City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session

City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session Agenda Item # City Council Meeting 8g 9/29/2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE(S): SUMMARY: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Robert Sisson, City Manager Public hearing and Council action on the University Drive Road Diet one-year pilot program in an effort to improve multimodal connectivity between George Mason University and Old Town. Conduct the Public Hearing to seek input from the public on the proposed one- year pilot for the University Drive Road Diet and direct staff to consider changes consistent with the public comments prior to implementation of the one-year pilot project. In an effort to improve multimodal connectivity between George Mason University and Old Town, one of the recommendations from the November charrette was to repurpose the pavement on University Drive to provide bicycle lanes. Sabra, Wang & Associates, Inc. has conducted an evaluation for the City to determine feasible project limits and the potential impact to traffic flow, emergency operations and bicycle movements on University Drive. The proposed project would modify the configuration of University Drive between Armstrong Street and South Street by providing three travel lanes instead of four (one lane in each direction plus a center turn lane), and bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway. The transition area from the existing four lane configuration to the proposed three lane configuration would occur between South Street and Sager Avenue. This change is proposed as a one-year pilot project. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to apply thermoplastic in the new, road diet configuration and add associated signage would be approximately $10,000. If, after one year, the road diet is determined to be unsuccessful, the cost to remove the thermoplastic markings and apply replacement markings in original configuration would be approximately $10,000. RECOMMENDATION: ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION: RESPONSIBLE STAFF/ POC: COORDINATION: ATTACHMENTS: Seek input from the public to implement a one year pilot project; direct staff to consider changes consistent with the public input, and proceed to implementation. Keep University Drive in existing configuration. Wendy Block Sanford, Transportation Director and Brooke Hardin Community Development and Planning Director Public Works, Planning Road Diet Technical Memorandum, Proposed Conceptual Plan, Sample Motion

MEMORANDUM From: Paul Silberman, P.E., PTOE Sabra, Wang & Associates, Inc. Brian Laverty, AICP Sabra, Wang & Associates, Inc. To: Ms. Wendy Block Sanford Transportation Director, City of Fairfax Subject: University Drive Road Diet Date: September 22, 2015 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to document the progress and recommendations of the University Drive Road Diet Analysis and Concept Development (Road Diet Project), conducted by Sabra, Wang and Associates (SWA) in July and August, 2015. The aim of the project is to identify, develop and test conceptual engineering elements of a road diet plan for University Drive between Main Street and Armstrong Street, a distance of roughly onethird of a mile (1,750 ft.). University Drive s posted speed limit is 25 mph in the study area; and its annual average daily traffic (AADT) in 2014 was 12,000 between Main Street and South Street, and 14,000 between South Street and Armstrong Street. Figure 1 shows the project corridor, with the following signalized intersections highlighted: 1. University Drive and Main Street 2. University Drive and Sager Avenue 3. University Drive and Fire Station 3 entrance (signal activates only in emergencies) 4. University Drive and Armstrong Street Figure 1: University Drive Road Diet Study Area, with Signalized Intersections Highlighted TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Road Diet Project is focused on defining a concept for re striping University Drive to achieve the following objectives: 101 West Broad Street, Suite 301, Falls Church, Virginia 22046 Tel (703) 942 8990 www.sabra wang.com Fax (703) 942 8995

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 2 A. Reduce vehicular speed in the corridor. B. Provide an attractive bicycle accommodation on University Drive, identified as a bike friendly street in the City s bicycle plan. C. Ensure that the new roadway configuration will not have unacceptable negative impacts to traffic or to transit bus operations. REVIEW OF COMPARABLE ROAD DIET IMPLEMENTATIONS SWA identified three completed road diet installations featuring an existing condition similar to that of University Drive, namely a suburban arterial roadway with a configuration of two travel lanes in either direction. Each of the comparable projects were motivated by both safety concerns stemming from perceived excessive speeds, as well as a desire to provide bicycle accommodation as part of a redesign. The comparable road diet case studies included Lawyers Road in Reston, Virginia; Battery Lane in Bethesda, Maryland; and Cordova Street in Pasadena, California. Reston, Virginia: Lawyers Road The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) repaved a two mile section of Lawyers Road in 2009, and took advantage of the opportunity to reconfigure the roadway to curtail speeding and to provide improved connectivity for bicyclists. Lawyers Road is a suburban roadway in an area of low density residential development, although it provides a key eastwest connection between busy arterials that run north south (Reston Parkway, Hunter s Mill Road). Average daily traffic is approximately 10,000 vehicles. Despite its residential surroundings, Lawyers Road had a relatively high 45 mph speed limit before the road diet was implemented, and other factors contributed to a high incidence of speeding in the corridor. There are long stretches between intersections, only two of which are signalized within the two mile road diet corridor. While numerous neighborhoods branch off of Lawyers Road over the course of the two mile road diet segment, no houses front on Lawyers Road in this stretch, there are no curbs or sidewalks, and for the most part the roadway is bounded by wooded land. Figure 2: Lawyers Road after implementation of road diet VDOT implemented a roadway configuration of one through lane in either direction, with a center two way left turn lane throughout the two mile segment. Five foot wide bike lanes were striped on either side of the roadway. The implementation of the road diet has produced marked reductions in vehicle speeds, prompting VDOT to lower the speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph, and in the first five years after implementation, crashes in the corridor were reduced by roughly 70 percent. In spite of the reduction in automobile speeds, 69 percent of respondents to a 2010 road user survey did not perceive that travel times had increased. 69 percent of respondents to the survey also indicated that the road felt safer, and 74 percent indicated that the road diet was an improvement to Lawyers Road. Bethesda, Maryland: Battery Lane September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 3 Montgomery County reconfigured a 0.85 mile section of Battery Lane in 2011, with a primary emphasis on providing improved connectivity for bicyclists. Battery Lane is a relatively urban roadway in an area of highdensity residential development, and is characterized by large apartment buildings. Battery Lane has sidewalks on either side throughout and generally features landscaped areas of 30 40 feet between the street edge and buildings. Both sides of the roadway have numerous curb cuts and driveway entrances. Battery Lane provides a connection between the two primary arterial streets in Bethesda (Old Georgetown Road, Wisconsin Ave), and average daily traffic is approximately 5,000 vehicles. Figure 3: Battery Lane prior to road diet implementation The County implemented a roadway configuration of one through lane in either direction, with bike lanes in both directions. Parallel parking was also included on the south side of the roadway for most of the length of Battery Lane, although there are a handful of sidewalk bulb outs designed to accommodate transit stops, a bikeshare station, and a busy pedestrian crossing. At these locations the parking lane is interrupted. Figure 4: Battery Lane after road diet implementation The road diet implementation resulted in little to no change in level of service (LOS) on Battery Lane. Pasadena, California: Cordova Street The City of Pasadena repaved a 0.5 mile section of Cordova Street in 2010, affording the opportunity to reconfigure the roadway to reduce vehicular speeds and provide a bike friendly corridor. The width of the roadway led to issues of excessive speeding on Cordova Street, and residents had requested that additional traffic signals be installed to slow traffic and provide for safer pedestrian crossings. The road diet was implemented in part as an alternative to additional traffic signals. The section of Cordova Street that was reconfigured is a relatively urban roadway characterized by multifamily housing and relatively dense single family housing. Cordova Street has sidewalks on either side throughout and buildings are generally set back less than twenty feet from the roadway. Both sides of the roadway have numerous curb cuts and driveway entrances. Cordova Street provides a connection between the central business district of Pasadena and Pasadena City College, and average daily traffic is approximately 11,000 vehicles. The City implemented a roadway configuration of one through lane in either direction, with a center turn lane throughout the half mile segment. The road diet design also included bike lanes in both directions and parallel parking on both sides of the roadway. A before and after study completed in 2011 revealed that the road diet implementation resulted in little to no change in pedestrian and vehicular LOS on Cordova Street, but led to an improvement in bicycle LOS. The study also showed some reduction in collisions and injuries, and greater rates of compliance with the posted speed limit. September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 4 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions were documented through conversations with City staff and through field visits. SWA has documented the corridor s role in the citywide bike connectivity plan, the physical characteristics of the roadway, and the traffic conditions experienced with the existing four lane roadway configuration. ROADWAY CONFIGURATION AND LAND USE University Drive has two 10 11 foot travel lanes in either direction throughout the study corridor. In two locations, however, the width of the lanes varies considerably. Between Breckinridge Lane and the firehouse, the roadway shifts to the west by several feet, and the travel lanes widen out to 12 13 feet temporarily. In the block between Sager Avenue and Main Street, the travel lanes become considerably narrower, with the overall width of the roadway (not including gutters) reduced to 36.5 feet. See Appendix A for detailed diagrams of the existing roadway. The area between Sager Avenue and South Street is the crest of a hill, and the roadway slopes gently downward both to Main Street and to the firehouse. Beyond the firehouse, University Drive is level to the intersection with Armstrong Street. The study corridor is characterized primarily by office buildings, which are generally set back at least twenty feet from the roadway behind a screen of street trees and landscaping. The northern half of the block between Sager Avenue and Main Street features mixed use commercial buildings separated from the street by only a narrow (~5 ft) sidewalk. The east side of University Drive north and south of Breckinridge Lane is occupied by a townhouse neighborhood, while the area on the opposite side of the roadway is screened by dense foliage and a brick wall screening a parking lot. Figure 5: University Drive sloping down from South Street to the firehouse The entire corridor has well maintained sidewalks, with the exception of a 200 foot section on the east side of University Drive opposite Breckinridge Lane. The City is in the process of designing a new sidewalk to eliminate this gap in the sidewalk network, and should complete construction in the next year. The firehouse is of a similar scale as the office Figure 6: The firehouse facade and entranceway buildings it is adjacent to, with a similar setback from the roadway. Its entrance forms a very large intersection with University Drive, roughly 120 feet from curb edge to curb edge. September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 5 BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE The City s bicycle network consists primarily of off street trails and bike friendly roads, which are termed on street trails in the City s bike trails map. Relatively few streets feature bike lanes or sharrows, although two notable exceptions are immediately adjacent to the study corridor. George Mason Boulevard, immediately south of the study area, has sharrows; and Breckinridge Lane, which branches off of University Drive to the East, features a 500 ft section of bike lanes. Figure 7 shows the entire Fairfax City bicycle network. In the Old Town area, there are only two bike routes, both running north south. University Drive, designated as an on street trail, is one of the two. The other bike route in the Old Town area is the Mason to Metro Bike Route, which is considered of primary importance within the City s bike network. For a short distance between Breckinridge Lane and City Hall, those two routes converge on University Drive/George Mason Boulevard. As such, University Drive is a critical connection for overall bicycle connectivity within the City, a fact that was underscored when Vision Fairfax Mason Workshop attendees made the implementation of bike lanes on University one of their primary recommendations in the Fall of 2014. Figure 7: Map of City of Fairfax Bicycle Infrastructure (Existing and Planned) EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Capacity analyses were performed for the University Drive Road Diet study corridor under existing conditions and under proposed conditions. Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the capacity analysis performed using Synchro 8 and September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 6 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The delay, level of service, and 95 th percentile queue lengths in feet are shown for each approach and the overall intersection. Existing timings were used for existing and future conditions. Under existing conditions, the study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service: LOS C or better. Figure 8: Existing Intersection LOS at Study Intersections SWA conducted a speed study on University Drive during the AM Peak period, beginning at 7:07 AM on a Thursday morning, in order to gauge the typical vehicle speeds in the corridor and the incidence of speeding. All speed readings were taken from a location just south of the firehouse entrance, which is the center of the longest unsignalized section of the study corridor (when emergency signal is not activated). Of the 159 vehicles observed, only five were travelling at or below the posted speed limit of 25 mph. The average speed of northbound vehicles was 32 mph, while the average speed of southbound vehicles was 33 mph. 14 percent of northbound vehicles and 20 percent of southbound vehicles were travelling 11 or more mph above the speed limit, a difference that is probably due in part to the downward slope of the roadway from South Street to the firehouse. Full detail of the speed study data collection is included as Appendix C. September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 7 Table 1: Summary of Existing Capacity Analysis Synchro 8 HCM Results Intersection University Drive and Main Street University Drive and Sager Avenue University Drive and South Street (unsignalized) University Drive and Fire Station #3 University Drive and Armstrong Street Approach Delay (sec/veh) v/c Ratio Level of Service 95th Percentile Queues (feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Overall 17.3 18.4 0.64 0.66 B B Eastbound 17.0 20.5 0.74 0.80 B C m86 m102 Westbound 3.7 8.2 0.38 0.40 A A 38 76 Northbound 30.6 29.0 0.53 0.50 C C 211 243 Southbound 14.2 14.3 0.50 0.52 B B 80 m101 Overall 7.7 8.3 0.37 0.42 A A Eastbound 26.2 26.2 0.28 0.44 C C 51 83 Westbound 26.1 27.5 0.37 0.57 C C 50 79 Northbound 3.2 3.7 0.21 0.23 A A 64 76 Southbound 2.2 3.9 0.37 0.38 A A 24 210 Overall 0.6 0.9 A A Westbound 14.9 16.3 0.09 0.18 B C 8 16 Northbound 0.0 0.0 0.18 0.21 A A 0 0 Southbound 0.1 0.1 0.22 0.27 A A 0 0 Overall 4.8 5.4 0.33 0.30 A A Eastbound 21.3 19.7 0.00 0.02 C B 0 4 Westbound 21.3 20.0 0.02 0.05 C C 6 11 Northbound 4.2 4.6 0.23 0.24 A A 206 #326 Southbound 5.1 5.2 0.38 0.35 A A #325 #445 Overall 31.7 18.3 0.83 0.72 C B Eastbound 27.6 25.3 0.68 0.56 C C 152 112 Westbound 20.3 22.1 0.33 0.30 C C 86 71 Northbound 11.5 14.7 0.44 0.69 B B 215 #418 Southbound 48.8 18.5 0.98 0.82 D B #546 #622 Note: m = metered; # = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 8 C. RECOMMENDED ROAD DIET IMPLEMENTATION CONFIGURATION The recommended road diet implementation consists of a reduction from two travel lanes in either direction, with center two way left turn lane, between Armstrong Street and South Street. Ten foot lanes are recommended in order to reduce speeding, and to provide buffering where possible between vehicular lanes and bike lanes. With 10.5 foot travel lanes and a 12 foot turning lane, between 11 and 20 feet of additional width would be available, including 18 of gutter on either side of the roadway. The recommended road diet configuration utilizes this space as 5.5 foot bike lanes, with any additional space in the wider portion of the roadway striped as a buffer between the travel lanes and bike lanes. The gutter on either side of the roadway would be included in the 5.5 width of the bike lanes, and all lane widths would be measured from center of lane marking to center of lane marking. The lines separating the bike lanes from the travel lanes would be double standard thickness (10 ). No physical modifications are expected outside of the current roadway pavement or curb and gutter. All modifications would be accomplished through changes to the roadway markings. Transit stops would remain in their current locations, with bike lanes temporarily interrupted for a span of 100 feet at each stop (70 behind the bus stop flag and 30 beyond it). The left hand southbound travel lane at South Street would become a left turn only lane, with the right hand travel lane leading into the single travel lane beyond this intersection. Sharrows would be added in the northbound travel lane in the block north of South Street. ROAD DIET TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Under proposed conditions, each of the study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) overall. The queue lengths shown at the Fire Station in the southbound direction exceed the link distance; however, these conditions are not expected to be seen in the field. The traffic signal is coded in Synchro with a 105 second cycle length, but in the field, the red light on University Drive is only activated by an emergency vehicle or a pedestrian. Therefore, queuing should be minimal under typical circumstances. Table 2 provides a summary of the results of the proposed capacity analysis. September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 9 Figure 9: Intersection LOS with Road Diet Implementation Table 2: Summary of Proposed Capacity Analysis Synchro 8 HCM Results Intersection Approach Delay (sec/veh) v/c Ratio Level of Service 95th Percentile Queues (feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Overall 17.3 18.4 0.64 0.66 B B University Drive and Main Street Eastbound 17.0 20.5 0.74 0.80 B C m86 m102 Westbound 3.7 8.2 0.38 0.40 A A 38 76 Northbound 30.6 29.0 0.53 0.50 C C 211 243 Southbound 14.2 14.3 0.50 0.52 B B 80 m101 Overall 7.7 8.3 0.37 0.42 A A University Drive and Sager Avenue Eastbound 26.2 26.2 0.28 0.44 C C 51 83 Westbound 26.1 27.5 0.37 0.57 C C 50 79 Northbound 3.2 3.7 0.21 0.23 A A 64 76 Southbound 2.2 3.9 0.37 0.38 A A 24 210 University Drive and South Street (unsignalized) Overall 0.5 0.8 A A Westbound 12.6 14.9 0.07 0.16 B B 6 14 Northbound 0.0 0.0 0.28 0.36 A A 0 0 Southbound 0.1 0.1 0.33 0.40 A A 0 0 Overall 8.3 8.1 0.59 0.54 A A University Drive and Fire Station #3 Eastbound 21.3 19.7 0.00 0.02 C B 0 4 Westbound 21.3 20.0 0.02 0.05 C C 6 11 Northbound 5.5 6.2 0.40 0.44 A A #542 #730 Southbound 10.5 8.9 0.69 0.64 B A #797 #942 Overall 31.7 18.3 0.83 0.72 C B University Drive and Armstrong Street Eastbound 27.6 25.3 0.68 0.56 C C 152 112 Westbound 20.3 22.1 0.33 0.30 C C 86 71 Northbound 11.5 14.7 0.44 0.69 B B 215 #418 Southbound 48.8 18.5 0.98 0.82 D B #546 #622 September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 10 Note: m = metered; # = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SWA also conducted an iterative analysis to determine what level of future traffic growth would result in a failing level of service. Increasing traffic volumes throughout the corridor in increments of two percent, and reviewing model results after each increase, SWA noted the levels of future growth that would result in a failing intersection approach and failing intersection overall. It was determined that in all cases, the intersection of University Drive and Armstrong Street would fail before other intersections in the corridor: An 8% increase in traffic would result in a failing condition (LOS F) for the southbound approach of the intersection of University Drive and Armstrong Street in the AM Peak Period. A 22% increase in traffic would result in a failing condition (LOS F) for the intersection of University Drive and Armstrong Street as a whole in the AM Peak Period. Traffic levels for University Drive have fluctuated considerably, peaking in 2007 with an AADT of 15,000 in the portion of the study corridor between South and Armstrong Streets (see Figure 11). Traffic levels fell between 2010 and 2013, but rebounded sharply in 2014. Forecasting future traffic levels is difficult given recent fluctuations. Figure 10: Intersection LOS with 22% Growth in Traffic Volumes September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 11 AADT 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 South to Armstrong Main to South Figure 11: Trend in Annual Average Daily Traffic on University Drive, 2005 2014 (Source: VDOT) September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 12 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS BASE MAP September 2015

SHARE THE ROAD SPEED LIMIT 25 NOPARKING xxxxx xxxxx D NO PARKING ANY TIME INNS OF COURT CONDOMINIUM DB 6416 PG 639 NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS CONC UTILITY PADS IPF BEGIN EX. ASPHALT CURB SHARE THE ROAD S15 21'31"W 213.41' END EX. ASPHALT CURB EX. CONC S/W D D F&M BANK NORTHERN VIRGINIA DB 9896 PG 237 PIN 57 4 02 041 CONC S/W N ARMSTRONG STREET S66 29'38"E 587.30' N66 29'51"W 542.92' (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) ARMSTRONG STREET D D BLIND PEDESTRIAN AREA HOPE C. DAVIES BANKHEAD T. DAVIES WB 49 PG 39 116,305 SQ.FT. OR 2.670 ACRES (RECORD) PIN 57 4 02 040 D ZONE: R-2 #4131 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD OPERATOR: ckeler - PLOTTED: Tuesday, Septem ber 15, 2015 AT 01:44 PM FILE NAME: R:\2014\17 City of Fairfax Transportation Engineering_14-007_$500K\Task 07 University Drive Road Diet\dwg\Print_Sheet_UniDr.dgn TRAIL GEORGE MASON BVLD. 15.5' D 3' 12' 13.5' ARMSTRONG STREET D D D D 11.5' S S 10' 10' 10' 12.5' D CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX BENCHMARK - PK NAILIN SIDEWALK BRICK S/W E UNIVERSITY DRIVE University Drive Road Diet Existing Conditions OHW TIME NO PARKING ANY S OHW COURTHOUSE SQUARE RESERVED PARKING FOR 12.5' 10' 12.5' CRIMEWATCH NEIGHBORHOOD WARNING OUTLET NO TW O-W AY BIKE TRAIL UNIVERSITY DRIVE (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) BRECKINRIDGE LANE D BENCHMARK - PK NAILIN SIDEWALK D WV NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME WATCH WARNING TIME ANY NO PARKING 12.5' 13' 12' 14.5' D S MATCHLINE TO SHEET 2 30' 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' Sheet No. 1

PARKING ANY TIME NO CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE m etrobus call us for inform ation XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS N OPERATOR: ckeler - PLOTTED: Tuesday, Septem ber 15, 2015 AT 01:47 PM FILE NAME: R:\2014\17 City of Fairfax Transportation Engineering_14-007_$500K\Task 07 University Drive Road Diet\dwg\Print_Sheet_UniDr.dgn MATCHLINE TO SHEET 1 UNIVERSITYDRIVE 14.5' 12' 12' 14.5' 11.5' 10' 10' 12.5' FIRE STATION University Drive Road Diet Existing Conditions SOUTH STREET MATCHLINE TO SHEET 3 30' 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' Sheet No. 2

CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. OLD LEE HWY RIGHT AT SECOND LIGHT NO PARKING ANY TIME m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. SPEED LIMIT 25 P FREE P FREE m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000. XX. m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER NO PARKING XXXXX XXXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX HR ALL 2PARKING OTHER TIMES N SAGER AVENUE MAIN STREET OPERATOR: ckeler - PLOTTED: Tuesday, Septem ber 15, 2015 AT 01:50 PM FILE NAME: R:\2014\17 City of Fairfax Transportation Engineering_14-007_$500K\Task 07 University Drive Road Diet\dwg\Print_Sheet_UniDr.dgn MATCHLINE TO SHEET 2 11.5' 10' 10' 11.5' UNIVERSITY DRIVE 12.5' 10' 9' 10.5' SAGER AVENUE 10.5' 10' 9' 10.5' University Drive Road Diet Existing Conditions 10' 10' 9' 10.5' MAIN STREET UNIVERSITY DRIVE 30' 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' Sheet No. 3

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 13 APPENDIX B RECOMMENDED ROAD DIET CONFIGURATION DRAWINGS September 2015

SHARE THE ROAD SPEED LIMIT 25 NOPARKING xxxxx xxxxx NO PARKING ANY TIME INNS OF COURT CONDOMINIUM DB 6416 PG 639 NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS CONC UTILITY PADS IPF BEGIN EX. ASPHALT CURB SHARE THE ROAD S15 21'31"W 213.41' END EX. ASPHALT CURB EX. CONC S/W D D F&M BANK NORTHERN VIRGINIA DB 9896 PG 237 PIN 57 4 02 041 CONC S/W PARKING ANY TIME NO PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: UNIVERSITY DRIVE N 44' CURB-TO-CURB ARMSTRONG STREET CURB & GUTTER 5.5' BIKE LANE 10.5' SOUTHBOUND S66 29'38"E 587.30' 12' TURN LANE 10.5' NORTHBOUND 5.5' BIKE LANE CURB & GUTTER N66 29'51"W 542.92' (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) ARMSTRONG STREET D D BLIND PEDESTRIAN AREA HOPE C. DAVIES BANKHEAD T. DAVIES WB 49 PG 39 OPERATOR: ckeler - PLOTTED: Monday, Septem ber 21, 2015 AT 10:05 AM FILE NAME: R:\2014\17 City of Fairfax Transportation Engineering_14-007_$500K\Task 07 University Drive Road Diet\dwg\Print_Sheet_Concept_UniDr.dgn LEGEND: EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ELECTRICAL OVERHEAD INLET MANHOLES EXISTING SIGNS PROPOSED SIGN TRAIL GEORGE MASON BVLD. D D S 15.5' 3' 12' 13.5' D D ARMSTRONG STREET D D R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF R3-17c 12"X30" 5 SF D D BEGINS D ENDS S S 5.5' 12"X30" 10.5' R3-17b D CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX BENCHMARK - PK NAILIN SIDEWALK BRICK S/W E 11' OHW TIME NO PARKING ANY S OHW COURTHOUSE University Drive Road Diet Proposed Concept SQUARE RESERVED PARKING FOR CRIMEWATCH NEIGHBORHOOD WARNING OUTLET 116,305 SQ.FT. OR 2.670 ACRES (RECORD) NO PIN 57 4 02 040 ZONE: R-2 #4131 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD 12' 12' 12' 10.5' 5.5 R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF 5 SF UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXISTING BUS STOP 5.5' 11' 5.5' R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF TW O-W AY BIKE TRAIL UNIVERSITY DRIVE (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) BRECKINRIDGE LANE R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF W11-1 30"X30" 6.25 SF D BENCHMARK - PK NAILIN SIDEWALK NEIGHBORHOOD WV CRIME WATCH WARNING D TIME ANY NO PARKING 5.5 4' 10.5' 10.5' 4' 5.5 D S MATCHLINE TO SHEET 2 30' 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' Sheet No. 1

CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX XXXXXXX CUE 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX 202-637-7000 CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX m etrobus call us for inform ation XX.. CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX CITY OF FAIRFAX XXXX CUE XXXXXXX 703-385-XXXX m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus call us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. m etrobus cal us for inform ation 202-637-7000 XX.. NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS NOPARKING BETWEEN SIGNS SPEED LIMIT 25 P FREE P FREE OLD LEE HWY RIGHT AT SECOND LIGHT PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: UNIVERSITY DRIVE N 44' CURB-TO-CURB CURB & GUTTER 5.5' BIKE LANE 10.5' SOUTHBOUND 12' TURN LANE 10.5' NORTHBOUND 5.5' BIKE LANE CURB & GUTTER OPERATOR: ckeler - PLOTTED: Monday, Septem ber 21, 2015 AT 10:20 AM FILE NAME: R:\2014\17 City of Fairfax Transportation Engineering_14-007_$500K\Task 07 University Drive Road Diet\dwg\Print_Sheet_Concept_UniDr.dgn SAGER AVENUE MATCHLINE TO SHEET 1 UNIVERSITYDRIVE LEGEND: EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ELECTRICAL OVERHEAD INLET MANHOLES EXISTING SIGNS PROPOSED SIGN D D S R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF 5.5' 10.5' 12' 10.5' 5.5 EXISTING BUS STOP EXISTING BUS STOP FIRE STATION R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF R3-17b 12"X30" 5 SF ENDS BEGINS R3-17c 12"X30" 5 SF 5.5' 11' 10.5' 10.5' 10.5' 12' 10' 10.5' 5.5' R3-17 24"X30" 5 SF SOUTH STREET University Drive Road Diet Proposed Concept ROAD THE 5 SF SHARE W16-1 24"X30" W11-1 30"X30" 6.25 SF W11-1 30"X30" 6.25 SF 11' R3-7(2)L 30"X48" 10 SF SOUTH ST. 10.5' UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXISTING BUS STOP SAGER AVENUE 9' 10.5' R3-7(2)L MOD 30"X48" 10 SF BEYOND INTERSECTION 30' 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' Sheet No. 2

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 14 APPENDIX C SPEED STUDY DATA COLLECTION DETAIL September 2015

University Drive Road Diet Analysis VEHICLE SPOT SPEED STUDY SPEED RANGES NUMBER OF VEHICLES PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT ACCUMULATION RECORDER: CH 5 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 0 0.0% 0.0% LOCATION: 7 0 0.0% 0.0% University Drive btwn Armstrong and Fire Sta. 8 0 0.0% 0.0% 9 0 0.0% 0.0% APPROACH: NB 10 0 0.0% 0.0% 11 0 0.0% 0.0% SURFACE: Dry 12 0 0.0% 0.0% 13 0 0.0% 0.0% WEATHER: Pt Cloudy 14 0 0.0% 0.0% 15 0 0.0% 0.0% DATE: 8/6/2015 16 0 0.0% 0.0% 17 0 0.0% 0.0% TIME: 7:07 AM 18 0 0.0% 0.0% 19 0 0.0% 0.0% 20 0 0.0% 0.0% 21 1 1.2% 1.2% SURVEY STATISTICS 22 1 1.2% 2.4% 23 0 0.0% 2.4% 24 1 1.2% 3.6% POSTED SPEED: 25 MPH POSTED SPEED 25 0 0.0% 3.6% 26 5 6.0% 9.6% AVERAGE SPEED: 32 MPH 27 2 2.4% 12.0% 28 5 6.0% 18.1% MEDIAN SPEED: 31 MPH 29 5 6.0% 24.1% 30 9 10.8% 34.9% MODAL SPEED: 32 MPH 31 10 12.0% 47.0% 32 12 14.5% 61.4% 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED: 35 MPH 33 9 10.8% 72.3% 34 6 7.2% 79.5% 10 MPH PACE: 26-35 MPH 35 5 6.0% 85.5% 36 3 3.6% 89.2% PERCENT IN PACE: 82% 37 4 4.8% 94.0% 38 2 2.4% 96.4% PERCENT ENFORCEABLE: 14% 39 2 2.4% 98.8% 40 1 1.2% 100.0% 41 0 0.0% 100.0% 42 0 0.0% 100.0% 43 0 0.0% 100.0% 44 0 0.0% 100.0% 45 0 0.0% 100.0% 46 0 0.0% 100.0% COMMENTS: 47 0 0.0% 100.0% 48 0 0.0% 100.0% 49 0 0.0% 100.0% 50 0 0.0% 100.0% 51 0 0.0% 100.0% 52 0 0.0% 100.0% 53 0 0.0% 100.0% 54 0 0.0% 100.0% 55 0 0.0% 100.0% 56 0 0.0% 100.0% 57 0 0.0% 100.0% 58 0 0.0% 100.0% 59 0 0.0% 100.0% 60 0 0.0% 100.0% TOTAL VEHICLES: 83 WorkSheet (NB) Speed Study 3 of 4

University Drive Road Diet Analysis VEHICLE SPOT SPEED STUDY SPEED RANGES NUMBER OF VEHICLES PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT ACCUMULATION RECORDER: CH 5 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 0 0.0% 0.0% LOCATION: 7 0 0.0% 0.0% University Drive btwn Armstrong and Fire Sta. 8 0 0.0% 0.0% 9 0 0.0% 0.0% APPROACH: SB 10 0 0.0% 0.0% 11 0 0.0% 0.0% SURFACE: Dry 12 0 0.0% 0.0% 13 0 0.0% 0.0% WEATHER: Pt Cloudy 14 0 0.0% 0.0% 15 0 0.0% 0.0% DATE: 8/6/2015 16 0 0.0% 0.0% 17 0 0.0% 0.0% TIME: 7:07 AM 18 0 0.0% 0.0% 19 0 0.0% 0.0% 20 0 0.0% 0.0% 21 0 0.0% 0.0% SURVEY STATISTICS 22 0 0.0% 0.0% 23 1 1.3% 1.3% 24 1 1.3% 2.6% POSTED SPEED: 25 MPH POSTED SPEED 25 0 0.0% 2.6% 26 3 3.9% 6.6% AVERAGE SPEED: 33 MPH 27 1 1.3% 7.9% 28 3 3.9% 11.8% MEDIAN SPEED: 31 MPH 29 3 3.9% 15.8% 30 6 7.9% 23.7% MODAL SPEED: 31 MPH 31 11 14.5% 38.2% 32 10 13.2% 51.3% 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED: 35 MPH 33 6 7.9% 59.2% 34 10 13.2% 72.4% 10 MPH PACE: 27-36 MPH 35 6 7.9% 80.3% 36 6 7.9% 88.2% PERCENT IN PACE: 82% 37 1 1.3% 89.5% 38 2 2.6% 92.1% PERCENT ENFORCEABLE: 20% 39 1 1.3% 93.4% 40 1 1.3% 94.7% 41 2 2.6% 97.4% 42 1 1.3% 98.7% 43 0 0.0% 98.7% 44 0 0.0% 98.7% 45 0 0.0% 98.7% 46 0 0.0% 98.7% COMMENTS: 47 1 1.3% 100.0% 48 0 0.0% 100.0% 49 0 0.0% 100.0% 50 0 0.0% 100.0% 51 0 0.0% 100.0% 52 0 0.0% 100.0% 53 0 0.0% 100.0% 54 0 0.0% 100.0% 55 0 0.0% 100.0% 56 0 0.0% 100.0% 57 0 0.0% 100.0% 58 0 0.0% 100.0% 59 0 0.0% 100.0% 60 0 0.0% 100.0% TOTAL VEHICLES: 76 WorkSheet (SB) Speed Study 4 of 4

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 15 APPENDIX D EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE AM Peak Period Existing Volumes PM Peak Period Existing Volumes September 2015

DRAFT University Drive Road Diet Analysis Memorandum Page 16 APPENDIX E SYNCHRO INTERSECTION REPORTS REPORT 1 Existing AM Operations September 2015

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: University Drive & South St 9/9/2015 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 5 415 30 5 515 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 5 451 33 5 560 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 230 298 px, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97 vc, conflicting volume 758 242 484 vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol 681 147 397 tc, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 91 99 100 cm capacity (veh/h) 369 844 1119 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 38 301 183 192 373 Volume Left 33 0 0 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 33 0 0 csh 402 1700 1700 1119 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 14.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 1

Queues 13: University Drive & Main Street 9/9/2015 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 340 67 75 319 4 61 408 39 7 378 30 Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1392 0 1577 1938 0 0 3119 0 0 2318 0 Flt Permitted 0.470 0.306 0.806 0.944 Satd. Flow (perm) 744 1392 0 508 1938 0 0 2529 0 0 2190 0 Satd. Flow (RTOR) Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 443 0 82 351 0 0 551 0 0 452 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Total Split (s) 15.0 63.0 15.0 63.0 14.0 62.0 48.0 48.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 Act Effct Green (s) 65.8 60.1 74.3 69.7 57.5 57.5 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.47 0.43 0.53 0.50 0.41 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.74 0.24 0.36 0.53 0.50 Control Delay 9.0 17.7 3.6 3.7 32.4 14.4 Queue Delay 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 Total Delay 9.0 19.5 3.6 4.1 33.4 14.5 LOS A B A A C B Approach Delay 19.2 4.0 33.4 14.5 Approach LOS B A C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 78 6 25 205 64 Queue Length 95th (ft) m3 m86 6 38 211 80 Internal Link Dist (ft) 300 340 254 240 Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 140 Base Capacity (vph) 424 597 357 965 1038 899 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 57 0 243 255 60 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.82 0.23 0.49 0.70 0.54 Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 5 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 13: University Drive & Main Street Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 2

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: University Drive & Main Street 9/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 340 67 75 319 4 61 408 39 7 378 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1600 1900 1900 2200 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1393 1577 1938 3118 2318 Flt Permitted 0.47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.81 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 744 1393 509 1938 2526 2190 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 370 73 82 347 4 66 443 42 8 411 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 443 0 82 351 0 0 551 0 0 452 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 61.9 59.1 72.5 64.7 56.5 56.5 Effective Green, g (s) 61.9 60.1 73.5 66.7 57.5 57.5 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.44 0.43 0.52 0.48 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 597 342 923 1037 899 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.32 c0.02 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 c0.22 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.74 0.24 0.38 0.53 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 33.5 19.2 23.4 31.1 30.6 Progression Factor 0.54 0.41 0.14 0.12 0.97 0.41 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 3.4 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.8 Delay (s) 12.1 17.1 2.9 3.9 30.6 14.2 Level of Service B B A A C B Approach Delay (s) 17.0 3.7 30.6 14.2 Approach LOS B A C B HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 3

Queues 51: University Drive & Sager Avenue 9/9/2015 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 18 42 15 60 29 96 5 394 33 36 461 23 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1646 0 1310 1513 0 0 3110 0 0 2300 0 Flt Permitted 0.896 0.764 0.951 0.904 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1492 0 1054 1513 0 0 2960 0 0 2086 0 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16 104 20 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 82 0 65 136 0 0 469 0 0 565 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 53.2 53.2 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.76 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.21 0.36 Control Delay 21.5 27.9 10.7 4.0 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.5 27.9 10.7 4.0 2.5 LOS C C B A A Approach Delay 21.5 16.3 4.0 2.5 Approach LOS C B A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 25 12 24 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 50 47 64 24 Internal Link Dist (ft) 120 220 218 254 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 Base Capacity (vph) 500 346 566 2252 1587 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 1 33 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.21 0.36 Cycle Length: 70 Actuated Cycle Length: 70 Offset: 10 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.38 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.3 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 51: University Drive & Sager Avenue Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 51: University Drive & Sager Avenue 9/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 18 42 15 60 29 96 5 394 33 36 461 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.89 0.99 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1645 1310 1514 3113 2300 Flt Permitted 0.90 0.76 1.00 0.95 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1491 1053 1514 2962 2087 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 46 16 65 32 104 5 428 36 39 501 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 87 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 69 0 65 49 0 0 464 0 0 562 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3% 3% 4% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 49.4 49.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 51.4 51.4 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 174 250 2174 1532 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.06 0.16 c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.37 0.20 0.21 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 26.0 25.2 2.9 3.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 Delay (s) 26.2 27.3 25.6 3.2 2.2 Level of Service C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 26.2 26.1 3.2 2.2 Approach LOS C C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 5

Queues 52: George Mason Blvd/University Drive & Armstrong Street 9/9/2015 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 112 51 48 27 73 29 23 301 16 22 422 92 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1558 0 0 1617 0 1624 1636 0 1547 1170 0 Flt Permitted 0.772 0.917 0.304 0.500 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1235 0 0 1498 0 520 1636 0 814 1170 0 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 18 18 3 13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 229 0 0 140 0 25 344 0 24 559 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 35.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Act Effct Green (s) 17.1 17.1 34.9 31.7 34.9 31.7 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.50 0.56 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.33 0.06 0.42 0.04 0.94 Control Delay 28.5 18.4 7.8 15.2 7.7 46.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.5 18.4 7.8 15.2 7.7 46.4 LOS C B A B A D Approach Delay 28.5 18.4 14.7 44.8 Approach LOS C B B D Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 31 3 57 3 138 Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 86 16 215 16 #546 Internal Link Dist (ft) 220 220 466 828 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 Base Capacity (vph) 628 760 582 827 658 597 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.18 0.04 0.42 0.04 0.94 Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 62.8 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 52: George Mason Blvd/University Drive & Armstrong Street Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 6

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 52: George Mason Blvd/University Drive & Armstrong Street 9/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 112 51 48 27 73 29 23 301 16 22 422 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1558 1617 1624 1635 1547 1170 Flt Permitted 0.77 0.92 0.30 1.00 0.50 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1235 1498 520 1635 814 1170 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 55 52 29 79 32 25 327 17 24 459 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 216 0 0 127 0 25 342 0 24 552 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 8% 7% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 5% 4% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 33.0 30.7 33.0 30.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 17.1 35.0 31.7 35.0 31.7 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.48 0.53 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 319 387 330 784 467 561 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.21 0.00 c0.47 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.08 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.33 0.08 0.44 0.05 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 22.0 19.8 8.3 11.3 7.5 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 33.7 Delay (s) 27.6 20.3 8.4 11.7 7.6 50.6 Level of Service C C A B A D Approach Delay (s) 27.6 20.3 11.5 48.8 Approach LOS C C B D HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.1 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 7

Queues 58: University Drive & Fire Station #3 9/9/2015 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 3 0 3 1 0 1 15 427 0 1 532 3 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1728 0 902 0 808 0 3437 0 0 2532 0 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.936 0.955 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1728 0 950 0 808 0 3223 0 0 2418 0 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 68 68 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 480 0 0 582 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 Total Split (s) 65.5 65.5 27.0 65.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Act Effct Green (s) 38.3 10.3 38.4 36.2 36.2 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.90 0.24 0.90 0.85 0.85 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.28 Control Delay 0.0 24.0 0.0 10.7 12.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.0 24.0 0.0 10.7 12.5 LOS A C A B B Approach Delay 0.0 10.7 12.5 Approach LOS A B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 0 206 #325 Internal Link Dist (ft) 92 70 828 150 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1590 692 749 2731 2049 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.28 Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 42.7 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.28 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 58: University Drive & Fire Station #3 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service G Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 8

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 58: University Drive & Fire Station #3 9/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 3 0 3 1 0 1 15 427 0 1 532 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1729 902 808 3438 2532 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1729 950 808 3222 2417 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 0 3 1 0 1 16 464 0 1 578 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 480 0 0 582 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 4 2 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 1.3 4.1 30.5 30.5 Effective Green, g (s) 4.1 2.8 5.6 32.0 32.0 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 52 89 2045 1534 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.00 0.15 c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 22.5 19.9 3.9 4.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 Delay (s) 21.3 22.7 19.9 4.2 5.1 Level of Service C C B A A Approach Delay (s) 21.3 21.3 4.2 5.1 Approach LOS C C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Old Town Fairfax 7:00 am 9/25/2012 Existing Synchro 8 Report SWA Page 9