VA_FLAP_NPNWS_105(1)_tmp_final.pdf

Fort Eustis Bridge Replacement

VA FLAP NPNWS 105(1)

Newport News, VA Traffic Management Plan

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 TMP Team – Roles and Responsibilites

3.0 Work Zone Impact Assessment

3.1 Existing Conditions

3.2 Proposed Conditions

3.3 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology

3.4 Modeling Scenarios

3.5 Diversion Model Assumptions

3.6 Analysis Methods

3.7 Traffic Analysis Results

3.8 Arterial Analysis

3.9 Intersection Analysis

3.10 Traffic Analysis Conclusions

4.0 Work Zone Impact Management Strategies

4.1 Temporary Traffic Control

4.2 Transportation Operations

4.3 Incident Management Strategies

4.4 Public Information and Outreach Strategies (PI&O)

5.0 TMP Implementation/Monitoring

6.0 TMP Modification

7.0 Appendices

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

1.0 Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) is working with the City of Newport News and Joint Base Langley- Eustis (JBLE) to replace the existing Fort Eustis Blvd (Rte. 105) bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir in Newport News, Virginia. The existing bridge was originally constructed in 1960, and was widened to its current configuration in 1985. A 2015 Structure Inspection Report identified the need for extensive repairs to the structure. Figure 1 provides a general overview of the area.

Fort Eustis Blvd leads to the main entrance gate to JBLE, and thus is the primary gateway to the base.

Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the project.

Figure 1: General Area Overview

Figure 2: Approximate Project Location

The improvements consist of replacing the Route 105 (Fort Eustis Boulevard) bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir with a new structure with a widened cross section to provide standard lane widths, and raised profile to accommodate a raised reservoir level, and reconstructing the approach roadway to accommodate grade and width differences between the new and old structure.

2.0 TMP Team – Roles and Responsibilites

The following people are the major personnel involved in the project.

TMP Development Managers FWHA Eastern Federal Lands City of Newport News

Name/Title: Bill Eshbaugh Name/Title: Carolyn Bowman Unit: Project Management Unit: Project Management Phone: 202-794-2158 Phone: 757-926-3667 Email: William.eshbaugh@dot.gov Email: bowmancd@nnva.gov Role and Responsibilities: Primary Project POC

TMP Implementation/Monitoring Managers FHWA EFL Construction Contractor

Name/Title: Name/Title:

Unit: Unit:

Phone: Phone:

Email: Email:

Role and Responsibilities:

Emergency Service Contacts Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) Police Department

Name/Title: Name/Title:

Unit: Unit:

Phone: Phone:

Email: Email:

Role and Responsibilities:

3.0 Work Zone Impact Assessment

As part of the bridge replacement effort, EFLHD conducted a traffic analysis to evaluate current and proposed conditions during construction of the new bridge. The goal of the analysis was to evaluate the impacts of construction to the project area and provide input to the maintenance of traffic plan to avoid excessive impacts.

3.1 Existing Conditions

Fort Eustis Blvd is 4-lane arterial approximately 5 miles in length. It runs from US 17 in the east to Fort Eustis to the west. It has intersections or interchanges with major roads such as Jefferson Ave (Rte.

143), I-64, and Warwick Blvd (US. 60). The cross section for the Fort Eustis Blvd bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir includes two WB lanes and three EB lanes. The EB lanes are made of two thru lanes, and an acceleration lane for the ramp from NB Warwick Blvd.

Figure 3 on the following page depicts the existing configuration of the Fort Eustis Blvd bridge.

Figure 3: Fort Eustis Blvd Bridge Existing Configuration

Table 1 shows that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) of the Fort Eustis bridge is 38,000 vehicles.

The data also reveals that roughly 50% of the traffic volume on Fort Eustis Blvd between US 60 and I-64 goes to or from JBLE, while the other 50% uses this section of road for access to or from US 60 or I-64.

The data also shows that Fort Eustis Blvd has annual average weekday traffic (AAWDT) volume of 42,000 vehicles. This shows that traffic is heavier on Fort Eustis Blvd on weekdays, which is not surprising given the number of commuters going to JBLE for work. Table 2 summarizes the classification of vehicles using Fort Eustis Blvd.

Table 1: Fort Eustis Blvd 2018 Traffic Characteristics (highlighted row represents section including Fort Eustis bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir)

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation

From To Link Length AADT K

Factor Direction

Factor AAWDT

Ft Eustis US 60 0.04 19000 0.1 0.845 21000

US 60 I-64 1.01 38000 0.087 0.698 42000

I-64 SR 143

Jefferson Ave

0.23 23000 0.093 0.602 25000

SR 143 Jefferson Ave

Newport News City Limit

1.26 17000 0.111 0.668 18000

Table 2: Fort Eustis Blvd 2018 Traffic Classification (highlighted row represents section including Fort Eustis bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir)

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation

From To Link Length

Percent 2 and 4

Tire Vehicles

Percent Buses

Percent Single Unit

Trucks 2 Axle

Percent Single Unit

Trucks 3+ Axle

Percent Combination

Trucks 1 Trailer

Percent Combination

Trucks 2+ Trailer

Ft Eustis US 60 0.04 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

US 60 I-64 1.01 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

I-64 SR 143

Jefferson Ave

0.23 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

SR 143

Jefferson

Ave

Newport News City Limit

1.26 96% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Data from Table 2 reveals a consistent pattern of 96% passenger vehicles using Fort Eustis Blvd, as well as approximately 4% heavy vehicles.

3.2 Proposed Conditions

The Fort Eustis bridge over Lee Hall Reservoir is planned to be replaced in phases. The phases of construction will typically reduce the Fort Eustis bridge to three lanes with variable lane configurations.

This will allow the closed section of the bridge to be rebuilt until the next construction phase, and continue until finally the entire bridge is rebuilt. The worst anticipated phase of construction is expected to be Phase 2, where the proposed lane configuration is: one WB thru lane, one EB thru lane, and one EB acceleration lane for the ramp from NB Warwick Blvd. Thus, Phase 2 was modeled and analyzed for proposed work zone conditions, as it represents the worst anticipated impacts. Figure 4 depicts a map of the proposed conditions during Phase 2 construction of the bridge.

The model was analyzed assuming existing volumes under existing conditions. A temporary roadway configuration that was present at the I-64 / Fort Eustis Blvd interchange for the I-64 widening project will be removed prior to the start of this project, and was not considered in this model.

The traffic analysis was conducted assuming the configuration of Fort Eustis Blvd shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Proposed Configuration of Fort Eustis Blvd During Phase 2 Construction of the Bridge

3.3 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology

A traffic analysis for existing and proposed conditions was conducted to evaluate the impacts of the Fort Eustis bridge replacement project during construction. Traffic data from numerous sources were used for the traffic analysis.

The City of Newport News provided the latest traffic signal timing data and arterial volume data that it has available. VDOT provided 2018 traffic volumes for I-64 to/from the Fort Eustis Blvd exit. The volumes were provided post-balancing to provide continuity of volume data.

The AM peak period is generally 7-8AM, and the PM peak period is generally 5-6PM.

Traffic counts were conducted in March 2018 to obtain traffic volumes for the ramps to/from the Warwick Blvd / Fort Eustis Blvd interchange. These volumes were important to consider in the traffic analysis, as the ramps are heavily used. Figure 5 illustrates the AM and PM peak ramp volumes used within the model.

Figure 5: US 60 (Warwick Blvd) and Fort Eustis Blvd interchange AM and PM Ramp Volumes

264 (536)

89 (63)

141 (22)

364 (277)

43 (122) 88 (163) 343 (376)

909 (509) Legend: AM (PM) volumes

3.4 Modeling Scenarios

There were five scenarios that were analyzed for both AM and PM peak hours including:

• Existing: This scenario modeled existing conditions with no construction. It was used as a baseline to compare with conditions during construction

• Phase 2 Construction: This scenario modeled work zone conditions during Phase 2 construction, assuming existing traffic volumes with no changes to traffic patterns.

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion: This scenario modeled work zone conditions during Phase 2 construction, assuming 25% of drivers divert to an alternate route to avoid the main work zone on Fort Eustis Blvd. Full details on the diversion model assumptions are stated in the next section. Figures 6 and 7 on the following pages illustrate the detour routes that were analyzed.

• Phase 2 Construction Demand Reduction: This scenario modeled work zone conditions during Phase 2 construction, assuming 10% of drivers alter their schedule to avoid the peak hour, effectively reducing the peak hour volume by 10%.

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion + Demand Reduction: This scenario modeled work zone conditions during Phase 2 construction, assuming 25% of drivers divert and another 10% of drivers alter their schedule to avoid the peak hour, effectively reducing the peak hour volume by a combined 35%.

3.5 Diversion Model Assumptions

The diversion model assumed 25% of drivers diverting to an alternate route to avoid the work zone. Subsequent routes were calculated based on existing splits. For this analysis, we did not consider Denbigh Blvd as a potential diversion route, as there will be a concurrent bridge replacement project under construction at the same time. Diversion Routes for the AM and PM are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The full diversion route splits assumed are as follows:

o AM

• EB I-64

Exit 247 Ramp / Jefferson Ave signal left turn (25% initial assumption)

• Right at Jefferson Ave / Yorktown Rd Signal

• Left on US 60 East (Warwick Blvd) / Yorktown Blvd

• Ramp to WB Fort Eustis Blvd

• WB I-64

Exit 255B (25% initial assumption)

• Jefferson Ave / Bland Blvd left turn (16.25%)

• Right on US 60 West (Warwick Blvd)

• Left on Shellabarger Dr (13.81%)

• Left ramp to WB Fort Eustis Blvd (2.44%)

• Jefferson Ave / Industrial Park Dr left turn (8.75%)

• Right on US 60 West (Warwick Blvd)

• Left ramp to WB Fort Eustis Blvd o PM

• Warwick / Shellabarger Dr (25% initial assumption) WB US 60 left turn (5.75%)

• Straight thru (4.83%)

• Right onto Yorktown Rd signal

• Left onto Jefferson Ave signal

• Right onto I-64 West ramp

• Industrial Park Dr Right turn (0.92%)

• Left onto Jefferson Ave

• Left onto I-64 West ramp

EB US 60 right turn (19.25%)

• Bland Blvd left turn (19.25%)

• Right onto Jefferson Ave

• Right onto I-64 East ramp

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

I-64 East to Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Fort Eustis) I-64 West to Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Bland/Shellabarger) I-64 West to Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Bland/Fort Eustis)

Legend µ

0 1 20.5 Miles

£60

£60

£60

£17

£17

I-64 West to Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Industrial Park/Fort Eustis)

Construction Zone

Figure 6

AM Diversion Routes to Joint Base Langley Eustis

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Shellabarger) to I-64 West Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Shellabarger) to I-64 West (via Industrial Park Dr.)

Joint Base Langley Eustis (via Shellabarger) to I-64 East

Legend µ

0 1 20.5 Miles

£60

£60

£60

£17

£17

Construction Zone

Figure 7

PM Diversion Routes from Joint Base Langley Eustis

3.6 Analysis Methods

There were two analysis methods conducted within the work zone traffic analysis: arterial analysis and intersection analysis. The arterial analysis focused on the impacts on Fort Eustis Blvd during construction with measures of effectiveness (MOEs) being queue length and travel time.

The intersection analysis focused on impacts to eight key signalized intersections outside of the project limits to evaluate the effect of anticipated work zone travel patterns. The intersection analyzed for this method included:

• Jefferson Ave / Bland Blvd

• Warwick Blvd / Industrial Park Dr

• Warwick Blvd / Shellabarger Dr

• Jefferson Ave / Fort Eustis Blvd

• Jefferson Ave / Industrial Park Dr

• Warwick Blvd / Yorktown Rd

• Jefferson Ave / Yorktown Rd

• Warwick Blvd / Bland Blvd

The MOEs for the intersection analysis were intersection delay and level of service (LOS). Full details for the intersection analysis are provided in Appendix C.

Synchro 9 was selected to conduct intersection analysis because of efficiency and the number of signalized intersections within the corridor that are anticipated to be impacted during construction. VISSIM 9 was also used to conduct an analysis to evaluate arterial queue lengths on Fort Eustis Blvd and estimating travel times exiting JBLE.

The scenarios modeled for the two analyses are as follows:

Arterial Analysis

• Existing

• Phase 2 Construction

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion

• Phase 2 Construction Demand Reduction

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion + Demand Reduction

Intersection Analysis

• Existing

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion

• Phase 2 Construction Diversion + Demand Reduction

3.7 Traffic Analysis Results

The traffic analysis was conducted using the methodology and assumptions stated earlier. The focus of the analysis was the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as these are the time periods with the heaviest traffic volumes. In the AM peak, the WB volumes are the peak direction as motorists are headed towards JBLE. In the PM peak, the EB volumes are the peak direction as motorists are leaving JBLE.

3.8 Arterial Analysis

Three queue counters were included in the arterial analysis model to record queuing data from the model. These queue counter locations are shown in Figure 8. Table 3 shows the average and max queue lengths expected during the peak hour. The queue lengths are measured upstream of the queue counter locations.

Figure 8: Queue Counter Locations

Queue Counter 1

Queue Counter 2

Queue Counter 3

Table 3: Model Fort Eustis Blvd Average Queue Length Results

Scenario Queue

Counter

Location

Average Queue Length

(Ft) during peak hour

Max Queue Length (Ft) during peak hour

AM

S ce na rio s

Existing AM 1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 0 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 0 0

Phase 2 AM 1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 2977 On to I-64 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 0 0

Phase 2 Diversion AM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 1669 On to I-64 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 0 0

Phase 2 Demand

Reduction AM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 2465 On to I-64 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 0 0

Phase 2 Diversion &

Demand Reduction AM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 467 1242

3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 0 0

PM

S ce na rio s

Existing PM 1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 0 0 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 0 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 1 107

Phase 2 PM 1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 3990 Past JBLE Gate 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 68 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 1377 1965

Phase 2 Diversion PM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 2941 Past JBLE Gate 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 68 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 1598 1977

Phase 2 Demand

Reduction PM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 3563 Past JBLE Gate 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 19 3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 1540 1965

Phase 2 Diversion &

Demand Reduction PM

1 EB Lane Closure at US 60 1781 4048 2 WB Lane Closure prior to Bridge 0 19

3 EB Lane Closure after Bridge 1215 1959

The Phase 2 construction model shows that there would be heavy queuing on WB Fort Eustis Blvd during the AM peak period. The queuing begins at the WB lane reduction west of I-64 and extends east into the I-64 interchange ramps for both EB and WB exits to Ft. Eustis Blvd.

Queues also impact the intersection of Ft. Eustis Blvd and Jefferson Ave.

Figure 9 depicts anticipated conditions during the AM peak period in the Phase 2 construction model.

During the PM peak period, heavy queuing is shown on EB Fort Eustis Blvd leaving JBLE in the Phase 2 construction model. The queuing begins prior to the EB lane reduction and extends into the Warwick Blvd interchange. The queuing affects ramps within the interchange as vehicles from the ramps are forced to weave with queued vehicles on Fort Eustis Blvd. Queing is also expected to extend beyond the JBLE gate.

Figure 10 depicts anticipated conditions during the PM peak period in the Phase 2 construction model.

Figure 9: Anticipated AM Peak Conditions in Phase 2 Construction Model

Figure 10: Anticipated PM Peak Hour Conditions in Phase 2 Construction Model

The diversion and demand reduction models revealed that reduced queuing can be anticipated on Fort Eustis Blvd when compared with the Phase 2 construction model during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, there is still a bottleneck point with queuing where the lane reduction at the work zone occurs, but the effect of the bottleneck is anticipated to be less severe.

The results show that there can be significant queues anticipated during Phase 2 construction during both the AM & PM peaks, if the traffic volumes are assumed to be the same as existing, with no diversion. The worst impact anticipated is for EB Fort Eustis during the PM peak. The model is showing that extremely long queues extending nearly 1 mile into the base can be anticipated. However, this effect can be mitigated by JBLE encouraging staggered work hours, and more flexible work schedules, to reduce the volume of traffic within the work zone during peak hours.

In addition to queuing, average travel time was also evaluated in the arterial analysis. Travel time analysis focused on travel time expected to exit JBLE during the PM peak for all scenarios modeled.

Table 4 shows the average travel times anticipated during the PM peak.

Table 4: Modeled Average Travel Time Results Exiting JBLE During the PM Peak

Scenario Average Travel Time (Mins)

Change from Existing (mins)

Existing PM 1.2 -- Phase 2 PM 15.4 14.2 Phase 2 Diversion PM 10.5 9.3 Phase 2 Demand Reduction PM 12.4 11.1 Phase 2 Diversion Demand Reduction PM 6.4 5.2

3.9 Intersection Analysis

In addition to analyzing impacts to Fort Eustis Blvd, an intersection analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts to the local roadway network along the anticipated diversion route described earlier.

The analysis focused on what the effect of the additional vehicles would be to eight selected signalized intersections.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5.

The results of the analysis show that there are adverse impacts to certain signalized intersections anticipated with the diversion models. The adverse impacts were both during the AM and PM peak hours, but were mainly at intersections where the diversion route required a left turn at a signalized intersection. The adverse impacts included increased approach delay, intersection delay, and LOS.

During the AM peak the worst impact is anticipated to occur at the Warwick Blvd / Yorktown Rd intersection. The additional traffic volume and limited capacity at this intersection is anticipated to lead to extended delay.

During the PM peak the worst impact is anticipated at the Warwick Blvd / Shellabarger Dr and Warwick Blvd / Bland Blvd intersections. At Warwick Blvd / Shellabarger Dr, the additional volume of traffic exiting JBLE is anticipated to lead to extended delays at this intersection. The same effect is anticipated at the Warwick Blvd / Bland Blvd intersection due to the number of left turning vehicles.

Despite the anticipated adverse impacts to these intersections, it is likely that the adverse impacts could be lessened by signal timing optimization. While signal timing optimization alone is not anticipated to alleviate these impacts, this method could minimize adverse impacts to intersections within the anticipated diversion route.

It is also anticipated that as time progresses, drivers will continue to experiment different routes and timings to find an optimal transportation experience. This effect is anticipated to lessen work zone impacts as traffic conditions “normalize”. Drivers are also anticipated to utilize tools such as GPS navigation to seek optimal routes during construction.

Table 5: Anticipated Intersection impacts in Diversion Model

Scenario Intersection Intersection Delay

(Sec)

Intersection

LOS

Affected

Approach

Approach

Delay (Sec)

Approach

LOS

Jefferson / Bland 27.4 C NB 23.7 C

Warwick / Industrial Park 22.7 C WB 46.7 D

Warwick / Shellabarger 31.7 C NB 35.2 D

EB 25.6 C

WB 27.7 C

NB 43.2 D

SB 40.0 D

Jefferson / Industrial Park 14.1 B NB 4.8 A

Warwick / Yorktown 24.9 C WB 46.8 D

Jefferson / Yorktown 37.7 D EB 34.4 C

Warwick / Bland 27.5 C WB 28.0 C

Jefferson / Bland 35.5 D NB 41.8 D

Warwick / Industrial Park 22.0 C WB 44.0 D

Warwick / Shellabarger 36.7 D NB 43.4 D

EB 25.6 C

WB 27.7 C

NB 43.2 D

SB 40.0 D

Jefferson / Industrial Park 15.8 B NB 9.4 A

Warwick / Yorktown 58.8 E WB 148.2 F

Jefferson / Yorktown 38.1 D EB 35.6 D

Warwick / Bland 28.5 C WB 32.0 C

Jefferson / Bland 30.2 C NB 31.6 C

Warwick / Industrial Park 22.4 C WB 41.7 D

Warwick / Shellabarger 33.5 C NB 39.5 D

EB 25.1 C

WB 26.6 C

NB 39.5 D

SB 39.4 D

Jefferson / Industrial Park 14.5 B NB 6.9 A

Warwick / Yorktown 45.1 D WB 106.2 F

Jefferson / Yorktown 34.1 C EB 32.1 C

Warwick / Bland 27.3 C WB 27.9 C

Jefferson / Bland 35.4 D EB 35.6 D

Warwick / Industrial Park 18.1 B SB 14.3 B

Warwick / Shellabarger 37.1 D EB 76.2 E

EB 50.7 D

WB 41.6 D

NB 34.9 C

SB 33.8 C

Jefferson / Industrial Park 26.0 C EB 48.9 D

Warwick / Yorktown N/A N/A NB 7.5 A

Jefferson / Yorktown 54.3 D NB 66.2 E

Warwick / Bland 35.3 D SB 25.7 C

Jefferson / Bland 50.5 D EB 114.2 F

Warwick / Industrial Park 17.8 B SB 14.7 B

Warwick / Shellabarger 109.5 F EB 279.4 F

EB 50.7 D

WB 41.6 D

NB 34.3 C

SB 33.8 C

Jefferson / Industrial Park 26.8 C EB 53.3 D

Warwick / Yorktown N/A N/A NB 8.6 A

Jefferson / Yorktown 55.3 E NB 67.3 E

Warwick / Bland 77.3 E SB 117.0 F

Jefferson / Bland 39.0 D EB 76.6 E

Warwick / Industrial Park 16.4 B SB 12.0 B

Warwick / Shellabarger 82.4 F EB 200.2 F

EB 45.1 D

WB 41.0 D

NB 31.9 C

SB 33.2 C

Jefferson / Industrial Park 25.6 C EB 50.0 D

Warwick / Yorktown N/A N/A NB 7.4 A

Jefferson / Yorktown 50.6 D NB 63.9 E

Warwick / Bland 61.8 E SB 87.2 F

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 37.9 D

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 41.1 D

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 40.9 D

AM Existing

AM Phase 2

Diversion

AM Phase 2

Diversion

Demand

Reduction

PM Existing

PM Phase 2

Diversion

PM Phase 2

Diversion

Demand

Reduction

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 34.1 C

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 34.1 C

Jefferson / Fort Eustis 32.3 C

* The Jefferson / Yorktown intersection as entered in Synchro:

EB Approach is Jefferson Ave SB;

NB Approach is Yorktown Rd EB

3.10 Traffic Analysis Conclusions

The results of the traffic analysis show that there will be significant impacts to Fort Eustis Blvd during reconstruction of the bridge. However, the effects of these impacts can be reduced by encouraging motorists to avoid the construction area by diverting to another route, and to alter their schedule to avoid traveling within the peak hour. The analysis shows this can be accomplished with a diversion rate of 25% spread across the network, and demand reduction of 10% by avoiding travel within the peak hour.

To achieve this target, there will need to be a significant public outreach campaign to inform motorists of the bridge reconstruction project, and encourage diversion to avoid the work zone. One advantage for the project is the concentration of motorists using Fort Eustis Blvd going to a single destination with a single major employer. Thus, this project should be coordinated closely with Joint Base Langley-Eustis to be most effective.

Other strategies that should be considered include:

• Variable Message Signs placed at strategic locations

• Project website with real time travel conditions

• Partnership with navigation services such as Garmin and Waze to route motorists around the work zone

• Media outreach

With these and other strategies in place, the goal of rebuilding the Fort Eustis Bridge with minimal impacts can be achieved.

4.0 Work Zone Impact Management Strategies

Work zone impact management strategies are intended to provide mobility and access in and/or around the construction area without compromising public safety. The strategies are grouped according to the following four categories:

• Temporary Traffic Control

• Transportation Operations

• Incident Management Strategies

• Public Information and Outreach

4.1 Temporary Traffic Control

The following is Temporary Traffic Control stages (see Appendix A for plans):

• Phase 1 – Remove concrete median and placing temporary asphalt. Remove the north section of the bridge

• Phase 2 – Construct north section of the bridge and roadway approaches

• Phase 3 – Remove existing south section of the bridge and constructed temporary ramp.

• Phase 4A – Construct south section of the bridge and roadway approaches

• Phase 4B – Finish roadway approaches and remove temporary ramp.

• Phase 5 – Construct concrete median and permanent pavement markings.

4.2 Transportation Operations

The traffic operations plan analyzes the proposed traffic pattern changes and compares that to the existing. Traffic Operations (TO) Plans combine strategies relating to the Corridor System, Demand Management, Intelligent Transportation, Incident Management and Enforcement that seek to mitigate and/or reduce work zone impact to the traveling public, residents, and business through:

• Contractor will coordinate work activities with adjacent construction projects.

• Traffic operations will be monitored during construction and the TMP will be updated as needed to address field conditions.

• Variable work hours – JBLE would encourage employees to use flexible work schedules during construction of the project;

• Additional Temporary Lane Closure will be limited to 15 minutes or less;

• No daytime additional lane closure will be permitted on the weekends;

• Traffic Signal Timing Adjustments – the City of Newport News will monitor traffic and adjust timing of the signals;

• Additional nighttime lane closures maybe allowed from 11:00pm to 5:00am with approval from

EFL in coordination with the City of Newport News and JBLE;

• Temporary traffic barriers;

• Speed limit reduction;

• Enhanced signage and pavement markings;

• VDOT’s Incident Management (IM) and Emergency access;

4.3 Incident Management Strategies

Traffic incident management involve monitoring traffic conditions and adjusting traffic operations based on changing conditions. These strategies involve improved detection, verification, response, and clearance of crashes, mechanical failures, and other incidents in work zones and on detour routes.

In the event of a traffic incident during construction, management of that incident is imperative to ensure the success of the TMP and to ensure that traffic throughout the corridor is returned to “normal” conditions as quickly as possible. Failure to effectively manage incidents could result in secondary incidents, deteriorating the safety of the motorist and worker and significantly increasing congestion.

The process to manage incidents in the Ft. Eustis Bridge Replacement project area includes the notification of the Hampton Roads Smart Traffic Center to place lane closure information on the 511 system and the Virginia Operational Information System (VOIS). Virginia State Police and Newport News Police North Precinct should be notified to take control of the incident and direct its clearing and restoration.

4.4 Public Information and Outreach Strategies (PI&O)

The contractor will support EFL, City of Newport News, and VDOT as necessary to maintain open and continuous lines of communication with the traveling public, project area residents, business owners, and the surrounding community through the use of media, press releases, Web site updates, and other means. The PI&O contains the standard operating procedures for notifying the public of maintenance of traffic issues. The PI&O plan uses a combination of helpful tips, approaches, and processes that have proved effective on other projects. As part of this effort, several stakeholders have been identified:

Stakeholders Contact Person City of Newport News City of Newport News - Waterworks Joint Base Langley-Eustis City of Newport News Public Schools Police – North Precinct Police – Virginia State Police Fire Department James City County York County Oakland Industrial Park Green Mount Industrial Park Walmart Distribution Center Pepsi Bottling Plant VDOT Traffic Operations Center

The following PI&O strategies will be implemented as part of the project:

• Public Information Meeting (Pardon our Dust Meeting) – Two public meetings are planned. The first will be held during business hours at JBLE, and the second will be held the same day, during the evening, for the general public. It would be advantageous to schedule this meeting to occur no sooner than 6 weeks prior to beginning construction.

• Press Releases will be issued prior to the beginning of the project, prior to any traffic shift, prior to expected closures, and at the end of the project.

• 311 Contact Center will be used so the public can ask any questions they may have about the project. Also, will develop a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

• Street Closure Notification System – the contractor will submit lane and roadway closures information through this system to inform emergency services (Police, Fire

Department) of these closures.

• PCMS Boards and Project Static Signs – placed within the project area (see Appendix B).

• VDOT’s Existing VMS – is available, use to remind people to use alternate routes.

• VDOT’s 511 Website – will be used to provide user information about traffic conditions on the roadway and all routes that are part of the alternate routes.

• A Project Website will be developed. This will provide general project information and work zone updates.

♦ EFLHD Project Website ♦ City of Newport News Projectmates Website ♦ VDOT’s Project Website (for full closures of Ft. Eustis Blvd)

• Developing Alternate Route Map – located on websites to show to and from Ft. Eustis

• Using Google Maps/Waze – contacting their service so they can provide information to public about project area.

5.0 TMP Implementation/Monitoring

The contractor will work with EFL, City of Newport News, and VDOT to implement elements of the TMP, such as public information and outreach efforts prior to construction. The contractor will have the Traffic Safety Supervisor, an onsite trained work zone specialist responsible for efficiently and appropriately implementing the TMP elements. The traffic Safety Supervisor will be responsible for reviewing all operations throughout the project limits on a regular basis, including the condition of all traffic control devices.

6.0 TMP Modification

The TMP is intended to be a living document and will be updated periodically throughout the duration of the project. Revisions to the TMP are made as the MOT/Design plans are updated. The revised/alternative TMP’s are approved by the CO. The final document has a section dedicated to major TMP element revisions. The Contractor will be responsible for updating the TMP with approval by CO.

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A – Temporary Traffic Control Plans

Appendix B – PCMS Boards and Project Static Signs and VDOT’s Existing VMS signs

Appendix C – Intersection Analyses Capacity Reports

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Proposed Signs & VMS Locations - During Construction µ

0 1 20.5 Miles

£60

£60

£60

£17

£17

Legend

Construction Zone

") Existing VDOT VMS

Proposed Sign

Proposed Sign

APPENDIX C

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 45: Jefferson Avenue & Bland Boulevard 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 165 122 477 271 44 21 395 1224 431 50 1446 175 Future Volume (vph) 165 122 477 271 44 21 395 1224 431 50 1446 175 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3044 3178 2787 4990 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3044 3178 2787 4990 1863 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 183 136 530 301 49 23 439 1360 479 56 1607 194 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 236 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 156 163 530 301 49 3 439 1360 243 56 1607 116 Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Protected Phases 4 4 5 3 3 5 2 1 6 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 31.8 11.2 11.2 11.2 18.5 57.6 57.6 9.7 48.5 68.3 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 38.8 16.0 16.0 16.0 22.0 61.0 61.0 13.0 52.0 71.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.43 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 7.7 7.7 6.5 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 456 476 901 665 248 211 629 2584 804 371 2203 947 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 c0.11 c0.06 0.03 c0.13 0.27 0.02 c0.32 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.59 0.45 0.20 0.01 0.70 0.53 0.30 0.15 0.73 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 45.7 33.9 48.0 46.3 45.2 45.9 19.8 17.1 48.5 28.2 10.4 Progression Factor 0.75 0.75 1.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.96 0.75 0.60 0.01 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.2 1.8 0.1 6.1 0.7 0.9 0.6 1.6 0.2 Delay (s) 36.3 36.1 58.5 50.2 48.1 45.3 49.5 17.5 17.4 36.8 18.5 0.3 Level of Service D D E D D D D B B D B A Approach Delay (s) 50.2 49.6 23.7 17.2 Approach LOS D D C B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

49: Warwick Boulevard & Industrial Park Drive 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 2

Movement WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 318 73 0 999 195 126 612 Future Volume (vph) 318 73 0 999 195 126 612 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 283 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 346 79 0 1086 212 137 665 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 58 0 0 96 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 21 0 1086 116 137 665 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 29.0 59.0 59.0 77.4 77.4 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 62.0 62.0 80.8 82.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.52 0.52 0.67 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.4 7.6 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 472 422 1828 817 401 2418 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.31 c0.05 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.05 0.59 0.14 0.34 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 32.7 20.2 15.1 11.2 7.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.98 1.06 0.92 Incremental Delay, d2 9.7 0.2 1.3 0.3 2.3 0.3 Delay (s) 49.8 32.9 22.4 30.3 14.0 7.1 Level of Service D C C C B A Approach Delay (s) 46.7 23.7 8.3 Approach LOS D C A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B

52: Warwick Boulevard & Shellabarger Drive/Ashton Green Boulevard 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 3

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 58 7 219 33 9 78 701 911 10 40 606 249 Future Volume (vph) 58 7 219 33 9 78 701 911 10 40 606 249 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1784 2787 1793 1583 3433 3533 1770 3385 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1784 2787 1793 1583 3433 3533 1770 3385 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) 63 8 238 36 10 85 762 990 11 43 659 271 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 124 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 37 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 71 114 0 46 11 762 1001 0 43 893 0 Turn Type Split NA pt+ov Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 4 5 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 53.2 12.7 12.7 34.2 60.1 10.2 35.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 57.3 16.0 16.0 37.0 63.0 13.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.48 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.52 0.11 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.3 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 237 1330 239 211 1058 1854 191 1100 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.04 c0.03 c0.22 0.28 0.02 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.09 0.19 0.05 0.72 0.54 0.23 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 46.9 17.1 46.3 45.4 36.9 18.9 48.9 37.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.49 0.88 0.65 0.51 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.1 1.8 0.5 3.7 1.0 2.6 6.2 Delay (s) 50.2 17.2 48.0 45.9 58.5 17.5 34.2 25.2 Level of Service D B D D E B C C Approach Delay (s) 24.8 46.6 35.2 25.6 Approach LOS C D D C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C

72: Jefferson Avenue & Fort Eustis Boulevard 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 4

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 87 322 340 61 758 317 437 541 293 82 218 75 Future Volume (vph) 87 322 340 61 758 317 437 541 293 82 218 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 358 378 68 842 352 486 601 326 91 242 83 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 238 0 0 222 0 0 238 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 358 140 68 842 130 486 601 88 91 242 14 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 33.6 33.6 9.2 33.5 33.5 19.2 23.9 23.9 9.2 13.9 13.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 12.0 37.0 37.0 22.0 27.0 27.0 12.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.8 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.5 6.5 5.8 6.1 6.1 5.8 6.1 6.1 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 1309 585 212 1309 585 755 955 427 212 601 269 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.10 0.04 c0.24 c0.14 c0.17 0.05 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.27 0.24 0.32 0.64 0.22 0.64 0.63 0.21 0.43 0.40 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 22.1 21.8 40.3 26.0 21.6 35.4 32.1 28.2 40.8 37.0 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.14 2.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 0.5 1.0 4.0 2.4 0.9 3.7 2.8 1.0 6.2 2.0 0.4 Delay (s) 47.9 22.6 22.7 44.2 28.5 22.5 29.2 39.5 71.0 47.1 39.0 35.1 Level of Service D C C D C C C D E D D D Approach Delay (s) 25.6 27.7 43.2 40.0 Approach LOS C C D D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C

73: Jefferson Avenue & Industrial Park Drive 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 5

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 57 84 137 157 121 28 208 562 253 60 477 127 Future Volume (vph) 57 84 137 157 121 28 208 562 253 60 477 127 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1826 1583 1770 1810 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1504 1583 736 1810 617 3539 1583 633 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 63 93 152 174 134 31 231 624 281 67 530 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 126 0 8 0 0 0 163 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 156 26 174 157 0 231 624 118 67 530 55 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 33.7 33.7 50.5 38.3 38.3 44.3 35.2 35.2 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 17.0 36.7 37.0 56.1 42.0 42.0 50.1 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.56 0.42 0.42 0.50 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.3 5.8 6.7 6.7 5.9 6.8 6.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 269 445 669 519 1486 664 453 1380 617 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 c0.07 0.18 0.02 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.02 0.08 c0.18 0.07 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.10 0.39 0.23 0.45 0.42 0.18 0.15 0.38 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 35.0 22.6 21.7 11.9 20.4 18.2 13.2 21.9 19.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.19 0.05 0.70 0.58 0.40 Incremental Delay, d2 10.5 0.7 2.6 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.3 Delay (s) 48.9 35.7 25.2 22.6 9.3 4.7 1.4 9.9 13.4 8.0 Level of Service D D C C A A A A B A Approach Delay (s) 42.4 23.9 4.8 12.0 Approach LOS D C A B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A

85: Warwick Boulevard & Yorktown 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 6

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL2 NBL NBR SEL SER SER2 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 0 6 232 2 5 4 278 118 0 505 7 Future Volume (vph) 5 0 6 232 2 5 4 278 118 0 505 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1772 1770 1583 1611 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1705 1772 1852 1583 1611 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) 5 0 7 252 2 5 4 302 128 0 549 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2 0 0 258 0 0 306 128 0 557 0 Turn Type Perm NA Split NA Perm Prot pm+ov Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 19.0 49.4 68.4 48.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 21.0 52.0 72.4 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.21 0.52 0.72 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.2 6.0 6.6 6.0 7.1 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 372 963 1209 837 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.02 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.17 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.69 0.32 0.11 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 36.5 13.8 4.1 17.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.67 2.51 0.81 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 10.2 0.8 0.2 4.1 Delay (s) 36.2 46.8 24.0 10.5 18.4 Level of Service D D C B B Approach Delay (s) 36.2 46.8 20.0 18.4 Approach LOS D D B B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service B

115: Yorktown Road & Jefferson Avenue 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 7

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 38 786 306 17 317 79 242 173 10 59 347 154 Future Volume (vph) 38 786 306 17 317 79 242 173 10 59 347 154 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 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) 41 854 333 18 345 86 263 188 11 64 377 167 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 170 0 0 59 0 0 9 0 0 84 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 854 163 18 345 27 263 188 2 64 377 83 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 37.6 37.6 4.4 33.2 33.2 22.3 22.3 22.3 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 40.4 40.4 5.7 35.9 35.9 24.5 24.5 24.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 6.8 6.8 5.3 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.7 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 1231 550 86 1094 489 373 393 334 449 473 402 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.24 0.01 0.10 c0.15 0.10 0.04 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.69 0.30 0.21 0.32 0.05 0.71 0.48 0.01 0.14 0.80 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 49.4 32.5 27.5 53.0 30.7 28.2 42.5 40.2 36.2 33.5 40.5 34.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 3.2 1.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.5 0.7 0.0 0.1 8.5 0.1 Delay (s) 49.8 35.8 28.9 53.5 31.4 28.4 48.0 40.9 36.2 33.6 49.0 34.2 Level of Service D D C D C C D D D C D C Approach Delay (s) 34.4 31.7 44.8 43.3 Approach LOS C C D D

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D

242: Warwick Boulevard & Eastwood Drive/Bland Boulevard 10/08/2019

AM Existing Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 8

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 104 188 7 117 79 344 9 807 92 407 791 32 Future Volume (vph) 104 188 7 117 79 344 9 807 92 407 791 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3382 1583 1681 1751 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3519 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3382 1583 1681 1751 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3519 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 104 188 7 117 79 344 9 807 92 407 791 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 6 0 0 123 0 0 58 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 198 1 96 100 221 9 807 34 407 820 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.5 13.5 35.0 10.1 40.5 40.5 21.5 53.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 44.0 13.0 44.0 44.0 26.0 57.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.37 0.11 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 5.9 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.6 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 563 263 252 262 620 191 1297 580 743 1671 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 0.06 c0.06 0.08 0.01 c0.23 c0.12 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.05 0.62 0.06 0.55 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 44.3 44.3 41.7 46.0 46.0 27.7 47.9 31.2 24.6 41.8 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.61 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.10 0.33 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 1.7 0.0 4.3 4.2 1.6 0.4 2.1 0.2 2.6 0.9 Delay (s) 47.8 46.0 41.7 44.7 44.7 18.5 42.9 29.5 24.8 48.4 8.1 Level of Service D D D D D B D C C D A Approach Delay (s) 46.5 28.0 29.2 21.4 Approach LOS D C C C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4% ICU Level of Service B

AM Phase 2 Diversion Model 7:00 am 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Report FHWA EFL Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 165 122 477 271 44 21 598 1333 431 50 1446 175 Future Volume (vph)…