 11.0 B 10.9 B 12.2 B 12.6 B Old Mill Rd NB 7.2 A 6.3 A 21.1 C 19.2 C 21.0 C 25.2 D 25.3 D Old Mill Rd SB 3.2 A 5.0 A 23.0 C 15.7 C 5.5 A 20.7 C 18.7 C Rte 460 EB 2.4 A 2.4 A 3.1 A 3.4 A 3.7 A 3.7 A 11.8 B Rte 460 WB 0.5 A 0.5 A 2.2 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.1 A 2.4 A Intersection Total 1.8 A 1.8 A 3.0 A 2.6 A 2.8 A 3.0 A 8.0 A * Indicates that the delay and LOS are for the left-turn movement on an unsigned approach to an unsignalized intersection. ** Indicates that the delay and LOS are for the left-turn lane on an unsigned approach to an unsignalized intersection. Signalized Intersection does not exist US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 25

29 Capacity Analysis Table 10 - Level of Service (LOS) by - PM Peak Hour Intersection Number 2010 PM Existing 2010 PM Optimized 2030 PM (100% Intermodal 2030 PM 2030 PM Countywide Transportation Plan 2030 PM HRTPO Staff Improvements 2030 PM HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Zuni Cir NB 4.6 A 4.1 A 7.0 A 6.8 A 6.8 A 7.8 A 5.8 A Rte 460 EB 0.8 A 0.7 A 2.0 A 1.9 A 2.0 A 1.9 A 1.9 A Rte 460 WB 1.4 A 1.3 A 1.9 A 1.9 A 2.1 A 2.2 A 1.8 A Intersection Total 1.2 A 1.1 A 2.1 A 2.0 A 2.1 A 2.2 A 2.1 A Zuni Cir NB 5.9 A 6.9 A 16.1 C 12.4 B 16.2 C 17.9 C 15.4 C Fire Tower Rd SB 4.8 A 4.7 A 10.0 A 9.5 A 10.6 B 15.1 C 9.9 A Rte 460 EB 0.9 A 0.8 A 1.8 A 1.7 A 1.8 A 1.8 A 1.5 A Rte 460 WB 4.5 A 4.5 A 6.6 A 6.5 A 7.1 A 7.5 A 5.8 A Intersection Total 2.9 A 2.9 A 4.2 A 4.1 A 4.7 A 5.2 A 3.5 A Yellow Hammer Rd NB 3.8 A 3.5 A 8.4 A 6.6 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 7.8 A Yellow Hammer Rd SB 7.8 A 8.1 A 12.0 B 13.0 B 16.3 C 16.8 C 7.9 A Rte 460 EB 2.4 A 2.3 A 5.0 A 4.8 A 4.9 A 4.9 A 4.8 A Rte 460 WB 4.1 A 4.0 A 6.0 A 6.0 A 6.5 A 6.9 A 5.2 A Intersection Total 3.4 A 3.4 A 5.6 A 5.4 A 5.8 A 6.1 A 5.1 A Ecella Rd NB 6.9 A 6.9 A 11.3 B 9.0 A 10.0 A 9.9 A 10.9 B Rte 460 EB 3.4 A 3.2 A 6.2 A 6.1 A 6.1 A 6.1 A 6.2 A Rte 460 WB 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A Intersection Total 1.7 A 1.6 A 3.8 A 3.5 A 3.3 A 3.0 A 3.8 A Winston Dr SB 3.2 A 2.7 A 3.9 A 4.2 A 5.3 A 6.5 A 4.7 A Rte 460 EB 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A Rte 460 WB 2.8 A 2.6 A 4.3 A 4.4 A 4.7 A 5.0 A 3.3 A Intersection Total 1.6 A 1.6 A 2.1 A 2.2 A 2.6 A 3.0 A 1.6 A Cut Thru Rd NB 6.7 A 5.8 A 11.4 B 9.6 A 12.4 B 12.9 B 10.5 B Cut Thru Rd SB 8.5 A 8.0 A 12.6 B 15.7 C 16.2 C 16.9 C 11.6 B Rte 460 EB 3.3 A 3.1 A 5.5 A 5.3 A 5.4 A 5.3 A 5.6 A Rte 460 WB 3.0 A 2.8 A 4.6 A 4.9 A 5.4 A 5.9 A 3.2 A Intersection Total 3.3 A 3.1 A 5.3 A 5.3 A 5.6 A 5.8 A 4.9 A Stave Mill Rd SB 7.3 A 6.6 A 11.0 B 14.1 B 18.8 C 24.6 C 15.9 C Rte 460 EB 4.4 A 4.2 A 6.9 A 6.9 A 7.0 A 6.7 A 6.7 A Rte 460 WB 5.7 A 5.6 A 6.6 A 6.7 A 7.7 A 8.4 A 1.0 A Intersection Total 5.2 A 5.1 A 6.8 A 6.9 A 7.5 A 7.9 A 4.6 A Rte 258 NB 19.3 B 19.7 B F F 85.6 F F 19.3 B Rte 258 SB 33.1 C 39.0 D F 71.4 E F F 24.7 C Rte 460 EB 20.6 C 19.1 B F F 54.0 D 45.0 D 20.1 C Rte 460 WB 21.9 C 19.2 B F F F 45.5 D 16.1 B Intersection Total 22.4 C 22.3 C F F F F 18.7 B Bank St NB 38.8 D 35.7 D F F Court St NB 32.7 C 34.8 C F F F F 18.3 B Church St SB 32.1 C 27.6 C 76.0 E 65.7 E F Court St SB 32.5 C 32.4 C F F 69.6 E 26.9 C Rte 460 EB 24.0 C 20.1 C F F F 17.5 B 16.4 B Rte 460 WB 21.9 C 19.2 B F F F 45.5 D 16.1 B Intersection Total 24.7 C 22.0 C F F F 40.5 D 17.2 B Roberts Ave SB 9.5 A 9.9 A F F F 27.5 C 22.4 C Rte 460 EB 4.4 A 4.1 A 5.9 A 5.9 A 6.5 A 14.4 B 10.7 B Rte 460 WB 3.7 A 4.0 A F F F 21.3 C 8.5 A Intersection Total 4.2 A 4.3 A F F 63.1 F 18.7 B 10.4 B Food Lion SB 9.6 A 9.3 A 56.0 E 45.1 D 26.0 C 21.8 C 12.2 B Rte 460 EB 8.7 A 9.0 A 12.3 B 11.3 B 11.7 B 13.8 B 3.8 A Rte 460 WB 9.4 A 11.8 B F F 27.5 C 18.7 B 7.6 A Intersection Total 9.2 A 10.5 B F F 20.9 C 16.8 B 5.5 A Dominion Wy NB 10.3 B 9.3 A 28.9 C 28.4 C 20.4 C 18.3 B 22.3 C Rte 460 EB 7.5 A 9.1 A 9.5 A 11.1 B 11.4 B 12.9 B 14.7 B Rte 460 WB 8.1 A 9.9 A F 47.4 D 13.3 B 13.4 B 9.9 A Intersection Total 7.9 A 9.6 A 67.1 E 33.0 C 12.5 B 13.2 B 12.6 B Old Mill Rd NB 7.1 A 7.7 A 30.6 D 24.0 C 20.4 C 38.7 E 25.3 D Old Mill Rd SB 7.0 A 10.5 B 61.8 F 39.6 E 20.0 C 31.4 D 18.7 C Rte 460 EB 2.3 A 2.3 A 3.4 A 3.5 A 3.4 A 3.9 A 11.8 B Rte 460 WB 0.6 A 0.6 A 6.4 A 1.6 A 1.5 A 1.5 A 2.4 A Intersection Total 1.5 A 1.5 A 5.9 A 2.7 A 2.6 A 3.1 A 8.0 A * Indicates that the delay and LOS are for the left-turn movement on an unsigned approach to an unsignalized intersection. ** Indicates that the delay and LOS are for the left-turn lane on an unsigned approach to an unsignalized intersection. Signalized Intersection does not exist US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 26

30 2010 Existing 2010 Optimized 2030 No-Build (100% 2030 No-Build (50% 2030 Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements (50% 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements (50% 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements Average Minutes of Delay per Vehicle Capacity Analysis 2010 Existing The results of the existing capacity 20.0 analysis show that all intersections operate at LOS A or B in the AM peak hour, with no approaches operating below LOS C. In the PM peak hour, all intersections operate at LOS C or better, and all but the Bank Street approach operates at or above LOS C. AM PM In both the AM and PM peak hours, the average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US Route 460 network was less than a minute. The travel time to cross Isle of Wight County on US is approximately 13 minutes for both directions in the AM peak hour and approximately 14 minutes in the PM peak hours Optimized The results from the 2010 Optimized scenario are almost identical to the results from the 2010 Existing scenario. Every intersection operates within 3 seconds AM PM Figure 16 - Average Delay per Vehicle by Scenario of delay per vehicle of the existing scenario. While correcting the yellow and all-red clearance times increases delay at the signalized intersections during the AM peak hour and at most of the signalized intersections during the PM peak hour, the optimization of the signals is able to offset most of this delay. However, in the PM peak hour, these changes slightly 6.4 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Optimized (100% Free-Flow Travel Time (approximately 12 minutes) AM PM AM PM Eastbound Westbound 2030 (50% 2030 Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements (50% 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements (50% 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements (50% Figure 17- Travel Time to Drive Through Isle of Wight County on US US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 27

31 Capacity Analysis reduce delay at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection. Updating the yellow and all-red clearance times at the signalized intersections to VDOT standards and retiming the signals can produce a safer environment on US without having a negative effect on the traffic flow through this corridor. The average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network did not change from the 2010 Existing scenario, and is less than a minute in both the AM and PM peak hours. Similar to the existing scenario, the travel time to cross Isle of Wight County on US Route 460 is approximately 13 minutes for both directions in the AM peak hour and approximately 14 minutes in the PM peak hours No-Build (100% The results of the No-Build scenario, which included 100% of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park development, revealed the highest delays of all the alternatives. The Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park TIA discussed options for improving the US Route 258 intersection, but it did not show the impact on the rest of the corridor. All of the intersections to the west of Stave Mill Road would still operate at LOS A, with individual movements operating at a minimum of LOS C, in both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the rest of the corridor is expected to have severe congestion. In the AM peak hour, the intersection of US and US Route 258 showed an average delay of over 1,000 seconds per vehicle (approximately 16 minutes). The eastbound queue for the US Route 258 intersection extended past the Stave Mill Road intersection, causing the Stave Mill Road intersection to operate at LOS E. The intersection of Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street would also experience excessive delays, averaging 450 seconds per vehicle (7.5 minutes). The westbound queue would backup almost to the Old Mill Road intersection, causing each of the intersections in the Town of Windsor to also operate at unacceptable levels of service. In the AM peak hour, the average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network was approximately 22 minutes, while the delay is almost 24 minutes in the PM peak hour. This represents a large increase in delay from the existing average delay. The travel time to cross Isle of Wight County would be approximately 30 minutes eastbound and 46 minutes westbound. In the PM peak hour, the traffic queues are shorter at the US Route 258 intersection than in the AM. Thus, the travel time to cross Isle of Wight County eastbound would be 23 minutes, while the westbound travel time would be 38 minutes. Due to the excessive delays that would encompass the entire US corridor, it is recommended (in accordance with the TIA for the development) that the full Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park not be developed without the new US alignment project being completed No-Build (50% The No-Build scenario using 50% of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park development shows improvements over the "100% Intermodal Park" scenario, but does not fully alleviate the problems at the US Route 258 and Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersections. In both the AM and PM peak hour, all intersections west of the US Route 258 intersection operate at LOS A, with no individual approach operating at less than LOS C. However, the average delay on the northbound US Route 258 approach to US is projected to be greater than 30 minutes per vehicle in the AM peak hour and greater than 40 minutes per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network was 8.6 minutes in the AM peak hour and 13.9 minutes in the PM peak hour. On US, the projected peak hour travel time to cross Isle of Wight County eastbound is projected to be 21 minutes in both the AM and PM peak hours. Westbound, the projected travel time is 20 minutes in the AM peak hour, and 32 minutes in the PM peak hour. Without improvements to US through the Town of Windsor (and not just at the US Route 258 intersection), the US corridor will experience severe congestion. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 28

32 Capacity Analysis 2030 Countywide Transportation Plan The improvements presented in the Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements scenario greatly reduce congestion on the US corridor, but do not completely eradicate it from the intersections in the Town of Windsor. In the AM peak hour, all of the intersections, except for US Route 258, operate at an acceptable LOS. However, the average delay at the US Route 258 intersection is still over 100 seconds per vehicle (LOS F). In the PM peak hour, the US Route 258, Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street, and Roberts Avenue all operate at LOS F. At the US Route 258 and Roberts Avenue intersections, the delay was reduced 60-80% from the No-Build scenario, although the overall delay is still LOS F. The suggested improvements to the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection do not significantly reduce delay (reduces delay by 20%), leaving over 5 minutes of delay per vehicle. Since the design for this intersection results in two 90-degree approaches that do not meet at the same location on US, the side street approaches must still operate as a split phase, giving one approach the green light at a time, reducing the amount of green time for the US approaches. Therefore, an alternate set of improvements to the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street is necessary. This scenario improves the average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network to 2.3 minutes in the AM peak hour and 6.4 minutes in the PM peak hour, reducing the AM delay by 75% and the PM delay by 50% as compared to the No-Build (50% scenario. The Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements lower the expected travel time to cross Isle of Wight County on US to within 3 minutes of the freeflow travel time in the AM peak hour. However, the PM travel times are still 19 minutes eastbound and 21 minutes westbound (7 minutes and 9 minutes above free-flow, respectively) HRTPO Staff Intermodal The HRTPO Staff Improvements solve a majority of the congestion problems on the corridor. In both the AM and PM peak hours, the only intersection operating in unacceptable conditions is the US Route 258 intersection, which cannot be expanded beyond the current improvements (due to space limitations). In the PM peak hour, the Court Street approaches to US Route 460 at the Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection do not operate at acceptable levels, but due to space constraints, they cannot be expanded further either. In the AM peak hour, the HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario is projected to have the same average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network as the Countywide Transportation Plan Improvements scenario, remaining at 2.3 minutes, a 75% reduction from the No-Build (50% scenario. In the PM peak hour, the delay is reduced to 3.2 minutes per vehicle, providing a 75% improvement over the No-Build (50% scenario. The HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario lowers the projected travel time to cross Isle of Wight County on US to 15 minutes in the eastbound direction in both the AM and PM peak hours, and to 14 minutes in the AM peak hour and 15 minutes in the PM peak hour in the westbound direction, within 3 minutes of the free-flow travel time HRTPO Staff Expanded The HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements solve most of the expected congestion problems on US in both the AM and PM peak hours. All intersections and approaches operate at an acceptable level of service, and the only movements that remain at LOS F are the left-turn and through movements on northbound Old Mill Road (1 vehicle in both the AM and PM peak hour). The average delay experienced by simulated vehicles on the US network was reduced to 1.2 minutes in the AM peak hour and 1.6 minutes in the PM peak hour, which is within a minute of the delay experienced currently in the peak hours. The projected travel time to US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 29

33 Capacity Analysis cross Isle of Wight County on US is approximately 14 minutes for both directions during both the AM and PM peak hour, within 1 minute of the existing travel times. Even with all the improvements suggested for the US corridor, the unsignalized minor street approaches to US will experience higher congestion levels than currently exist. The congestion for these approaches is caused by the lack of available gaps in the through traffic on US, and may create safety problems in the future. While the two-way left-turn lane improves safety for vehicles turning from experienced by the vehicles on the minor street approaches. Norfolk Southern Railroad Currently, a Norfolk Southern railroad parallels the US corridor. From the Church Street/Court Street/Bank Street intersection in the Town of Windsor to Yellow Hammer Road, the train tracks are approximately 300 feet from US, as seen in Figure 18. County staff have stated that when trains pass through the corridor, vehicles queuing at the railroad crossing spill onto US. With the expected increase in both train and vehicular traffic in N Figure 18 - Norfolk Southern Railroad in Downtown Windsor Aerial Source: Google Earth US onto other roadways by removing them from the travel lanes, it does not change the delay the next 20 years, adding a "storage" lane between US and the railroad track may be warranted. US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 30

34 Capacity Analysis At the Church/Court/Bank Street intersection, the additional storage could be found by using the parcel between Bank Street and Court Street. On Route 258, Cut Thru Road, Ecella Road, and Yellow Hammer Road, a storage lane could be added to the southbound approach to the railroad, which would taper back into the existing lane before crossing the railroad track. Driveway Spacing and Interparcel Connectivity The Virginia Department of Transportation s (VDOT) Road Design Manual provides minimum spacing guidelines for commercial entrances, intersections, and crossovers for each roadway class. The current designation for the US study corridor is a rural principle arterial. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the primary function of a Principal Arterial is to connect freeways and important activity centers with relatively long trips between major points. 18 Mobility is very important to principal arterials while access is a lesser consideration. Instead of providing access to each individual business on principal arterial roadways, one driveway should access multiple businesses, providing interparcel connectivity. As seen in Table 11, the spacing between unsignalized Highway Functional Classification Legal Speed Limit (mph) rural principal arterial is recommended to be 1320 feet when the speed limit is 45 mph and below, and 1760 feet when the speed limit is 50 mph and above. In the case of the existing US corridor in the Town of Windsor, much of the spacing between access points is smaller than the recommendations that are listed for rural collectors. Thus, the existing US corridor is not able to function as a rural principal arterial through the Town of Windsor. While it is extremely difficult to remove existing driveways in the Town of Windsor, it is recommended that the creation of new driveways be limited and that existing driveways be consolidated to promote shared-use driveways and Table 11- Minimum Spacing Standards for Commercial Entrances, Intersections, and Crossovers Source: Virginia Road Design Manual Urban Principal Arterial Rural Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Rural Minor Arterial Centerline to Centerline Spacing (feet) Unsignalized Signalized Intersections/ Intersections/ Crossovers & Full Crossovers Access Entrances Divided Undivided Divided Undivided Partial Access 30 mph to 45 mph mph mph to 45 mph mph mph to 45 mph mph mph to 45 mph mph mph to 45 mph mph mph Rural 35 to 45 mph Collector 50 mph intersections, crossovers and full access entrances for a interparcel connectivity between businesses. 18 Highway Capacity Manual, Capacity Improvements US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 31

35 Capacity Analysis While the 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements scenario is able to mitigate most of the projected congestion on US, it would also require relocating US Route 258 and creating a grade-separated interchange, which not economically feasible. Based on the results of the capacity analysis, HRTPO staff recommends the improvements shown in the 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario, which included the following improvements: US Route 258 o Add a left-turn lane on both US Route 258 approaches o Add a right-turn lane on all four approaches Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street o Close Church Street approach o Close Bank Street approach Roberts Avenue o Signalize intersection o Add left-turn lane on eastbound US between US and the railroad track so that queues from the railroad tracks do not back up onto US. Along the entire corridor, it is recommended that the number of driveways be reduced by eliminating unnecessary driveways and combining driveways for adjacent businesses, whenever possible. Likewise, it is recommended that new driveways be limited to follow the recommended spacing from VDOT's Road Design Manual for rural principal arterial roadways. It is recommended that individual improvements be phased in as needed, as through traffic increases and new development sites are constructed along the study corridor. The signal at Roberts Avenue, however, will be necessary when the Church Street approach to US is closed in order to provide a safe left-turn onto US. As was shown in the No-Build (100% scenario, it is recommended that the full Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park not be developed without the new US alignment being completed. Likewise, as the implementation of the 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario improvements will not fully solve the congestion problems posed by half of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park development, development along the corridor needs to be monitored and allowed only if the additional development can mitigate the additional traffic it will cause. At the US Route 258 and Church Street/Court Street/Bank Street intersections, it is recommended that additional queuing space be provided southbound US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 32

36 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The US study corridor in Isle of Wight County is a rural principal arterial that serves as a major thoroughfare between the Hampton Roads Southside and points north and west. This corridor is an important freight corridor, with trucks accounting for 25% of the daily vehicle traffic on the corridor and the Norfolk Southern railroad paralleling US. In event of an evacuation of Hampton Roads, the US corridor will serve as one of the primary evacuation routes for Hampton Roads Southside. With the importance of the US corridor as one of the primary routes for residents of Isle of Wight County, the corridor must also function as a commercial artery for the Town of Windsor, providing access for the businesses there. The US corridor has a low crash rate in comparison to the average rate for both Isle of Wight County and Hampton Roads. However, the fatality rate for this corridor is higher than both the Isle of Wight County and Hampton Roads rates. Improvements to both the roadway geometry and access management along the corridor will be necessary to improve the safety of this corridor. This study also provided a comprehensive review of the capacity improvements necessary along US in the next 20 years. The expected expansion of the Port of Virginia and the traffic and local developments that will develop as a result of that expansion will create severe congestion within the Town of Windsor. Based on current projections, the number of vehicles traveling on or across US is projected to double in the next 20 years. Improvements to the intersections in downtown Windsor will be necessary to mitigate the congestion expected by Access management will also be an important part of the future of the US Route 460 corridor. The corridor will not be able to function as a principal arterial with the current number of access points. The signals along the US corridor may require retiming every few years to account for changes in travel patterns during the peak hours, and proper yellow and all-red intervals are necessary to maintain safe travel through the signals. While the 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements scenario is able to mitigate most of the projected congestion on US, it also requires relocating US Route 258 and creating a grade-separated interchange, which may not be economically feasible. Therefore, HRTPO staff recommends the improvements shown in the 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario. Although this scenario did not include the two-way left-turn lane as a capacity improvement, it is recommended that the two-way left-turn lane still be considered as a safety improvement. Whereas the safety recommendations presented in this report are meant to address problems that currently exist on US and could be implemented as soon as possible, the capacity recommendations address problems that do not currently exist. It is recommended that VDOT and Isle of Wight County continue to monitor traffic volumes on this corridor and implement the capacity strategies as traffic volumes increase. As was seen in the No-Build (100% scenario, the planned Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park will not be feasible without the new US alignment, and even 50% of the projected traffic from the development would present unacceptable conditions at the US Route 258 intersection with the improvements included in the HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario. Recommendations Based on the analysis presented in this report, the recommendations for the US Corridor are summarized below: Safety Recommendations Widen shoulders along the length of US Route 460 (Page 13). Install additional "Deer Crossing" signs along the US corridor and enhance all "Deer Crossing" signs with warning flags during the months of May-July and October-December (Page 14). US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 33

37 Conclusions and Recommendations Use a public awareness campaign through local newspaper or radio to raise awareness of the active deer seasons (Page 14). Add a two-way left-turn lane throughout the corridor outside of downtown Windsor (Page 14). Add intersection warning signs for unsignalized intersections on the corridor (Page 14). Narrow the driveways at the following businesses to between feet, according to VDOT guidelines: o Dairy Queen (Page 15) o Supreme Gas Station (Page 15) o Dominos Pizza (Page 15) o Anna's Ristorante Italiano (Page 15) o Hardy's Florist (Page 16) o Windsor Cafe (Page 16) Close driveways that are located in the functional area of the following intersections (Page 18): o US Route 258 o Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street Adjust the yellow interval and all-red intervals at the signalized intersections to reflect the calculated values from the VDOT recommended formulas (Page 19). Extend sidewalks from Windsor Pharmacy to Food Lion (Page 20). Relocate sidewalks away from roadway (Page 20). Add pedestrian crosswalks at the following intersections (Page 20): o US Route 258 o Church Street/Court Street/Bank Street Capacity Recommendations While the 2030 HRTPO Staff Expanded Improvements scenario is able to mitigate most of the projected congestion on US, it would also require relocating US Route 258 and creating a grade-separated interchange, which may not be economically feasible. Therefore, based on the results of the capacity analysis, HRTPO staff recommends the improvements shown in the 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario, which included the following improvements (Page 23): o Add a right-turn lane on all four approaches Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street o Close Church Street approach o Close Bank Street approach Roberts Avenue o Signalize intersection o Add left-turn lane on eastbound US It is recommended that individual improvements be constructed as needed, as through traffic increases and new development sites are constructed along the study corridor. The signal at Roberts Avenue, however, will be necessary when the Church Street approach to US is closed in order to provide a safe left-turn onto US. Given that the implementation of the 2030 HRTPO Staff Improvements scenario improvements will not fully solve the congestion problems posed by even half of the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park development, it is recommended that the traffic impact and mitigation of proposed developments be carefully evaluated (Page 30). At the US Route 258 and Church Street/Court Street/Bank Street intersections, it is recommended that additional queuing space be provided southbound between US and the railroad track so that queues from the railroad tracks do not back up onto US (Page 31). Along the entire corridor, it is recommended that the number of existing driveways be reduced by eliminating unnecessary driveways and combining driveways for adjacent businesses, whenever possible. Likewise, it is recommended that new driveways be limited to follow the recommended spacing from VDOT's Road Design Manual for rural principal arterial roadways (Page 31). US Route 258 o Add a left-turn lane on both US Route 258 approaches US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 34

38 Public Comments Public Comments The US Corridor Study was released for public comment from 6/1/2011 until 6/15/2011 and no public comments were received. On June 14, 2011, the Windsor Town Council expressed that they are in agreement with the closure of the Bank Street approach to the /Court Street/Church Street/Bank Street intersection, but would prefer the southbound approach on Court Street closed instead of Church Street. The Town Council had concerns about how the closure of Church Street would impact the traffic volumes that currently use Church Street as well as access to the adjacent post office. Both scenarios were analyzed as part of this report, with the HRTPO recommending the closure of Church Street due to the results of the capacity analysis (see page 29). US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 35

39 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 36

40 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2010 AM Existing US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 37

41 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2010 PM Existing US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 38

42 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2030 AM No-Build (100% US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 39

43 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2030 PM No-Build (100% US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 40

44 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2030 AM No-Build (50% US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 41

45 Appendix A - Turning Movement Volumes 2030 PM (50% US Corridor Study, Isle of Wight County 42