Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1233 Shelburne Road (2)0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKEWOOD COMMONS PROJECT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Prepared by: Kevin C. Eberle Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Date: November 11,1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Site Description 1 III. Location Map 2 IV. Soils Map 3 V. Drainage Area Determinations 4 VI. Discharge Summary By Drainage Area 5 VII. Discharge Location Map 7 VIII. Hydrologic Data & Computations (Pre -Development) 8 IX. Hydrologic Data & Computations (Post -Development) 22 X. Detention Basin & Outlet Design 41 X. 40 Scale Site Plans (Attached) XI. Detail Sheets (Attached) I. INTRODUCTION Lochmore Associates propose to expand the existing Lakewood Commons Development to include a retail sales building and a hotel with lower level parking. The development presently consists of six separate buildings clustered along the northern portion of the site. The existing development is proposed to be expanded to the south onto a property presently owned by Alexander Lewis. The adjacent lands of Alexander Lewis and the South Burlington Fire Station were evaluated in conjunction with the proposed development since these properties will be directly or indirectly impacted by the expansion. This stormwater analysis was prepared for the affected area in order to minimize hydrologic impacts to downstream waterways and to prevent water quality degradation in receiving waters. Both the existing development (including Lakewood Commons, Alexander Lewis property, and the Fire Station) and the proposed expansion were analyzed using the SCS TR-55 Hydrologic Method to determine pre- and post -development peak stormwater runoff volumes. Hydrologic computations were made using a typical 10yr/24hr design storm event and a Type II rainfall distribution. The proposed detention basin and outlet control structure were sized and evaluated such that post -development peak flow from the site was not significantly increased over the current peak discharge for a similiar design storm. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The Lakewood Commons Development is located adjacent to US Route 7 in South Burlington, Vermont(see Location Map). Presently, the site consists of a mixture of retail sales buildings, restaurant, automotive sales buildings, South Burlington Fire Station, paved parking lots and a 1.5 acre field vegetated with sod grasses. Ornamental vegetation has been utilized in landscaping around the retail buildings. Soils underlying the 8.3 acre site are identified in the Chittenden Co. Soil Survey as of the Belgrade/Eldridge and Covington Series. Soils in the Belgrade/Eldridge series are moderately well drained and consist of loamy fine sands. Soils in the Covington Series are poorly drained and are made of heavy clays throughout their profile. -1- LAKEWOOD COMMONS EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATION MAP SCALE 1" = 1405' LAKEWOOD COMMONS EXPANSION SOILS MAP SCALE 1" = 235; III. DRAINAGE AREA DETERMINATIONS Pre- and post -development peak flows were determined by first delineating a number of sub -watershed areas as shown on the attached drainage area maps. Two primary drainage areas (labelled DA "A" and DA "B") were identified for the existing site as well as 13 subareas. Three primary drainage areas were identified for the proposed site along with 18 sub -areas. Two discharge locations are currently utilized and will be maintained under the proposed expansion. Contributing areas for each watershed were measured with the computer aided design (CAD) software package "Auto -Cad". Areas of roadway surface, parking lots, roofs and walks were also measured and are tabulated in the computations section of this report. Soil areas were determined by first superimposing soils information from the Chittenden County Soil Survey to the 40 scale site plans. Following is a description of each of the post -development drainage areas: 1. Drainage Area C consists of 5 sub -areas and will remain unaffected by the proposed development. The 2.6 acre area is located along the north and south sides of the development. Stormwater from DA C subareas will flow via sheet flow to the existing underground storm drain system which discharges to the Holmes road drainage system at Discharge Point SN/001. The area includes approximately 1.26 acres of paved roadways and parking lots, 0.33 acre of buildings and 1.0 acre of ornamental vegetation. Based on the enclosed analysis, the 10yr/24hr peak runoff generated from Drainage Area C is projected to be 9 cfs. 2. Drainage Area D consists of 7 sub -areas totaling 1.93 acres. This area includes approximately 1.03 acres of paved roads and parking, 0.31 acres of new buildings and 0.59 acres of sod grasses and ornamental vegetation. Stormwater runoff from this area will proceed overland to a series of catchbasins. The flow will then be conveyed via conventional storm drain to a grass swale for treatment. The 225 ft. swale has been designed at a 2% slope to enhance sedimentation of road grit and other pollutants. Flow from the swale will be collected via a 5' square catchbasin with a 6" diameter controlled outlet. When stormwater flows to the catchbasin exceed 1 cfs, stormwater will begin backing up into the proposed 13,560 cu.ft. underground detention basin. The basin consists of six 3611x 94' perforated, corrugated, aluminum pipes set in a 39' x 106' bed of crushed stone. Flow from the underground storage basin will be discharged into the existing 15" PVC storm drain along the west edge of the property. This pipe conveys the flow to the Holmes Road drainage system at discharge point SN/001. -4- The 10yr/24hr peak flow from this drainage area is predicted to be 7 cfs, however the proposed detention basin and controlled outlet will reduce the peak to approximately 1.5 cfs. 3. Drainage Area E will only be slightly affected by the proposed expansion due to a reduction in paved surface area which compensates for the increase in roof area. The area consists of 3.76 acres including 2.57 acres of pavement, 0.41 acre of roof area, and 0.78 acres of sod grasses and ornamental vegetation. Stormwater from this area will flow overland to the U.S. Route 7 underground drainage system at discharge point SN/002. The 10yr/24hr peak discharge to discharge point SN/002 will remain the same as the pre -development 10yr/24hr peak of 13 cfs. IV. DISCHARGE SUMMARY BY DRAINAGE AREA The pre -development 10yr/24hr peak discharge for the existing 8.3 acre site was estimated to be 24 cfs at t = 12.1 hours after rainfall cessation using the SCS TR-55 Hydrologic Method. With the proposed increase in building area and paved surfaces, the 10yr/24hr peak flow from the site was projected to increase to 29 cfs at t = 12.1 hours after rainfall cessation. However, after routing the 10yr/24 hr storm through the proposed detention basin, the peak flow was reduced to 23.2 cfs at 12.1 hours after rainfall cessation. Table 1 summarizes the allowable pre -development peak discharge information. Table 2 summarizes peak discharge information from the post -developed site, including peak flows before and after detention. A discharge location map follows and shows the proposed discharge locations in relation to the site boundaries. Detailed computations and associated data relating to peak discharge determinations follows in Section VII. TABLE 1 PRE -DEVELOPMENT 10YR/24HR PEAK DISCHARGE SUMMARY DRAINAGE AREA PEAK 10YR/24HR DISCHARGE AREA (ac) (cfs) A 5.09 11.0 B 3.21 13.0 TOTAL 8.30 24.0* * Peak discharge from composite site hydrograph for critical time T = 12.1 hours after rainfall cessation. -5- TABLE 2 POST -DEVELOPMENT 10YR/24HR PEAK DISCHARGE SUMMARY IDRAINAGE AREA PEAK 10YR/24HR DISCHARGE I AREA (ac) PRE -DETENTION POST -DETENTION I C 2.60 9.0 9.0 I D 1.94 7.0 1.2 I E 3.76 13.0 13.0 I TOTAL 8.30 29.0* 23.2** I * Peak discharge from composite site hydrograph for critical time T = 12.1 hours after rainfall cessation ** See composite site hydrograph on page 35 The proposed detention basin and outlet control structure have been designed and evaluated utilizing the Storage Indication Reservoir Routing Method. The results of this analysis are included in Section IX of this report. The emergency spillway associated with the basin has been designed to safely discharge flows typical of a 25yr/24hr storm. Table 3 summarizes stormwater treatment requirements and proposed treatment mechanisms by drainage area. The total area associated with the proposed new expansion requiring treatment was calculated to be 1.3 acres (including paved parking and roadways). Stormwater runoff from areas of pavement will be treated to remove sediment and asphaltic pollutants via overland sheet flow across grass and native vegetation and via flow in grassed swales prior to discharge from the site. TABLE 3 POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER TREATMENT SUMMARY IDA # AREA PAVEMENT AREA PRIMARY TREATMENT I (ac) (ac) METHOD Cl-C4 1.73 1.05 (EXISTING CONDITION) C5 0.61 0.21 GRASS SWALE FLOW C6 0.27 0.12 (EXISTING CONDITION) D 1.93 0.93 GRASS SWALE FLOW E1 0.20 0.15 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) E2 0.61 0.16 GRASS SWALE FLOW E3-E6 2.95 2.26 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) I COMPOSITE TOTAL 8.30 2.69 -6- 9 LIS LAKEWOOD COMMONS EXPANSION DISCHARGE LOCATION MAP rSN02 SN/001: SCALE 1" = 490' PRE -DEVELOPMENT PEAK STORMWATER RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS -8- TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY R ' /7' DATE CHECKED BY SCALE DATE Afq\� AZ- A _4 7—� ZF lip �.��� 4 I � _i► ___� _ __._r_. _!__I__ . . ....... . . . . . . T._� _ __�_ _. _ _ pamw mt &w., m.. w4m. TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A (SN/001) Subarea : Al ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .16(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .37(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .53 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: Al TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .53 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : A2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .03(74) .07(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .28(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .31 .07 SUBAREA: A2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .38 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -9- 11 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A (SN/001) Subarea : A3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .13(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .23(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .23 .13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: A3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .36 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 Subarea : A4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 1.15(74) .34(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - .44(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1.59 .34 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: A4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.93 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:81 -10- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A Subarea : A5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .37(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .33(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: A5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .7 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:85 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : A6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .38(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .52(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: A6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .9 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:88 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A Subarea : A7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .12(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .15(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .27 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: A7 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .27 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:87 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -12- 0 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA B (SN002) Subarea : B1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .11(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .16(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .16 .11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: B1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .27 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 Subarea : B2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - .07(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .06(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .06 .07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: B2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .13 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:88 -13- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA B (SN002) Subarea : B3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .27(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .28(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .28 .27 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 63 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .55 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:89 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : 65 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - - .14(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking tots, roofs, driveways 1.31(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1.31 .14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: B5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.45 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIM D TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA B (SN002) Subarea : B6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .81(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: B6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .81 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -15- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A (SN/001) ------------------------------- Subarea #1 - Al ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 40 .03 F 0.117 Sheet 120 .04 A 0.021 Shallow Concent'd 40 .05 U 0.003 Open Channel 40 .25 .009.35 2.09 0.000 Time of Concentration = 0.14* ------------- ----------------- Subarea #2 - A2 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 60 .025 F 0.174 Sheet 150 .06 A 0.022 Open Channel 40 .1 .009.35 2.09 0.001 Time of Concentration = 0.20* Open Channel 290 .018 .009.35 2.09 0.012 Open Channel 40 .1 .009.35 . 2.09 0.001 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #3 - A3 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 70 .038 F 0.167 Sheet 110 .04 A 0.020 Time of Concentration = 0.19* * - Generated for use by TABULAR method -16- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A ------------------------------- Subarea #4 - A4 --------- ---------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 300 .033 F 0.565 Shallow Concent'd 130 .1 U 0.007 Open Channel 60 .05 .009.35 2.09 0.001 Open Channel 220 .03 .0091.23 3.93 0.005 Time of Concentration = 0.58* ------------------------------- Subarea #5 - A5 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 300 .043 A 0.043 Shallow Concent'd 300 .046 U 0.024 Time of Concentration = 0.07* Open Channel 620 .03 .0091.23 3.93 0.013 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #6 - A6 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 2.2 42 .06 F 0.092 Shallow Concent'd 260 .05 P 0.016 Time of Concentration = 0.11* ------------------------------- Subarea #7 - A7 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 120 .067 F 0.205 Shallow Concent'd 260 .05 P 0.016 Time of Concentration = 0.22* Shallow Concent'd 110 .05 P * Generated for use by TABULAR method -17- 0.007 Travel Time = 0.01* TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA B (SNO02) ------------------------------- Subarea #1 - B1 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 40 .03 F 0.117 Sheet 120 .04 A 0.021 Shallow Concent'd 40 .05 U 0.003 Open Channel 40 .25 .009.35 2.09 0.000 Time of Concentration = 0.14* ------------------------------- Subarea #2 - 82 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 60 .006 F 0.309 Sheet 25 .16 A 0.003 Open Channel 115 .02 .009.087 1.04 0.007 Time of Concentration = 0.32* ------------------------------- Subarea #3 - B3 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 135 .037 F 0.285 Sheet 70 .057 A 0.012 Time of Concentration = 0.30* Open Channel 170 .005 .011.785 3.14 0.012 Travel Time = 0.01* * - Generated for use by TABULAR method -18- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA B (SN002) ------------------------------- Subarea #4 - B5 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 25 .026 F 0.085 Sheet 275 .026 A 0.049 Shallow Concent'd 90 .026 P 0.008 Time of Concentration = 0.14* Open Channel 380 .026 .0111.77 4.71 0.009 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #5 - 86 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 165 .027 A 0.032 Open Channel 60 .04 .0241.23 3.93 0.003 Open Channel 335 .005 .0241.23 3.93 0.046 Time of Concentration = 0.08* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense 8 Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light D Cultivated > 20 % Res. 1 Woods, Dense E Grass -Range, Short * Generated for use by TABULAR method --- Shallow Concentrated --- --- Surface Codes --- P Paved U Unpaved -19- TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA A (SN/001) Total watershed area: 5.09 acres Rainfall type: II Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 Area(acres) 0.54* 0.38* 0.36* 1.94* 0.70* 0.90* 0.27* RainfalL(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 91* 93* 91* 81* 85* 88* 87* Runoff(in) 2.64 2.83 2.64 1.79 2.10 2.36 2.27 Tc (hrs) 0.14* 0.20* 0.19* 0.58* 0.07* 0.11* 0.22* (Used) 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.20 TimeToOutlet 0.01* 0.01* 0.02* 0.00 0.00 0.01* 0.00 (Used) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 la/P 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.08 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)------------ (hr) Flow Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 12.0 6 1 1P 1P 0 1 2 0 12.1 11P 2P 1 1 1 2P 3P 1P 12.2 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 12.3 5 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 12.4 3 0 0 0 3P 0 0 0 12.5 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 12.6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12.7 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12.8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow * value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines -20- TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PRE -DEVELOPMENT DA 8 (SNO02) Total watershed area: 3.21 acres Rainfall type: II Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- 81 B2 83 B5 B6 Area(acres) 0.27* 0.14* 0.81* 0.55* 1.44* Rainfall(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 91* 88* 89* 96* 98* Runoff(in) 2.64 2.36 2.45 3.14 3.37 Tc (hrs) 0.14* 0.32* 0.30* 0.14* 0.08* (Used) 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 TimeToOutlet 0.02* 0.01* 0.01* 0.00 0.00 (Used) 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ia/P 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.01 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)------------ (hr) Flow B1 82 B3 85 66 11.0 0 0 OP 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 3 0 0 0 2 1 12.0 8 0 0 0 5 3 12.1 13P 1P 0 1P 7P 4P 12.2 9 1 0 1 4 3 12.3 5 1 0 1 2 1 12.4 3 0 0 1 1 1 12.5 3 0 0 1 1 1 12.6 1 0 0 0 1 0 12.7 1 0 0 0 1 0 12.8 1 0 0 0 1 0 13.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow * - values) provided from TR-55 system routines -21- POST -DEVELOPMENT PEAK STORMWATER RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS -22- TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 Jos SHEET N0. �' 1 ''� OF_ CALCULATED BY DATE. CHECKED BY DATE. SCALE llli f e �_ �_' .d �- ,✓T �� i� .Jf� � R`.�r D CI4'r� i� �Ti I i j i --_�-- —.. —.... I I I f i I I : TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/NO01) Subarea : C1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .16(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .37(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .53 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: C1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .53 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : C2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .06(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .22(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: C2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .28 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -23- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/N001) Subarea : C4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C 0 Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .34(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .57(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: C4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .91 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:89 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : C5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .32(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking tots, roofs, driveways .29(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .61 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: C5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .61 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:85 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -24- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/N001) Subarea : C6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A 8 C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .12(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .16(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: C6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .28 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:88 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -25- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SNO01) Subarea : D1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - .04(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking tots, roofs, driveways - .06(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .06 .04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .1 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : D2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - .07(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .19(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .19 .07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .26 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -26- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SN001) Subarea : D3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .03(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, rocfs, driveways .1(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .13 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:92 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : D4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .04(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .2(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .24 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:94 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -27- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SN001) Subarea : D5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .07(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .23(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D5 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .3 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:92 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : D6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .12(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .25(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .37 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: D6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .37 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -28- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SNO01) Subarea : D7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .18(74) 1313 Impervious Areas Z Paved parking Lots, roofs, driveways - .34(98) - �`�• 3 20 Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .52 } �/ SUBAREA: 07 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .52 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:90 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -29- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/N002) Subarea : E1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .05(74) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .15(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .2 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:92 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subarea : E2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - .3(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .3(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) ,3 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E2 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .b Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:89 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -29- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/N002) Subarea : E3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .09(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .25(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .25 .09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .34 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:93 Subarea : E4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .13(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways 1.17(98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E4 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.3 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -30-- TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/N002) Subarea : E5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% .15(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .54(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .54 .15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .69 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:94 Subarea : E6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .03(74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .59(98) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .62 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: E6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .62 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:97 -31- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/NO01) ------------------------------- Subarea #1 - C1 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 2.2 40 .03 F 0.117 Sheet 120 .04 A 0.021 Shallow Concent'd 40 .05 U 0.003 Open Channel 40 .25 .009.35 2.09 0.000 Time of Concentration = 0.14* ------------------------------- Subarea #2 C2 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 2.2 70 .025 F 0.197 Sheet 185 .04 A 0.030 Open Channel 40 .1 .009.35 2.09 0.001 Time of Concentration = 0.23* ------------------------------- Subarea #3 - C4 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 2.2 42 .06 F 0.092 Shallow Concent'd 260 .05 P 0.016 Time of Concentration = 0.11* ------------------------------- Subarea #4 - C5 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 2.2 65 .153 F 0.090 Sheet 60 .07 A 0.010 Shallow Concent'd 30 .101 P 0.001 Open Channel 755 .025 .05 9.1 9.67 0.046 Time of Concentration = 0.15* Open Channel 625 .03 .0091.23 3.93 0.013 Travel Time = 0.01* * - Generated for use by TABULAR method -32- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/N001) ------------------------------- Subarea #5 - C6 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 120 .067 F 0.205 Shallow Concent'd 90 .05 P 0.005 Time of Concentration = 0.21* Shallow Concent'd 110 .05 P --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense E Grass -Range, Short * Generated for use by TABULAR method 0.007 Travel Time = 0.01* --- Shallow Concentrated --- --- Surface Codes --- P Paved U Unpaved -33- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SN001) ------------------------------- Subarea #1 - 01 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 45 .02 F 0.151 Open Channel 60 .016 .009.785 3.14 0.002 Time of Concentration = 0.15* ------------------------------- Subarea #2 - D2 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 65 .02 F 0.203 Sheet 95 .05 A 0.016 Open Channel 125 .06 .009.785 3.14 0.002 Time of Concentration = 0.22* Open Channel 225 .016 .009.785 3.14 0.008 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #3 - D3 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 45 .044 A 0.009 Shallow Concent'd 275 .021 P 0.026 Time of Concentration = 0.04* ------------------------------- Subarea #4 - D4 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 135 .022 A 0.030 Open Channel 105 .005 .009.785 3.14 0.006 Time of Concentration = 0.04* Open Channel 120 .005 .009.785 3.14 0.007 Travel Time = 0.01* * Generated for use by TABULAR method -34- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SN001) ------------------------------- Subarea #5 - D5 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 15 .02 F 0.063 Sheet 125 .1 A 0.015 Open Channel 145 .005 .009.785 3.14 0.009 Time of Concentration = 0.09* Open Channel 145 .005 .009.785 3.14 0.009 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #6 - 06 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 200 .05 A 0.029 Open Channel 80 .005 .0091.23 3.93 0.004 Time of Concentration = 0.03* Open Channel 155 .005 .0091.23 3.93 0.008 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #7 - D7 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 30 .15 F 0.049 Sheet 75 .04 A 0.015 Open Channel 200 .02 .05 9.1 9.67 0.014 Time of Concentration = 0.08* Open Channel 225 .02 .05 9.1 9.67 0.015 Travel Time = 0.02* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass -Range, Short * Generated for use by TABULAR method -35- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENOEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/N002) ------------------------------- Subarea #1 - E1 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 20 .1 F 0.042 Sheet 90 .033 A 0.018 Shallow Concent'd 35 .034 P 0.003 Time of Concentration = 0.06* ------------------------------- Subarea #2 - E2 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 140 .04 F 0.285 Open Channel 80 .005 .009.785 3.14 0.005 Time of Concentration = 0.29* ------------------------------- Subarea #3 - E3 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 40 .05 F 0.096 Time of Concentration = 0.10* Open Channel 170 .005 .011.785 3.14 0.012 Travel Time = 0.01* ------------------------------- Subarea #4 - E4 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 60 .026 F 0.172 Sheet 240 .026 A 0.044 Shallow Concent'd 100 .026 P 0.008 Time of Concentration = 0.22* Open Channel 380 .026 * - Generated for use by TABULAR method .0111.77 4.71 0.009 Travel Time = 0.01* -36- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/NO02) ------------------------------- Subarea #5 - E5 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 60 .027 F 0.169 Sheet 180 .027 A 0.035 Time of Concentration = 0.20* ------------------------------- Subarea #6 - E6 ------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 2.2 10 .33 F 0.015 Sheet 165 .027 A 0.032 Open Channel 230 .005 .0241.23 3.93 0.032 Time of Concentration = 0.08* Open Channel 65 .036 .024.785 3.14 0.004 Open Channel 335 .005 .0241.23 3.93 0.046 Travel Time = 0.05* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense B fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense E Grass -Range, Short * Generated for use by TABULAR method --- Shallow Concentrated --- --- Surface Codes --- P Paved U Unpaved -37- TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA C (S/NO01) Total watershed area: 2.60 acres Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- C1 C2 C4 C5 C6 Area(acres) 0.54* 0.28* 0.91* 0.61* 0..27 Rainfatt(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 91* 93* 89* 85* 88* Runoff(in) 2.64 2.83 2.45 2.10 2.36 Tc (hrs) 0.14* 0.23* 0.11* 0.15* 0.21* (Used) 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 TimeToOutlet 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* 0.00 0.00 (Used) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 la/P 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.08 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)------------ (hr) Flow C1 C2 C4 C5 C6 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 2 1 0 1 0 0 12.0 4 1 0 2 1 0 12.1 9P 2P 1P 4P 1 1P 12.2 7 1 1 2 2P 1 12.3 3 0 1 1 1 0 12.4 2 0 0 1 1 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines -38- TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA D (SN001) Total watershed area: 1.93 acres Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Area(acres) 0.10* 0.25* 0.14* 0.24* 0.31* 0.37* 0.52* Rainfatl(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 91* 93* 92* 94* 92* 90* 90* Runoff(in) 2.64 2.83 2.73 2.93 2.73 2.54 2.54 Tc (hrs) 0.15* 0.22* 0.04* 0.04* 0.09* 0.03* 0.08* (Used) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 TimeToOutlet 0.04* 0.03* 0.05* 0.04* 0.03* 0.02* 0.00 (Used) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ia/P 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------ (hr) Flow D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 11.0 0 OP 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.0 4 0 0 0 1P 1P 1P 1 12.1 7P 0 1P 1P 1 1 1 2P 12.2 5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 12.3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow * value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines -39- TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project LAKEWOOD COMMONS User: KCE Date: 11-05-90 County CHITTENDEN State: VT Checked: Date: Subtitle: POST -DEVELOPMENT DA E (S/NO02) Total watershed area: 3.76 acres Rainfall type: II Frequency: 10 years -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Area(sq mi) 0.20* 0.61* 0.34* 1.30* 0.69* 0.62* Rainfall(in) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Curve number 92* 89* 93* 96* 94* 97* Runoff(in) 2.73 2.45 2.83 3.14 2.93 3.25 Tc (hrs) 0.06* 0.29* 0.10* 0.22* 0.20* 0.08* (Used) 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 TimeToOutlet 0.02* 0.01* 0.01* 0.00 0.05* 0.00 (Used) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 Ia/P 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 (Used) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs)------------ (hr) Flow E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 12.0 9 1P 1 1 3 1 2 12.1 13P 1 1 2P 5P 1 3P 12.2 13 1 2P 1 5 2P 2 12.3 8 0 2 0 3 2 1 12.4 5 0 1 0 2 2 0 12.5 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 12.6 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 12.7 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 12.8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 13.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P - Peak Flow * value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines -40- DETENTION BASIN BASIN AND OUTLET DESIGN -41- TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 JOB I<<wu C'a�••�o•/S SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY r\' CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE-�isf DATE. : . � J i l __.r_... __ — . o '.. _._... C P �1l .- ✓1 I i� 7 �1�� I %' �. ��1 is .lam l_. I 1 I �, i Q ) f" �.. •.J I r_ ri ( Z 7 ' rr'I I I I I I ._._..._------..I _... ^! e o! .__•_-_ J 011. �..—..¢- - ...—.-- ... 47.E - �._ ' r ..,. I- i l oe7 -_....—.._._ '- q . FBI✓�f�r �� (�� P _ ��. �- '; -.� �� c�/<�- - 10 -- I s}'�Y'��- �-1— I 110 I i I I I I �P�sEDir-I ! Ov It I ckj -.__ � .........a_. 7 Y( CO2 -S—TD- A....yT.... -rS.. 2 I I r - — i I )___...._ ... ....... _�.... .... ...1._...__i _..__ _._ .._.__�.._._ __. _._�_.__~..___ - _ _ _ cm : 11171 TRUDELL JOB (fa - CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE 9r.A1 F s f __- �1_ ✓ r 73.qEI 3 r -+ I--- - ------ I 1 - I � _z .__. _._ ..—. —. _ _ ....--- .. __• z. F I i I t P'PE. 7I ............ X Scctr, I I I ' � I I S I �• I �y �� ' � i 1315 c✓ G� I o i 1 : I ; � I I I �( I! I I• � : ► i - - .t. _..-- ' 1 I 1 I 1 J-{e = E PefoSr ......_.......__......._._......................__... III!I!•i _. I _._.... !I .............. I��� �; i t I 1 POWXT 2%1 /� Iw_ r.� w. 01411. TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY_ SCALE DATE DATE 17 pc6A- i I U . ___I � yi3 � F i s c G+• z� � 6 I 30 '�0 , 1� 3 Z 0 3& 1 ga. .�P.'#`f _ ��jIL _s _?�z9 7'v t�l v t + ,._..-....i...__... 7 ? . _ .__.....—.._— —.._ _ A. �._.. ..._.... - - ------- ------ ri F 1 !} , n Ip ID ii. ... _...... .... ..i.._�_ - r, r t• —...—.4 ...... .... ... :— :..... _..I I _. - _._: _.. _ - TRUDELL JOB CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 8HEET NO. OF- 14 Blair Park Road, P.O. Box 308 WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY SCALE DATE ._.._ ... . ..... - .-...... _ I _.. I i . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TYPE 2 r TYPE 5Th, 2 � ... ao so � I } TYPE 3 I � TYPE 6 4._._..4.7--t-- i —t -- -- — — i — z ' 2 a T.t II —Q.IYT _ _— i+— 11 t ` — Culvert type (low Discharge equation I i t + Type 1. Critical depth at inlet �—--•—j---'�-- (h, — z)/D < 1.5 h,/h, < 1.0 � —;.•—,-1—i--' u So>S, Q=CDA,12g(hl—z+al—Yr —ht. I I I rype 2. Critical depth at outlet ! j I ! (h, — z)/D < 1.5 --I — — i I ! h,/h, < 1.0 / Q=CDArV2g(h,+a,--Y,—h —h So> S,\ 2g Its /2.a _— t i —}-----I'• •—• i Type 3. 'Tranquil flow throughout --- ---� —' �--^ — — I i ! h,/h, 5 1.0 u{ ....... _ ' 2g h, + a, h - h/I.z h,/h, > 1.0 Q CDA2 - ., - hl2a) i i 2g i Type 4. Submerged outlet I Q CnA o 1 I h,/D > 1.0 1+ (29Cbn2L/Rb�a) j t I ! rype 5. Rapid flow at inlet I f I h,/D a 1.0 Q = CDAa 2g(h, - :) ' I ! ' Type 6. Full (low free outlet -- - (h, - z)/D s 1.5 i h4/D a 1.0 Q CDAa 2g(h, - h2 - h/2r) i I I FIGURE 8.26 Classification of culvert flow. i i STu,Zw, r'o�Ti--� V `✓' - !) J r-r)j;- r / 1"A��-ron�,J �7ffrj� 3 , LAKEWOOD COMMONS OUTLET CONTROL DETENTION BASIN CHARACTERISTICS PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE 6" diameter outlet pipe (with inlet c HEAD OUTFLOW PIPE STONE STORAGE E STORAGE 2S/t (2S/t)+0 ABOVE STORAGE STORAGE INCREMENT INVERT VOLUME VOLUME (ft.) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (ft'3) (ft'3) (cfs) (cfs) .00 .00 .70 .78 16.00 .00 16.00 16.00 .09 .87 1.70 1.23 1358.00 833.00 2191.00 2191.00 12.17 13.40 2.70 1.55 1893.00 672.00 2565.00 4756.00 26.42 27.97 3.70 1.81 1358.00 833.00 2191.00 6947.00 38.59 40.40 4.70 2.04 .00 1654.00 1654.00 8601.00 47.78 49.82 5.70 2.25 .00 1654.00 1654.00 10255.00 56.97 59.22 6.70 2.44 .00 1654.00 1654.00 11909.00 66.16 68.60 7.20 2.53 .00 1654.00 1654.00 13563.00 75.35 77.88 ROUTING TABLE 360 second routing period TIME INFLOW (2S/t)-0 (2S/t)+0 OUTFLOW OIrrF4 / = 4a3y K �w� �Z fu� �C (hrs.) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) L� 11.80 .00 .00 11.90 1.00 -1.10 1.00 12.00 4.00 1.72 3.90 12.10 7.00 10.26 12.72 12.20 5.00 19.44 22.26 12.30 1.00 22.50 25.44 12.40 .00 20.64 23.50 12.50 .00 17.88 20.64 12.60 .00 15.24 17.88 12.70 .00 12.68 15.24 12.80 .00 10.22 12.68 12.90 .00 7.84 10.22 13.00 .00 5.54 7.84 13.10 .00 3.30 5.54 13.20 .00 1.14 3.30 13.30 .00 -.96 1.14 1.05 1.09 1.23 1.41 1.47 1.43 1.38 1.32 1.28 1.23 1.19 1.15 1.12 1.08 1.05 7.00 cfs = maximum inflow 1.47 cfs = maximum outflow 2.45 feet = maximum height above 6" invert out 219.75 feet = maximum 10yr/24hr water stage -'� Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 February 4, 1986 802 658-3004 Jane Bechtel LaFleur City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Jane: I have reviewed the Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study prepared by Thomas T. Adler of Transportation Systems Analysis. As we discussed, I have prepared detailed comments on the format and the substance of the report. 1. The proposed use consists of 37,000 square feet of office use and a 150 seat restaurant. I agree with the consultant's estimate that this will generate 125 new p.m. peak hour trips. However, the consultant does not provide a table displaying the trip generation rates used, In this case, it was easy to deter that rates of . er 1,000 square feet of office and 14 er restaurant seat were used in accordance with ITE ra It is preferable for the rate and estimates to be displayed in a table for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Although the p.m. peak hour is usually the critical peak, it is important to evaluate the a.m. peak. For the Lakewood site, the restaurant will produce few, if any, a.m. peak trips, but the office will produce 93 a.m. peak trips. With 85% entering during the morning, and using the consultant's directional distribution, 59 trips will enter at the existing driveway north of Holmes Road. This volume suggests that developer construction of a southbound deceleration lane should be required. Moreover, 20 northbound vehicles will be entering the site in the a.m. peak hour, thus making left turns against a substantial volume of southbound vehicles. Compare this a.m. estimate of 20 northbound left turn vehicles with the p.m. estimate of 3 vehicles (p.4, seventh line from the bottom) and you can see that it is important for a traffic impact analysis to evaluate both a.m. and p.m. travel conditions. I, therefore, conclude that vehicles entering the site from the south in the morning will experience considerable delay. 2. Figure 1 of the study indicates that 1973 traffic counts were factored to represent 1984 conditions. As I noted in the work session with the South Burlington Planning Commission, current traffic��a_nts (within the last three years) should be used. If current counts are not available, Bolton St. George Burlington Hinesburg Shelburne ... Serving the Municipalities of ... Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski ,00-���' ,aq ? Jane LaFleur 2 February 4, 1986 A. B. C. D. it is preferable that the consultant collect new counts rather than factor counts seven years old. In this case, 1985 counts are available from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Also, the intersection geometry shown on Figure 1 i5__not correct; a four leg intersection is formed with the addition of the existing driveway to the Chrysler auto dealer on the west side of Shelburne Road. The consultant may wish to re-evaluate this intersection using the current intersection configuration, lane use and recent traffic counts. I performed a preliminary analysis of the intersection which estimates existing level of service is at B; future level of service without Lakewood (but with a 25 increase in background volumes) is C; and future with Lakewood is D. This information is shown on Attachments 1-3, respectively. 3. It appears that for Figure 8 the consultant is using a March 1984 count by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. If so, the source of the count should be provided, and the southbound through movement on Shelburne Road should be corrected to 958 rather than 928. 4. I have calculated level of service and delay at several of the intersections evaluated by the consultant. The results are shown in Table I, with backup information, including level of service definitions, shown on Attachments 4 - 6. \kep, TABLE I�� LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY (P.M. PEAK HOUR) Existing Future Holmes Road/ RT from Holmes A A A w/signal Shelburne Road LT from Shelburne A D B w/signal LT from Holmes E F C w/signal Baldwin Road/ Shelburne Road B D Lakewood Drive/ RT from Lakewood - A Shelburne Road LT from Shelburne - D Green Mt. Drive/ Bartlett Bay/ Shelburne Road D D As you can see, except for northbound left turns from Holmes Road, levels of service appear adequate. However, with future development, operations at Holmes deteriorate to unacceptable conditions without a signal. With signalization and the geometric improvements shown on Attachment 7, the Holmes/Shelburne intersection will provide acceptable service. Jane LaFleur 3 February 4, 1986 As noted above, level of service at Baldwin/Shelburne is likely to deteriorate from B to C with a 25% increase in background traffic volumes, and from C to D with the Lakewood Development. However, most of the deterioration of service at Baldwin will be due to growth in traffic throughout the corridor. Conclusion This development is likely to have a slight impact on traffic operations at the following Shelburne Road intersections: Bartletts Bay/Green Mountain Drive and Imperial Drive. Traffic impact on the Baldwin/Shelburne Road intersection will be more substantial, and it is advisable that a plan of improvements be developed for this intersection. The impact on Lakewood Drive will be slight assuming that the entrance will be used strictly_ as an entrance, with no exiting left turns. I recommend construction of a southbound deceleration lane on the Shelburne Road approach to Lakewood Drive. The design of this lane should be in accordance with city or state standards for commercial entrances (VAOT standard attached). Further, the Lakewood Drive access should be s�i_�ned to__alert drivers that it is an entrance only. Positive guidance, using a channelizing island, could also be considered to prevent unauthorized turns. The traffic impact will be most substantial at Holmes Road. I believe that with this development, installation of a semi -actuated signal will be necessary. I think there is an opportunity for private sector financing of this improvement apportioned among the current and future users of Holmes Road. In addition, I recommend that an exclusive northbound left turn lane be constructed on Shelburne Road ate---Flolmes, and that a two-lane approach be provided on eastbound Holmes at the time a signal is installed. The need for this two-lane approach on Holmes is clearly attributable to the proposed development and should be financed accordingly. I hope you find the above comments useful in your review of this proposed development. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Craig T. Leiner Transportation Engineer CTL:bf Attachments cc: Brad Allen 2526 I xx ####f.-######•!E•�FiF##•iE••l6#•i@•IF#�E••1FiF•iF�F•iFiF#•i(•#M"1f#'1F'#'�"�'##•1E#iF-1f•tE••lE################•iF•iE••i4•###�i �••� #� � � 23 - HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS .11 `29 '* * ****•1F##•IE•*####•If••il•#*•iF*•iE•9f'* �o INTERSECTION DWI!`d EX�sn gy� AREA fYf='E: NUN—CBD --- ___ ____ 31 INTERSECTION LF� I ION: 0U f H'i �};L 1 Ni i 1 C114 32 DATE AND TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: DULY 16 1905 4e 3i>-5: 3C)F'! i 33 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: as LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON PL-r"INNING COMMIS SION ANALYST:C.T. LEINER CCRPC _----TODAY'S-DATE:DEC 16 198`. ------- 36 1- - - - - - - - - - - ?;,—THE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: 8.5 i THE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE IS: B ------------------------------------------- _ _ ..... _ S'1"O}='}='E:D DELAY (SEC/VE: ADJUSTED LANE GROUP APPROACH APPROACH LANE GROUP VOLUME V/C DELAY L_OS DELAY LOS -----__- 4.44 0.02 21. 47 C NORTHBOUND 2 14'!56. 67 C). 812 a 9..:L ? D 1 1 . 2(--) B "i PROT. 3 0, 0 ii . 00 i_? A PERM a 1 71.11 c_>.27 21.16 C �) SOUTHBOUND ? 1592.22 0.69 4.85 A 5.51 B i} 3 1 •76. 67.... 0.37 19.55 C; 1 I 2 i EASTBOUND J a 3 - { ) . 0 ) •� 8 9 ------------- 10 11 12 ,a WESTBOUND 1417 15 19 1 - li�. 22 i). i?i_> (). (-)q ----_----__-- - 1 1. 11 o. 15 1£3. bii L 19.55 C HCN (1 `: 85) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS NTERSECT I ON:51 11 ..LDUliNe "ADOALWIN i AREA TYPE: NON-CBD NTERSE.CT I ON LOCATION: SOU 1" H - sORL 1 f G C: N ATE AND TIME- PERIOD ANALYZED: FUTURE W/DEV. tasPM PEAF•; OD I T I OVAL INFORMATION: /N SEAS ` %N A9CKPftc, v t vtvr" E1' EVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SOUTH BURL I NGf ON PLANNING COMMISSION __ "TODAY ' S DATE: FEB -1983 -------,---------------------------------------- HE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: 1'_1.0 , HE' - 'I NTERSEL=T\-�l7EL -UP SEF VICE I S: __ __ C . - - STOPPED BELAY (SE:C/VEH) ADJUSTED LANk: G�(7UF' -APPROACH PPROACH LANE GROUP VOLUME V/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 1._ 11. 1 i c_i. 121 21. 80' C ORRTHROONIF PERM. 3 1857.78 1. i r4 . 06 6 D ': 4.1 9 a D 0.00 A ------------•----------------- 1._ 9C 44_ 0.36 21.71 C 3UTHBOUND 2 2045.56 16.67 0.88 8.53 I_ti 9.04 B ---.---__-.--.-.-_.---_---.-... 1 S'7. 7S 0.44 20.23 C _----------------•---•----------- 1 66. 67 0.._ 3 19.36 C _STBOUND L' 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.36 C FEE••ih####I•##•!E######if•##•it•######•k•####if•#########iE•i�F##•iE#####•iF•3f•#•lF##•lE#•N•###�E•###•3E•####•1(•###•)I•## HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY_ ANALYSIS �1l IE iF IE �E IE !E DP r - .. a v-. :. sy u..Y y:. y. K ***ff"*'.�'�•'�'*'.�•�„*.'%"*•'�"x'�'�"�"�'�•�•�•�'jE•'�"�"�'.�.*'.�„�'*•ii•'�(•'*'.�•.��"*'•i{..�"#•77c •�f'it'�fiE i�..%L...j? ERSECTIONQWyLWRrE pLAjoiMF,f_Dai �J - . ERSECTION f'; C IOhJ: SOU fi�1= UF,LItdbTON AREA TYPE: NON-CPD E ANTS-f•IM EER OD ANACYZED:FUTURE WMEV! IT I ONAL INFORMATION: a 'o EL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SOUTH BURL I NU __,__,__TON PLANNING N� � COMMISSION TODAY ' S _ -- -__ ._ _- .--_.. _ _-..-_--_----------__.__...._____.___ DATE: FEFi � 1986 ________________________._. INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: "- -------------- 1N7�:.f,OLG_f�`�N LEVEL -OF VILE`IS:-____..._._ -------------- ___—..____._.—_.. STOPPED DELAY -APPROACH iOAChI LANE GROUP VOLUME LANE GF<UUR APPROACH -- J-- DELAY LOS DELAY LOS - ---------------- ----- C - "M T/f )9 Sz..w+6 E PROT _�. _ PERM . 3 0.00 A U. UU 0.00 ------------------------------ 94.21. 71- C 46avItfivD ___---- - _ — ---�8. B9 - — - -- eg 16.67 9.25 B _____—_---_-_—_--.. 0. ._-_—_ __. FAST OUND 2 0.00 0.00 ._, 0.00 0.00 0.00 ____ -- ---------------- �_ 66. 6i ry. _ C DUND 2 0.00 U. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i"if fF'�•'1f' # •a4' � �:. �. # # # �1f' aE i6 iE� �F �E •if• iF'!f• it• •k•'IE dF'iF �"�' •iE'x�'*"�"�6 �"�' �"�"�'*"� *.�.�..�..}E..�. * � .�(..x..x..�..�, j{"if• •* af•'�f•'#• •iE'if• af� if �: •�• .� .�. �_ -Sf' •r y- # ^'k URBAN STREETS /7 l- (� C-I 114 6- N �_ V c, = capacity of lane group or approach i, in vph; s, = saturation flow rate for lane group or approach i, in vphg; and (g/C), = green ratio for lane group or approach i. The ratio of flow rate to capacity, v/c, is given the symbol X in intersection analysis. is new symbol is intro i is chapter to emphasiie ►e strong relationship of capacity to sig- nalization conditions, and for consistency with the literature, which also refers to this variable as the "degree of saturation." For a given lane group or approach i: X, _ (v/c),_-_y;As, X (B�/O] X, = v,C/s,g, = (v/s)AgIC), _._. where: X, = v/c ratio for lane group or approach i; v, = actual flow rate for lane group or approach i, in vph; s, = saturation flow rate for lane group or approach i, in vphg; and g, = effective green time for lane group i or approach i, in sec. Values of X, range from 1.00 when the flow rate equals ca- pacity to 0.00 when the flow rate is zero. The capacity of the full intersection is not a significant concept and is not specifically defined herein. Rarely do all movements at an intersection become saturated at the same time of day. It is the ability of individual movements to move through the intersection with some efficiency which is the critical concern. Another capacity concept of utility in the analysis of signal- ized intersections is, however, the critical v/c ratio, X. This is a v/c ratio for the intersection as a w o e, considmy the lane groups or approaches that have the highest flow ratio, v/s, for a given signal phase. For example, in a two-phase signal, opposing approaches move during the same green time. Generally, one of these two approaches will require more green time than the other (i.e., it will have a higher flow ratio). This would be the "critical" approach for the subject signal phase. Each signal phase will have a critical lane group or approach that determines the green time requirements for the phase. Where signal phases overlap, the identification of these critical lane groups or approaches is somewhat complex, and is discussed in the "Methodology" sec- tion of this chapter. The critical v/c ratio for the intersection is defined in terms of critical lane groups or approaches: X, _ (v/s), X [C/(C—L)l (9-3) where: time minus the portion of the change in- terval used by vehicles for each critical signal phase. This equation is useful in evaluating the overall intersection with respect to the geometries and total cycle length provided, and is also useful in estimating signal timings where they are not known or specified by local policies or procedures. It gives the v/c ratio for all critical movements, assuming that green time has been appropriately or proportionally allocated. It is therefore possible to have a critical v/c ratio of less than 1.00, and still have individual movements oversaturated within the signal cycle. A critical v/c ratio less than 1.00, however, does indicate that all movements in the intersection can be accom- modated within the defined cycle length and phase sequence by proportionally allocating green time. In essence, the total avail- able green time in the phase sequence is adequate to handle all movements if properly allocated. The analysis of capacity in this chapter focuses on the com- putation of saturation flow rates, v/c ratios, and capacities for various approaches or lane groups of the intersection. Proce- dures for these computations are described in greater detail in the "Methodology" and "Procedures for Application" sections of this chapter. Level of Service for Signalized Intersections i Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. elay is a measure of driver discomfort, fiustrafion, uel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level -of - service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Table 9-1. Delay may be measured in the field, or may be estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Level-of-service_A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. TABLE 9-1. LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTER - STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (SEC) X, = critical v/c ratio for the intersection; A < 5.0 Y_(v/s),, = the summation of flow ratios for all crit- B 5.1 to-1 5.0 ical lane groups or approaches, i; C 15.1 to 25.0 C = cycle length, in sec; and D 25.1 to 40.0 L = total lost time per cycle; computed as the E 40.1 to 60.0 60.0 sum of "start-up" and change interval lost F > SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-5 Level -of -service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec 7er vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level-ofservice C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level -of -service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 see per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the pro- portion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle fail- ures are noticeable. Level -of -service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 90.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high vle ratios. In- dividual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. -o -service Fdescribes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersec- tion. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Relating Capacltv and Level of Service +xw+ Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to ca- pacity is also complex. The levels of service of Table 9-1 have been established based on the acceptability of various delays to drivers. It is important to note that this concept is not related to capacity in a simple one-to-one fashion. In previous chapters, the lower bound of LOS E has always been defined to be capacity, i.e., the v/c ratio is, by definition, 1.00. This is not the case for the procedures of this chapter. It is possible, for example, to have delays in the range of LOS F (unacceptable) while the v/c ratio is below 1.00, perhaps as low as 0.75-0.85. Very high delays can occur at such v/c ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: (1) the cycle length is long, (2) the lane group in question is dis- advantaged (has a long red time) by the signal timing, and/or (3) the signal progression for the subject movements is poor. The reverse is also possible: a saturated approach or lane group (i.e., v/c ratio = 1.00) may have low delays if: (1) the cycle length is short, and/or (2) the signal progression is favor- able for the subject movement. Thus, the designation of LOS F does not automatically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is overloaded, nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available. The procedures and methods of this chapter require the anal- ysis of both capacity and level -of -service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. It is imper- ative that the analyst recognize the unique relationship of these two concepts as they apply to signalized intersections. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS This chapter presents two levels of analysis for use. The primary methodology used is operational analysis. At this level, detailed information on all prevailing traffic, roadway, and sig- nalization conditions must be provided. The method provides for a full analysis of capacity and level of service, and can be used to evaluate alternative geometric designs and/or signal plans. A second method is provided for planning analysis. At this level, only capacity is addressed, be e e al a infor- mation needed to estimate delay is not available. Information on intersection geometries and turning movements is required, but the details of signalization and vehicle type distributions are not needed. The method provides broad results that allow a projection of whether or not the intersection is likely to be oversaturated. Inasmuch as delay estimates cannot be made in planning analysis, level of service cannot be addressed at this level. Operational analysis would be used in most analyses of ex- isting intersections or of future situations in which traffic, geo- metric, and control parameters were well established by projections and trial designs. The planning procedure is useful in testing general design alternatives for new intersections in areas of new development, where details of signalization and demand characteristics are not yet under consideration. The operational analysis methodology vided considers the full details of each of fou mponents: dPfttand or service flow rates at the intersection`, alization of the intersection, gedJ metric design or characteristics of the intersection, and the delajv or level of service that results from these. The methodology is capable of treating any of these four as an "unknown," to be determined knowing the details of the other three. Thu!, the method can be used to: 1. Solve for level of service: knowing details of intersection flows, signalizatton, and geometries. 2. Solve for allowable service ag& rates pr selected levels of service, knowing the details of signalization and geometries. 3. Solve fa�� r s tim (for an assumed phase plan), know- ing the desired level of service and the details of flows and geometries. 4. Solve for basic geptt;etries (number or allocation of lanes), knowing the desired level of service and the details of flows and signalization. While the methodology is capable of computations in all four modes, specific procedures and worksheets herein are designed for the first of these, i.e., a solution for level of service. In developing alternative signal and geometric designs, it is often necessary to consider simultaneous changes in both. Rarely can signalization be considered in isolation from geometric design and vice -versa. Titus, the most frequent type of analysis would consider such alternatives on a trial -an -error basis, and would not attempt to hold one constant and "solve" for the other. Sample calculations, however, illustrate alternative uses of the methodology. /�•. TLk /W EA S �5- 4-,�q LC)CA ! l ON: SC). BURL HOLMES RD/US 7 __-_______._........_...-__-_._...__ HOURLY VOLUMES Cx�S n P G ' --_---__ ' , � -- --_ ----- -- _- -- � OLIJt•1F:.� I h! F'CF'H Major street: US 7 ; N = 2 <--- V5--- 1140' _ -% _3 Date of Counts: ! ! 1! , i�)/.. 2/8 1 i V7 V9 1 X S OF"' i i V7 V9 i Time Period: ! ! ! ! YIELD t Approach Spend: Minor Street: Grade :C - HOL.MES 0 % ; PHF : .85 Population: 5000 r VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. -_..._........_..-_.-_.....- i 2 ; r --.-_.-....-.._...-.__ -___._._....._._--_-_._..-__.___.._-__-...__._.-__.___-- ! 5 ; __-__.___----__-___..----�----�-•----- ----•---•----• , cJ Volume ( vph) --- �-�- 116 _ _ 1 _ ! 1 14s � 32 ! S Vol (•rc-h) secs Table 10. 1 ! XXXXXXXX I XXXXXxxX _.-.._.._ - -_---'--...---------•--------- 1XXXXXXXXI 35 1 9 S(Et= 1 : RT From Minor Street /-.> VC;", Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1/2 V_:+V;'= 17 + 582 = 099 vph(Vc9) Critical Gap, Tc 1 .l..c= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp f Cp9== 551 pcph (FFig.10,3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm9=Cp9= 551 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major- Street v...___ VHF CoWl-it_ting Flaws, Vc- - !�V.�+V2=� :V,.._+, 116:�-= 1196 v_h(Vc4) p Critical Gap, Tc : T'c= 5.5 secs ('Fab. lii. ) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cps= 256 pcph (Fig. J.U.3) 1 o+ -Cp- u-t-i-lAzed and Impedance Factor- 1 (V4/Cp4)xIQO=- 1.6% P4- .99 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) Cm4=C:p4= 256 pcph STEP-;_, .a --L-F- Fr emr--fd hear Street \ V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 /2 V3+V2+V5+V4_= ! 17 + 582 + 1 140 + 3 = 1 700 vph (Vc 7 ) Critical Gap, 'Tc ; T•c:= 7 secs (Tab, 10,2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp7= 65 pcph (FFig.10.3) - Actual Capacity --Cm ! Cm7=-C.p7xP4= 65 99 - 64 pcph SHAFTED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9) / ((V7/Cm7) + (V9/C:m9)) if lane is shared } CF'i CF: LC�S LOS MOVEMENT V (PCF�H) CM (F'CF'H) CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH--V) CM CSH 7 35 64 29 E F.r:: r.a 4 4 256 252 C J t F �� l�. ��� .��.�. 9 r "'q +- +19 C_ � ^, FNf- 6 LOCA4 1 OW S•'O. BURL HOLMES RD/US 7 1 NAME: CCRPC ANALYSI`r:i OF F'M+ 5 +t,n 6w<: n_ HOURLY VOLUMES 1 VOLUMES IN PCPH <:: N 1 Major street:US 7 ; N 2< --- V5--- 1428 1< ---V5--- Grade 1454--- V2 --- > v--- V4--- 5 1 --- v-_ lq� 7 __. _... _. _.. _"__----------_."_____"-----__ 1 1 _____----- Date of Counts; FUTURE V 7 V�i : X STOP V7 V9 Time Period: 1 1 YIELD F'M PEA[.--*.* 1-40UR 1:315 149 42 1 Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade 35 HOLMES 0 (' PHF : .85 Population: 50000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT'S -----------------._.__..-__.-_.._--___-- Movement no. 2 :_r, 1 4 1 5 : 7 1 9 - __---_----__--.__._--_--_---.---.--_-_..... Volume (vph) 1 1454 1 41 1 5 1 1428 1 135 1 38 1 _.. --- --- __-_.-_-______..__.__ --...-...--.......-....--._...- Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX1XXXXXXXX: 7 :XXXXXXXX1 149 42 ; STEP 1 : R'T From Minor Street /- > V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1/2 V3+V2= 21 + 727 = 748 vph(Vc9) Critical Gap, Tc 1 l_c: 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential (:rapacity, C:p 1 Cp9-: 456 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm CM9--Cp9= 456 pcph STET' 2 . LT From Major Street v-- V-1 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 V3+V2= 41. + 1454 -• 1495 vph• (Vc4) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc=•= 5.5 sacs (F'ab. 10. ) Potential Capacity, Lp : Cp4= 166 pcph (Fig• 10. _) of C:p utilized and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/Cp4) x IOO= 4.2% P4 .97 Actual Capacity, Crit (Fig.10.5) 1 Cm4=Cp4=:= 166 pcph STEP .3 : LT From Minor- Street Conflicting Flrows, Vc 1 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 21 + 727 + 1428 + 5 = 1700 vph (Vc7 ) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc- 7 secs (T'ab.10.2) Potential Capacity, C:p : Cp7- 65 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7-Cp7:• P 4= 65 x .97 = 63 pcpl..i SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH - (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CR CR LOS LOS -MOVEMENT-" " V"(PMH)- " """ " CM (PCPH) CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) -(CSH-V) -CM CSH 9 42 456 414 4 7 166 159 A T-MCHI" Est, 7 Sa�flsyO ��s � Cc�L u9� 7 �ll SU�6-fs M.0 ��^P �•-,f,�Tf It/gEtiti —Ac 79i.-.9Ar0 5If -Al N T MINIMU 7 LESS )T H R=20' W L!NF _ B PRESENT) M I ... MENT //I ANGLE A - 45' MIN. 60' DESIRABLE DETAIL E, TWO-WAY COMMERCIAL DRIVE WITH DIV;c!IJfJAL ISLAND FOR SHOPPING CENTERS, LARGE HC'JSING DEVELOut=:LNTS, INDUSTRIAL PLANTS (k SERVICE STATIONS MIN. 16 MAX RADIUS 30 LESS O LDER WIDTH OF PARKING AREA EE NOTE • ) R = 30' x (IF PRESENT) 7 DER EDGE —_ /' ENT E AY DIVISIONAL ISLAND _- P.OW LPJE1 30 M'N RAD:U3 / y�, ,. ,�• ,PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED DETAIL SNOUIC£R r z 7e MIN PAVEMENT 96* DESIRABLE DETAIL F, RIGHT TURN LANE FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVE N11H DETALLS C e E WHEN R,SHT TU7N-NG TRAFFIC E fj EXCEEDS 50 VEHICLES IN THE DESIGN HOUR. :FTAIL LIM T ;�F CA RING AREA E_nISEE_1101F. — A 1lld.E. , --- �/• ' = l0 MIN RADIUS �•. II / j' MIN RADIUS 30' LESS SHOULDER WI')TH I D T= / /.•/ 4 �_______-�_______.___CU`RB _(IF PEES=H.) SHOULDERyi EDGE 1;•AvEMrN7 EnGE 7b* MIN PAVEMENT _Ot :._ RAW _. E__—._. — HIGHWAY. SUGGESTED VALUES H'GHWA" DES'JN SPEED 30 40 50 GO D- ULL WIDTH LANE 55 100 170 2' -TAPER I00 125' ISO 7JC' CW4 GRADE Sr DEPRESSED RAMP (15 b MAX FOR AT (90-0' MIN VERTICAL EDGE OF LCGE OF rE LFAiT 12 FEET RADIUS) SHOULDER PAVEMENT HIG4WAY FNUM P VI) 12 -a"-M!N-. _ LEVEL ____ -' OLD GROUND -l!Il�PVI_--ter_ _ ___ _-_ I '``��CULVERT IF NEEDED TO BE S.7E SET UP ON PLANS OR AS ERECTED BY THE ENGINEER ( see we 7 ) PROFILE OF DRIVE AND SIDE ROAD IN'. ERSECTION (FILL SECTION) EDGE OF EDGE OF rE SHOULDER PAVEMENT HIGHWAY ANGLE OF _ INTERSE_C710N 3% MAX CRDE ( A•003) 75-0 AWN: R]^,QS ON CREST VENhCALS� LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE WILL BE 40 LESS THAN SAMPLE CCYIPUTATION I SOS TIMES THE ANGLE OF INTt RSECIION Or THE -O IS GRADES (THE TANGENT OF THE ANGLE OF INTERSECTION .003 IS THE ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE CF THE GRADES) TANGENT 012 ANGLE • 6,56 6 83 6.93 . 1 309 - B 94 MIN LENGTH OF V.C. WILL BE 9 FEET DETAIL G. TWO-WAY UNDIVIDED COMMERCIAL DRIVE FOR EINGL' STORES, BUSINESSES, SMALL 14OUS114G DEVELOPMENTS (URBAN) (PROPERTY 35' MAX__ I LINE -7I I R �W .LINE MIN = 10' LELS SHOULDER WIDTH *IM,N to' R CUPB I 1 �S.I M,N__ SF OULDER __ PAVEMENT EDGE- PAVEMENT A - 75 111N. i HIG4WAY E--� 9CP DE SI RARLE UMI!T OF PARKING AREA (SEE NOTE 1) MIN. 10' Rye / approval oT me v1. gocncy of Tr( plans for a higtwov I:r,11s ruction intended t0 be c quids fck dime required elsewhere in the. place; 2. All commercial gives sho!' tC D of the highway poyement o the to the farthest ,oint of curvoture edge, whichever is it a yI cutest paving is indlcohsd in he c,toils i 3 Depth of sub -Doss, bose,nnd pn�e as highway or o minirtun of Id of bituminous concrete pd/ement highway right•ot-way. 4. Vehicular o:cets iron parking . D of -wog will be prevented by the Curbing or other suitcble physicu 5. No portion of Dry drier, shot! be ', 100 feet in rural areas, and 50 I from the theoretical intersection of the inntrsectiun of D stole hlgh highway o• o recap speed Lhcnge recsonoble access is avn t3b1e Onl Vt. Agency of Transportation. 6. Where the design hour volume of I from the hlghwDr into We drove iG Transportation rtoy requi-e spec¢:( and/or Traffic signals Tar Agency mine the soeci!ic ireatm,srt to GD negotiate with the develop sr in re;, and shoring of cost of t.;e require+ 7. Circular drainage culverb under drive milTimur,T inside diameter;LD)ef 157 F undo drives stall have a minimum In area equivdknt to that provided by o B. Comer sigh diatanEes,equol fi or grec beww, snort be provideo In botT direct; On public highw)ys,untess otherwise cI Transportation Agency, Average Ru'nnq Speed stin. C<arll on adjacent roadway, iv of d ve in MPH. _ 20 30 50 • CornN sight distance mros.ued hon of (cost K, feet -rum tM edce of IRe pavement OM meav,red frrm o he.S ktt an the to o ieign7 of DDjec the riGdwOy, � ST��,ra�uAI�DS FQ=L; �;k.�l���.�`JTI"aL AND COMMERCIAL DRIVES ':OR USF 9Y r40 i k- �T,rood Development Traffic Impact Study Prepared by: Thomas J. Adler Transportation Systems Analysis Norwich, Vermont For: Green eft. Design Builders Shelburne, Vermont January, 1966 i Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study INTRODUCTION The proposed Lakewood project is a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) which includes a 150-seat restaurant and 37,000 square feet of office space. Access to the S. Burlington development is provided by an enter -only driveway off Shelburne Rd. (US 7) and by an entry/exit driveway to Holmes Rd. This study evaluates existing traffic conditions and the impact of the proposed project on those conditions in the affected area. EXISTING CONDITIONS Shelburne Rd. in S. Burlington currently carries a substantial amount of traffic comprised of both through trips to Burlington on the north and Shelburne on the south and trips to local residential and commercial destinations within S. Burlington. The traffic signals nearest to the Lakewood project are at Baldwin Ave. to the north and at Bartlett Bay Rd./Green Mt. Dr. to the south. Two unsignalized intersections to the south are at Imperial Dr. just south of the project site and at Holmes Rd. which will serve as an access point for the project. Sight distances along Shelburne Rd. are more than adequate in this area. Accident records for Shelburne Rd. in S. Burlington, as compiled by the Vermont Agency of Transportation, were reviewed to identify possible traffic safety concerns. According to those records, there were 440 reported accidents over the 5 years 1980-1984 along the 1.73 mile stretch of US 7 through S. Burlington. This translates to approximately 5.8 accidents per million vehicle -miles, which is below the critical rate of 6.45. There were no reported fatalities over that period. Thus, recent accident experience indicates no undue traffic hazard associated with this area. 2 Existing conditions and likely future traffic conditions) at the four intersections were evaluated in this study. Details of this evaluation are included in the Appendix and the results are summarized below. Shelburne Rd./Baldwin Ave. Under estimated current traffic conditions, this signalized intersection operates well under capacity with acceptable delays (Level of Service A-C). Similarly, with future growth amounting to a 252 increase, the Intersection can continue to provide acceptable service levels (A-C). Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Green Mtr Shelburne Rd. narrows from four to two lanes just south of this intersection, reducing the effective capacity of the intersection below that of others to the north. A detailed operational analysis of the intersection indicates that, with optimal signal phasing and timing, it can operate at Level of Service B (average 12 second delays) with traffic levels equivalent to those observed in the most recent count in March 1984. A 25% increase in traffic loads, representing seasonal peaking and future growth, will cause the Level of Service to drop to C (2) second delays), again assuming optimal signal operation. Shelburne Rd./Imperial Dr. Imperial Dr. Is a residential collector road which intersects Shelburne Rd. just south of the Lakewood site. The intersection is not signalized, meaning that Shelburne Rd. traffic moves without interruption and vehicles coming from Imperial Dr. must wait for gaps in this traffic stream. According to standard unsignalized intersection capacity analysis calculations, the Imperial Dr. exiting traffic experiences Level of Service E (extreme delays) during average afternoon peak periods. The E condition is a result of the heavy through -traffic volume on Shelburne Rd. which allows only limited opportunities for Imperial Dr. traffic to enter Shelburne Rd. Conditions such as these are typical of unsignalized intersections along roads which carry significant levels of traffic. In fact, calculations using Vermont Agency of Transportation 1 Estimated by assuming a 257 increase over 1984/85 traffic counts to account for annual increases and to adjust for seasonal peaking. 3 historical data indicate that Levels of Service at unsignalized intersections along this stretch of Shelburne Rd. dropped below C as early as 1967. Shelburne Rd. traffic is not affected by the conditions at Imperial Dr. The effect of the poor service level is generally long delays for traffic exiting Imperial Dr., waiting for acceptable gaps in the Shelburne Rd. traffic stream. A traffic signal installed at this location would improve the service to acceptable levels, but the low traffic volume on Imperial Dr. does not warrant such a signal. Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. Conditions at this intersection are similar to those at Imperial Dr. The service level for traffic exiting Holmes Rd. is E, because of the heavy Sherlburne Rd. through -traffic. Current Holmes Rd. traffic volumes are too low to warrant signalization. EFFECTS OF THE LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT The proposed Lakewood development will, according to ITE Trip Generation Report estimates, add a total of 125 new PM peak hour vehicle trips to Shelburne Rd. traffic. Of this total, approximately 13% will be entering the site during the afternoon peak hour and, because of the dominant commercial/office activity, 877 will exit the site in the PM peak hour. All of the exiting traffic (109 vehicle trips) will access Shelburne Rd. from Holmes Rd. Based on current travel patterns, it is assumed that 252, of the exiting trips will be southbound and 25% of the entering trips will be from the south, the rest being northbound/from the north. The new traffic generated by the Lakewood project will cause less than a 37 increase in future traffic volumes on Shelburne Rd. near Baldwin Ave. to the north and only a 1.5f increase 1n Shelburne Rd. traffic to the south. Similarly, traffic at the Holmes Rd. intersection would increase by only 37o as a result of the additional traffic. The effects of these increases, added to the 257o base traffic increase evaluated in the previous section, were analyzed and the results are summarized below. Details are given in the Appendix. Shelburne Rd./Baldwin Ave. With the additional Lakewood traffic, this intersection will continue to operate In the Level of Service A-C range (under capacity - acceptable delays). 4 With proper adjustment of the timing and phasing of this signal, average conditions at the intersection will be Level of Service C. Planned future widening of Shelburne Rd, through this location will provide higher service levels during peak periods. The small increase in Shelburne Rd. traffic caused by the Lakewood development will not noticeably affect this intersection, which is currently, and will in the future be, at Level of Service E, as discussed above. Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. The Lakewood project, as currently designed, would route all exiting traffic onto Holmes Rd. This would increase PM traffic at the Holmes Rd. approach to Shelburne Rd. from 40 vehicles/hour currently to over 150/hour. The Level of Service for this approach would remain at E during the peak hour, However, this level of side -street (Holmes Rd.) traffic would make the intersection a better candidate for signalization, likely qualifying it under either the new peak hour or the 4-hour warrants. With a signal, the intersection would operate well below capacity, at Level of Service A-C w I th the Increased traf f ic. Shelburne Rd./Lakewood Entrance Traffic will enter the site through an existing curb cut. The traffic entering the project from the north during the PM peak hour will experience Level of Service C. Any entering from the south would be delayed in making a left turn across Shelburne Rd. southbound traffic (level D , but the number of such trips is expected to be quite small (3 during the PM peak hour). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The only major traffic -related effect of the proposed project will be an increase in traffic on the Holmes Rd. approach to Shelburne Rd. The use of Holmes Rd. as a collector for the project's traffic and the elimination of an existing exit onto Shelburne Rd. are desirable features of the project, from a traffic planning perspective. The increase in Holmes Rd. traffic could be used to justify a semi -actuated traffic signal (which would turn 5 red for Shelburne Rd. only when "triggered" by Holmes Rd. vehicles) at its intersection with Shelburne Rd. This change would substantially improve the Shelburne Rd. access for this traffic. Several other factors support signalization of the Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. intersection; It is approximately midway between existing signals at Baldwin Ave. and at Barlett Bay Rd., A large fraction of existing traffic makes a difficult left turn across Shelburne Rd., * Holmes Rd. is a possible site for a new fire station, e There is a potential for further growth along Holmes Rd., and It may be possible eventually to extend a road across the intersection to Spear St. Since Imperial Rd. and Holmes Rd. are so close, it would not be desirable to install signals at both. A signal at Holmes Rd. would, however, benefit Imperial Rd. traffic by interrupting northbound Shelburne Rd. This would provide larger potential gaps into which Imperial Rd. traffic could enter, reducing peak period delays. Overall, the Lakewood project will not have an undue impact on traffic flow and safety. Installation of a traffic signal at Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. should be considered both as a way of better managing the Lakewood traffic and as a component of future traffic planning in the area. Appendix Intersection Capacity Analyses Figure 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: l� W t'o 4 VP' lyu ' A • Date: /l5/g� Analyst: 7, d4r- Time Period Analyzed: rM 97da,,x�s Project No. 4G �� City/State: S• { 1 �''� ✓ n on- i *zs`�O� Skelbuy,„f Rd. SB TOTAL N-S STREET L y t1B TOTAL 5(0 �08 4� GSS c3 b6$ E-W STREET 0 EB TOTAL 3 NB TOTAL EB IT = NB IT = MAXIMUM WB TH = 6-L1 SB TH = SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL s V V1B IT = �� SB IT = 0 TO 1,200 UNDER EB TH = 0 OR NB TH = 4 6 Q OR 1,201 to 1,400 NEAR 0 HE 7 > 1,400 OVER 5 q + l JO = S STATUS? LI N DIr�2 E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL Figure 2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: & I J W 1 n A ✓Q. ShDate: Q 03/6,5- Analyst: T ' 6 v Time Period Analyzed: P? Pia 1,� Iq J Y l" Project No. Z-a 1<-e w City/State: S • rJ u r� � n�+ J �'► Ve ✓ mOmt SB TOTAL N-S STREET � z3 SS � S to � �_ 1�'B TOTAL --- 706 6 7 $� % ..r & lJw►g Ave. 7 977 E-W STREET 173g 0 i �- EB TOTAL NB TOTAL EB IT = 0 NB IT = MAXIMUM 6-7 1/ 3 Z SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY WB TH = SB TH = VOLUMES LEVEL WB IT = _1b_ SB IT =' 0 TO 1,200 UNDER b OR 77 OR 1,201 to 1,400 NEAR EB TH = NB TH = > 1,400 OVER C0 7 + 11 3 Z = 1 / 9 1? STATUS? E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL Figure 3 IIntersection: Analysis Period: Speed Limit A/B. "' of Lanes A/B: Control Type C: Shared Lanes C? Unsignalized 'T' Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM2.1 I oThom�as J. Adler 1985 Imperial Rd./US 7 PM Peak - 10/85 35 <--- B A: US 7 NB 4 A ---> B: US 7 SB STOP C: Imperial Rd. YES C Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 1156 29 59 1240 13 38 pch: ///////// ///////// 65 ///////// 14 42 lRight Turn from ILeft Turn from ILeft Turn from (Shared Lane) Imperial Rd. Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (M 0: Reserve Capacity: Service Level: US 7 SB Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (M2): Capacity Used: Impedance (132): Reserve Capacity: Service Level: Imperial Rd. Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (Mn): Capacity (M3): Reserve Capacity Service Level: Capacity (M 13): Reserve Capacity: Service Level: 1 1 71 vph 5.7 sec 256 pch &N/A tN/A 1 185 vph 5.6 sec 250 pch 26 0.81 186 pch D-long delays 2470 vph 7.3 sec -3 pch -3 pch -`N/A *N/A -1 1 pch -67 pch E-extreme del Figure 4 Unsignalized 'T' Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM2.1 I ©Thomas J. Adler /985 IIntersection: Lakewood Dr./US 7 Analysis Period: PM Peak + 25% + Lakewood Speed Limit A/B: 35 <--- B A: US 7 SB 0 of Lanes A/B: 4 A ---> B: US 7 NB Control Type C: YIELD C: Lakewood Dr. Shared Lanes C? NO C Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 1454 13 3 1563 0 0 pch: ///////// ///////// 3 ///////// 0 0 Right Turn from Lakewood Dr. Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (M 1): Reserve Capacity: Service Level: ILeft Turn from US 7 NB Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap. Capacity (M2): Capacity Used: Impedance (P2): Reserve Capacity. Service Level: 1461 vph 5.1 sec 214 pch 214 pch C-moderate delays 1467 vph 5.6 sec 162 pch 2F 0.99 159 pch D-long delays Figure 5 Unsignalized `T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM2.1 oTholms,_l Adler; 1985 Intersection: Holmes Rd./US 7 Analysis Period: PM Peak - 4-513M, October 22, 1985 Speed Limit A/B: 35 <--- B A: US 7 SB * of Lanes A/B: 4 A ---> B: US 7 NB Control Type C: STOP C: Holmes Rd. I Shared Lanes C? NO C Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 1163 33 3 1140 32 8 pch: ///////// ///////// 3 ///////// 35 9 lRight Turn from ILeft Turn from Left Turn from Holmes Rd. Conflicting Flow: 1 180 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 sec Capacity (M1): 252 pch Reserve Capacity: 244 pch Service Level: C-moderate delays US 7 NB Conflicting Flow: 1 196 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 sec Capacity (M2): 246 pch Capacity Used: 1 impedance (132): 0.99 Reserve Capacity: 243 pch Service Level: C-moderate delays Holmes Rd. Conflicting Flow: 2323 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 sec Capacity (Mn): 1 1 pch Capacity (M3 ): 1 1 pch Reserve Capacity: -24 pch Service Level: E-extreme delays (Shared Lane) Capacity (M 13): *N/A Reserve Capacity: "N/A Service Level: ;N/A Figure 5 IIntersection- Analysis Period: Speed Limit A/B 0 of Lanes A/B: Control Type C: Shared Lanes C? Unsignalized 'T' Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM2.1 oThomes ✓. Adler 1985 Holmes Rd./US 7 PM Peak - 4-SPM, October 22, 1985 35 <--- B A: US 7 SB 4 A ---> B: US 7 NB STOP C: Holmes Rd. NO C Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 1163 33 3 1140 32 8 pch: ////////////////// 3 ///////// 35 9 (Right Turn from ILeft Turn from ILeft Turn from Holmes Rd. Conflicting Flow: 1 180 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 sec Capac i ty (M 0: 252 pch Reserve Capacity: 244 pch Service Level: C-moderate delays US 7 NB Conflicting Flow: 1 196 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 sec Capacity (M2): 246 pch Capacity Used: 1 Impedance (132): 0.99 Reserve Capacity: 243 pch Service Level: C-moderate delays Holmes Rd Conflicting Flow: 2323 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 sec Capacity (Mn): 1 1 pch Capacity (M3): 1 1 pch Reserve Capacity: -24 pch Service Level: E-extreme delays (Shared Lane) Capacity (M 13)-. "N/A Reserve Capacity: "`N/A Service Level: ;N/A. Figure 7 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: ✓ u f lu Ll�'tw S " '�' Date: Analyst: �r Time Period Analyzed: Pm ��K t.25 o �G�r�✓ Project No. L a hct w°O d City/State: S U ✓ �1 '2 S �oH V�✓" t d SB TOTAL N-S STREET 14B TOTAL j 1 706 ►3 173 jar 3 71z 39 71S ', E-W STREET 1�3 I ��� (61 EB TOTAL 3g �31 j NB TOTAL EBIT = 135 NB IT = 3 MAXIATUM 07q? SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY WB TH = SB TH _ — VOLUMES LEVEL I3S 751 WB IT = SB IT = O 0 TO 1,200 UNDER EB TH = 173 NB TH OR — 7/6 OR 1,201 to 1,400 NEAR > 1,400 OVER 17 -� + -7SI = ? .z q STATUS? U ND6 R E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL Figure 8 5ummany - Signalized /nlerswMan CapwltyAwlysis-11C/'1 1985 Afeflied VEX/. D ©1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Grn Mt Dr Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM Peak - 3/84 Shelburne SB Grn Mt Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NB Traffic Yolumes Bartlett Bay LT 85 TH 2 RT 28 Total 115 Grn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne SB 38 9 17 1 687 928 88 7 39 127 703 984 Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Bartlett Bay 14.5 B 14.5 B Grn Mt Dr 14.6 B 14.6 B Shelburne NB 2.6 A 5.5 B 5.5 B Shelburne SB 2.6 A 15.1 C 15.3 C Figure 9 Summary - Signalized Intersection G"apaeifyAnelysis - MM 1985 /7ethorl VEX/. a ©1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Grn Mt Dr Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - Current Shelburne SB Grn f1t Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Bartlett Bay LT 106.25 T H 2.5 RT 35 Total 143.75 Total Delay Bartlett Bay 25.8 Grn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne SB 47.5 11.25 21.25 1.25 858.75 1160 110 8.75 48.75 158.75 878.75 1230 Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS D 25.8 D Grn Mt Dr 26.0 D 26.0 D Shelburne NB 1.5 A 4.7 A 4.7 A Shelburne SB 1.5 A 31.2 D 31.7 D Figure 10 Summery - Siynrrlized lnterseetion Cap= ty Analysis - /YC/'f 1985 /'leUiod VEX/. a ©1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Grn Mt Dr Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - with Lakewood Shelburne SB Grn Mt Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Bartlett Bay LT 106.25 TH 2.5 RT 35 Total 143.75 Total Delay Bartlett Bay 30.6 Grn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne SB 47.5 11.25 21.25 1.25 861.75 1 186 110 8.75 48.75 158.75 881.75 1256 Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS D 30.6 D Orn Mt Dr 33.8 D 33.8 D Shelburne NB 1.3 A 4.1 A 4.2 A Shelburne SB 1.3 A 30.4 D 30.9 D Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study Addendum Prepared by -- Thomas J_ Adler Transportation Systems Analysis Norwich, Vermont For: Green Mt. Design Builders Shelburne, Vermont February, 1986 I Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study Addendum INTRODUCTION The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), at the request of the City of South Burlington, prepared a review of the traffic impact study filed with the Lakewood Associates' PCD application. This addendum is intended to respond to the CCPRC report of February 4, 1988, indicating particularly the substantive areas of consensus and those which may warrant further discussion; in the latter cases also offering additional relevant details. AREAS OF CONSENSUS • The basic traffic flow concept is acceptable; closing one of the existing Shelburne Rd. curb cuts, modifying the other to be entrance- oniy (and clearly signed as such), and routing exiting traffic out Holmes Rd. • The development will have only a slight effect on the intersections of Shelburne Rd. with Bartletts Bay Rd./Green Mt. Dr. and with Imperial Dr. • The Lakewood development, along with the other existing uses along Holmes Rd., will be afforded acceptable levels of service at the Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. intersection with installation of a semi - actuated traffic signal at that location. • The traffic effect of the Lakewood driveway will be slight, assuming that it is used only as an entrance. AREAS FOR DISCUSSION • The levels of service for signalized intersections, as computed in the CCRPC analyses are lower than those shown in our report. N The lower service levels shown in the CCRPC review for the Baldwin Rd., Green Mt. Dr. and Holmes Rd. (with signal) intersections are due in part to the assumption of a fixed signal timing. As traffic loads change, signal timings should be adjusted so that delays are apportioned evenly across approaches. We assumed, as is customary in an analysis of this type, that such adjustments would be made These timing adjustments in turn improved the predicted service levels, as would be expected. • The CCRPC analysis concludes that, "vehicles entering the site from the south in the morning will experience considerable delay". While no formal analysis is given in support of this conclusion, it is correctly noted in the CCRPC review that the amount of traffic entering the site will in fact be greater in the AM than in the PM. However, peak hourly traffic volumes on Shelburne Rd. are considerably lower in the AM than in the PM, particularly for southbound traffic. As shown in the attached Figure 1, the level of service for left -turning traffic entering Lakewood in the AM peak is B, not indicative of "considerable delay", but, rather, of "short delay". • The CCRPC report indicates possible need for improvements at the Baldwin Ave. intersection. The CCRPC review used more recent, and higher, traffic counts than were used in our analysis. A re -analysis, using the CCRPC data (1985 base + 257 increase + Lakewood), but assuming simple timing changes is shown in Figure 2 of this Addendum. This analysis shows that the increased traffic levels can be managed at acceptable service levels (C), and thus that improvements at this location are not needed with the added Lakewood traffic. • The CCRPC review concludes that geometric improvements consisting of a left -turning lane on Shelburne Rd. and an additional turning lane on Holmes Rd. should be made, with the latter financed by Lakewood Associates. The analysis shown in Figure 7 of our January report and the more detailed analysis shown in Figure 3 of this Addendum 3 both confirm that simple signalization, without any geometric changes will allow the Holmes Rd. intersection to perform more than adequately (level B - short delays) with 25% growth plus the Lakewood development. While future development beyond that proposed and beyond the 257 increase assumed in this analysis may make further geometric changes desirable, these changes should not be financially linked to the Lakewood project. The CCRPC recommends construction of a deceleration lane on Shelburne Rd. north of the Lakewood driveway. While the Lakewood development may result in traffic levels just sufficient to warrant a deceleration lane according to State recommendations, there are several mitigating circumstances in this case. Currently there are very few deceleration lanes serving commercial develoments along Shelburne Rd., and none for a development as small as that proposed at Lakewood. The deceleration lane at Lakewood would have noticeable levels of use only during the AM peak, when, however, southbound traffic levels are quite low. There are 2 southbound lanes at this location, and the AN peak traffic levels could be carried in a single lane. There is also design work planned for this section of road which may change the desired location for a deceleration lane. Figure 1 Unsignalized 'T' Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM2.1 vThom3--T , / Adler. /9�'.� (intersection: Lakewood Dr./US 7 Analysis Period: AM Peak + 259 + Lakewood CEsf^�w4d 1, Arl aitl�}�` Speed Limit A/B: 35 <--- B A: US 7 SB "I of Lanes A/B: 4 A ---> B: US 7 NB Control Type C: YIELD C: Lakewood Dr. Shared Lanes C? NO I C Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 887 39 20 1485 0 0 pch: ///////// //!////// 22 ///////// 0 0 'Right Turn from (Left Turn from Lakewood Dr. Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (M 0: Reserve Capacity Service Level: US 7 NB Conflicting Flow: Critical Gap: Capacity (M2): Capacity Used: Impedance (P2): Reserve Capacity: Service Level: 906 vph 5.1 sec 445 pch 445 pch A -no delays 926 vph 5.6 sec 360 pch 6 F. 0.96 338 pch B-short delays Figure 2 Summery - Signelized Intersection C8p8cilyAn8lysis - flOff 19851`felbud v£XL 0 01985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Baldwin Ave. Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - with Lakewood Shelburne SB Baldwin Chrysler Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Chrysler Baldwin Shelburne NB Shelburne SB LT 32 5 10 85 TH 2 0 1738 1838 RT 45 55 16 15 Total 79 60 1764 1938 Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Chrysler 18.2 C 18.2 C Baldwin 17.7 C 17.7 C Shelburne NB 19.3 C 15.1 C 15.0 C Shelburne SB 28.7 D 23.6 C 23.3 C Average /ntersection Delsy 19.5 seconds Ave,-6�W /nMrSffVion L GAS C Figure 3 Semmeny —Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — M11 1985 Xethad vfA-L 0 O 1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM peak + 25% + Lakewood Shelburne SB N.A. Holmes Rd. Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Holmes Rd. N.A. Shelburne NB Shelburne SB LT 123 0 3 0 TH 0 0 712 1454 RT 38 0 0 41 Total 161 0 715 1495 Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Holmes Rd. 14.4 B 14.4 B N.A. Shelburne NB 10.4 B 10.4 B I Shelburne SB 7.4 0 7.4 8 T% kc. (n Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study Addendum 2: Drive-Tn Bank Prepared by: Resource Systems Group US 5 South Norwich, Vermont For: Lakewood Associates Shelburne, Vermont October, 1986 Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study Addendum 2: Drive -In Bank INTRODUCTION The Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study (January 1986) along with Addenduml (February 1986) and a letter of March 1986 evaluated a development that included 48,000 square feet of general office space and a 150-seat restaurant. Lakewood Associates are now requesting approval for a development that includes the restaurant and 42,000 square feet of office space, of which 6,500 square feet of space in the existing structure would be used for a drive-in bank and mortgage office. Because drive-in banks generally result in more traffic than comparably -scaled general office uses, the traffic impact analysis has been revised to reflect this proposed new use. This addendum describes the results of that analysis. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS While it is generally the case that drive-in banks generate more traffic per square foot of space than most other office uses, there is substantial variation in the amount of traffic from an individual bank. For example, a 1983 report prepared for the Williston Rd. Vermont National Bankl showed a range of 20 to 200 trips per 1000 square feet of building area for 4 drive-in banks in South Burlington. That report concluded that a key variable affecting traffic rates for these facilities is location. It also concluded that the ITE trip rates for drive-in banks2 were reasonable to use for traffic impact assessment in South Burlington. 1 North Country Planning, December 1983. 2 Trip Generation Report, Institute of transportation engineers, 1982. 2 To provide additional data for evaluating the Lakewood project, traffic counts were conducted during the PM peak period at the Shelburne Rd. Vermont National drive-in bank. That bank has 2 drive-in windows and approximately 1600 square feet of floor space and is located just south of the Lakewood site. The results are summarized below: Observed Trip Generation - Vermont National Bank Shelburne Rd., South Burlington Date Tris r 10/3/86 Thursday 35 10/4/86 Friday 70 Not surprisingly, traffic at the bank on Friday was twice as high as on Thursday, and this day -of - week effect may, in fact, account for much of the variation reported in the other South Burlington counts. It is also interesting to note that the observed Friday traffic level corresponds exactly to the level that would be predicted by the TTE rates (35.0 per window). There is an additional subtlety that should be considered in the review of the proposed Lakewood drive-in bank. Although an entire 6500 square foot building will be leased for bank use, only the first floor comprising 2600 square feet will be used to service general drive-in and walk-in customers. The 3900 square feet of space on the upper two floors will be used as a mortgage office, with substantially less customer traffic than is typical of a drive-in bank. For comparison purposes, the entire 6500 square foot building was assumed to operate as a drive-in bank, and the highest applicable ITE trip generation rates were used to estimate project traffic. The results are shown in Table 1; the total afternoon peak traffic level in these estimates is comparable to the highest levels observed at the various South Burlington sites surveyed in the 1983 study mentioned earlier. Table 2 shows trip generation estimates for the Lakewood development as analyzed in March 1986 and as approved by the Planning Commission. Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the Trip Generation Analysis - Lakewood Development with Bank High Estimate �t A11 Trips Use Size Total AM Trips Total PM Trips Total Daily Trips Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number General Office 35500 s.f. 2.50 89 2.82 100 17.70 628 Restaurant 150 seats 0.05 8 0.14 21 2.34 351 Bank 6500 s.f. 5.40 351 29.10 1.89 192.00 1,248 Total -All Uses 131 ' 310 2,227 Entering Trips Use Size Entering AM Trips Entering PM Trips Rate Number Rate Number General Office 35500 s.f. 2.13 76 0.14 5 Restaurant 150 seats 0.03 5 0.09 14 Bank 6500 s.f. 4.91 321 14.00 / 9 " Total -All Uses 112 109 Exiting Trips Use Size Exiting AM Trips Exiting PM Trips Rate Number Rate Number General Office 35500 s.f. 0.37 13 2.68 95 Restaurant 150 seats 0.02 3 0.05 8 Bank 6500 s.f. 0.49 31 15.10 9 Total -All Uses 19 201 Table 1 Pr c NOAALL % AL00 -t 1t 0 Trip Generation Analysis - Lakewood Development 48,000 sq. ft. General Office ,4ll Trips Use Size General Office 48000 s.f. Restaurant 150 seats Total -All Uses Total AM Trips Rate Number 2.50 120 0.05 8 128 Entering Trips Use Size Entering AM Trips Rate Number General Office 48000 s.f. 2.13 102 Restaurant 150 seats 0.03 5 Total -All Uses 107 Exiting Trips Use Size Exiting AM Trips Rate Number General Office 48000 s.f. 0.37 18 Restaurant 150 seats 0.02 3 Total -All Uses 21 Table 2 Total PM Trips Rate Number 2.82 135 0.14 21 156 Entering PM Trips Rate Number 0.14 71 0.09 14 20 Exiting PM Trips Rate Number 2.68 1291 0.05 8 136 Total Daily Trips Rate Number 7.70 850 2.34 351 1,201 3 proposed bank use will only slightly increase morning peak traffic (3-5 trips) over the general office use of that space. The largest increase from the bank comes in entering afternoon peak hour traffic; a change from 20 with general office use to an estimated l�with the bank. Table 3 shows trip generation estimates for the Lakewood project, separating the bank building into two components; the drive-in/walk-in facility to which Vermont National Bank traffic rates are applied and the mortgage office, which is treated as general office space. Compared to full use as general office space (Table 2), these estimates indicate that morning peak traffic levels will drop slightly with the bank and that afternoon peak levels will increase by less than 50 trips. SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION The drive-in facility will have two service windows accessed by a two-lane, one-way drive. There will be space for 12 cars stacked within the driveway waiting for service, and an additional 8 could queue along the edge of the parking area without blocking traffic flow. The Lakewood entrance driveway could stack a further 6 vehicles out of the Shelburne Rd. right-of- way, still leaving one lane free for other entering traffic. The 12 car storage area within the bank driveway is sufficient for the projected peak customer level; the additional stacking area within the parking lot will ensure that waiting cars do not spill out onto Shelburne Rd. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The only significant effect of the bank will be in the PM peak hour and the major effect then will be an increase in traffic entering the Lakewood project. The majority of the entering traffic will be from vehicles southbound on Shelburne Rd., using the planned deceleration lane to the driveway. Northbound entering traffic and all exiting traffic will use the Holmes Rd. access. An analysis of the Holmes Rd. intersection, with the additional traffic from an assumed 6500 square foot drive-in bank ("High Estimate" - Table 1) and from the remainder of the Trips Use General Office Restaurant Bank Total -All Uses Trip Generation Analysis - Lakewood Development with Bank Estimate Based on Vermont National Count Size Total AM Trips Total PM Trips Total Daily Trips Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number 39400 s.f. 2.50 99 2.82 111 17.70 697 150 seats 0.05 8 0.14 21 2.34 351 2 win. 5.00 10 35.00 70 297.00 594 116 202 1,642 Entering Trips Use Size Entering AM Trips Entering PM Trips Rate Number Rate Number General Office 39400 s.f. 2.13 84 0.14 6 Restaurant 150 seats 0.03 5 0.09 14 Bank 2 win. 2.50 51 17.50 35 Total -All Uses 93 54 Use I Size I Exiting AM Tripsl Exiting PM Trips General Office Rate Number Rate Number 39400 s.f. 0.37 15 2.68 106 Restaurant 150 seats 0.02 3 0.05 8 Bank 2 win 2.50 5 17.50 35 Total -All Uses 23 148 Table 3 0 Lakewood development is summarized in Figure 1. With the planned traffic signal in place and without any new turning lanes, the intersection operates at level of service 13; short delays under this scenario. However, it is more likely that actual traffic levels will be closer to the estimates contained in Table 3 which are considerably lower than the levels evaluated in Figure 1. An analysis of intersections remote from the site should consider an additional feature of drive-in bank operations; most of the customer traffic comes from people who are already in the ft area, i.e. on their way home from work, and who stop by the bank as an incidental trip. Customers like this add to the turning volumes at the project accesses but do not add to the traffic at remote locations because they would be making a trip in the area anyway. A recent study of an area similar to Shelburne Rd., completed by the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Council (UVLSC),3 analyzed the extent to which various uses contribute to off -site traffic increases. Based on a survey of travelers at various locations along Rt. 12A in West Lebanon, New Hampshire, UVLSC estimated that peak hour off -site traffic increases from drive-in banks are only 10% of the driveway volumes. That is, approximately 90% of the bank traffic was estimated to come from vehicles that would be making a trip through the area whether or not the bank were there. As part of the Lakewood traffic impact analysis, a survey was conducted at the Vermont Federal Bank on Williston Rd. near Hinesburg Rd. to determine whether South Burlington had comparable bank traffic patterns to those observed in West Lebanon. The survey was administered to 126 customers on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 8-9, 1986. From the sample of 122 customers who drove to the bank, approximately 50% indicated that they would have made the trip past the bank whether or not they had bank business to conduct. Because this location is close to several major intersections, it was expected that more customers would detour slightly (and thus be counted as new trips) to visit this bank than would be the case at either the Lakewood location or along Rt. 12A in West Lebanon. 3 Rt. 12-A Comprehensive Traffic Study, UVLSC, August 1986. . , •, 1}L�-,':•�_ ,. 1.Sr:^'k: t .. .. r� :..,........-;..r.,. ...fir.: �:.�:.,... Summary - S1gnallzed 1ntersectlOn C8pac11yAn81ys1s - Ml`l 19851'lethad r-FA7 0 ©1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - Lakewood w/ Bank Shelburne SB N.A. Holmes Rd. Shelburne NB \\°p Traffic Volumes Holmes Rd. N.A. Shelburne NB Shelburne SB LT TH 201 0 0 0 C 1428 0 1454 RT 50 0 0 42 Total 251 0 1460 1496 Green Time Total Delay Group L05 Appr Delay Approach LOS Holmes Rd. 16 18.3 C 18.3 C N.A. Shelburne NB 38 7.1 B 7.1 B Shelburne SB 35 10.4 B 10.4 B Capacity Analysis Using IIigh Traffic Estimate Figure 1 P Assuming that 50% of the trips which enter and exit the Lakewood bank are, in fact, new to the Shelburne Rd. corridor, the net impact of this use compared to general office use is still a decrease in the morning peak period and an increase of only 11 trips in the afternoon peak hour ((202 - 70/2) - 156). This amount of increase is not significant enough to affect the conclusions regarding the Baldwin Ave. and Green Mt. Dr. intersections as reached in the January 1986 analysis. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Lakewood drive-in bank will not have significant negative traffic impacts. The site design ensures adequate on -site stacking area for drive-in customers, turning traffic at the Lakewood entrance and at the Holmes Rd. exit will be easily accommodated by the planned deceleration lane and traffic signal, and the additional off -site traffic generated is not significant enough to noticeably change service levels along Shelburne Rd. T-1 1f C0 1 Lakewood Development Traffic flow and Impacts Summary Prepared by: Resource Systems Group Norwich, Vermont For: Lakewood Associates Shelburne, Vermont October, 1986 Traffic Flow 1. The existing two driveway cuts onto Shelburne Road will be consolidated into one, which will be used for entrance traffic only. 2. An entrance/exit road will be constructed from the rear of the project onto Holmes Road. All traffic will exit via the new road, eliminating exiting traffic from existing driveway locations on Shelburne Road. NQ vehicles will exit directly onto Shelburne Road. 3. Covenants will require use of the rear access road by owners, employers and employees. 4. A traffic signal will be provided at Holmes Road to allow easy and safe access to and from Shelburne Road for both existing Holmes Road traffic and future Lakewood traffic. 5. Northbound traffic turning left into the project will have two easy and safe entrances to the project: 2 • The Holmes Road traffic signal will have a leading green phase, if necessary, to prevent queueing of left -turning vehicles on Shelburne Rd. However, the number of such vehicles is projected to be quite small. • Shelburne Road currently is five lanes opposite the project entrance and therefore allows traffic to pull out of the through traffic lane before turning into the project, preventing backup of vehicles. 6. Southbound traffic will have two convenient and safe entrances to the project: • A deceleration lane will be provided for vehicles using the entrance only on Shelburne Road, allowing this traffic to pull out of the through traffic lane before turning into the project. • The right turn off Shelburne Road onto Homes Road, in order to utilize the rear entrance, will be easy and safe. 7 Signage will be provided within the project to clearly identify the rear exit and one-way entrance off Shelburne Road. Traffic Impacts 1. The Lakewood Development, consisting of 42,000 square feet of commercial area plus a 150-seat restaurant, will generate approximately 200 one-way PM peak hour vehicle trips; this would represent an increase in this area of less than 8% over 1985 traffic volumes. 3 2. The activities housed in the development will not have sharp seasonal peaks such as occur for retail facilities in this area. 3. Given the design features listed above, the PM peak hour level of service at the Holmes Road/ Shelburne Road intersection will be B (short delays).Because at most 32 vehicles per hour are projected to turn left onto Holmes Road from Shelburne Road (northbound) no additional turning lane is required in advance of the VAOT's Shelburne Road widening project. 4. During the AM peak, traffic levels will be lighter and the predominant flows will be from traffic entering the project from the north, using the deceleration lane to turn off Shelburne Rd. Thus, levels of service will be even better during this AM period than in the PM peak. Conclusions The only major traffic -related effect of the proposed project will be an increase in traffic on the Holmes Road approach to Shelburne Road. The use of Holmes Road as a collector, elimination of all exiting traffic directly onto Shelburne Road, and installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Holmes Road and Shelburne Road are desirable features of the project from a traffic planning perspective. Overall, the Lakewood project will not have an undue or adverse impact on traffic flow in the area. Installation of the traffic signal at Holmes Rd. will improve trafic flow in the area by platooning through traffic and allowing better access from the many other driveways and sideroads in the area. Thomas J. (#dler Transportation Systems tinalgsis RR 1, Bon 512 J Norwich Vermont 05055 603/646-2613 802/649-1084 March 10, 1986 Mr. Charles Brush LaKewoou Associates Shelburne, Vermont Dear Charlie: At your request, I reviewed the f findings of my Lakewood traf f is Impact study (January 1986, addendum February 1986) to determine whether an increase of 11,000 square feet (from 37,000 to 48,000) in the commercial area would affect any of my findings. This change would add approximately 25 vehicle -trips to intersections to the north of the development and 10 vehicle -trips to intersections to the south. This additional traffic will increase the average delay at the Baldwin Ave. intersection by approximately one-half second per vehicle, keeping level of service within the C range. Delays at the Holmes Rd. intersection (assuming signalization) and at the Bartlett's Bay Rd, intersection are increased only one -tenth of a second per vehicle by this change. Summaries of the revised analyses are attached. The added 11,000 square feet of commercial space will not affect any of the conclusions reached from my earlier analyses. Best regards, Thomas J. Adler Transportation Systems Analyst TJA/mcw Enclosures cc: Craig Leiner Summsry - Siquslized 117tersWtAW7 Capscity AJ781y515 - W/f 1985)Yethad vO'I. 0 O 1985 ThomasJ. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Holmes Rd. Location: S. Burlington, Yermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - with Lakewood @ 48,000 sl ft Holmes Rd. Traffic Yolumes Holmes Rd. LT 116 TH 0 RT 46 Total 192 Shelburne SB Shelburne NB N.A. N.A. Shelburne NB Shelburne SB 0 3 0 0 712 1454 0 0 42 0 715 1496 Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Holmes Rd. 15.3 C 15.3 C N.A. Shelburne NB 10.4 B 10.4 B Shelburne 513 7.5 B 7.5 B Surnmary - Signelizr d lntersWtion CepgCityAnalysiS - llClY I9B5 tfethad y I D ©1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Baldwin Rd. Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHY - with Lakewood @ 48,000 sq ft Shelburne SB Baldwin Chrysler Shelburne NB Traffic Yolumes Chrysler Baldwin Shelburne NB Shelburne SB LT 32 5 10 85 TH 2 0 1761 1839 RT 45 55 16 15 Total 79 60 1787 1939 Total Delay Oroup LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Chrysler 182 C 18.2 C Baldwin 17.7 C 17.7 C Shelburne NB 19.3 C 16.4 C 16.4 C Shelburne 58 28.7 D 23.7 C 23.5 C Avery /nlerlion DeIBy 20.1 seconds Aver8X /nlermr on Z 05 C Smmvary - S/gnsllzad lntersgctlan G'ap8cltyAn8ly5ls - Net'f 19851Yethod Y07. 0 01985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Orn Mt Dr Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - with Lakewood @ 48,000 sq ft Shelburne SB I Orn Mt Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Bartlett Bay LT 106.25 TH 2.5 RT 35 Total 143.75 Orn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne 58 47.5 11.25 21.25 1.25 861.75 1 196 110 8.75 48.75 158.75 881.75 1266 Total Delay Oroup LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Bartlett Bay 30.6 D 30.6 D Orn M t Dr 33.8 Shelburne NB 1.3 4.2 Shelburne SB 1.3 33.5 D 33.6 D A 4.1 A A A 32.9 D D t. ��`� ,5 Chittenden County Re�;ioil�il Pl�iiining Conimi5sion 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 March 18, 1986 802 658-3004 Joseph E. R. Landry, P.E. Project Planning Engineer Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Joe: Enclosed is supplemental information concerning the proposed La�_..Dex lopinent.,. The applicant is requesting an addition of �,000 square feet of office space, resulting in generation of an additional 30-35 p.m. trips, and 28 a.m. trips. Consequently, I estimate southbound a.m. peak right turns into Lakewood Drive from Shelburne Road would increase to nearly 80, further supporting the need for a southbound decel lane at this location. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, CRAIG T. LEINER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER CTL:bf Enclosure V-16c: Jane Lafleur ... Serving the Municipalities of .. . Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond 6 i6o) f:Y- TCO, q. Thomas J. ndier ' Transportation Systems analysis RR 1, Box 512 Norwich Vermont 05055 603/646-2613 802/649-1084 March 10, 1 q86 Mr. Charles Brush Lakewood Associates Shelburne, Vermont Dear Charlie: At your, request, I reviewed the f indings of my Lakewood trufffc Impact study (January 1986, addendum Februar/ 1986) to determine whether an Increa3e of 1 1,000 square feet (from 37,000 to 43,000) in the commercial area would affect any of my findings. This change would add approximately 25 vehicle -trips to Intersections to the north of the development and 10 vehicle -trips to intersections to the south. This additional traffic will increase the average delay at the Baldwin Ave. Intersection by approximately one-half second per vehicle, keeping level of service within the C range. Delays at the Holmes Rd. Intersection (assuming signaiization) and at the Bartlett's Bay Rd. Intersection are increased only one -tenth of a second per vehicle by this change. Summaries of the revised analyses are attached. The added 1 1,000 square feet of commercial space will not affect any of the conclusions reached from my earlier analyses. TJA/mcw Enclosures cc: Craig Leiner D Q5 Tin F J f L'AR 1 2 1986 Best regards / Thomas J. Adler Transportation Systems Analyst CHITTEKLEN U.",}iri F. i�id;,l�►! Srievwery - ZVO791dzrad IItersxCMW C40,4 /tyAwlys/s - 0 1985 Thomas J. Adler Inter sect Ion: St:elburnP Rd Holmes Rd Location: S. Burl ington,Vermont Traffic Period PM DHY - with Lakewood 0 48,000 sq ft Shelburne SB NA I-k;lm�� Ru telburne NB Trnffic Yolume3 Holmes Rd LT 146 TH 0 RT 46 Total 192 NA Shelburne NB Shelburne SO 0 3 0 0 712 1454 0 0 42 0 715 1496 Totes Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS r,lmes Rd 15.3 C 15.3 C NA She'burne n13 10.4 D 10.4 a S`elhurrseSB 7.5 5 7.5 6 tieffivi VEXI. J sc'RAWY - srviae7rzadrArcrsrxrrao CWwcrryN,etysrs - /&YY r 01965 Thamas J. Adler InterGedion: ShelburneRdrBeldwinRd Location: S. Burlington, Vermont reffic Perrcf PM DHV - with Lakewood @ 43,000 sp ft Shelburne SB Baldwin Chrysler S,`O;1hurne, Q Trcffic Volume Chrysler Udwin Shelburne NB Shelburne SS LT 32 5 10 85 TH 2 0 1761 1839 2T 45 55 16 15 Told 79 60 1787 1939 To!al Delay Oroup LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Chrysler 1 a.2 C 18.2 C Bsltilvin 17.7 C 17.7 C tlburn; >18 19.3 C 16.4 C 16.4 C Shelburne 38 28.7 0 23.7 C 23.5 C no Aya ,Vr 1n(d---Q--f1a7 delcy 20.1 soomIs Ave gv 1171e^swIi&7105 .sas wary - SIgm112ad7nMrswt1w c4pxfffyAnsiys/s - ICY 1955lferAad r fXI. o B 1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersection: ;helburne Rd/Bartlett Bay Rd./Orn Mt or Location: S. Burlington, Yermont Traffic Period Phi DHY - with Lakewood 0 48,000 sq ft Shelburne S8 I Grn Mt Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NO Traffic Yalumm Bartlett Bay Orn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne S8 LT 106.25 47.5 11.25 21.25 TH 2.5 1.25 861.75 1196 RT 35 110 8.75 48.75 Total 143.75 158.75 881.75 1266 Total Delay Oroup LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Bartlett Bey 30.6 D 30.6 D Or n Mt Dr 33.8 D 33.8 D 5helburneNB t.3 A 4.1 A 4.2 A Shelburne 58 1.3 A 32.9 D 33.5 D Awam /nlerss:lan L�ley 22.5 seconds A /n&'=11 n 10S C &IMP sry - S1p70112W /nlerswllcn C49wllyM81YSIS - //M I B 1985 Thomas J. Adler Intersectlon: Shelburne Rd./Bartlett Bay Rd./Orn Mt Dr Location: S. Burlington, Vermont Traffic Period: PM DHV - with Lakewood @ 48,000 sq ft Shelburne SB I L_ Orn Mt Dr Bartlett Bay Shelburne NB Traffic Volumes Bartlett Bay Orn Mt Dr Shelburne NB Shelburne SB iLT 106.25 47.5 11.25 21.25 TH 2.5 1.25 861.75 1196 RT 35 110 8.75 48.75 Total 143.75 158.75 881.75 1266 Total Delay Oroup LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS Bartlett Bay 30.6 0 30.6 D Orn Mt Dr 33.8 D 33.8 D 5helburne NB 1.3 A 4.1 A 4.2 A Sfelburne SB 1.3 A 32.9 D 33.5 D 0 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 March 26, 1986 Susan Crampton, Secretary Agency of Transportation 133 State St. Montpelier, VT. 05602 Dear Mrs. Crampton: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 1 understand that David Kaufman has spoken with you regarding information I need on the Route Seven project. While I did not anticipate disturbing you with this request, he suggested I write a quick note outlining the information I need. This information will allow the City to design a development impact fee system to fund future improvements as well as coordinate the improvements necessitated by a development, such as deceleration lanes or signals,with State plans already in progress. This will help to eliminate haphazard and piecemeal planning of major improvements. I need the following information: 1). What are the design components of the widening between the start of the project in South Burlington and the town line including signals, sidewalks, turning lanes and deceleration lanes, etc? 2). What is the estimated cost of the South Burlington portion of the project? 3). What is the projected time table? Craig Leiner, Traffic Engineer at the Regional Planning Commission and I have been in touch with Mr. James Hoag and Mr. Joseph Landry regarding improvements specified by the City on the Lakewood project. It is our hope that these improve- ments can be coordinated with the State's plan and timetable. Other improvements will be included in the development impact fee we establish. The above information will help us review and manage this development as well as future developments. Thank you for any assistance you can give us on this matter. Sincerely, jat,cl , �,A� Jane B. Lafleur City Planner PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington -.. 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 14, 1986 Joseph E.R. Landry, P.E. Project Planning Engineer Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Landry: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 On February 11, 1986, the South Burlington Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to the Lakewood Associates PCD application on Shelburne Road. This development consists of 37,000 square feet of office space and a 150-seat restaurant. A general location map is enclosed for your use. A traffic impact analysis, prepared by Thomas J. Adler, Transportation systems analysis, Norwich, Vermont, was sub- mitted to South Burlington and received a detailed review by Craig T. Leiner of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The South Burlington Planning Commission considered the evidence prepared by Mr. Adler and Mr. Leiner, and agreed to approve the development subject to the applicant satisfying a set of conditions, four of which concern transportation. Accordingly, I am writing to inform you of these conditions since a review and approval by your agency is required. First, the applicant is required to pay for the installation of a semi -actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Holmes Road and Shelburne Road. The applicant agrees that the need for this signal is clearly attributable to the proposed development. I understand that the applicant is preparing information documenting that the warrants for a signal will be met at this location. This information will be provided to your agency at a later date. Further, the planning Commission will require the applicant to contribute his fair share to the design and/or construction of physical intersection improvements at this location. The physical improvements, suggested by Mr. Leiner, include provision of a two lane approach on eastbound Holmes Road in order to provide an exclusive lane for northbound left turns, as well as separate lane for southbound right turns. A third improve- Joseph E.R. Landry, P.E. February 14, 1986 Page 2 ment, a northbound left turn lane on Shelburne Road at Holmes Road, was recommended in order to provide sufficient storage for left -turning vehicles. The need for these turn lanes is not completely attributable to the Lakewood development, but reflects the judgement that as additional growth occurs on Holmes Road, the need for these improvements will become evident. Since I understand that design work on this section of Shelburne Road will soon be underway, I am bringing this design recommendation to your attention, and am requesting that your design consultants review the anticipated need for a left turn storage lane at this location. The final condition required by the South Burlington Planning Commission is that the applicant construct a deceleration lane on the southbound approach of Shelburne Road at the Lakewood Driveway, in order to accommodate right turns. Construction would be in accordance with VADT specifications, presumably standard sheet B-71, Detail F. The number of vehicles that will be making this manuever is estimated at 60 in the A.M. peak hour, and this volume, in conjunction with daily volumes that exceed 24,000, would seem to warrant this improvement. It is useful to recall that there will be a restaurant on the site that will generate trips during the noon lunch hour, as well as in the evening when southbound volumes are substantial. The above conditions reflect the strong desire of the South Burlington Planning Commission to manage the traffic impacts of growth in the Shelburne Road corridor. Private sector contributions for these types of improvements will have a positive effect on travel conditions in this corridor, and will help preserve the large public investments being planned for this road. Future proposed development will receive similar scrutiny, and I hope that we continue our cooperative effort to achieve these objectives. I hope you find the above information useful in your review process. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. S incerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/CL/mcp 1 Encl cc: Craig T. Leiner William J. Szymanski South Burlington Planning Commission FEBRUARY 1986 JOSEPH E.R. LANDRY, P.E. PROJECT PLANNING ENGINEER VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 STATE STREET MONTPELIER, VT 05602 DEAR MR. LANDRY: ON FEBRUARY 11, 1986, THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION GAVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE LAKEWOOD ASSOCIATES PCD APPLICATION ON SHELBURNE ROAD. THIS DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 37,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND A 150-SEAT RESTAURANT. A GENERAL LOCATION MAP IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR USE. A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, PREPARED BY THOMAS J. ADLER, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, NORWICH, VT, WAS SUBMITTED TO SOUTH BURLINGTON AND RECEIVED A DETAILED REVIEW BY CRAIG T. LEINER OF THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE PREPARED BY MR. ADLER AND MR. LEINER, AND AGREED TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT SATISFYING A SET OF CONDITIONS, FOUR OF WHICH CONCERN TRANSPORTATION. ACCORDINGLY, I AM WRITING TO INFORM YOU OF THESE CONDITIONS SINCE A REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY YOUR AGENCY IS REQUIRED. FIRST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SEMI -ACTUATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTER- SECTION OF HOLMES ROAD AND SHELBURNE ROAD. THE APPLICANT AGREES THAT THE NEED FOR THIS SIGNAL IS CLEARLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS PREPARING INFORMATION DOCUMENTING THAT THE WARRANTS FOR A SIGNAL WILL BE MET AT THIS LOCATION. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOUR AGENCY AT A LATER DATE. FURTHER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO CONTRIBUTE HIS THE DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL FAIR SHARETO Om IMPROVEMENTS Al THIS LOCATION. THE PHYSICAL INTERSECTION ^ SUGGESTED BY MR LEINER, INCLUDE PROVISION OF A TWO LANE HP IMPROVEM�N PROACH ON EASTBOUND HOLMES ROAD IN ORDER TO EXCLUSIVE LANE FOR NORTHBOUND LEFT TURNS,AS WELL PROVIDER*/ANE�ANE FOR SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURNS. A THIRD AS SEp� NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON SHELBURNE ROAD AT IMPROVEMENT'AWAS RECOMMENDED IN ORDER TO STORAGE FOR - PROVIDE SUFFICIENT HOLMES ROAD, LEFT TURNING VEHICLES. THE NEED FOR THESE TURN LANES IS NOT COMPLETELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LAKEWOOD DEV- ELOPMENT BUT REFLECTS THE JUDGEMENT THAT AS ADDITIONAL GROWTH OCCURS ON HOLMES ROAD, THE NEED FOR THESE IMPROVE- MENTS WILL BECOME EVIDENT. SINCE I UNDERSTAND THAT DESIGN WORK ON THIS HELBURNE ROAD WILL SOON BE UNDERWAY, I AM BRINGING THIS DESIGN RECOMMENDATION TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND REQUESTING THAT YOUR DESIGN CONSULTANTS REVIEW AM THE ANTICIPATED NEED FOR A LEFT TURN STORAGE LANE Al' THIS LOCATION. THE FINAL CONDITION REQUIRED BY THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCT A DECELERATION LANE ON THE SOUTHBOUND APPROACH OF SHELBURNE ROAD AT THE LAKEWOOD DRIVEWAY, IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE RIGHT TURNS. CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH VAOT SPECIFICATIONS, PRESUMABLY STANDARD SHEET B-71, DETAIL F. THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WILL BE MAKING THIS MANUEVER IS ESTIMATED AT 60 IN THE AM PEAK HOUR, AND THIS VOLUME, IN CONJUNCTION WITH DAILY VOLUMES THAT EXCEED 24,000, WOULD SEEM TO WARRANT THIS IMPROVEMENT. IT IS USEFUL TO RECALL THAT THE THERE WILL BE A RESTAURANT ON THE SITE THAT WILL GENERATE TRIPS DURING THE NOON LUNCH HOUR, AS WELL AS IN THE EVENING WHEN SOUTHBOUND VOLUMES ARE SUBSTANTIAL. THE ABOVE CONDITIONS REFLECT THE STRONG DESIRE OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION TO MANAGE THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF GROWTH IN THE SHELBURNE ROAD CORRIDOR. PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THESE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON TRAVEL CONDITIONS IN THIS CORRIDOR, AND WILL HELP PRESERVE THE LARGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS BEING PLANNED FOR THIS ROAD. FUTURE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RECEIVE SIMILAR SCRUTINY, AND I HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE OUR COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES. I HOPE YOU FIND THE ABOVE INFORMATION USEFUL IN YOUR REVIEW PROCESS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME. poweRmy, CL_ Im? ? r � of � � v I � t N33a� -t�r�Nnow-j f I I J WIVS O POR STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 February 19, 1986 Ms. Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Ms. Lafleur: We are writing to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of February 14, 1986, concerning Planning Commission actions and recommendations relative to the Lakewood Associates PCD on Shelburne Road. We have provided our Design Division with a copy of your letter and map for their information and use during the preliminary engineering phase of the Shelburne Road improvement project. Sincerely, J.E.R. Landry Project Planning Engineer By: Gordon B. MacArthur Planning Programs Engineer ¢�oNT acFtic� ,�v O 'A,9�SPOR�P,��O Mr. Charles N. Brush Lakewood Associates RR #4, Box 4113 Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Mr. Brush: STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 May 21, 1986 RE: So. Burlington, US 7, LS 45+80 & 52+40 LT Lakewood Development Our review of the additional data/analyses for this develop- ment as provided to us by Mr. Adler has been completed. In general, the proposed Lakewood Development project would not adversely impact US 7 traffic flows with the following proposed traffic engineering/geometric improvements in place: a right - turn deceleration, lane on US 7 constructed as per Agency Standard n B-71, Detail F; aentrance only access, conforming to Agency Standards, off US 7; all exiting traffic will be routed via Holmes Road; and tI-K-- instdllation of d semi -actuated traffic control siq_nal at the intersection of US 7 and Holmes Road. Detailed construction plans of the access layout and US 7 modifications must also be provided to the Agency for final review and approval. Sincerely, Wayne G. Martin Utilities Engineer Wes?: RDW : dd cc: Katherine Vose, Coordinator Joyce LaFleur, City Planner John Wood, DTA #5 Utility File �� ry . . ................... U.10 Ill-W .... ....... 613 --1 R.-)- �7 77� bo ond eu-ceJ Lei i6i A-o Lt� Z4 (JI � I. 6,(cl TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Southbound deceleration lane on Shelburne Road for right turns into the project. Traffic signal at Shelburne Road and Holmes Road (possibly semi -actuated by Holmes Road traffic ) . Left turn lane in Shelburne Road for north bound left turns i n t o t h gr o j�� . }4ol m� Two east bound lanes on Holmes Road. VOW Resource Systems Group AM Po Box 1104 JUN 0 8 1983 Route 5 South Norwich, Vermont 05055 802-649-1999 June 7, 1988 Charlie Brush Lakewood Associates RD #4, Box 4113 Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Charlie: As requested, I evaluated the effects on traffic of your proposed change in use for Lakewood building F from office to specialty clothing. My analysis consisted of two parts; 1) a comparison of actual trip generation rates of existing uses to those estimated in our original traffic impact study and 2) an assessment of the trip generation rate of the proposed new use compared to that currently permitted. The comparison of actual to estimated peak hour trip generation levels is shown in the table below. Building Size Estimated Trips AM PM Restaurant 150 seats 8 21 Building C 8,800 sq. ft. 22 25 Building D 8,800 sq. ft. 22 25 Total Estimated (6/88) 52 71 Total Observed (6/88) 20 54 As you can see, the current uses are generating traffic at a rate of only 60% of the level originally estimated. Even allowing for these uses to "mature" and for some day-to- day variation, it is clear that the uses actually occupying Lakewood are less traffic intensive than those on which the ITE averages, and thus our original estimates, were based. The proposed change in use of building F (6500 sq. ft.) from office to a retail clothing store will result in an estimated reduction in AM peak trips from 16 (using ITE office rates) to 2 and in PM peak trips an increase from 18 to 22. This projected PM increase is negligible, especially when compared to the reduction in observed rates for the existing uses from those originally estimated. As you will recall, I conducted a more detailed evaluation of a drive-in bank use of this space (Lakewood Development Traffic Impact Study Addendum 2: Drive-in Bank, October 1986). That use would have generated 70 PM peak trips (compared to 22 for this clothing store) but the level of service analyses conducted at that time indicated no significant traffic impact. In conclusion, the Lakewood project to date has attracted less traffic -intensive uses than assumed in the original traffic impact study. The proposed clothing store will reduce Thomas .l. Adler, Colin J. high, Dennis L. Meadows Principals Planning File Data for Computer Input 1. Original Property Owner t✓vo rJ 2. Developer's Name S*�` 3. Name of Development L 4. Address of Development or Project 5. Type of Project--__ -/t�s Minor Subdivision (MI) Major Subdivision (MS) Site Plan (SP) 6. -Zoning District 1 7. Zoning District 2 8. Zoning Board Approval date if Required 9. Date of Planning Commission Hearings/Meetings Site Plan Date or Sketch Plan Date 10. Preliminary Plat date _ - 11. Final Plat Date 12. Revised Final Plat Date 1 (if applicable) 13. Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if appli.cab.le) ' 14. Acreage of 'total �/Project pit l5. Use of Land 1 _ohC" (3`7/ IG. Use of band 'L l ��5�° �XrJ�.V� ��7ao +� r�L�►os � 1 Use of Land 3 .�� _____"_'�— . few. C /� 3 d'o 1 1 8 . l se of Land 1 19. Number of Lots 2U. Numher of Single Family Units 21. Numher of Multi - famiIy Unity - 22 . I•n('t i o�n Cost nf H11 i I d i n« 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 34. 36. 37. 38. Size of Building (Square footage) 7av Streets City Street CS Private Street PS Date of Acceptance of streets by City Bond -Landscaping Bond -Streets' _ Bond -Sewer Bond -Water Bond -Other Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) Date Recorded Expiration date of Approval _ Date of First Building Permit Tax Map Number /K,- -A — !__ Map File Location 1 Map File Location 2 Map File Location 3 Other fees ('Type and amount) Preparers Name: Date: Posted in Computer (Name, Date): 1Intersecti.on:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/90 ; 1Analy-=t:E::1F: TimePeri� d Anlyzd:19 0 AM Area Type: CBD XOther: 1F'roject No.L.akewood ._ Cit;./Sta.te::_,outh Burlington, Vermont 1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT :INPUT VARIABLES/COMPU 1-AT I%�NS E:c. 1442 ---1 t B SB _; :Cycle Length, , C (sea) 70. 00 70.00 1 �' i. 00 70.00 ; !Effective Green, g (sec) 1 10.00 1 10.00 1 51.00 1 51.00 1 !Number of Lanes, N ; 1 1 1 ; 2 1 2 ; 1"otal Approach Flew Rate, 'Va(vph1) 1 54 1 31 1 1292 1 1353 ; !Mainline Flaw Rate, 1+m Wph) 1 21 1 31 1 1292 1 1=5= 1 ;Lest -Turn Flow Rate, VI t Wph) 1 __ 1 _ 1 17 1 150 ; 1 F'roport i on of LT, Pit 0.61 1 1.00 1 0.01 1 0.11 1 !Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 1 a 1 2 1 2 , :Opposing Flow Rat_, Vo Wph) 1 31 1 21 1 135 1 1292 1 !Prop. of LT in Opp. 'Vol.. Plt10 1 1..00 1 0.61 ; 0.11 1 0.01 1 ;Sop = 1800No/(1+F'itoE(400+ m)etc, i 1 1510 1 r_ 26S 1 ; Yo = Vo/Sop 1 0.022 1 0.014 1 1.029 1 0.494 ; 1 Gu = (g-CYo) / (1-Yo) 1 8.62 ; 9.15 ; 0.00 ; 32.48 ; ;r•s _ (8/5-0.625Vo)/1000 ; 0.256 1 0.862 1 0.()29 1 0,068 ; 1F'I - F'1tE1+(N-1)g/ (FaGu+4.5) 3 1 0.611 1 1.000 ; 0.124 1 0.956 1 1 1 1 Gq = g - G! ; 1 1.38 1 O. S5 ; I 51.00 00 1 r1 52 1 1 c• ...�.� i :Pt = 1 - Pi 1 0.389 1 0.000 1 O. S76 ; 0.044 ; 1 Gf = 2F't E 1-F't.:.. (. 5Gq) 3 /P1 1 0.609 1 0.000 1 13.635 1 0.093 ; 01 = 1800/ (1400-Vo) 1 1.315 1 1.305 1 S. 298 1 16.667 1 1Fm - Cif/g + t_7u:/g A E1/(!+F'1 etc. 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 0.311 1 0.118 ; !Fit _ (F m+ N- 1 N 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 0.656 1 0.559 1 i'--'•-•--'------'--�-------'-'-----'---'--'--�--•----•-•--'•-•----'--••--•-'---•--------'-•--------�------------------ 1 ' 1 t_ n r, i'r+ RE�'_'+�L�11(.CE SYSTEMS wil_h, Vermont, using 4. rCAP by PSI I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/90, ; ;Analys•t:K']F:: TimeP rind Anlyzd: 1990 AM Area. Type: CBD XDthcr-; :Project No. Lakewood 3 City/State: Soi_ith Burlington, Vermont = CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEF_T LANE GROUP _ 4 5 ; c: ; ? ; 2 ; 9 ; ----------- Adjusted ; Ad . Sat ; Flow Ration ; Ln . Gr_ p ; v / C : Cr i t . ; 1 ; 2 Flow Rate ; F1 w. Rt ; Ratio ,Capac. Ratio , Appr.;Mvmt.; v s ; V/s g / C ;c,vph ; X ;Lane _.. 1 0.143 _ 1 r=? . =' 4 1 k - -- - --- - '------------ ' ------ '---•---------- '-------- ' ------ '-------' - ---- ' r - ; 28 - ; 1522 ; 0.018 - ; 0.143 ; 2 1 ! i I_) . 1 29 , ------------ --- __- i -_.._____ i _----- ;- - - - - - - ; r'•�:_ , H , 1557 , 2328 1 0.583 1 0.729 , 1696 , 0.800 , , ------------ ---._.___ _---___.-.....-_--__._..-- 1-1 ; 1421 - ; 1 ? C' 1 ; 0.717 '__ ; 0.729 ; 1444 ; 0.934 '--------------------------•-------------------.--._.---------------•---------------' ;C•ycle Length= 70. )se'- Lost Time/Cycle= L= 9,i)sec S'(v/= 0.752, 0 3' KANE GROUP D I AGRAMS-- r * * * = PR07 CTD, ++.+ = PERMTTD , ### = PRCTCTD & PERMTTD ] ; -----------------------------------------------------------•- ' rD H ; Q ; __..._.__..._..___-----.-__---__-__-------.--_----_.•-__----.-.-._._.-.--.---._...___--------____.__.-_._----.-- -- RE:-O I RCE SYSTEMS -1•^,S GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using naCAP by PSI ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6`28/90 1 1 Ana1 yst : KQ: Ti mePer i od An l yz d : 1'7'= 0 AM Area Type: CGD XOther : : Project No.Lakewood _ City/7tate: mouth Burlington, Vermont ' r �._ _-LEVEL-OF-GERYI C•E_WOR::.SHEET._.....-- : : F l rst Term Delay_____ Term D l a.y ; o & n 1_.ANE ; - ; Z1; r ; 6 7 ; E; ; 9 ; 10 ; 1 1 : 12 1 13 GROUP! v/c i Green: Cycle! Delay i Lane! )� r r , i , y Delay a'�y , F'r��r_n , I_a.nc Gp r Ln r Apprct-, ,Apr -----: Ratio: Ratio:Length! dl :Group: d'._' :Factor: Delay 1 Gp: Delay KOO 1 2 , X g / C r C , sCC % vcC1'-, , Cap , c , =•LC r JE'h r F"'I' ; Sr:•r i '•Jeh , LOB= i sF: C /'''JCh r Tb l Ap:Mv1 : ; (sec. : : (vph): :T.9--1.71 (6+8)*i1`?-1: EB I H ; I_). ;":'i2: 0.1431 70.01 20.241 2231 0. 11 : 1.00 1 20.361 C i 20.361 C , V+ B I D : 0.0121 0.1431 70.01 19.581 2561 0.001 1.00 ;19.581 , 19.891 i , 0.1291 1 7-• i re. , "ti 71 - ,, i , 1r �?. 14J� /�.!. �?, 1'7. 1, ..w1i i I). ().L., 1.i)4) 19.921 C NB; H : 0.8001 0. 729 ; 70. 0 ; 4.701 1 6'-'i;6 1 00 : 1.00 ; 6.701 B : _ . 70 : B B : H : 0. 984 : c_). 29 ; 70. 0 : -- . 9' 1 14441 15.071 1.00 ; 22. 00 : C : 22.001 C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' i )el 69 sec/veh, intersection L ._ B Table 1 1 , i n {: k_ r" �-. e !_ - 1 o n Delay 1 =fir . ` � i _a %� �-; ;.� 7 , 1---------•-----••--------•----------------•-------••---••-----_.----_._..--------------••-------------•------; r NGROUP r I.,r-R., _ PROTCTD, fff = PERMTTD, ### = PRO CTD & PERMTTDa 1 1 _...-____..-_...___..._._--_...__..........-__---._._...._......._..__._...__.-.._.__._.__._._...__--...__....__.-.-.--__.---._.._-.._.____.-_--.---_--.__.___-_ 1 D " 1 H Q : 1 : + : + r ' , -__-___----__-_---------------------__----_--_-_----__-______-----_-----___-- RESIJRCLS'S-`ht GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP byPSI ' , ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : INPUT WORKSHEET ; :Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/7/9(:) ; ;Analyst:k::JI::: Ti.mePeriod Anlyzd: 1990 PM DHV Area Type: CBD XOther: ; Project No.Lakewood _ City/State: South Burlington, Vermont ; VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS :Shelburne Rd N/S ST.: ; : C13467 SB TOTAL : 2 ; - i 1 - C 1133 < v > : 12.0 : -W9 TOTAL: (N) 16 1288 42: TH I III , 31 v : I III 1 : NORTH v ------------------- , •-•----RT-12. 0' -1 ; : i <:: v--LTH-12. 0' -1 : !IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM -------- ' :^.Lanes,lane widths : TH : Holmes ; = . Movements• by lane 135 : 12. 0: E/ W STREET : 14.Park:ing locations - 1440 ; :5. Bay storge ingths C 1623 -> 2 : 9 :6.lslands E/B TOTAL - : C14521 I ir. Bus stops v 24 I I N/B TOTAL I :TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS ; : Ap: Grd . ; HY Ad i . Pkg . Lane Buses ; PHF : of . Ped : Pedstrn Button! Arr.! :pr; !;:) : : Y/N : Nm : (Nb) : ; (pd/hr) : Y/N :Mn.Ti.me: Type: :EL::+c .01 1.0 ; N : 0 0 0.90 ; it IV 1 - I I I I �� _ , ; WB : +0. 0 1 1.0 : N : 0 0 0.90 0 : N : 0 : _ ; : NB ; +(_ . 0 1 2.0 ; N : 0 ; 0 ; 0.90 : 0 : N : 0 I I : ---------•---•------------------------------------------------•---------------------•--- I :Grade:+up,-down Nb:buse_. stopping/hr ' Mi.n.Timing: min.green for : !HV:veh. .• 4 whl=_. PHF:pea.k:-hour factor pedestrian crossing: : Nm: pkg, maneuver_/hr- Cnf . Peds: Cnf lctng peels/hr Arr-•. Type: Type 1-5 :PHASING I I I I I I I I * I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 D I ;<**+:` 1 I I 1 r I V I + I I I I I I I I I I G : ' I i I I + * * ' t•1 1 I I I ;Tim- : G= 51.0: G= 10,0: G= 0.0; G= 0.0; G= 0.01 G= 0.0! 0.0! G- 0.0: i ng ; Y+R= 5: Y+R= 4: Y+•R= fir: Y+R= O: Y+R= O: Y+R= � i; Y+R= O: Y+R= 0: :Ptmd/Act: : Protested turns: Jt***— ocoo : Permitted turns: -------------------- : ++++. ; Cycle Length 0 Sect 1 -, RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI ; --------------------------------------------------------------- :Intersection:Shelbur-ne Road/Holmes Road Date:5i9/90 ;Analyst:K&:f TimePeriod Anlyzd: 1990 PM DHV Area. Type: CBD XOther: Project No. Lakewood _ Ci tv'Sta.te: South Burlington, Vermont VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 1 ; 2 ; _ ; 4 5 ; 6 i % ; r ; 9 ; 10 ; 11 ; ; Appr .: Mvt . ; M t . ; Peak ; Flow ; Lane : F1 w rt : Number : Lane ; Adj. ; Prop. :Volume: 1_ I I Rate ; Greup : i n Ln : - F : U•t i l �i ; Flow ; of 1 I Ivul�!�nrl I.11:���.r 1 to I 1_1� : (vph) :Factor: Vp ; :Grp Vg : Lane : Fctr , U: V, p1h : LT or RT; I 1 1 PHF : 3/4 1 : (.;ph ) ; N Kb 9-4: 7 .. 9 ; Pl t , Prt I I I I LT ; 1351 0.90 : 1501 ; ; : ; ; 0.83 LT EB ; TH ; 31 0.90 ; 31 H ; 180 : 1 ; 1.00 ; 1801 4 RT ; 241 0.90 ; 271 1 ; : 1 ; 0.15 RT I 1•-•---- 1 i __.----- I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 LT ; 311 0.90 ; 341 : ; : ; 0.97 LT WB ; TH ; 11 0.90 ; 11 D : 351 1 ; 1.00 : 351 #: : RT ; 811 0.90 ; 901 0 ; 90 : 1 ; 1.00 : 901 1.00 RT i 1 1-•------ 1 1 1------- 1 I 1 I I I LT ; 91 0.90 ; 1 0 1 ; : : ; ; 0.01 LT NB ; TH : 14401 ; 0.90 ; 16001 H ; 16131 2 ; 1.05 ; 1694 : � RT ; 31 0.90 ; = : 1 ; ; ; : 0.00 RT 1 1 T 1 .� n l 0.90 1 n 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0� 0.3 LT I i 1 L, 1 --r i t 1 �i• � 1 I I 1 1 1 I SB ; TH ; 12881 0.90 ; 14311 H ; 14961 2 ; 1.05 ; 15711 : RT ; 16.; 0.90 ; 18; : ; ; ; 0.01 RT 1-----------_-------------------------------____----------------------------- - 1 nrE GiC_F DIAGRAMS-[*** - ;ROTCTL, Ff- = FER'TTD, r#* = PrOfCTD 'PERMTr 3 I: ;-----•----._._.----.......__......_...._.._.._..._...-----....---------------•----•-------•-••-------•--------•--------- 1 D H 0 I I 1 _i 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 v 1 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI :Inter-ection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:5/9/9(:) :Analyst:KQ-.'. Time Period Anlyzd: 1990 PM DHV Area Type: CDO X0'_her; :Project No.Lak:ewood ? City/State:South Burlington, Vermont : SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT" WORKSHEET LAND_ : - : 4 : 5 : b : 7 : 1 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12 : 13 3ROUP:Ideal :No.:Ln.W. :HvyVeh:Grade : Pkg. :9us8l:AreaTp:Rt Trn:Lt Trn:AdiSat -----: Sat. :of : Fw : Fhv : Fg : Fp : Fbb : Fa : Frt : F1t :FlwR-t 1 : 2 : Flow : Ln s : ------ : ------ : ------- : ------ :-•----•- :------ : ------ : ------ : S Ap:MV:pcpl-gp: N :T.?-5 :T.9-•6 :T.9-7 :T.9-8 :T.9 :T.9-10:T.9-11:T.9-12: (Vphg) _& H : 1 800 : 1 : 1.0301 0.9951 1 � f 00 1 1 . f )00 1 1 . 000 1 1.0001 0 . 0 : 0 . f) ' _, ., ., 88_, 7_�, 1146 WB : D : 1800 : 1 : 1 . 000 : 0.9951 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1791 : n: 1800 : 1 : 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.8501 1.0001 1522 NB : H : 1800 : 2 : 1.0001 0.9901 1 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.7271 2590 S B : H : 1800 : 2 : 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1 . 000 : 1.0001 1.0001 0.9981 0.5561 1986 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-C*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCiD & PERMTTD'): --------------------------------------------------- ' : D : H •' : Q + + ' ---.__.....----- ----- : RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, 1' cr wi ch, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI -------------------------•------------------------------------------------------ :Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:5/9/90 :Analyst:kW. TimePeriod Anlyzd:1990 FM DHV Area Type: CBD XOther ;Project Rio. Lakewood 3 City/State: South Burlington, Vermont SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT :INPUT_VARIABLES/COMPUTATIONS EB _: WB- : : SB :Cycle Length, C (sec) 1 70.00 : 70.00 : _NB 70.00 : 70.00 00 :Effective Green, g ( sec) : 10.00 1 10.00 : 51.00 : 51.00 :Number of Lanes, N : 1 : i : 2 : 2 :Total Appcnach Flow Rate, Va(vph) : 180 : 125 : 1611 ; 1496 Wai nl i ne Flow Rate, Vm (vph) : 30 : 125 : 1599 : 1399 :Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vit (vph) : 150 : =4 : 10 : 47 : !Proportion of LT Pit 1 0.831 0.97 : 0.01 ' 0.03 :Opposing Lanes, No : 1 : 1 i 2 2 : :Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) : 125 : 0 : 1=99 : 1399 : : Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Pito : 0.97 : 0.83 0.03 : 0.01 :Sop = 180ONo/(1+PltoL(400+Vm)etc.: 1379 : 1=40 : 63 : 296 ' Yo - Vo/Sop : 0.091 i 0.022 ' CC. 353 ' 4.723 1 : Gu _ (g-CYO) / (1-Yo) : 4.02 : 8.63 : 0.00 ; 0.00 Ws = (875-0. 6?5Vo) / 1000 : 0.797 : 0.856 : 0.001 : 0.001 : : P1 = Pl t E l+ (N-1) g/ (FsGu+4. 5) ] : 0.833 : 0.971 : 0.076 : 0.387 : r-,q = g - Gu : 5.98 : 1.37 : 51.00 : 51.00 : : pt = 1 - Pl : 0.167 : 0.029 : 0.924 : 0.613 : Q-: = 2PtC1-Pt'•(. 5Gq) ]/P1 : 0.398 : 0.054 : 20.979 : 3.162 : 01 1 = 1800 / (1400-Vo) : 1.412 : 1.314 : 1800. 000 : 1800,000 1 % = Gf /g + Gu/ g * C 1 / (1+pl etc, : 0.706 706 : 1.000 : 0.454 : 0.116 : ;Fit = (Fm, + N - 1) / N ----------------------------------•------------------------------------------- i 0. 706 : 1 . (:)C)C) : 0.727 : 0.558 : RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------•------ Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI : ----------------- :Interser_tion:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Dater/9/9(:) 1 ;Analyst:KJk:: TimePeriod Anl•yzd:1990 PM DHV Area Type: CBD XOther: !Project No.LaF;ewood = City/State:South Burlington, Vermont ; CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORFSHEET ; :LANE GROUP 1 _ 4 1 5 6 : 7 8 1 9: ----------- 1 Adjusted ;Ad.Sat: Flow Ratio : Green :Ln.Gr-p; v/C 1Crit. ; : 1 : ? 1 Flow Rate :F1w.Rt: : Ratio :Capac.: Ratio 1 : Wppr.:Mvmt.: v : s : . v/s : g / C 1c,vph 1 X :Lane : (vph) 1(vphg): =/4 : : 4x6 1 3/7 :Group: 130 - : 1146 1 0.157 - : 0.143 1 164 : 1.100 -'---:-----;------'----------;------------------- 1------- :------ 1-------:-----: 1VJB ; D : 35 - : 1791 1 0.020 - 1 0.143 1 256 : 0.137 - �j 1 9(? : 1 522 1 0.059 1 0.143 1 217 1 0.414 : - -- -- ----'------------ 1 ------ 1----------------- 1------- ' ------ '------- , : h'I:B ; FI 1604 - 1 2590 ; 0.654 - 1 0.729 : 1887 1 0.898 1 1 1 1 ------- --'- B 1' i : 1571 - 1 1986 1 0.791 - 0 7 1.086 '_----_.-_--__----_----_.--__.----------------------------•--------------------------------- ' , : Cycle Length= 70. )sec, Lost Time/Cycle, L= 9.0sec, S (v/s) ci= 0.948, Xc=1 .063: 1LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTDI: , 1 D 1 H 0 , : + ; + ' v : v RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAF by F'SI -; ._.-_---.--_--•-- •-_-_..-.-(- .---_._."-.-_--_-_-__ ; 1Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date•5/9/9") , ;Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlycd:1990 PM DHV Area Type: CBD XOther; ;Project No.Lakewood = City/State:South Burlington, Vermont ; __-__LEVEL-OF-SERV I CE_WORK SHEET ; First Term Delay_:____- elay ; __ Second Term Delay_ 1 Tot . Del ay._?<_LOS LANE ; _ ; 4 1 5 1 6 ; 7 �; S ; 9 1 10 ; 1 1; 12 ; 1 SROUP1 v:c 1 Green; Cycle; Delay 1 Lane! Delay 1Prgr-sn;Lane Gp1 Ln; Apprch;Apr -----; Rati.o1 Ratio1Length1 d1 :Group; dC ;Factor: Delay ; Gp; Delay :LOS 1 1 21 X 1 g / C 1 C ; sec /veh 1 Cap , c 1 sec / veh 1 PF ; sec / v eh 1 LOS 1 sec / veh 1 Tb l Ap1Mv; ; ; (_-ec)1 ;("ph); ;T.9-171(6+8)*919-1; ;9-1 B I H 1 1.1001 0. 14.3 : 70. 0 ; 2 . 19 ; 1641 92. 66 ; 1.00 ; 1 15. 31 : F ; 1 15. 8 f : F WE: D 1 0. 137 1 0. 14 _ 1 70. c_; ; 19. 9? 1 2561 0.021 1 1.00 ; 19. 95; C 21 . Ci s ' C 0; 0.414; 0.1431 70.01 20.77' 217' 0.75: 1.00 1 21.521 C ; NE 1 H 1 0.8981 0. 7C9: 70.01 5. 67 1 18871 4.491 1.00 10. 16: B 1 10. 16 1 8 70.01 9.381 144745.901 1.00 1 55.281 E 55.:.81 E 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 ; 1 -----------------•-----------•-----------•-•- 1lntersection Delay 35.72 sec/veh, Intersection LOS D Table 9.1 ' 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KANE GROUP DIAGRAMS;-C*.** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ##�I#�i# = PROTCTD & PERMTTD71 __-.___-_-__----__ , , v -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using N AP by PSI ° --------------- [NPUT WORKSHEET |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road ' Dat=:6/23/90 | |AnaIyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 AM NB Area Type: CBD XOther| }Project No -Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | |============================================================ =================| :VOLUME ANZ GEOMETRlCS :Shelburne Rd N/S ST.| | | [1224] | 25 ^ | | ^ SB TOTAL | 1 1 1 | | | | | | | | 12.0 0 <- [ 283 | | | < v > | 12.0 1 12.0 � -WB TOTAL| | (N) 47 1042 1351 RTH TH LT 3 v | | |}| ----------------- < | > ----------_______| | NORTH v v ^---RT-12.0'-1 | | <v--LTH-12.0`-1 | | | '| | !IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12.0'--TH ^ ^ . | :I.Volumes . ----------------- < | > -----------______| 12.Lanes,lane widths | LT TH RTH / Holmes | !3-Movements by lane ^ 30 | 12.0 | 12.01 E/W STREET � 14.Parking locations - | | 12.0 | | 1128 | 15.Bay storge lngths [ 493 -> 0 | 1 1 1 | 12 <^> 29 | 16.Islands E/B TOTAL - | | [1169] | 17.Bus stops v 19 } | N/B TOTAL | !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS | |============================================================= ================( |Ap|Grd.| % HV | Adj.Pkg.Lane | Buses ( PHF |Cnf.Ped| Pedstrn Button| Arr.| |pr| (%)| | Y/N | Nm | (Nb) |(pd/hr)| Y/N |Mn.Time: Type! |--|----|-------|-------|-----__|_______|__-----�-______|______-|-------|-----| |EB|+0.01 1.0 N | O | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | 1WB1+0.01 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |NB|+0.01 2.0 1 N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |SB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | 1_______________________________________________ ______________________________| |Grade:+up,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: min.green for � |HV:veh. > 4 whls PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing| |Nm:pkg.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 � |================================================= ============================| :PHASING | |=========================================== ==================================| | | * |^ | | | | | | | | D | I |<**+> | A | v }+ | | | | | | | | G | |v ^| | | | | | | � R | ^ | +| | | | | | | 1 A | <+**>| *****>| | | | | | | | M | | * | v| | | ( | | | |----- :--------|--------|--------�----____|________|________|________|________| |Tim- | G= 51.01 G= 10.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 | ing |Y+R= 5|Y+R= 4|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0IY+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= ^0| |-----|--------/--------|--------|________|__------|--------|--------|--------| |Ptmd/Act| |---------------------------- ------------------------------ ___________________| | Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ 1 Permitted turns: ++++^ | Cyc le Length 70 Sec| _ |------------_______________________ _ ________________________________________| � RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | .. 1Intersect:on helburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6 28/ 0 1Analys.t:F'.ik. TimePeriod An'lyzd:19 5 AM NB Area Tyre: CBD XOther-1 : Pro lei 't No.Lakewood _ Ci'ty/'Chafe: youth Burlington, Vermont ' VOLUME AL:1JiUSTMENT WGFvF:;-_HEET I : 1 : 2 : _ : 4 : r : b : 7 9 : 1�) : AP r . 1 Mvt .: Mvt . Peak 1 Flow Lane : Fl w rt 1 Number 1 Lane Adj. Prop. : 1 I 1G• 1 1 ... _ :'i1.me. Hour 1 Rate 1L�roup tin Ln 1 of 1Uti.1iz1 Flow 1 of : : : (vph) : Factor! Vp 1 ; r : Lanes 1 Fc F i I' V p Vg � r-, 1 , vph 1 LT ter- RT: 1 i HF 1 _ /'4 1 1! vph 7 1 N Kb 9•-•4 1? x 9 1 P1 •t , Prt 1 1 LT 1 30! 0.90 1 __: 1 1 1 1 0.61 LT 1 h B; 1 -1 H 1 01 0.90 1 01 H 1 541 1 1 1.00 1 541 * 1 1 RT 1 191 0.90 1 211 1 1 1 1 1 0.39 RT ' 1 LT 1 31 0.90 1 31 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 LT WB 1 fH 1 () 1 0.90 1 01 D 1 31 1 1 1.00 1 31 1 RT 1 251 0.90 0 1 281 0 1 281 1 1 1.00 1 281 1.00 RT 1 : 1 LT : 12 1 0.90 : 1 ; B : 1 •3 : 1 : 1.00 : 13 : 1.00 LT : 1 NB : TH : 1 128 ! 0.90 : 1.`�"._� 1 C : 1 29 J: 2 1 1 . 05 1 13491 1 , T �. � R: 1 9 1 0. 9C 1 321 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 RT ' �. n u' 1 1 5 1 1 i C' I 1 LT : 1=•_•I ()„ •(t , 1.J()1 Ei 1 1_,�), 1 1 j.,()() 1 i,,�l)1 1.�)r.-1 LT i 1 SE 1 ! 1 1 10421 0.90 1 11581 0 1 12101 2 1 1.05 1 12711 -------•-- _ I I_A E GROl._,.- D I A RAh:•_...... E * _ * ._ 1 • ROTCTD , +_t-f = (='L'r`a'1'1 TD, ### = PROTC D & F'LRMTTD 7 1 I -.-.-•------__._._.------------_...-------------'--------••-------•------'------------------------------ .. ' 7' 1 YY 1 H 0 1 0 1 � + 7 + 1 ++++ 1 .. �1`'i' �'M1 1 �'I` .'}', +� I :i•..'�. , 'n :F +P ?. ! 1 i i 1 yy {e 1 I I 1 i 1 •{+ 1 ./ 1 .v 1 1 ..._—..__.._. .._—-..__.-_—_.-_--._—_—,—_.----.._._.._._.._._—.___—_—.____.__..__..__---__-----------------------_ 1 - I F:;BSLi!_R :F SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI 1 IV 1 inter-ser_tion: Shel bur-ne Road/Holmes 1•::11 . / F�c_.� Date. � 8/9i) 1 1 1F•,nal•ywt=k:: TimePeriod An1•yzd: 19` 5 AM NB Area T� C s !t'-p ' Type: ED XC" 11__r 1 1 Project No. Lakewood = City/ St_ •te: Sol_tth Burlington, Vermont ' SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WCiRKSHEE:=T ; LANE 3 1 4 1 c 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 11 1 12 -1 -13. GF:OUP 1 ld al 1 No. 1 Ln. W, 1 H•v•.a'' eh 1 Gr-ade 1 Pkg, 1 Bu sBl k 1 Ar•eaTp 1 Rt Trn 1 Lt Trn 1 Ad Sat ----- 1 Sat. :of 1 Fw 1 Fhv 1 Fg Fp 1 Fbb 1 Fa. ; Frt 1 F 1 t 1 F1 wRt 1 1 21 Flow 1Lns'-----_-1 1 r-, -_. AN 1 M�•.� 1 pr_pt-I��p 1 !`d 1 T.'�'-._,� 1 T.'��-�� 1-f.'�'--? 1 T. 9-;� �_____._._. i S 1 T.9--'� 1 1,-_ .9---101 T. 9-11 1 1 f.9-1.-' 1 (vphg) 1 , 1 E B i H i 1800 1 1 1 1.0001 0. r 5 1 1.0001 1,0001 1,0001 1.0001 0.8471 1.0001 1512, 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i i i i __- 1 WB i l: 1 1800 )f) ; 1 .. , •1 , I 1 1 1.t_001 0.9951 1.00:)1 1.000, _i. i at it y 1 1.� )cit_) 1 1.0001 u 1.0001 1791 1 0 1 1800 1 1 1 1.0001 0. 995 1 1. 000 1 -i -- 1 1 1 - - - I l.t:�)�i1 l.t:)t:?ti1 l.t:)t_)ci, 0,8501 1.0001 15' i B 1 1800 8 0 1 1 1 1. 0 0 1 0- 990 1 1. 000 1 1. 000 1 1. t; 00 1 , t_Jt 1t_) 1 1 1 � 2 1 1.i)i)C), t:), 1�541 �9.� 1.0001 t-) . 99t.) 1 1 . C_?i 0 1 1 . i i00 1 1 . ! )f 0 1 1.0001 0.9961 1.0001 3551 1 1 1 I I 1 B 1 1800 1 1 1 1.0 00 1 0- 99 _ 1 1- 000 1 1. t_100 1 1.000 1 1.0001 1.0001 0.1291 n "t-) SB i 01 1800 1 2 1 1.0001 l). 9 9t i 1 -1 - l )t 0 1 1, 0 0 1 1.0001 1.0001 0.9941 1.0001 1 -. 1 541 -- 1 _.-._-.-..-_....._-...--_._._...-.-----._.-....-------------_.__.._----'-•'-------__-___------__ _ 1 1 -1 1 LANE GROUP P DlAC1�:r;1`S--E.� ** = PROTCTD, fff = PERMTTD. ##•t# = PRO T CTU ��<PERM'i TD-J 1 1 ---- 1 B .. 1 ' - +•- 1 fi 1 C! 1 ra 1 1 v i 'v i 1 1--------------------.__--------- F'ESOURCE h`f'STEr{S GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, .sing NCAF' b,,; F:SI 1 1O 1lntersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/?'() 1 1Analyst:f JK. Ti1TsPeriod , Anly zd: 19':'J y' AM NB Are._7, Type: CBU :�!]thi�r 1 1 Wroject No -Lakewood : Ci t'yi ;_,tate: So1_4th Burlington, Vermont 1 1 1 _ ' SUPPLEMENTAL AL Wr c� C, ' E+...,i';�t r F� -'-----------------..__...._.-'----------c•a==___-_•_-.mac;=•:.:_====__.--_ � Irk' h Lt=. i= T-_TLiF� N ADJUSTMENT � r LT -1 1 I NPUT VAR I ABLEC: COMPUTAT ION E B ; WB ; :c�•_a _=az;-; 1 � , ;Cycle Length, C (s_1_) 1 70.00 1 70.00 1 NB 70.00 1 .�B ; 70,00 1 ; !Effective Green, g (=Ie[ ; -- 1i1„ r',t;i , 1 1 1i), �)t? r_-• J1. t)r,'> . ; 51.00!Number ; of Lanea, • ; i 1 1 ; 1 ; 1 ; 1TotaI Approach Flow Rate, Va(vph); 54 31 1 98 V 1298 �;•, ! 1 13V�' !Mainline Flow Rate, 1,.m !•..;. h) 21 1 '1 ; 1285 ; 1210 f Weft -Turn ;'_ow Rate, Vitr .JI' h) ; __ 3 1 13 1 150 1 i l-rop1=r'tioit of LT, Pit ; 0.61 ; 1.00 ; 1.00 ; 1.00 !Opposing Lanes, r _: 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 !Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (,,.phi) 31 1 21 • 1 1210 1 1285 11 1 op. of LT in Opp. Vol. P1to ; 1.00 1 0.61 1 - 1 -.00 1 !Sop = 1800No; (1+Pl toE (4i:);_)+Vm) etc. ; 1379 ; 1510 1 3600 1 36001 1 G - yo' � ; 'o;'0.022- ; ti, �)14 ; f). _,� ; 0.357 ; 1 _ , 1 Gi! - (g-?_Vri) / (1-'Yo) ; 2.62 9.15 ; 41.38 ; 40.45 ; Ws- , _: ti. t✓5.5 1 ti. Obi 1 0.119 ; 0.072 ' 1P1 = P1tl1+(N-1)gr (F_".ru..!_4.5) 1 1 0.611 1 1.000 ; 1.000 1.000 1 1 1 G y = g - r_ I_I. ; 1.38 ; 0.85 1 1 9. 6 1t?. JJ ; 1- - 1 ._ 1 1 16f = 2Pt C 1-Pt" (. 5 ) 3!P'1 1 0.609 1 0.000 1 - 1 E 1 = 1 ,,mot )f1( 1'-1i. 0--�Va , 1 .. t m 1.::,1J 1 , 1.305 ; 9.474 1 15.652 ; Wm = G /g + Gu/g Eli (1+P1 to, 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 0.164 1 0.129 1 ;Flt - (FIII + N •- 1'r4. 1 1 � � 1 .__.___.__..._.._.._____---___--.-..__---._._. 1.000 1 1.000 t). 164 0.164 ; 1 0.129 1 1 --.__...---..._.._.___....._. _. _ 1 RESOURCE �RCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using Nt....,AP by PSI ; _______________________________________________________________________________ |Intersectipn:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod AnIyzd:1995 AM NB Area Type: CBD XOther| :Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | |=============================================================================| | CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET | |=============================================================================| WANE GROUP | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 7 | 8 | 9 � |-----------| Adjusted |Ad.Sat| Flow Ratio | Green |Ln.Grp| v/C |Crit.! | 1 | 2 | Flow Rate |Flw.Rt| | Ratio |Capac.| Ratio | ? | |Appr.|Mvmt.| v | s | v/s | g / C |c,vph | X :Lane | | | | (vph) |(vphg)| 3/4 | | 4x6 | 3/7 |Group| |=====|=====|===========|======|=================|=======|======|=======|=====| | | | | | | | | | | | EB | H | 54 - | 1518 | 0.036 - | 0.143 | 217 | 0.249 | *** | ----------- |------ |----------------- |------- |------ |_______�-____| | WB | D | 3 - | 1791 | 0.002 - | 0.143 | 256 | 0.012 | - | | | Q | 28 - | 1522 | 0.018 - | 0.143 | 217 | 0.129 1 - | |-----|----- |----------- |------ |----------------- |------- |------ |------- |-----| | | B | 13 - | 292 | 0.044 - ) 0.729 | 213 1 0.061 | - | | NB | O | 1349 - | 3551 | 0.380 - | 0.729 | 2587 | 0.521 1 - | | | B | 150 - | 230 | 0.652 - | 0.729 | 168 | 0.895 | *** | | SB | O | 1271 - | 3541 | 0.359 - | 0.729 | 2580 | 0.493 | - | | | | | | | | | | | |_____________________________________________________________________________| |Cycle Length= 70.0sec, Lost Time/Cycle,L= 9.0sec, S(v/s)ci= 0.688, Xc=0.789: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = FROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| |--------- _-------------------------------------------------------------------| |B ^ | D ^ | H ^ | O | Q | | | + | + | + | | | | | ++++ | | | * | * | * | | | | | v | v | v |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------.------------ -- 1 1.tntersection:Shslhl_(rns Road/Holmes Road Da•'F;_..�/28/90 1 Anal `yst : K [::f Ti msF'sr i ad Anl yz d : 1'"r'�G AN ND ,Area Type; CBD (Other 1 i F'ro ect No.Lakewood _ Gi t'y/S' a.tr_; ,"_;r-ut -r Burlington, Vermont ' r --._ L I V E: i_ - O; G E F''` i � Tot. r 1Delay_____ - :—_Second Terri,) ('(} Del ._ a V _ e SJ C 1 d `)/ __! L tJ _' LANE - I -- - 4 1 5 1 b 1 7 1 3 1 y 1 10 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 GROUP! `r/r_ 1 Green! Cycle: Delay 1 Lane! Delay 1 F'rgrsn 1 !_.ans Gp 1 Ln 1 Apprch 1 Apr r -�---- 1 Ratio: Ratio 1 !_en i_h 1 d 1 :Group; 1 d :Factor; 1 De 1 r Delay 1 !_ S � p Delay i 1 r I- 1 1 I'I:• 1 1 .••' r OS 14�. r i :. r X r t� / i.. i !.. i �_. 41 c l'.'�/ F' I '1 i �.. ^t. I•-} y �_ i '_, t,� f� . � `t' 1`+ I 1 i If"' I- 1 i :.� ki? �._ i' `1 N:.1-I i L_ r"� i :=• 1s' f" �� ��/ �' �'I i T LJ 1 t-ipili`vi i i (stir)i i (Vpn): 1T.9-1T1 (6+ )*9;'-j-1; 19-1 i 1 1 r E B r H 1 0.2491 0 3' 70.01 7 t 0 1 20.261 10.131G20.391 G 1 14 :� : / :} . 1 .._ .! , { 1 �. f j f f 1 20.391 1 1 r 1 1 i i i i i 1 I 1 W2 1 D : 0. 01 2 : 0. 1 43 : 70.01 1 9 . 52 : 25 1 0.001 1.00 5 1- 1 r r 1 r: 0.1291 0.1431 70. 0 1 1 9.? 1 1 2171 0.021 1.00 1 19.921 G 1 i 1 B 1 (_), 061 : 0.7291 70.01 2.051 2131 0.001 1.00 1 2.051 1 A 1 h1 1 1 0 1 .� 1 ry9 1 1 i 1 5r-7 { r r I W �� t_I 1 () . .. 1 r !) , "�'.:: � 1 70.0, (,) 1 _ . 1 :' : .�. _I r={ ! { (_) . 1 �'� r .! . (,) () 1 _ _ .._ i A i 3.311 1 i Fi _ 1 1 B ! 0.8951 1 0. /'29: 70. 0 : 5.631 1681 1 28.461 1.00 1 34.091 D 1 1 r_:B i 1 70.01 1 3.061 y1:=1•;�• 1 A 6.451 1 t • 1 r 1 0.4931 0.7291 i` ':) . '•_1 _:.� t) { 0.131 i . (_) [ 1 i 3.181 r x-. : �i 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 i i 1 r r : 1 : 1 1 , - _-.-.__. - !Intersection __ect1on DGia'v 5.36 '_(_c'v et intersection •-1_ ' rI�� `1 9'. 1 i '' '�t` •- i 4 .L1 i '- :- 1 _ l._ 1 i::i n L .a C: E{ Table LI . 1` . 1 --' __------_.__...__--____-...__...-__-._.__._-.-.---.__._____..---__._--..___-__._---._.___._.----._------__---.__._._---_.. r _. 1 i I_ i"'I N! = GROUP LI 1 N 1:7 f'S N IVIS •- 1_ * .•r .,. _ }= R iJT +_ T 1. , -r ;- •,- = F' c RM 1 I !.? , 1r ri• rr - P i:.(i.i 1 t.: D :; F' •- r•t M 1 T it .1 1 1 ' 1........... _. _ _ _.._ _ _. _ _.. - --. _. _ _.._.. _- _....__ ._..._ ......._ -......_.._ ..........._.._...__ ._........_...... - __ ..... _.-._ _._ -....._...._ ._- ._.. __ ._ .-.. -... _ -.._ _•_ -_..-. _-.--...- _ - _ _.._ . 1 -1 i 0 " 1 D •. 1 H " 1 (_i i ffff r r 1 t 1 1 . 1 i V i V 1-..._...._....._.--___.-_-_._.-..._._......_----•._..,,...__.__.,-.-._.._..__._-..-__.__._--_.,._.....»____.._--__..._..._.._.__.-.__._._....-_--'-_•--_---.-__.__._----.- 1 i 1 RESOURCE _'i_`Il=:1S GROUP, Norwich, ver'rnoi;,_, using t~<•ICAF' by F'S1 _______________________________________________________________________________ | INPUT WORKSHEET | |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date- 6/29/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 PM NB Area Type: CBD XOther| !Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | |======================================================= ======================| !VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS !Shelburne Rd N/S ST.| | | [1486] | | 100 ^ | | ^ SB TOTAL | | | | | | | 12.0 | | 1 <- [ 1353 | | | < v > | 12.0 | 12.0 | -WE TOTAL| | (N) 17 1422 471 RTH TH LT } 34 v | | ||| ----------------- < | > ----_____-_______| | NORTH v v ^---RT-12.0'-1 | | <v--LTH-12.01-1 � } | | | |IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12 0'--TH---> ^ ^ . | :1.volumes , ----------------- < | > ----------------_| |2.Lanes,lane widths | LT TH RTH | Holmes | 13.Movements by lane ^ 149 | 12.0 | 12.01 E/W STREET | 14.Parking locations - | | 12.0 | | 1590 | 15.Bay storge lngths [ 1843 -> 4 | 1 1 1 | 10 <^> 4 | 16.Islands E/B TOTAL - | | [1604] | |7.Bus stops v 31 | | N/B TOTAL | :TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS | |======================================================== =====================| |Ap|Grd.| % HV | Adj.Pkg.Lane { Buses | PHF |Cnf.Pedk Pedstrn Button} Arr.| |pr| (%)| | Y/N | Nm | (Nb) | |(pd/hr)| Y/N |Mn.Time| Type| |--|---- |-_----- |------- |------- 1------- |------- |------- |------- |------- |----- | 1EB1+0.01 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |WB|+0.0| 1.0 | N | 0 | D | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |NB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 1 N | 0 1 3 | 081+0.01 2.0 | N 1 0 | O | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |________________________________________ _____________________________________| }Grade:+up,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: min.green for | |HV:veh. > 4 whls PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing! |Nm:pkg.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 | |================================================= ============================| !PHASING | |================================================ =============================| | D | * |* | | | | | | | | I |<**+> |<***** | | | | | | | | A | v |+ | | | | | | | | G | |v | R | ^ | +| | | | | | | | A | <+**>| *****>| | | | | | | v| |-----|--------|--------�--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| Kim- | G= 42.01 G= 26.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G. 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.0| | ing |Y+R= 5|Y+R= 4|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0| |-----|--------|--------|------__�________|_-------|--------|--------|--------| |Ptmd/Act| |___________________ ____ ___ ___________________________________________________| | Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ | Permitted turns: ++++^ | Cycle Length 77 Sec| _________________________ _________________________________________________| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI } |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road ;Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Timeperiod Anlyzd:1995 NoBDate:6/29/90 | /project No^Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington,uz��Hrea Type: CBD XOther| |=================== Vermont | ======================= VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET ============================== | 6 | 7 :Appr.� Mvt.| Mvt. | Peak | Flow | Lane |Flw rt|Num8ber/| Lane � 10 | 11 � / | :Volume: Hour | Rate :Group �in Ln 'u ` f/Utz1iz} Flow | of | Adj^ | Frop. | / | :(vPh) |Factor| yp | /Grp yg'Lanes /F | PHF / 3m //4 | |(vph) Tc�r'U( V,�Ph| LT or RT; b 7-4| 7 x 9|Plt | | LT | 149| 0.90 | 166| | � EB | TH | 4| 0.90 | 4| H � 204` 1 � � | 0^81 LT | | | RT | 31| 0,q0 � 34� | ' | 1^00 / 204| * | /-----|-----|------ /----__/______|______� | | � | 0.17 RT � � | LT 34/ 0.90 1 38| �------/------|------�------/---------| | WB | TH | 1| 0.90 D | 39| 1 | 1 00 | | 0^97 LT | RT | 100| 0.90 | 111| Q 1 ' ^ | 39� * | |-----�-----/------|______|______|______| / � 1^00 | 1111 1.00 RT } � 1 LT 10: 0.90 B |------/------�------|------|---------� ' NB / TH | 1590: 090 | 17671 O | 1711� 1 � 1^00 | 11} 1.00 LT | | | RT � 4| 0q0 | 4� | /z/ 2 � 1~05 | 18601 * | �-----|-----�--- | ' U.00 RT | � | LT | --- ------�------|------|------|------|------|- / | SB | TH | 47| 0.90 | 52| P | 52; 1 | 1.05 | 521 1 | RT | 142Z| 0.90 / 15801 O | 1599/ 2 | 1~05 | 16/�� 1^00 L[ | . 171 0.90 | 191 � | | ^ * | _________________________________________ | | 0.01 RT / �LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD ------------------------------------/ _________,+++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| D^ | H O | Q---------------------------------------� | + | + | + | ++++ | ****> | ****> | ****> | | | « | v | v ___/ | |________ / ____________________________-_ � | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP,Norwich,Vermont, using NCAP by PSI ------------------------------------| ___________ _____________________| ��--------------------------------� |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 NoBuildArea Type: CBD XOther| !Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | |================================================================ =============| | SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET | |============================================================ =================| LANE | 3 | 4 | 5 6 | 7 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 GROUP|Ideal |No.}Ln�W. |HvyVeh|Grade | Pkg. |BusBlk|AreaTp:Rt Trn|Lt Trn|AdjSat -----1 Sat. :of / Fw | Fhv | Fg | Fp | Fbb | Fa | Frt | Flt |FlwRt 1 | 21 Flow |Lns|------ |------ |------ |------ !------ |------ |------}------| S Ap|Mv|pcphgp| N 1T.9-5 |T.9-6 |T.9-7 |T.9-8 |T.9-9 |T.9-10|T.9-11|T.9-12'(vphg) EB| H| 1800 1 1 | 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.000} 0.8781 0.716� 1125 --|--|------�---�------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----__�______ WB| D| 1800 1 1 1 1.0001 0.9951 1.000| 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.871� 1560 1 01 1800 1 1 | 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.000| 1.0001 1.0001 0.8501 1.000� 1522 1 B! B| 1800 1 1 | 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.000| 0.0951 170 NB| 01 1800 1 2 1 1.0001 0.990| 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 3563 --|--|------�---|------�------|------�------|------|------|------|------�------ | B| 1800 | 1 | 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.0951 170 SB| 01 1800 1 2 1 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.998| 1.0001 3558 | | | 1 | | | | | | | � ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| |_________________________________________________ ____________________________| {B ^ | D ^ 1 H | | ++++ | | � | v | v | v | | | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PEI / |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 1Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 NoBuildArea Type: | CBD XOther| :Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont � }=========================================================== ==================| | SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR |======================================================== LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT | !lNPUT_VARIABLES/COMPUTATIONS_____!____EB____|____WB____|____NB =====================| :Cycle Length, C (sec) | 77.00 | 77.00 | 77.----1 ----| 77.0' !Effective Green, g (sec) | 26.00 | 26.00 | 42.00 | 42.00 | !Number of Lanes, N | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7otal Approach Flow Rate, Va(vph)| 204 | 150 | 1782 | 1651 | !Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) | 38 | 150 | 1399 | 1399 | |Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) | 166 | 38 | 11 | 52 | |Proportion of LT, Pit | 0.81 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | !Opposing Lanes, No | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | :Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) | 150 | 38 | 1399 ( 1399 | :Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto | 0.97 / 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | :Sop = 1800No/(1+Plto[(400+Vm)etc.| 1371 | 1325 | 3600 | 3600 | |Yo = Vo/SoP | 0.109 | 0.029 | 0.389 | 0.389 � ;GU = (g-CYo)/(1-Yo} | 19.73 i 24.49 | 19.75 | 19.75 | Ws = (875-0.625Vo)/1000 | 0.781 | 0.851 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |Pl = Plt[1+(N-1)g/(FsGu+4.5)] | 0.814 | 0.974 | 1.000 1.000 | |Gq = g - Gu | 6.27 | 1.51 | 22.25 | 22.25 | |Pt = 1 - Pl 1 0.186 | 0.026 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |Gf = 2Pt[1-Pt^(.5Gq)]/Pl | 0.455 | 0.049 1 0.000 | 0'000 | |El = 1800/(1400-Vo) 1 1.440 1 1.322 1 1800.000 1 1800'000 | Wm = Gf/g + Gu/g * [1/(1+Pl etc. | 0.716 | 0.871 | 0.095 | 0095 | |FIt = (Fm + N - 1)/N | 0.716 1 0.871 1 0.095 | 0.095 | |_______________________________________ ______________________________________| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, _______________________________________________________________________________ using NCAP by PSI | ________________________________________________________ |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road D t ----------------------- a 1Analyst:KJK Timeperiod Anlyzd:1995 NoB le:6/29/90 | uz o�rea Type: |Project No^Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, CBD XOther| Vermont � CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET :LANE GROUP 4 } |-----------| Adjusted | 1 | 5 |Ad.Sat| Flow Ratio i 6 | 7================| | Green /L n^ rpG | | 8 | 9 | «/C |Crit^| 2 | Flow Rate �APPr^�Mvmt.| |Flw.Rt| � Ratio |CaPac^/ Ratio | ? v | s | v/s � � / C |c | | | (»Ph) |(vphg>| 3/4 g '«pn / � Kane | | | *x6 | 3/7 :Group; � EB | H | 204 - | 1125 | 0.181 - | 0.537 | 0.338 | 380 1^ � | ` _________________| D | 39 - / | Q | 1560 / 0.025 |-------/------|-------|-----| 0 338 | 527 | 0 074 � | / | 111 - /-----|-----|-__________ | 1522 | 0.073 - | 0^338 ' 514 ^ ' / 0^216 | - | � B ^ | |------ |--------| --------- -------�------|-------|-----� / 11 - � NB � O � 170 | 0 065 - � 0^545 ( 93 | 0.119 | - | { 1860 - 3563 | � 0^522 . - | 0.545 | 1943 | 0.957 | *** | | | -----------------|-------|------|-------/-----| B | 52 - | SS | O } 170 v^�»� - | 0^545 � 93 | 0.560 | 1679 - | 3558 | 0.4/2 - | 0.545 | 1941 / 0.865 | - | |________________________________________________|_______| !Cycle Length= 77.0sec, Lost Time/Cycle L= 9 0se ,.c, /---------------------| S( v s)ci= 0.703, Xc=0.796| ------------------------| :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = FROTCTD +++ |________________________________, = PERMTT- _ D = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| | B ^ | D ^ | ^ _________,### ____ -------------------- _--__---- H | O| | Q | | + | + | + | | | | | ++++ } | | | v | v | v � ------------| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP,Norwich,,using ing---NCAP-----by---PSI -___________ _____________________________ ________________ ____| r 1 Tntersection:'7helhur ne Road/Holmes Road Date:61/29/9ci --�-----'--�- ; F;na,l yst: F::,1F::; l-i mF,F'�.-ri. ur_ ! _ j J F'nly d: 1'•�95 P�Jc.�f:ui.1dr=�trea Type: ' CBD l..:r-o ! r ct r� o. L<_,k:1_woo1 ..., - -'' - L'i.ry•8•rate=';-;r,_tthi Burlington, Vermont XCther; 1 ----- ---- _ LEVEL-OF-SER'.' T CE G•!rif;:r::;_� HEE'i LANE ; _Firstt .I ;_er and Term Delay` ; of . .= Del a�.y_&,LOS 5 1 .7 � 1 1 6 ; ; 8 ; y ; 10 ; 11; GROUP: •. / c : Green: Cycle: l e ; ��. � 1Delay, - r- Delay 1 Lane: , rr a 1 1 12 ' 1= ' ___ __ 1 - . , Ratio: �; :=. r i r--, ; L == n r., r: h ; � :Group: J h L n 1 -, 1 �: �, �' r- C t•, , � r r 1 da_ !Factor! Delay ; ' Delay 1 EW ,1 i:, 5. 0.3381 77,.0; 15,68; 3801 1.19; 1.00 ' 16.871 , 16.871 t 1 _ 13.171 71 c.�.�}i); 1.�ifj ' D 1 - .t3.17' � ' ; L•I ; 0.2161 0.3381 77.01 i�r_• 1 c 1 1 �� . 1. 5 1 5 14 1 0.031 1.00 ; 13,981 B ; ' i,'� 1 P. ; B ; 0. 1 19 ; 0. 54_1 77.01 1 ; 1.00 1 6. -- Q ! iI; 0.957; 0.545; ? .(_i! 12.65; 1543; 8.83; 1.00 ; 21.48; G ; 21. 9; C 5.361 14. SW 01 0.8651 0.5451 77.01 11.451 1�;41 ; 14 i 1.00 ; 591 B 14.50 ri !intersection Delay 17.38 Sec/•Y'eh, Intersection I !_ _ '�-----i ❑•� Table 9.1 1 ;Li NE_t;�;OU DIAGRAMS-C*4* = F'ROTCTD, ++•+• = i-ERMTTD, �kh#-=-F'ROTCTD-i�:-PERMTTD7; ; - .__-.__--_-__- -._--..-_.._..._._...-.__..._ , D 1 H 1 O Cl ; 1 1 , 1 I F,E�- ._C- SYSTEMS GROUP, Nc�r-wich, Vermont, u �OUI':•..L .�, �� Crc�'!.� �--�r LJ using h.li�f-;F' t,,y PSI -! --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------ nter-'secti on: Shei borne Road/Holmes Road a./_--1te: 6 i 2?i?() --I Ana Iyst:k•K." i_ TimePerid Ant r-'-cr yid: 1 �+ �� AM B AreaType: -B1) xr)tr-ttir- !Project Nc . Lakewood r: t y /S'F a t e; f_ o t_! 'f h Burlington, VermontKOLUME AND i G L °--' E r...t. !Shelburne Rd hd r S Si. i + C 1 247 1 2_� , 1 SE TOTAL I 1 _ I 281 � 12.0 , ' 12.0 -WB TOT;::,;_ ; I (N) 47 1 042 1351 R.Tf ! TH !_T ; _ v 1 -----•------------- ' - NORTI.1 / • --•-RT-12 . c_)' -1 <v--LTH-12.0"-1 ; I !IDENTIFY IN UTAGR;_;M i .Volumes -----------------' 1 2.Lanes,lane widths 1 LT TH RTH ; Holmes ' 1 '� . M+�•-�ement,_ bey lane 51 1 12.0 ; 12.01 EiW STREET i_.Pa,i•kinis locations I 1 1 15. Bay storge3 Ingths C _ � 0 ' 1 1'.:::. �) ' 1 ^ 1 "> f ? r j 1 1 1 1 , 1� n r-i 1 Q. Island= 18 1 - E i L� 'T'Ct'1"F'=t1_ - C 1 i S7 7 1 .2us .steps v 9 ' 1 ; TRAFFIC' AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS T I ON,� N1�' TOTAL; 1 1 gyp, 1 Gr-d .1 % , •, ., r �•!" yid i . P kg. Lane ; Buses PHF : Cn+:. P d 1_..._f ed_.trn Button! Arr.; 1--------------------------------------------- -----------------••--------•-----------•----' , i Gr.ade:-i-up,-d'_?wn rib: U:_tses. s't_oppin ; hr �" , g Min.Timing: min.greert for + 1 _ - rF:peak-hoir factor pedestrian crossing; 1rT:o:g.m G�/er_/h- Cnt.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Hrr . T'ype: Type 1-5 ; ;PHASING 1 I i A 1 v ; + I I 1 ' I i ' M i T + 1 ` ' Y 1 t Ti m- i G= 51 - 0: G= 10- (_) i G= 0.01 G= t� . 0: - - + - - •• 1 1 ` i in ' ! Y + L � ' 'd r� - I �_) . (_) i =' t') , i) 1 [ _ O , (_'? , (_. _ (:) , l'_} ; 1 a �. = I I +n- 4 1 Y+R= t) I Y+R= �)! Y+R= i); Y+R= O: Y+R= i) i Y+R== O; i PtmditAc+' i 1 , 1 ---_«._-__------------.-_.---....._-_.-.........__-__.__._...__--.---- __----.-.-----..._..-_---- ; Protected turns: ' Permitted -urns. "-++-ff-�1-._.yy-_ Length 0 � �'''' 0000''' 1 i- I Cycle 1 1= -' - Sew 1----------------- - ___ __ _ _ _________ RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, -Norwich, ^Vermont, -using NCAP by PSI --- --- 1 Intt_rsection:Shelbur-ne Road/Holmes ._._- Road D.a.ta.„6%29/90 ;Analy_.'.t;N:;Q:: 1 ', :Project ie+_t No.Lakewood = r�F TiFrIeF'F-rioc� Anlar��J. j��Y�i AM E+ Area Type: C:.E�L XOther ; C;i t !Si- r3^. y at_..• SIouth Burlington, Vermont VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 1 1 1 ' 2 ; 4 ; i Appa hlvt . Mrt . ; Peak J ; b ; 7 ; O ; ; Ica ; 11 ; ; Flow ; Lane ; Fl w rt ; NI_!mr er : Lane ; Adj. ;Prop.' :Volume: Hour_ ' Rate ;Group oup ; i n Ln ; of ; Ut i l i z ' Flow ; 1 or ; Grp VgKanes IF•otr,U; V,vph; LT or RT; 11 , '(i' r r� ; I �'-� ; 0 + ' ' 1 1 l 1, c7 LT ; 01 f'� 1(.1(J, 1 ; 1 RT 1 _ 1Oi) ; 1c_)f); ; y; ; 1 1 NWT. ; TH ; 0; ci. Ici , ; t-i; -j 1 1 1 1.i)ci LT ; 251 0.90 3: 1 281 Cl ; 281 1 ; 1.00 1 2 • RT 1 _ i i 1-___'-_ I _•_•__---'__", LT ; t 1 i' � �) , �� a -� I 1 i 1 31 ' B ' 1'; • � J(J 1 1 ; 1 ; 1=; 1.00 LT ; i I 1461 9 1 J 1 13051 i 1 1.05 5 ; 13701 0; 1 - ' 1 I 1: 5 ; 0.90 1 �.B ; t-; ',11581 ; 1 J0 : B ' 5- 1 1 1 C- , T 1 ' 1J�J' 1 1 1.00 , 1�ItJ 1.00 LT 1 C .� . u 0 1 12101 2 ; 1. c_j �i ' 1" 1 1 1 / 1 _ i ; RT ; +� ; 0,90 :� 1 1 IV ^7 i , ; 52 --�- ---i"' 1 1 i ; ; 0.04 RT ; --;_+�_:-'-�f-t--: •�rA!��.._!'.�- _„A i. i-.'__------'----�-•-----'--•-_.....-_.._...------'•-�-.__•----�-•-----'---'- 1'�f. CTD, +++ = F'ERMTTL, ### ___.._._.___.._... = F'ROTa_TD & F'ERMTTB7 ; __-_-_._______.__-•--------------------------------- f_,..f..L ' • i V' -.---••------------------•----- V V ; - - i , Norwich, Jer•nont, using NvriF' by F'SI ; 41 _______________________________________________________________________________ |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 AM B Area Type: CBD XOther| !Project No.Lakewood 3 City/StateiSouth Burlington, Vermont � ====================| | SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET | |=============================================== ==============================| LANE | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 } 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 GROUP|Ideal |No.|Ln.W. 1HvyVeh|Grade | Pkg. |BusBlk|AreaTp|Rt Trn|Lt Trn|AdjSat -----} Sat. :of | Fa | Fhv | Fg | Fp | Fbb | Fa | Frt | Fit |FlwRt 1 1 21 Flow |Lns|------ |------ ...... |...... |...... |...... |...... | S Ap|Mv|pcphgp| N |T.9-5 /T.9-6 |T.9-7 1T.9-8 |T.9-9 |T.9-10IT.9-11|T.9-12|(vphg) ED| H| 1800 | 1 1 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.000 1.000| 1.0001 0.8421 1.0001 1508 --|--|------|---|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----_|______|______ WB| D| 1B00 1 1 1 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1791 1 01 1800 1 1 1 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.8501 1.0001 1522 | B| 1800 | 1 1 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.1641 292 NB| 01 1800 1 2 1 1.000| 0.990| 1.0001 1.000| 1.0001 1.0001 0.996| 1.0001 3551 I BI B| 1800 | 1 | 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.1201 214 SB| 01 1800 2 | 1.0001 0.9901 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.9941 1.0001 3541 | | | | | | | | | I | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| |__________________--_______ __________________________________________________| |B ^ | D ^ | H ^ | O | 0 | ' | + | + | + | ++++ | ****> } ****> | ****> | **** | | |-------------------------- _ ' __ ________________________________________________| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | _______________________________________________________________________________ I lntersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes - --_. __-•-- Road •-----...-----•-----•----•-•----._._..._._ Date:6:'29/ () A ).., a .l 'r' :.y t:: I •: J ,'.. l" i ,r, e f-' =, r- i ,-, ci F; n 1 • d : 1 9 9 ._I AM B Area C B D . 1 !•''ro ect No.Lakewood Ci t�y:.� •'-! _a-1_e: South Burlington, Vermont , 1 G,_JP LEMENTAL Wrr;K.SHEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, 1 +LT I !INPUT VARIABLES/COMPUTATIONS.... E+ 1 -WB - - -N 1 __-SB :Cycle Lam)-,gtl-, f (sec) 1 I 70 . 00 - 1 - I 1 70.00 QfFective Green g (sec) 1C.00 1 .00 !. 1 1 1 1 1 ; _ Flow I Total ApproachApproachl1_w Rate, Va(vph) 1 100 1 31 1 1.318 1 136() ; !Na7.i11ine Flow Rate, Vm Wt:h) i 43 1 1 1 1305 - (_) 1 l i1 1 1_ eft -Turn Flow Rate, ! ; ; .1- ( , ) 1 I� 7 1 , 13 1J�_ - % , ' !Proportion of LT, Pit 1 ' . 57 1 1.00 1 1.00 , 1 1.00 1 !Opposing Lanes, No 1, 1 1 2 n ; !Opposing Flow' Rafe, Vo (vph) � 3i 43 1 1210 � I 1 1305 1 Wr..,�,r_ of LT in Opp. Vol,,I� '1to ; 1.00 '•_;.57 1 0.00 ; 0.00 ; loop - 1oc)ONo/(1+PltoG(400+Vm)eto. 1 1357 ) � 63 ;r,,._, _ (g-C`�'o)/(1•--yo) 1 -.60 1 8,26 1.3r:'=• ,- Ws _ (^_ 75- 0. L',_5V(.1) / 11 )00 ; 0.856 1 0. 84S 1 0.119 i 0.059 i 11-'l - P1tE1+(N-1)g/ (FsGu):, J) ] f1 __' 1 1.000 1.000 ; 1.000 ; , q - 9 - GU 1 1.40 1 1.74 1 � 9.62 1 10.80 ' 1r='�t - 1 - F'1 1 (�) . 4:'� 0 1 0. 000 - 0.000 _ _ Qf __ L,_'t (. 1-ri.1�- ( . JGq ) 3 /P1 1 0.674 1 0.000 ( 0.000 1 0.000 &I = 1800/(1400-'.:''=1) 1 1.315 1 1.'_^b 1 y - 1 I- m '__ G f J� '_ g + . g * L 1/( 1 ..�..� ' '_ l (r't. 1 1.. t)(� 0 I 1 0.164 I n I Wit - (Fm + N - _ . /N -_...._---_._...._-.-.----_.----------•-------.----•---------•- 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 0.164 1 0.120 ' 1 ----------•----•----------•---------------•--- 1 RE'_:O4 ;RCE SYSTEMS GROUP, , <r_ ' Norwich, Vermont,using � C a b•, r,r 1`a r }�' � f PSI , I------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 if LCL if -- -- -- -- ! ii 11.1 1! !! 4j sy zi if -m-if r--! f L> H X If if -- -- -- -- -- -- if if !I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -!- -- -- -- -+ ! -- -- -- If! ! i=t If !1 ; ! !I if !I if rt i Ca C-- I �+ c': ! V) t , x l ! ! C_ f U 'I if IAt `.. x.,ifs ..R I ri ('•1 1 -1l I ! I I _ 7 (r c# I -• f I !f !I Ci • II if If ! C t i I cL a-s If i{ w C^ 5, C it If t-t J_ fl �•. f- tl !{ II h• tJ sr CL •!J !! of ct if f L7 r. I * + LOE ''-r >II C, I CAOf if f I r If !! !! - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- - . _... _._ I.! I 4 ! ! �. i1 •.! - =t rt !f r:. I t''s '! I (r•• Ll, ! ct- rr.. i D ;Tj �1 fl !I -II i. +' �. 11 ct I t'F C. f "A ! ! ! ,-, ,-! i ! ... ! �.. 1 i h... i" • i (!"! I I is !! ! ! If if :! t.r CC 7 is iTi it e._ if LL to 1 1 4-1 if !I if Im— if 1-4 i lil -4 :f <- Ifif T' !! rr !+ i, J - i (T• 1`•a t t)'• f! .i f •_-+ r ! L! si i If U ff !I fl U- LL-- _ i if -- -- -- -- - -- -- C .. ! if t �i j! f ! ! !_! IT; .-. f1 u -?f. !� !f If Ns LA > !,! ;! ! � r-, `• = i`. ill h? Ij ! .. 'G !f if 4 l --4 - -- II !! ! !I -! -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- i 1 ! S l !• if if fi J I :'# != fI ! G G It �.� ! a !! r;• ! � fl ! 1 _ f __ _.. _.. _.. __. 31 i ;if ` If _:a a |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90--------------- :Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 AM B Area Type: CBD XOth | !Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington Vermont er: '=========== | �LEVEL-OF-SERVICE_WORKSHEET —,___First Term Delay Ter | LANE | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ^' ��^�'-------'/u�^u���y-a-�u� | Lane| Delay |Prg?sn/La10 Gp| 11| Al2 h|A13 GROUP| v/c 1 Green! Cycle! Delay -----1 Ratio| Ratio}Length| d1 :Group: d2 |Fac'o � D`'= � �n' pPrc � pr 1 � 21 X | g/C | C |sec/veh|Cap c|sec/veh| pr r/ Delay / GP| Delay |LOS AP|M«) | | (sec): �(vp')� |T q�13|sec/«eh|LOS|sec/veh|Tbl ".=- /(6+8)*9|9-1| |9-1 EB| H| 0.4641 0.1431 70.01 20.931 2151 1.17� 1.00 1 22 10| C | 22 10| C ^ ^ --|--|------�------|------|-------|-----|----__ ` | | | | WB| D| 0.0121 0.1431 70.0! 19.58| 256| 0.00| 1.00 � 19.581 C | 19 By| C ^ ^ | Q| 0.1291 0.143| 70.0| 19.911 217} 0 02| 1 00 � 19^^92� C | ^ --|--|------/------|------|---____| | | ' | ----- ------- ------/-------|---|- | | B| 0.0611 0.729| 70.0 2.05| 213 0.00i ^ 1 00 2 05| A | ------ --- �B| O| 0.530| 0.729| 70.0| 3.19| 2587� 017' 1'00 | 3^^36| A | 3^ 35' | A __|--|------|------|------|-------�-----|-- ` | | | | | B| 0.9631 0.7291 70.01 6.561 1561 44.741 1.00 } 51 301 E | -- --- SB| O| 0.4931 0.7291 70.01 3.061 25801 0'131 1.00 1 3^18| A | 8 2�. | B | 1 | | | | | | | ~ . }| _____________________________________________________________________ | !Intersection Delay 6.54 sec/veh, Intersection LOS B T-ble-------- |___________________-___________________________________ � �.� / |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD,+++ = PERMTTD,### = PMUlCTD & PERMTTD]| ----------------------| |_________________________________________________ | B ~ | D ^ | H ^ | O | Q | -___ -----------------------| | + | + | + | | | | | ++++ | ****> | ****> | ****> | **** | | | | | v | v | v | � -------------------------------------------------------- | � RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich,Vermont,using wCApbyPSI i ---------------------| ______________________________________________________________| INPUT WOR}:::`HEET 1 :Interse,_tion:She burne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/2219/90) :Analyst:KQ:: TimePeriod Anlyzd: 19`-i'5 PM D Area Type: CED XOthier: :Project No.Lakewood = City/` -state: South Burlington, Vermont :VOLUME AND GEOMETR ICS ;Shelburne Rd N/S ST. : L" 14 61 ; : 100 , SB TOTAL-- : 12.0 ; ; 1 - r 1353 ' V > : 12.0 i : 12. U ; -WB TOTAL: (N) 17 1422 47: RTH TH LT , =4 v Nryt; TH , , <v-•-LTH-12. 0' -•1 ; !IDENTIFY IN L'Iftl,Fc'r::1wi !!.Volumes --•------------------- i 1 ;2.Lanes,.lane widths I I LT TH RTH 1 Holmes ; : =. M� Ivements by lane 221 , 12.01 , 1 1::. � � � 1 E!W STREET" ; :4.F'arking locations - 1610 +,_; ' r_ 1 1ray star ge Ingth-Is E 2623 6 ; � 1 1 ; 10 4 ; :6.Islands E/ByTOTAL - ; ; 116241 7. Bus stops v 41 ; N/B TOTAL !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS -1 , Ap : Grd .: H`•.' ; Ad j .;= kg . Lane ; Buses ; f•'=HF ; Cnf . F'ed : F'edstrn Button: Arr . : ;pr; (7.) ; ; Y/N ; Nm ; (Nb) ; ; (pd/hr) : Y/N ;Mn.Time: T•yp& = ; +0 . 0 ; 1.0 : N : 0 ; 0 ; 0.90 ; 0 ; N ; t ? 1 , = 1 _.0 1 1.0 1 N ; 0 , 0 ; 0.90 ; 0 , r`, i , 1 t 1 1 _ ------------------------•---------------------------------------------------------- ' ; '_rade: + I down Nb : buses :to i nt /hr- ' , �'-�- pp� � Min."timing: min. green for ; : HV : v eh . > 4 wh I F'H - 111-.. ;_I h` eaR:;-hour factor pedestrian crossing; , ,� m: pk:g. maneuvers/hr Cnf . F'eds: Cnf 1 ctng peds/hr- Arr. Type: Type 1-5 ; :PHASING _ -----� 1 1 D I : **+:; r A v ; + ; G 1 R ; ;Tim- : G= 42. 0: G= 26.01 G= 0-0: G= 0. 0 ! G= 0.01 1 G= 0. 0: G= 0. 0: G= 0. 0: s i n g : Y+R= 5: Y+R= 4: Y+R= O: Y+R= O: Y+R = O: Y+R= O: Y+4= O: Y+R= 0; : F'tmd/Act ; : ------------------------------ Protected turns: ****^ 0000" : Permitted turns: ++++" : Cycle Length 77 Sec; :----------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI ; • ; IntereF-t i on : Cr 1e1 b1_ar, �e Road/Holmes---------•---.__..-------••-------------------------- Road re TimePeriod Anlyzd: 1995 Build Area Type: CBD XOt.her ; Frojec r Pilo. Lakewood _ Ci tylState: South Burlington, Vermont ___.._________.__- ; __ _._--•_-_= '.'OLUh1L-ADjUS'(MFPv-( WORKSHEET T _- , ;Appr.; Mvt.; M t. ; Peak , ; Flow ; Lane ;Flw rt;Number; Lane ; Adj. ! Prop. ; , Vol t Ime , Hour '; ; Rate !Group up ; in L_n ; of ; Ut i 1 i z ; Flow ; of ' (`:ph) ;Factor! ',:p ; :Grp Vg ; Lanes ; Fctr , U; V, vph ; LT or RT; PHF ; 3:4 ; (vph) ; N ;..(t: 9--4; 7 x 9;(-•'.lt , Wt! 0.90 H 2 9 ; 1 ; 1.00 ; 29 ; %c ' RT 411 0.90 ; 46 ; 0.15 RT ! LT = 4 ; 0.90 ; 39 ; � WB i TH ; 1! 0.90 ! , 1; D ; 9 ! 1 ; 1.00 ; 39 ! 0.97 . 97 LT ; ' RT ; 1 00 ; 0.90 ; 1 1 1 ; 0 ! 1 1 1 ; 1 ! 1.00 ; 1 1 1 ; * 1.00 RT ` ; LT ; 10! 0.90 1 i ; B ! 1 1 ; 1 ; 1.00 ; 1 1 ; 1.00 LT ; N B ! TH ; 1610; 0.90 ; 1 789! O ; 1793: 2 ; 1.05 ; 18831 , :K ; LT ; 471 0.90 ; 521 B ; 521 1 ! 1.00 ; 52 ; 1.00 LT ; SB TH ; 1422 ! 0.90 15130 ; 0 ; 1599 : - ! 1 . 0 '' ' , ' -•' ; ; 0.01 RT ; :LANE GROUP D I AG(- AMS--• L- * j * -= PROTCTD, _F i- i --1= ERMTTD M ###-_ �PROTCTD s & PERMTTD I ! ; S ; r. .. ' ' a .. O 4. ; _1. ; -1- ; , RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, WAR ' using by PSI 1 �. ------------------------------ n ere_ctionnhelburn t e f�;�.�ad, Hol m-s Road Late: b/'"'9/9(7 ;Analyst:f`&-::: .� imeP_•riod Anlyzd:19`-'` Area 1 _ _ .-�. ._� Build Hrea Tyke: CBL XOth�=r; !Project ;�'•;o.;._ '.ke1•JCjC_d 3 Ci t''J/`Sta1_e: r_outh Burlington, Vermont ' r i=i=;TUr;;A1"ION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WOPKL;;r_i_. r ; 1 LANE 73 4 : 5 : b : 9 ; 10 : 11 : 12 ; 13 GROUP; Ideal ; No.: Ln . W. : Hvy''eh : Grade : Pkg. : BusBl k:: AreaTp ; Rt Trn : Lt Trn : Ad iSat Sat. :of 1 Fw : Fhi•v ; Fig ; Fp : Fbb : Fa : Frt : F1 t : Fl wR-t 1 : 2 : Flow ; Ln :------- AG ! r'v ! P'=phtgp: N ; T. 9-5 : T. 9-L ; T. 9-7 , T. 9. : T. 9-9 : T. 9-'1G'; T. 9-1 1 : T. 9-1"'; (vghg ) 1 1 i 1 WL ; J ; 1800 : I : 1 . 00 : 0.9951 1 - i 00 1 1 - 000 : 1 . i )qi•) : 1 . ()00 : 1.0001 0. 845 ; 1514 - 1 1800! 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1,0001 1 . 000 1; 1.0001 0.8501 1 1.0001 1522 r _ 1. 000 1 0-. 90 1 1. 000 1 1, f 00 1 1- i)(_)i) ; 1 , i)i)i) 1 1.0001 0.0951 17C> 1,0001 0,9901 1. 000 1 1. (:}(_}c_} : 1, c 00 1 1, c )00 1 1. O00 1 1. 000 1 3 jb' t _ 1 /0 1 . i 1(_)O 1 1 . 000 1 1 . (J00 1 1 . i_ 00 1 1.0001 0. 095 1 170 ) 1 1,0001 0,9901 1 1 - (}00 1 1 . I }t)(_3 : 1 . ( 00 1 1 - ( 00 1 0.9961 1.0001 3558 f : , 1 1 ; : 1 1 1 1 I , -------------------------------------•------------------ : LANE GROUP D I Ai=1RAMS-- C * * * = r:;.:`LiTC.. D , -F++ = PERMT"i D, ### = I•='RG_!_i_..f U & PERMTTD 7 ; -------------------------•-- ' 1 + + : � 1 i T 1 1 r , 1 1 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using h _.P b,Y PSI .4 |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 ------------- |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 Build Area Type: | CBD |Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington Vermont XOth er| }======================================================,============ � | SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR fL ==========| |==============================================================, / | |INPUT_VARIABLES/COMPUTATIONS (____EB -/NB ==============| :Cycle Length C (sec) ----- | ---- |____WB 77^00 | ---- 77.00 | ----�----SB 77.00 | | 77,`` ----| :Effective Green, g (sec) | 26.00 | 26.00 | 42.00 | 42 | !Number of Lanes, N | |Total Approach Flow Rate, Va(vph)| 1 | 299 | 1^ | 150 | 1^ | 1804 1^»« | !Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) | 53 / 150 | 1651 | Weft -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) | 246 | 1399 | 1399 | |Proportion of LT, Plt | | 0.82 | 38 1 11 | 52 | :Opposing Lanes, No | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | tOpposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) | 1 | 150 | 1^ | 53 | 2^ | 1399 | 2~ | 1399 | |Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto | 0.97 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |Sop = 1800No/(1+Plto[(400+Vm)etc.| 1356 | 1322^ | 3600~ / 3600^ | |Yo = Vo/Sop | 0.111 | 0.040 | 0.389 | 0.389 | |Gu = (g-CYo)/(1-Yo) | 19.66 | 23^87 | 19^75 | Ws= (875-0.625Vo)/1000 | 0.781 | 0^842 | 0^001 | 19^75 | |Pl = Plt[1+(N-1)g/(FsGu+4.5)] 1 0.823 | 0^^974 | O^001 | /Gq = g - Gu 1^000 | 1^000 | | !Pt = 1 - PI | 6.34 | 0~177 | ^ 213 | 0^026 ^ 22^25 | ^ 22^25 | � |Gf = 2Pt[1-Pt^( 5Gq)]/pl . / 0.429 | ; 0.052 0.0O0 | 0O0 ), |El = 1800/(1400-Vo) 1 1.440 1 | 1^336 1 0.000 | 1800^00O 1 0.000 | 1800^000 1 |Fm = Gf/g + Gu/g * [1/(1+Pl etc. | 0.712 | 0^5 | 0^095 | 0^095 | |Flt = (Fm + N - 1)/N | {-----------________________ -----__________________ 0.712 | _ 0^^8.8-'5 } 0^^095 | 0^^095 | | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont,-_using -------------------| NCAFbyPSI _____________________________________________________________| � rz |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 / |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 Build Area Type: CBD XOther| (Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont ( }============================================================ =================| � CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET | |============================================================= ================| |LANE GROUP | 3 | 4 1 5 6 | 7 |-----------� Adjusted |Ad.Sat| Flow Ratio Green |Ln.Grp| v/C |Crit | | 1 | 2 | Flow Rate |Flw.Rt| | Ratio |Capac : Ratio ( ? ^� |Appr.|Mvmt. | v | s � v/s | g / C :c,vph^| X Kane | � | � (vph) |(vphg)| 3/4 | | 4x6 | 3/7 }Group: | | | | | | | | | | | EB | H | 299 - | 1121 | 0.267 - | 0.338 | 378 | 0.790 | | | | | | | | | ~ |-----|-----|-----------|------_________________|_______ ______ _______| | | | ' -- | WB } D | 39 - | 1514 | 0.026 - | 0.338 1 511 1 0.076 | | | Q | 111 - | 1522 | 0.073 - | 0.338 | 514 | 0^^216 | - | |-----|-----|----------- |------- |--------------___|------- |------ }------|-----| | | B | 11 - | 170 1 0.065 - | 0.545 | 93 | 0.119 | - | | NB | O | 1883 - | 3563 | 0.529 - | 0.545 | 1943 | 0^^969 | *** | | | | | | | | | | | |-----|-----|----------- |------ |----------------- |------- }------ |------- |-----| | | B | 52 - | 170 | 0.306 - 1 0.545 | 93 | 0.560 | | SB | O | 1679 - | 3558 | 0.472 - | 0.545 | 1941 | 0^^B65 | - | |-________________________________________________ ____________________________| |Cycle Length= 77.0sec, Lost Time/Cycle,L= 9.0sec, S(v/s)ci= 0 795 Xc=0 901| }------------------_________________________________ ^ ' ^ __________________________| WANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| |____________________________________________________ ___-_____________________� |B ^ | D ^ | H ^ | O | Q | | | + | + | + | | | | | ++++ | | | * | * | * | | | � | v | v | v | | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | M� I� T ; trlter'sNi-tion: _I'ielt,urr)e F.'vaci/Ht3lrnr==:; I.;;,V,;=,d--.._...__________._..._..---._._.._._.__._.__=----------•-___..------ fimer'eriod 'Type: Hnlyzd:1+�'•f:.__ Build Kroject No.Lakewood Area CBD x,r t' _ City/State: South Burlington, Vermont , Lf'•;'CI_ .»GF_..'=;E1 �:V ]: CS W0R1:,_:;r..ILE..i.. FF11 S': cDelay Term el ' ! J , vc 1 Green; Cycle; Delay Lane! Delay ' -r-:_�ne '3G"U_F! r for Ratio;Length; dl :GrJupd^:Factor' Gp' _ F crAprRa Delay 1 GDelay LJS{ ;; hi !�• ;; /t C 1sec ve!CaP.c;sec/veh! P= 1se=iveh;LOS;S_c/veh;fJitt I"i , ._ : - _: ; , . 0 : 17. 51 r •= 7`{ ; 7. _ 9 : 1.00 ; 24. 8? ; C ; 24. 89 : C • 31 77.0! 1 -18: 51i: 0,00: 1.00 ; 1_.1_211 S ' ' ! 0: 0.216; O,3_�! 77.t_); c1 c 1 ! '..•'. 1'.8J! J14! ta,t:)_, 1,0) i 1 1._.7c,, D 1 3.88; B ; ! B : t_). 1 19: 0. 14`_ : 77. t_) ; 6. 46 1 93: i . 03 : 1.00 4! i;NB; 01 0.9691 0.5451 77.01 12.821 1940 10 1 ; 1.00 1 _.. - 23.141 C . 23.041 C 8.71; ._B 90; J. 6; 1.00 1 SBI I]; 0.8651 14.061' '- ' 0.545; 77.01 ,Lr_' 1;413.141! 11 FJ, 1 1.�)t:) r r 14.5'a; F, 1��.18'. B 1 ; ____-__--_-__-.-._._---__ ; Int _r se , ion Delay5 1 , 1'1. �•4. sec•, veh A Intersection LOS C 1----'---'--'-----------'---"---'•-'----'--'----'----------'-'-------••---.-------------------------' Table 9.1 Lr^iNE GROUP DIAGRAhiS_,_ * * _• PROTCTD, -i-.a-..r.. M PEl: MTTD. # ;# = PROTC ' •� �' -Mr" ----�------ t D _. F'LI-� f D 7 ; ,.. + ; + ; ' _N...I....i..+ r i _-.-_.-___-_--___-___ r _ Norwich,CE SYSTEMS GROUP, Vermont, using -_"---.-.__--__..-.-_._•.___-____________._. ___-__.-..- -_-____------__._-__._-..___-._-_-_-___-_.__-_--_-__ rl C hP by PSI ' RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Norwich, Vermont Traffic Impact Shady Of The Lakewood -Commons Expansion Prepared for: Green Mountain Design July 2,1990 INTRODUCTION Lakewood Commons is a mixed -use business park (Jake's restaurant, Lakewood Convenient Health Care, and office space) located north of Holmes Road on Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont. This report evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed expansion of Lakewood Commons. SCOPE OF REPORT The major activities undertaken in this analysis include: A Conducting manual turning movement counts at the entrance and exit driveways of Lakewood Commons, and at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Holmes Road; A Collecting Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) continuous traffic recorder data (year -long, 24 hour per day) on Shelburne Road in Shelburne, Vermont; A Collecting VAOT accident data; A Estimating trips generated by the proposed expansion; and A Projecting traffic impacts of the development in the year 1995 during the AM peak hour and the PM design hour. The study relied upon general design and analysis procedures documented in the Highway Capacity Manual,1 the Trip Generation Manual,2 and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO).3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed expansion includes 9,000 square feet of a retail space, 3,000 square feet of office space, and a 114-room limited -use motel. Currently there are approximately 206 parking spaces at Lakewood Commons, and the proposed expansion plans to add 190 more parking spaces, 27 of which will be in a parking garage below the motel. Vehicles travelling to and from the development would use the existing Lakewood Commons driveways: a one-way entrance from Shelburne Road, and an entrance/exit which accesses Holmes 1 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual: Special Report 209, Washington DC, 1985. RESOURCE 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Washington DC, 1987. SYSTEMS 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A GROUP Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Washington DC, 1984. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 2 Road near the South Burlington Fire Department. The posted speed limit on Shelburne Road near Holmes Road is 35 MPH. EXISTING CONDITIONS HIGHWAY GEOMETRY At the Shelburne Road access to Lakewood Commons, there is a right -turn deceleration lane for southbound vehicles entering the driveway. Northbound vehicles entering Lakewood Commons use an exclusive left -turn lane. Two lanes for through -traffic exist for both northbound and southbound directions. At the signalized intersection of Shelburne Road/Holmes Road, both the northbound and southbound approaches have two lanes, without exclusive,, left- turn lanes. Holmes Road has a single lane, and the westbound approach is wider with a right -turn only lane and a left -through lane. Subsequent to the Lakewood Commons development, IDX was expanded and a westbound approach was added to the Holmes intersection. Currently, no exclusive left - turn lane for southbound vehicles exists to service IDX, though the warrants for such a lane are already met. TRAFFIC COUNTS Resource Systems Group conducted three manual traffic counts at the Lakewood Commons driveways on Friday April 13, Monday April 30, and Friday May 5,1990. These counts resulted in an average PM peak hour trip generation of 155 vehicle trips per hour (62 enter, 93 exit). A mid -summer traffic count (7/15/88) was used for the AM peak hour (7:30- 8:30) traffic volumes. The volumes were adjusted and grown to the 1990 average AM peak hour using the VAOT continuous counter on Shelburne Road (station D2). The morning peak volumes along Shelburne Road are much lower than the afternoon peak volumes (approximately 26 percent). Manual traffic counts were also conducted at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Holmes Road on Friday April 13 and Wednesday May 2,1990. The Friday count occured on Good Friday and displayed unusually high traffic volumes. The traffic count conducted on May 2 is representative of the PM peak period and therefore was used in calculating the base volumes at the signalized intersection. The VAOT continuous counter was used to adjust the volumes to the 1990 "design hour" volume.1 The resulting intersection base volumes at both the 1 The "design hour" is defined as the traffic period when the traffic volume is equal to the thirtieth highest hourly volumes observed over a full year. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 3 Lakewood Commons entrance off Shelburne Road and the signalized intersection at Holmes Road are shown in Figure 1. FIGURE 1: 1990 PM PEAK DESIGN HOUR VOLUME AT LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE AND SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD 17 1288 42 39 1342 Driveway Holmes 3 135 135 3099 3 —> 3130 E— 0 5�, 27� � 31 17 1693 9 1440 3 CURRENT LEVEL -OF -SERVICE To asses the relative amount of congestion at the critical intersections studied, a standard analysis procedure which defines a "level -of -service" for each intersection was used. Level -of -Service (LOS), graded from "A" to "F", describes the operating conditions of a road or intersection. For signalized intersections, LOS is based on the average delay a vehicle will experience at an intersection . For unsignalized intersections, LOS grades are based on "reserve capacity", or the remaining capacity of an intersection to service vehicles. Table 1 shows the TABLE 1: LOS CRITERIA FOR SIG/UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS --Signalized-- --Unsignalized-- LOS Characteristics Stopped Delay Reserve Capacity (sec) (c hr)t A Little or no delay <_ 5.0 >400 B Short delays 5.1-15.0 300-399 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 200-399 D Long delays 25.1-40.0 100-199 E Very long delays 40.1-60.0 1-99 F I Extreme delays I > 60.0 0 t Passenger cars per hour. * Demand volume exceeds the lane capacity. LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 4 various LOS grades, qualitative descriptions, and quantitative definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The adjusted traffic volumes with existing intersection geometries were used for calculating levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. At the intersection of Shelburne Road and the Lakewood Commons entrance driveway, the critical movement is the northbound left -turn from Shelburne Road. Existing level -of -service calculations at the entrance result in a LOS "C" representing "average delays" during the AM peak hour, and LOS "D" representing "long delays" during the PM design hour for northbound vehicles turning left into the driveway. The actual delay for these left -turning vehicles is most likely shorter than estimated in this case. The signal just north of Holmes Road creates gaps in the southbound traffic, thus enabling more cars to turn into Lakewood Commons and decreasing the actual delays. Furthermore, when southbound vehicles approach the signal at Holmes Road, they slow down (when the light is red) to create gaps for the cars to complete their left - turn into Lakewood Commons, thus further decreasing actual delays. At the signalized intersection of Shelburne Road/Holmes Road the estimated 1990 PM design hour LOS is 'B" for "short delays" during the AM peak hour, and "D" during the PM design hour using the existing intersection geometry. PARKING DEMAND Resource Systems Group conducted a parking utilization study on April 13, 1990. During the mid -day peak (from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) occupied parking spaces were counted every half-hour. Vehicles did not have a problem finding a parking space during the survey. Throughout the two-hour period, an average of 53 percent of the existing 206 parking spaced were occupied. The percent utilization ranges from 41 to 64 percent among the quadrants within the parking lot. The most popular area in the Lakewood Commons parking lot is near Jake's restaurant in the southwest corner. Figure 2 shows the average percent of occupied parking spaces per quadrant in the afternoon. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 5 FIGURE 2: AVERAGE PERCENT UTILIZATION OF PARKING SPACES PER QUADRANT AT LAKEWOOD COMMONS 41% 48% % 58% Shelburne Road At the time of the survey and traffic counts, Lakewood Commons was approximately 78.5 percent occupied. After adjusting to full occupancy, the average utilization is 68 percent with approximately 63 parking spaces free. Using ITE peak parking estimates, the proposed expansion is projected to increase the parking demand by 66 spaces during peak periods: 14 spaces for the specialty clothing store, 10 spaces for the offices, and 42 spaces for the 114-room motel.1 Considering the current average utilization of the existing 206 parking spaces, and the additional 190 spaces with the expansion, the proposed expansion will provide more than adequate parking. FUTURE CONDITIONS PROPOSED EXPANSION TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The numbers of trips exiting and entering the existing Lakewood Commons were calculated from the average of the three traffic counts (155 vehicles per hour). At the signalized intersection during the afternoon, 30 new vehicle trips result from adjusting the exiting development to full occupancy, and 37 vehicle trips at the entrance driveway to the north. The morning traffic to and from Lakewood Commons was also adjusted to full occupancy. Onto these trips were added projected AM and PM vehicle trips calculated from ITE trip generation 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2nd Edition. p.126, 104, 50. LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 6 rates. The proposed expansion results in 81 vehicle trips during the AM, and 115 vehicles trips during the PM peak hour (Table 2). TABLE 2: AM/PM DEVELOPMENT TRIPS FOR LAKEWOOD EXPANSION Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Retaill Hotel2 Office3 9,000 Sq. Ft. 114 Rooms 3,000 S . Ft. 4/13 25/36 9/2 0/19 42/36 1/9 4/32 67/72 10/11 TOTAL AM 38 43 81 TOTAL PM 51 64 115 The new trips were distributed according to the patterns exhibited from the traffic counts at the Lakewood Commons entrance and at the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersection. The afternoon distribution of new trips are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. At the Lakewood Commons entrance on Shelburne Road, traffic counts indicated 70 percent of the entering traffic approached from the north, and 30 percent from the south. Traffic count data shows that the morning distribution is split 48/52 percent for northbound/southbound traffic. Since very few vehicles enter Lakewood Commons via the Holmes Road access (approximately six percent), all new trips entering the proposed expansion were routed to the entrance on Shelburne Road. FIGURE 3: PM NEW TRIPS AT LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE 100% OCCUPANCY TRIPS DEVELOPMENT TRIPS 12 0 Driveway 37 �T 5 20 36 0 Driveway j 103 15 52 RESOURCE 1 ITE, Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Washington DC, 1987, Land Use 870, p. 1263. SYSTEMS 2ITE, Land Use 320, P. 503. GROUP 3 ibid, Land Use 710, p. 886. AN LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 7 FIGURE 4: PM NEW TRIPS AT SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD 100% OCCUPANCY TRIPS DEVELOPMENT TRIPS 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 Holmes J � Holmes J � L 20 t__ 0 52 ___� t— 0 0 30 < 0 2 > 79 E— 0 5 � � 0 10 —� �-- 0 0 5 0 0 15 0 t� VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Morning peak traffic volumes were adjusted according to the rate of growth displayed by the VAOT continuous counter on Route 7 in Shelburne (station D2). Average AM peak hour volumes grew 0.1 percent between the years 1988-1989. Design hour traffic volumes at the VAOT continuous counter grew one percent der year duria.Tthe 1986-1989,period. Almost zero growth in the design hour occured between 1987 and 1989 at the station. However, the VAOT has recommended a two -percent growth rate for traffic volume projections for Burlington in recent traffic studies. Given these recommendations, the two - percent rate of growth was used in future year calculations in this study. The projected traffic volumes at both the Lakewood Commons entrance driveway and the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersections for the 1995 AM and PM no -build scenarios include the full -occupancy trips. The proposed development trips (unadjusted) were added onto the no -build traffic volumes. Figure 5 through Figure 8 show the no -build and build traffic volumes for the 1995 AM peak hour and PM design hour at both intersections. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 8 FIGURE 5: 1995 AM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE 1995 NO -BUILD Driveway 7 31 1228 W 2459 29 1171 1995 BUILD 51 1228 Driveway j 2518 47 1192 INN FIGURE 6: 1995 AM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD 1995 NO -BUILD 1995 BUILD 51 1042L 135 51 1042 135 Holmes j � Holmes j � L 30 ___� t--- 42 51 42 0 > 2496 0 0 > 2557 F— 0 3 44� �3 12 1128 31 12 1146 31 AX RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 9 FIGURE 7: 1995 PM PEAK DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE 1995 NO -BUILD 1995 BUILD 51 1488 87 1488 Driveway j � Driveway j W 3452 3555 7 � � I � T 22 1891 37 1943 FIGURE 8: 1995 PM PEAK DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD 1995 NO -BUILD 1995 BUILD 19 1422L 47 19 1422 47 Holmes j � Holmes j � L 169 t— 149 221 t-- 149 4 3488 4 0 6 3567 4— 0 35 � �-- 34 45 � �— 34 A, [_ 7 10 1595 4 10 1610 4 AN FUTURE YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE From the intersection volumes above, no -build and build levels of service were calculated. Table 2 and Table 3 show the resulting LOS at each intersection and Appendix A includes the details of the computer runs for every RESOURCE scenario. At the Lakewood Commons entrance driveway the 1995-build LOS for SYSTEMS northbound vehicles turning left changes from a "C" to a "D" during the GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 10 morning peak hour with the proposed expansion. During the PM design hour, projections show a level -of -service "D" representing "long delays" for the critical movement both with and without the proposed expansion, however there may be few delays in actuality for reasons given earlier. The delay for the left -turning vehicles will not affect traffic flow along Shelburne Road. This is because these left -turning vehicles have a separate turn -lane more than adequate in length for the 37 vehicles per hour projected volume. At the signalized intersection, both the no -build and build scenarios for 1995 PM design hour result in a level -of -service "F" for "Extreme Delays" with existing Shelburne Road and Holmes Road lane configurations. However, reconfiguring the lane geometry at the signalized intersection greatly improves the average delays. If the intersection were realigned with exclusive left -turn lanes for the northbound and southbound approaches on Shelburne Road, analysis estimates show a level -of -service "C" for "average delays" at the intersection both with and without the expansion. With these geometric improvements, the AM peak hour level -of -service is 'B" representing "short delays" for both the no -build and build scenarios in the year 1995. TABLE 2: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE RESULTS FOR THE SHELBURNE ROAD/LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE INTERSECTION Analysis Scenario Northbound Left -Turn Reserve Capacity ( h) LOS 1990 AM PM 204 177 C D 1995 No -Build AM PM 202 133 C D 1995 Build AM PM 175 109 D D RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 11 TABLE 3: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE RESULTS FOR THE SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Analysis Geometric Inter. Scenario Improvements EB W B NB S B LOS 1990 None AM C C B C B PM F C B E D 1995 No -Build NB/SB left -only lane AM C C A B B PM C B C B C 1995 Build NB/SB left -only lane AM C C A B B PM C B C B C SAFETY ACCIDENT HISTORY Resource Systems Group collected accident data involving over $500 in damages, and/or an injury, over the last five years from the VAOT for the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersection. From 1984 to 1988 a total of 28 accidents occured at the signalized intersection, including 13 injuries. No fatalities occured during the five-year period and no accidents were recorded at the intersection in 1988. Table 4 shows the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities by year and cause of accident. The accident rate at the signalized intersection is 0.95 accidents per million vehicles, and the critical accident rate at this intersection is 0.91 accidents per million vehicles, slightly under the actual rate over the five-year period. However as seen in the accident data, signalization at Holmes Road (summer of 1987) greatly increased the safety of the intersection, resulting in zero accidents recorded in 1988. During the traffic counts, a few vehicles were observed exiting the Lakewood Commons parking lot via the one-way entrance driveway. Although there are signs posted in the parking lot that direct most drivers to the southern access on Holmes Road, we recommend that new signs be posted, such as "WRONG WAY" and "ENTRANCE ONLY." Also, painted arrows on the pavement along the one-way driveway would help deter exiting vehicles from the Shelburne Road access. The plans for the proposed expansion include narrowing the entrance lane at the driveway accessing Shelburne Road and RESOURCE providing an information directory to assist visitors at Lakewood Commons. SYSTEMS GROUP These provisions will enhance the safety conditions at the access. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 12 TABLE 4: VAOT ACCIDENT HISTORY AT SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD FOR YEARS 1984-1988 Variable Classification # Accidents # Injuries # Fatalities Year 1984 8 4 0 1985 10 2 0 1986 5 2 0 1987 5 5 0 1988 0 0 0 Cause Liquor Citated 1 0 0 Stop Light Violation 1 2 0 High Snow Banks 1 2 0 Hit & Run 2 1 0 Following Too Close 3 3 0 Failure To Yield ROW 10 5 0 Driver Fell Asleep 1 0 0 Inattention 1 0 0 Other 8 0 0 TOTAL 28 1 13 10 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed expansion at Lakewood Commons is estimated to generate approximately 81 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, and 115 vehicle trips during the PM design hour. At the Lakewood Commons entrance on Shelburne Road, calculations show no change in level of service for the critical turning movement under both no -build and build scenarios during the design hour in the year 1995. At the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersection, LOS analyses result in "extreme delays" during the PM design hour in the year 1995 without the proposed expansion trips. This analysis indicates that a provision of left -turn lanes for both northbound and southbound Shelburne Road traffic at Holmes Road is necessary to maintain more adequate levels of service. The lanes could be quite short, as the left -turn volumes are low and the expected queue lengths would be only one to two vehicles per cycle. However, failure to provide the exclusive left -turn lanes will disrupt traffic just enough to cause problems at this intersection, even in the no -build scenario. With these geometric improvements, the projected level of service is "C" representing "average LAKEWOOD, June 29, 1990 Page 13 delays" during the PM design hour, and "B" for "short delays" during the AM peak hour both with and without the project. In order to clarify the circulation patterns at Lakewood Commons parking lot, we recommend new signs and pavement markings near the Shelburne Road access. Assuming the recommendations given above are followed, the proposed expansion will cause no adverse impacts on traffic and the improvements to the Holmes Road intersection will improve traffic flow relative to both current and future no -build conditions. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP APPENDIX 1 Level -of -Service Analyses RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LOCATION: Shel burne Rd/Lakewood Commons : NAME: 1990 AM HOURL'Y VOLUMES ! VOLUMES IN PCPH - -... -- -_ .--- -- -- - -- -- N Major �t-eet:SL=,ei�_r;e R_ N:_: 2 <:,---V5---- 1165 ! I r •• Grade -,ter,. 1,:", -_._.: . __..._V--- 29 1 --- V?--- > v--- 1'J4--- ''."... 1 1 .-__--_- -_ 1 - - __ - ----- -- _- 1 ' ' Date of Counts: 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ff t= i rr 6 1 - / � .L .J : �..'� ,... 'j , 1 1r- 1 S. i"5 {'"' y -J X STOP 1 1 ; V 7 1'vJ' i r Time Period: 11 ! 1 YIE;_D AM Peak ' Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade ; 15 Lakewood Dr i 'vew i % ! PHF : .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movs.ment no. 2 ll 1 V Volume ol ume (% h) 1 22 1 3 1 2 9 1 5 •------'•- --- 1 1 Vo I i- !' Table !O. 1: XXX' XXXX I XX XXXXX: 32 ! XXXXXXXX: 0 -- 1 y' 1 cr-^' 1 C=�.,-� F;�-,rn Minor Street " '_ 1 ' . 9 Flows,Conflicting Vc -1/2 ,'TVA 16 +`61 1--`62- _vph (Vc9 ) _ -- Cr itical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 5.5 secs (!ab.10.2) Potential Capa:ity, Cp 1 Cp9= 532 pcph (Fig.10.. ) r• Actual Capacity, Cm : t1119=t-:p9=J_'.:: pcph STEP C . LT From Major Street `,._.__ 14 Conflicting Flows, ''Jc : IT+J 1 4 y= _ 1 + 12 -^��_= 1yc�-- •_-"_ _-_.__ +•_ 5 vph (Jc4) Critical Gap, Tc : Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 t:1p4= 216 pcph (Fig. 1 >. _) /. of Cp utilizer] .and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/Cp4): IOO= 13.6% P4= Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) : Cm4=Cp4= 236 pcph STEP _ . LT From Minor Street ; .--; V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1 /2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 16 + 1222 + 11651 + 29 = 1700 vph (Vc7 ) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 7 secs (Tab. 10.._') Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp7= 65 pcph (Fi.g.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .91 = 59 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if -lane -is shared ---- Cr( C_R LOS LOS MOVEMENT V (FCPH) CM (F'CF'H) CSH (F'CF'H) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 U 59 Q 59 U E E 9 U 5=2 0 532 U A E 4 32 236 204 C LOCATION:Shelborne Road/Lakewood Common :NAME:1990 DHV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HO► RLY VOLUMES : VOLUMES IN PCPH .; N ; Major street:SE; Shelburne Rd N= C < --- V5•--- 1693 < --- V5--- Grase 131•2--- V2--- > •,;--- V4-.--- 17 ---V2--- V4--- 19 0 % ='9--- V3 --- v N= _ 1---V3---•-v Date of Counts: 5/2/90 1 V7 V9 1 X STOP i V7 V9 Time Period: : : : : YIELD 1990 PM DHV : _ 5: : _ 5: Approach Speed: (Minor Street: Grade : =5 MPH Lakewood Drive 0% PHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movement no. : 2 ; _ : 4 : 5 : 7 Volume (vph) 1_42 i `y 1; 1 169? I - Val (pcph),see Table 10.1:XXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXX: I? !XXXXXXX'X: _ : 5 STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street : i V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 /2 V +V2= 20 + 671 = i9l vph (Vc9) Critical Gap., Tc : Tc= 5.5sec=- (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp9= 491 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Ci» : Cm9=Cp9= 491 pcph STEP 2 . LT From Major Street : v-- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc V3+V2= 39 + 1=42 = 1:=81 vph(Vc4) ---- Critical Gap, Tc : Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp4= 196 pcph (Fig.10.5) of Cp utilizes and Impede?nce Factor : (V4iCp4)::lOO= 9.7% P4= .94 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fi g. 10.5) : C•m4=Cp4= 196 pcph STEP : LT From Minor Street : .-\ V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= : 20 + 1342 + 1693 + 17 = 1700 vph (Vc7) Critical Gap, Tc : Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp7= 65 pcph (Fig.10.=) Actual Capacity, Cm : Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .94 = 61 pcpl-I SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+•.19) / ((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared --- CR CR LOS LO=; MOVEMENT V (PCPH) C; f (FCPH) CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH--V) CM CSH, 7 - 61 135 5 3 127 E U 5 491 1 _5 4`,6 127 A L) L OC:ATION: Si'-iel borne Rd/Lakewood Commons ; NAME: 1995 AM NB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HC iURLY VOLUMES S ; VOLUME`.:: IN PC:E •H Major =_•treet:SB Shelburne Rd ; N - 2 --- V5--- 1 171 - 5'---"- Date of Counts: ; 1 1 I / 1 J/8� V7 �v9 1 x STOP IP ; ; V7 V9 ; Time Period: ; ; ; ; YIELD AEI Peak ; c_) 0 1 ; 0 o f Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade 35 Lakewood Dr i 'ti'ew r )% ; PHF : .9 N= 1 Population: 1150 ) •JOLUME ADJUSTMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movement no. ; 2 ; _ ; 4 ; 5 ; 7 ; 9 Volume (vph) 1.222 ; 11 ; 29 ; 1 171 ; i , ; c_) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'f o1 (p c p i• i )q s c e Table 1 0 . y ! P.:1 .•1 /1 ..h, ,''•. ,i X . \ 11 :'R A :; A X X 1 32 t x x ,;. !1 r ..\ :x.:\ t) i 0 STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street ; /-> V9 Conflicting Flows, .c 1/2 . 3+.. 16 + 614 - 630 vpl-! (Jc ) Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp9= 571 pcph (Fig. 10. _) Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 531 pcph STEP 2 . LT From Major Street v-"- V4 on'S`lici_ing Flows, •.c .,I+JC'- =i + 1228 - 1259 vpi-!(4c4) Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp4= 214 pcph (Fig.10.3) % of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor' (V4/Cp4)xl O= 1=.7: P4= .91 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) ; Cm4=Cp4= 234 pcph :STEP ' : LT From Minor Street ; `-\ V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc 16 + 1228 + 1171 + 29 = 1700 vph (Vc7) Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp7= 65 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm ; Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .91 = 59 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is _-hared CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V (PCPH) CM (PCPH) CSH (PCPi i) (CM -V) (CSH--V) CM CSH 7 59 0 59 0 E E 9 :) 4 - 531 0 7 W 531 i; - A �" E 0 LOCATION; Shelburne Road/Lakewood Common 1 NAME: 1995 No -Build DHV -------------- HOURLY VOLUME' 1 VOLUMES IN PCFH <: N 1 Major stre t : SB Shelburne Rd N = C < ---V5---- 1891 1--V5--- t_rade 1488 --- V -- . v--- V4---- ^C' - --V2 - . v-•--V4---- 24 _---_----�_---------- __--_-••-___ --_______________ I 1 . Date of Counts: 1 1 5/2/90 1 V7 ''J9 1 X STOP i 1 V7 V9 i Time Period: 1 1 1 1 YIELD 1 1 1 1 1 1995 NB DE- V 1 0 0; ; 0 Approach Speed: Miner Street: Grade 1 Z5 MPH Lakewood Drive 0% PHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Mo`•le?T;E::nt no. 1 2 1 _ 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 'y-_.__' - --- Volume (vph) 1 1488 1 51 1 ^•_2 1 1891 1 i � c; , ------ Vol (pcph)see Table 10.1 I X,XvX,XX i X;(y XXXX I 24 ! XX X,XXXX i 0 i? ; STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street -. V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc -___- 1 /2 Y^ +V- 26 + 744_= 770 vph (Vc9) Critical Gape, Tc 1 Tc= 5.5+ secs (Tab. 10.^) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 I p9= 44,_' pcph (Fig. 10. ) �_ At �_!al Capacity , Cin ?-..m9=Cp9= 44= pcph =;TEi= 2 LT From Major Street - v__-Vj}--------------------- +V = + = -, Conflicting Flows, '•.c � ,,,.' Ci i4'JJ _iJ±'' :phtVc47 Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 5.5 'sec's (Ta5.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 157 pcph (Fig, 10.3) % of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/Cp4) x lOO= 15. ;; P4= .9 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) 1 Cm4=Cp4= 157 pcph -- ,. STEP _ L.. From Minor Street '1 V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc i 1/2 V3+V '+V5'i V4= 1 26 + 1488 + 1891 '+ ^E' = 17i 0 vph (Vc7) Critical Gap, is 1 Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp7= 65 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7=Cp7:,P4= 65 ,, .9 = 59 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7•+V9) / ((V7/ Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CR CR LOS LO S MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCFH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 59 i; 59 0 E E 9 0 443 0 443 0 A E 4 24 157 133 D LOCATION: Shel burne Rd/Lakewood Common'_ : NAME: 1995 AM B HOURLY VOLUMES ; VOLUMES IN PCPH < N ; Major street: SD Shelburne Rd ; N= 2 --V5--- 1192 < --- V5--- Grade 1228--- V2 --- :- v--- V4---- 47 --- .2._.__.v----V4--- 52 Date of Counts: ; 5 / 0 i V r STOP a V 7 i. i Time Period: ; ; ; ; YIELD AM Peak: ; is C) Approach _peed: Minor- Street: Grade ; 35 Lakewood Drivew 0% ; SHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movement no. ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ; _ ; 4 ; C 7 ; 9 ; 228 1 51 Vol(pcph),see Table 10.1;XXXXXXX.X;XXXXXXXX; 5 ;XXXXXXXX; 0 ; 0 ! STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street ; ; -. V9 Conil:ic_ting Flows, Vc ; 1/2 'V +Y�,i_ 26 + i14 - 640 vph(Vc9) Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5sec=_ (T.ab.10.2) Potential Capacity, C:p ; Cps'= 524 pcph (Fi g. 10. =) Actual Capacity, Cm ; Cm9=Cp9= 524 pcph -'iE;=' 2 . LT From Major Street ; v-- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 J = + V 2- 51 + 1228 - 1279 v p h (V c 4 ) Critical Lap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab. 10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp4= 227 pcph (Fig.10. 3) % of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor- ; (V4/Cp4) x IOO= 22. 9% F4= . 3'7 Actual Capacity, CM (Fig.10.5) ; Cm4=Cp4= 227 pcph STEP 1 : LT From Minor �r Street :-% V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc ; 1 /2 V=+V2+V5+V4= ; 26 + 1222 + 1192 + 47 = 1700 vph (Vc7) Zr•-itit_al Gap, Tc ; Tc= 7 sec_ (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp7= 65 pcph (Fig.10. ) Actual Capacity, Cm ; Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .83 = 54 pcph SHARED LANE_ CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9) / ((V7/ Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V ( PCPH) CM ( PCPH) CSH ( PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 i) 54 54 i) E E 9 t) 524 0 524 i f A E 4 52 227 7 175 D LOCATION: hel borne Read/Lakewood Common : NAME: 1995 Build DHV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH ::: N Major street:S9 Shelburne Rd ; N== ^ . --- V5--- 1943 i ,---V5---- Grade 14r=8--- V2 --- > ..;--- V4--- 37 .--.V2 v•----V4-•--- 41 Date � }f Counts: 1 5/2 / 90 V 7 V9 1 X STOP ; .7 V V �9 Time Period: YIELD ; 1995 Build DH'V 0 0: ; i) Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade ; gL MPH Lakewood Drive PHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- C _ 4 5 7' Volume (vph) 1 1488 87 37 194' Vol (pcph) , •-et_ Table 10. 1 1 XXXXXXXX 1 XXXXXXXX 1 41 1 XXXXXXXX ; 0 ; it ; STEM"' 1 , RT From Minor Street 1 /-. V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1 /^ V=+VC== 44 + 744 = 738 vph (Vc9) -- - Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp9= 432 pcph (Fig, 10.7) _. Actual Cp:_.;_ity, Cm 1 Cm9=Cp9= 432 pcph STEP C . LT From Major Street 1 v-- V4 Conflicting Flow_:, Yc 1 V3+V2= 87 + 1488 = 1575 vph(Vc4) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) - "otential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 150 pcph (Fig. ire.._) Of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/Cp4) g l O= 27. =% P4= .79 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fi g. 10. 5) 1 Cm4=Cp4= 150 pcph STEP _ , LT From Miner Street 1 .-\ V7 Conflicting Flows, i• c i 1/2 V3-1-'V2+V5+V4= 1 44 + 1488 + 194Z + 37 = 1700 vph (Vc7) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 7 Secs (Ta.b.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp7= 65 pcph (Fig. 10. _) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .79 = 51 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+'V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 0 51 i). 51 0 E E q 432 0 432 0 A E 4 41 150 109 D _____ ___ |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1990 AM Area Type/ CBD XOther| :Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | |======================================================== =====================| :VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS :Shelburne Rd N/S ST.| ' | � [1218] | | 25 ^ | | ^ SE-1 TOTAL 2 0 <- [ 283 | | | < v > | 12.0 | -WB TOTAL| | (N) 47 1036 1351 TH | 3 v | � K | _________________ | _________________| | NORTH v ^---RT-12.0'-1 | | <v--LTH-12.0,-1 | | | | } |IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-13.0'--TH--- > ^ | 11.Volumes ----------------- | --------_________| |2.Lanes/lane widths | TH | Holmes | |3.Movements by lane ^ 30 } 12.01 E/W STREET | 14.Parking locations - | | | 1122 | |5.Bay storge lngths [ 493 -> 0 | 2 } 12 <^> 29 | 16.Islands E/B TOTAL - | | [1163] | 17.Bus stops v 19 N/B TOTAL | !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS | |=============================================================================| |Ap|Grd.| % HV | Adj.Pkg.Lane | Buses | PHF !Cnf.Ped! Pedstrn Button! Arr.| |pr| (%)| | Y/N | Nm (Nb) | /(pd/hr)| Y/N |Mn.Time| Type! |--|----(-------|-------|-------(-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| 00+0.0| 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |W0+0.01 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 ) 0 | N | 0 ( 3 | |NB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |SB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 | 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |________________________________________-____________________________________| !Grade:+up,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: min.green for | |HV:veh. > 4 whls PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing| |Nm:pkg.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 | |=============================================================================| !PHASING | |=============================================================================| | | * |^ | | | | | | | | D | I |<**+> } A | v |+ | | | | | | | | G | |v ^| | | | | | | | R | ^ | +| | | | | | | | A | <+**>| *****>| | | | | | | | | * | v| | | | | | | |-----|--------�--------�--------|--------|--------|--------}--------|--------| |Tim- | G= 51.01 G= 10.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.0| G= 0.01 G= 0.0| < ing |Y+R= 5)Y+R= 4!Y+R= 0}Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0| |Ptmd/Act| ) Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ | Permitted turns: ++++^ | Cycle Length 70 Sec| |---------------------------------_____---__________________________----------| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | r ----__--.__-_-•_-•.-_.----._._ l intc-r-=ection: =.helburn Road/Holmes Road h)'a.te: 6/2'C/9(:) 1 1Analy-=t:KW::: TimePeriod Anlyzd:1990 AM Area Type: CBD XOther: :Project No. Lakewood _ City/^tate: c outh Burlington, Vermont , _ 1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 = 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 Appr- . 1 r•1v . 1 Mvt, 1 Peak 1 Flow 1 Lane 1 Fl w rt 1 Number- : Lane 1 Adj. 1 Prop. ' 1 !Volume! Hour 1 Rate !Group Ip i i n Ln 1 of i Ut. i 1 i z i Flow 1 of 1 1 1 1 (vph) 1 actor 1 Vp 1 !Grp Vg 1 L_ane'a 1 Fctr U 1 V, vph 1 LT or RT! 1 1 PHF 1 =/4 1 1 (vph) 1 N Kb 9-41 7 x 91F':Lt , Prt: 1 LT 1 } ; 0. _ 0. 61 LT 1 1 E B 1 fH 1 01 0.90 1 01 H 1 541 1 1 1.00 1 54 1 k ' i 1 RT 1 1 9 1 0.90 1 ^ 1 1 1 i i i 1 0.39 R i 1 1 LT 1 31 0.90 1 31 1 i i i l1 1. 00 L t ' _ 1 1 WB 1 H 1 01 0.90 1 01 D 1 _'1 1 1 1.c".0 1 31 � 1 1 1 1T 1 251 0.90 j 1 281 0 1 231 1 1 1.00 1 281 1.00 RT 1 1 1 LT 1 121 0.90 131 1 1 1 : 1 0.01 LT 1 1 NB 1 TH 1 11221 0.90 1 12471 H 1 12921 1 2 1 1.05 1 13571 i 1 1 RT 1 291 0.90 l 1 321 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 RT i 1 1 LT 1 1351 0.90 1 1501 1 1 1 1 0. 11 L► ' ' 1 1 1 L B 1 -1H 1 10361 0.90 90 1 1 151 1 H 1 13531 2 1 1.05 1 14211 � 1 1 R•1 1 471 0.90 1 521 1 1 1 1 1 0.04 RT 1 ._----.-.-_--.--_..-------.-..__--_.-_---.-_----.-.--_--„•---__-----__•"_.-.__--.--------------------•----.- i L;-;;' E GROUP L ±+ ri_RAMS- E * * = PROTC•T I , -hf f _ F'ERMTTD, ### = F`1~;OTCTD & PERMT T D 3 : 1 ----'---------•-------'--------------'----•'--'----"---------'--...__._---'-'----------'---------------- •r, 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 y 1 r RESOURCE -L SYSTEMS GROUP, y Norwich, y Vermont, Lit:.!. using 1`��L.,1"jl�� by _ 1lntersection:Ghelborne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/9--------------- (_ 1Anal y=t:KJl::: TimePeriod Anlyzd: 1990 AM Area Type: CBD XOther; :Project No. Lakewood 3 City/'Mate: South Burlington, Vermont SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE _ F 5 6 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GROUP 1 Ideal ; No. 1 Ln. W. 1 Hvy'Jeh 1 Grarde ; Pkg. ; BusB1 k ; AreaTp ; Rt Trn : Lt Trn ! Ad iSat ----- 1 Sat. :of ; Fw 1 Fhv ; Fg • ; Fp ; Fbb 1 Fa 1 Frt 1 Fl t ; F1 wR•t ' -- 1 --- ----- 1 1 Ap1Mv;pcphgpl N 1T.9-5 1T.9-6 1T.9-7 ;T.9-8 ;T.9.-9 ;T.9-101T.9-111T.9-121(vphg) Ems'%; H 1 1800 1 1 ; 1, 030 1 0. 995 1 1. r 700 ; . 000 ;1.0001 1.0001 1 c; -. a _ _ 1 , r!i !i ! 1 0.8471 1.0001 1 �� u _� 1 1 1 1 WB I D; 1800 ; 1 1 1.0001 0.9951 1. (!00 1 1, 000 ; 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1 791 1 01 1800 1 1 ; 1.0001 0.9951 1.0001 1 1,0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.8501 1 1.0001 1522 1 i NB ; H; 1800 ; 2 1 1.0001 0, 990 1 1,0001 1,0001 1 1.0001 1.0001 0.9961 0.6561 ^'_ 2 i 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 I SB ; H ; 1800 1 2 ; 1.0001 1 0,9901 - 1 1.0001 1.0001 _ ; 0.9941 0 ..''. 59 1 1981 1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS- 0 * * = PROTC-! D, +_i..+ = PERMTTD , #k## - PROTCTD & PERMTTD 7 ; 1----------------------------------_____-----__-_--__-_ __ _-------------------- ' I D 1 H -• 1 GI 1 ; 1 t 1 1 1 v 1 v , RESOURCE SYSTEMS G 1 1 ROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCA�' by F"ST RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Traffic Impact Study Of The Lakewood Commons Expansion -- ADDENDUM Prepared for: Green Mountain Design Norwich, Vermont I August 29, 1990 INTRODUCTION Resource Systems Group prepared a July 2, 1990 report titled "Traffic Impact Study Of The Lakewood Commons Expansion." Since the time that report was prepared, the sizes and uses in the proposed expansion of Lakewood Commons have been modified. The 114-room limited -use motel changed to 108 rooms, and the 3,000 square -foot office space and 9,000 square -foot retail space have been replaced by a total of 18,000 square feet of retail space. This addendum analyzes the effects of these changes on traffic flow, both relative to the uses evaluated in the earlier report and with respect to the resulting levels of service at key intersections. Appendix I (attached) has been modified to reflect these changes. FUTURE CONDITIONS PROPOSED EXPANSION TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed expansion results in a total of 70 vehicle trips during the morning, and 151 vehicle trips during the afternoon. Table 1 shows the breakdown of these trips. TABLE 1: AM/PM DEVELOPMENT TRIPS FOR LAKEWOOD EXPANSION Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Retaill Hotel2 18,000 Sq. Ft. 7/33 108 Rooms 23/34 0/50 40/34 7/83 63/68 TOTAL AM 30 40 70 TOTAL PM 67 84 151 The new trips were distributed according to the patterns exhibited from the traffic counts at the Lakewood Commons entrance and at the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersection. Figures 1 and 2 show the distribution of the new trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The figures include the trips that resulted from adjusting the existing Lakewood Commons to full occupancy, as described in the original report. Figures 2 and 3 show the resulting RESOURCE 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Washington DC, SYSTEMS 1987, Land Use 870, p.1263. GROUP 2 ITE, Land Use 320, p. 503. LAKEWOOD, August 29, 1990 Page 2 1995 Build traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon peak hours at the two intersections. As a result of the different size and characteristics of the proposed expansion since the original report, the traffic volumes at both intersections decreased slightly in the AM peak hour. This is due to the removal of the office space. During the PM peak hour, the intersection volumes increased by 123 vehicles (3%) at the driveway, and by 52 vehicles (1%) at Holmes Road, relative to the build case analyzed in the earlier report. FIGURE 1: AM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS 16 0 Driveway �T 14 20 0 Holmes j 20 0 —� 20 0 FIGURE 2: PM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS 72 0 Driveway 1 �z ? RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP �0 �— 0 N 14 0 0 0 I0 Holmes Lj 88 0 3— > F— 0 18 � �-- 0 0 22 0 11 LAKEWOOD, August 29, 1990 Page 3 FIGURE 3: 1995 AM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 51 1042 135 Driveway 47 1228 Holmes 50 42 2508 0 2550 F — 0 42 � � 3 43 1191 12 1142 31 N FIGURE 4: 1995 PM DESIGN HOUR BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 191422 47 123 1488 Driveway � J Holmes 3678 257 149 7 —> 3619 F — 0 53 � �-- 34 44 2023 10 1617 4 N FUTURE YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE - Levels of service were calculated for the three scenarios: 1990 existing, 1995 No -Build, and 1995 Build (Tables 2 and 3). With the change in land use, the northbound left -turn into Lakewood Commons improved from a level-of- sevice "D" to level -of -service "C" representing "Average Delays" during the AM peak hour. The intersection level -of -service at the signalized intersection of Shelburne Road/Holmes Road did not change with the different development since the original report. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LAKEWOOD, August 29, 1990 Page 4 TABLE 2: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE RESULTS FOR THE SHELBURNE ROAD/LAKEWOOD COMMONS ENTRANCE INTERSECTION Northbound Left -Turn Anal sis Scenario Reserve Ca aci ( c h) 1990 AM 204 PM 177 1995 No -Build AM 202 PM 133 1995 Build AM 201 PM 123 LOS C D C D C D TABLE 3: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE RESULTS FOR THE SHELBURNE ROAD/HOLMES ROAD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Analysis Geometric Scenario Improvements EB WB 1990 None AM C C NB B SB C Inter. LOS B PM F C 1995 No -Build NB/SB left -only lane AM C C B A E B D B PM C B 1995 Build NB/SB left -only lane AM C C C A C B C - -B-PMM D B D C C PARKING DEMAND Lakewood Commons was approximately 79 percent occupied at the time of the parking lot survey and traffic counts. After adjusting to full occupancy, the average utilization is 68 percent with approximately 63 parking spaces free. Using ITE peak parking estimates, the proposed expansion is projected to increase the parking demand by approximately 83 spaces during peak periods: 32 spaces for the retail space, and 51 spaces for the 108-room motel.1 Considering the current average utilization of the existing 206 parking spaces, and the additional 190 spaces with the expansion, the proposed expansion will provide more than adequate parking. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2nd Edition. p. 126, 50. LAKEWOOD, August 29, 1990 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS The proposed expansion of Lakewood Commons is estimated to generate approximately 70 vehicles trips during the AM peak hour, and 151 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. These new trips, together with adjustments of the existing development to full occupancy, result in no change in the level of service for the critical turning movement at the Lakewood Commons entrance on Shelburne Road for all scenarios. At the Shelburne Road/Holmes Road intersection, with the geometric improvements discussed in detail in the original report, the projected level of service is "C" representing "Average Delays" during the PM design hour, and "B" for "Short Delays" during the AM peak hour both with and without the project. Assuming the recommendations given in the original report are followed, the proposed expansion will cause no adverse impacts on traffic and the improvements to the Holmes Road intersection will improve traffic flow relative to both current and future no -build conditions. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP APPENDIX 1 Level -of -Service Analyses RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP r� OC•ATION: Steel borne Rd/Lakewood C-+�mon=_. rdrlME:99 1 ,� ; AM ---.--------------------•--'---'----- HOURLY VOLUMESVOLUMEr. ----___._.-____-- IN F•%F�wl <: N Major street: SEA Shelburne Rd ''•.---VS--- 1165 ( Grade 1222-'-V2 --- •• v---t, 4--- 2' ,' .--- V5--- 1 i )'/, _' 1---V:� -- __-V2--•--: v--- V4---- 32 :: 1 : :: Date of Counts: 1 I 1 1 — •. i 1 >----------- 7/15/28 ' Y' V9 ( X STLI=' 1 Time Period: 1 ( V7 V9 ,. 1 1 YIELD AM Peal.:: ( 1 , ii 0; 1 Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade ; ( i� 0 i '~ Lakewood Dri vew 0% PHF: .9 M= 1 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ---•----'------•- _ Iu�,�emen•._ no. � .T y ._ , -----___._--..-..__. 1 4 1 _.-._._. Volume(vpl i J 1 �-,,,'-, 1 _,.1 i 1.�::2 1 '• -.__._._._._.._..._.__-_--•-_._...._..___._._-__. 29 Yol(pcph),see Table e 10, 1 1 XXXXXXXX 1 XXXXXXXX ; --•--____.___.____»____._. _ _�� I X X X X X X X X; c i ; C'r 1 STET' 1 . RT From Minor Street ____•' 1 Conflicting Flows, 'Jc-____--------•---_____ �____•______________________________ Critical Gap, Tc 1 P" V='.5 = 16 + 611 = 627-vph(Vc9) ( Potential Capacity, CP , c= Tc= 5.�`�+ secs (Tab.10-2) Actual capacity, P y, Gm 1 Cp9= 5.T2 Pcph (Fig. 10. =) I Cm9=Cp9= 5=2 pcph STEP 2 . LT From Major Street 1 ----------_.-._____-- -Vc-----------__.____-______ Conflicting Flows, - Critical Gap, Tc ' J3+V2= =1 + 1222 = 125 vph(Vc4) �'otent i al Capacity, C-. Tc= 5.5 secs ( Tab . 10. 2) Of G utilized ice+ a. P J n� Impedance Factor- Cp`�•= 236 pcph (Fig. 1i. = ) ; Actual Capacity C (Fig. 10. 5'1- __'---�9 (V4/C 4)::1c�C�= � P 13.6% P4= .91 --fi Cm4=Cp4= 236 pcpl-) STEP 3 : LT From Minor S treet Conflicting Flows, Vr ----------------- _ 1 1 /2 ` 3+V2+V5.+V4= Critical Gap, Tc ( 16 + 1222 + 1165 + 29 = 1700 vph(Vc7) Potential Capacity, Cp Tc= 7 secs ( Tab . 10. 2) Actual Capacity, Cm CP7= 65 pcph (Fi g. 10. = ) Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 x .91 = 59 pcph 3HARED LANE CAPACITY -===SH((V7/f'm7) _--== + (V9/Cm9)) - if lane is shared rnOVEMEi�T V (F'CF'H) , CM (PCPH; �"C H (PCPH) CR CR LOS LOS _ -C (CM-V) (CSH-Y) CM CS;H 9 c r 532 59 0 q ,i - 236 1.�2 0A E 204 C , _OCATItJN: , hel borne Road/Lakewood Common ~ ML :IrrfT H I., ---•-----------.-__--_--- _._.___--_.__, HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCP1.-1 ':: N Major street:SB Shelburne Rd ; ----------- !r'-__'..'�'----'. _ V 1693 ! . --- V --- Grade 1? rT .: 1, ' I I ! I Time Period: ; ; ; YIELD V 7 V 9 I 1990 PM DHV 3 µ = I Approach Speed: Minor ��5 � Street; � 35 MPH Lakewood Drive r.% PHF: .9 N= 1 Populations 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ?o��selrlent no,, .-,---'--. ---------' 4. i i d'_slume (•..;ph ) ---•—'-3 _—_-----'--- ' I 17 "f I C ----------------------- --___�_-_________yol(F-L-)9==� 1�Jl' 10u111XXXXX,XtXXX^iX___19 I . __-___. XXXXXXXI STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street Conflicting onf 1 i c ti ng Flows, '1� =--_•-___1"=/___V_+2_ =__2_0__+_-L_71 •-=_•- �_n_ _1 Critical Gap, Tc -_ 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) _v-I__( _d_- _7 _) Potential Capacity, Cl:) Capacity, A c; !_pS= 4•T'1 pcph (F:ig, 10. _',) Actual a :1 C irl CM =Cpr= 491 pcph STEP 2 4 LT From Major Street v-- V4 CTMilicting Flowsq VC Critical Gap, To �� ' _ = 1381 vph (Vc4) Potential C-.-Ir�aClt'y, Cp T== 5.5 secs (Tab. 10.C:) Of C= utilized Cp4= 196 pcph (Fig, 10. rt„•- _ !� _e Factor I ;.v4iCp�l. 1aC.- y'.;./, 1='4= „94 Actual) Capacity, (Fig_10_5) 1 Cm4=Cp4= 196 pcph STIFF' _ . LT From Minor Str-eet--------___-�_____=--___--_______.-_-____ Conflicting Flows, 'dc________________.___•--_•-'_ ___-___.____ CriticalitCritical Gap, TI_ 1 1 20 1 + 1342 + 1693 + 17 = 1700 v,h (VIc7) Potential Capacity, Cp 7 ;ecs (Tab. 10.2) (actual Capacity! Cm 1 Cp" 65 pcph (Fig, 10.3) - --'-- _ _ ----- 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 65 SHARED LANE CAPACITY =,1-i - ('4' 7 +V^) . ((�,•� ir- I r-, . - /Cm7).� (Vg/cm qc, )) if lane is shared MOVEMENT V (F'CPH } CR CR LOS Lp CM (PCPH) CSH (PCPH) (CM_V) (CSH- Y) CM CSC II 61 1 if 58 127 F L, 4 1,. 491 �. we 48 6 127A D LCCATION:Shelborne Rd/Lakewood Commons ;NAME:1995 AM NB HGURLY VOLUMES --------- ; VOLUMES IN PCPH <: N ; Major street:SB Shelburne Rd ; N= 2 Grade 1225--- V2--- > <--- V5--- 1171 v--- V4--- 29 ; --V5---==___ ; C % ? 1---V3---v A --V4--- -•--V2---:: v-32 _• :; ;: __-_______::; Date of Counts: ; ;::� _ ------ ------__ 7/15/88 V7 V9 ; X STOP ; 'J7 V9 ; Time Period: ; ; ; ; YIELD AM Peak ; 0 0; , Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade ; "' Lakewood Dri vew ' PHF: .9 N= I Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. _.-_-_..._.__--..__.....__..-..-..--__.._..._..._.._..._.__.........-•----••: ;2 3 -- 4 5 ___----___ 7 Volume (vph) --_ ; 1228 ; 71 ------__.-..._._.--_-.__.__ ; 29 ; 11.71 ; C) Vol (pcph) , see Table 10. 1; XXXXXXX : XXXXXXXX; 32 ;: •-•� XXXXXXXX ; tj ; 0 STF_F' 1 RT From Minor Str-eet___________-_ �•_---_-_-__-=/-==4J9_____________________ Conflicting Flows, Vc ; 1/2 V3+V2= 16 + 614 = 630 vph(Vt-_9) Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp9= 53! pcph (Fig.10..3) Actual Capacity, Cm ; Cm9=C:py= 531 pcph - STEP 2 LT From Major Street-__________ ;`J--_'y'4 Conflicting Flows., Vc Critical Gap, V3+V2= 31 + 1225 = 1259 vph(Vc4)_=-=_ Tc Potential Capacity, Cp ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) of Cp utilized and Impedance Facto_ Cp4= 234 pcph (Fig. iC. 3). , (V4: Cp4) x I OO= 1 _ 7% P4= Actual Capacity, Cm (f ig.1t_j.5) . .91 1 Cm4=Cp4= 234 pcph STET' M : LT From Minor Street J onflicting Flows, Vc ----------------------- 1/2 V3+Y2+ _ = Critical Gap, Tc 16 + 1228 + 1171 + 29 = 1700 vph(Vc7) Capacity, Cp ; Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)Potential Cp7= 65 Actual Capacity, Cm pcph (;•wig. iC>. =) Cin7=Cp 7 x P4= 65 x .91 = 59 pcph SHARED LAME CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cin7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane isshared MOVEMENT V (F'CF'H) CR CR LCS LOS CM(PQPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 tr 9 59 59 if E E t? 4 551 0 531 A E 32 234 Common L OCATION``helburnHOURLY !NAME:1?95 No-BuildIHV _^Ro`.d/Lak:ewl_�od --- ------ - VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCP1-•I :: ra Major _treet:'SB Shelburne Rd , ----------________ '---VC--- 1391 Grade 1438 --- ', --__ . v — �--' 1.::..___�,C...___ { - 3 _ 1 Date o' Counts; ; 1 :: 1 ::5/2/90 -__- ' V7 J 9 1 X STOP 1995 NB DL-1V 1 1 , f_i f j 1 Approach Speed: Minor St rade Lakewood Drive 0 PHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 11500 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS _ - - ----- ...--......_...._.._....----_._.__. Movement no,.._..._......._.._._ 1 , 1 i I 7 ty 1 Volume 1 _.__-- .._.___.___.-.__._..' __A.-_.. i 22 1 s q 1 1 i ) - i - i ___._..__.._. _.__.._.-.__...... -, , e Table 1C). 1 1 x'.,v..•. X X 1 XXX,_•..,V.,`. � • nK:1 :. :1 �.. n,i..:.finnR i .�. i "V v X r .� 1 STEP 1 . RT From Minor Street = --_--- - iaon+ l i i=t i ng Flows, Vc____________________ __________________--____ ____ _-=• - 1 Gap, Tc 1/2 V=NV2= ^= + 744= 770 vph (Yc9)Critical 0 I Capacity, ,p Tc- 5.5 secs (Tab.1V.L)h,tenrlal Capacity, _1 1 Cp9= 44 pcph (Fig,10, )H_t C:m9=Cp9= 440 pcph STEP C : LT From Major Street -1,•,c._._=_-_-__---_-__.__._ ___=___ Conflicting Flows, ______________.-_ _•____ ____ __ ___--- Critical ]. �.- a l Gap, p y ..� r 2_ ,J._r+J _ - J1 i 1433 = 15._r� ':lpi1(''r�C�i) Potential Capacity, Cp T r- L� - • 5 secs (Tab. 10. 2) ': of C i! a 1 p ti 1 i s ed and Impedanc Far_tor Cp4= 157 pcph (Fi!]. 10. _') 1 Actual Capacity, Cm (Fi =) , (V4/Cp4) : loo= 15. _% P4= .9 _ STEP _ . LT From Minor Street_ 1 , Conflicting Flows, b'c--_____-_-__- i 1 /2 V3+Vy)2+V5+V4= Critical Gapj Tr 1 26 + 1488 + 1891 + 22 = 1700 vph (Vc7) Potential. Capacity, city, Cp 1 , Tc= 7 secs (Tab. 10. ^) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cp7= 5 pcph (Fig. 10,3) 1 Cm7=Cp7::; P4= 65 .. .9 = 59 pcph?r-iA1 :ED LANE CAPACITY =,H—= (V7'i-Vg) / ( (V7/Cm7) + (Vg/Cm?)) = if laneis shared MO'v'EMEhI `•Y' (PCF'1' i) rCM (P'r.P'I { } r` (F'CP'H) __________-_-_•-- CR CR LO S LOS CM--'J 7 ___ __--_ _..____ .______.___ ==H (CSI-I-V) CM CSH ---- t: 0 c. `-' ' 0E E 4 ,4 147 1_) _ 4-- �_) A E 133 D �OCATION:Shel5urne_Rd/Lakewood Commons |NAME:1995 AM BuiId ��URLY VOLUMES ---------------------------------__ | VOLUMES IN �CPH <N | Major street:Shelburne Rd ================================= | N= 3 ====== | =========================== <---V5--- 1191 | ========== 5rade 122G---V2---> v___V__ 4 4_3 o� 47___y3___v --- --- v---V4--- 44 N= 3 | ======= Date of Counts: | === 7/15/88 | V7 V9 | X STOP | | | | | YIELD | | V7 V9 / AM Peak Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade | | 0 O| 35 Driveway 0% | PHF: .9 N= 0 Population: 11500 ================================================ VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS =============================== _.... .... ..... _____ Move�ent--------------------------------------- _..... ..... ..... _.... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... _________________________� 4 | 5 | 7 | 9 Volume (vph) | 1228 ------------------------------------- | | 47 / 43 | 1191 | 0 | 0 | _ Vol(pcph),see Table 10.1|XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXX-------------------------------------- 44 |XXXXXXXX| =========================================x/=== STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street |-- ================================= =============================================== /-> Vq Conflicting Flows, Vc ================================ Critical Gap, Tc | 1/2 V3+V2= 0 + 614 = 614 vph(ycq) Potential Capacity, Cp | Tc= 5^5 secs (Tab.10,2) Actual Capacity, Cm | CP9= 541 pcph (Fig.10,3) ========================================|=Cm9=Cp9= 541 pcph LT From | «-- V4 Conflicting Flows Vc =============================== Critical Gap, Tc ' | V3+V2= 0 + 1228 = 1228 v�h(yc4) potential Capacity, Cp | Tc= 5^5 secs (Tab.102) | % of CP utilized and Impedance CP4= 245 PcPh (Fig.10.3) Fact or | Actual Capacity, (V4/Cp4>«100= Cm (Fig 10 Cm4=Cp4= 245 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street V7 Conflicting Flows, VC: | 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= Critical Gap, Tc | 0 + 1228 + 1191 + 43 = 1700 vph(yc7) po�ential Capacity Cp | Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10,2) Actual Capacity, C' | CP7= 65 pcph (Fig.10,3) ==================~=====================|=Cm7=Cp7xP4= 57 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = V-/--~================================== / Cm,9)) if lane is shared MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) LOS LOS ..� �- (CCRV) (CSCRV) CM CSH � 9 0 541 57 E / 4 44 245 541 201 A � r | LOCATION:Shelburne_Rd/Lakewood Common AME:1995 PM Build HOURLY VOLUMES -------------------------------____ | VOLUMES IN PCPH ----- <N �ajor street:Shelburne Rd ================================== ' ' | Grade 1488--_y2_ > <---V5--- 2023 __ `---vz--- v___y4___ 44 0% | ---V2---) 123---V3---v N= 3 »---V4--- 45 | Date of Counts: 5/2/90 | V7 V9 Time Period: | / | V7 V9 | | | '-(I EL� | Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade / | 0 0| 35 Dri«ewa / PHF: 9 ~ N= 0 ?opulation: 11500 ========================================== VLOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ===================================== _..... ..... ___________________________ Movement no ------------------------ __..... ..... .... ___________ 7 | 9 | -----------------........ Vclume (vph) ... ........ ------------------- | 1488 | | 44 | 2023 ________z�� Vol(pcph),see Table 10 1|XXXXXXXX|XXX----------------------�------------------' nxx�X| 45 |XXXXXXXX| STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street Vq Conflicting Flows, VC = ==================================== Critical Gap, Tc | 1/2 V3+V2= 0 + 744 = 744 vph(ycq) Potential Capacity, Cp | Tc= 5^5 secs (Tab.10,2) Actual Capacity, Cm ! Cp9= 459 Pcph (Fig.10,3) ========================================| Cm9=Cp9= 459 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street ======================================= | � V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc ====================================== Critical Gap, Tc | V3+V2= 0 + 1488 = 1488 vph(yc4) �otential Capacity, Cp | Tc= 5^5 secs (Tab.10,2) % of CP utilized and Impedance Fact | CP4= 168 PcPh (Fig.10.3) or | Actual Capacity, Cm (V4/Cp4):100= 26.8% P4= (Fig 10 ,8 �m4=Cp4= 168 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street V7 | 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= Critical Gap, Tc | 0 + 1488 + 2023 + 44 = 1700 vph(yc7) Potential Capacity, Cp | Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10,2> Actual Capacity, Cm | CP7= 65 pcph (Fig.10,3) ========================================| Cm7=Cp7xP4= pcph SHARED LANECAPACITY SH = (117(V======================================= //C.m7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared MZVE"MI ENTCM (PC CSH(PCPH) LOS LOS ====V(PCPH) (CCRV) (CSCRV) n- CM CS 7 0 52 ============ ====================== 9 0 45q 4 45 168 459 A 123 ) D . |Intersection: Shelburne Road/Holmes Road ---' | |Analyst:KJK Timeperiod Anlyzd:1qq0 Date,., / AM Area Type: CBD XOther; ;project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burling ====================== ton - Vermont � , :VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS |Sh l==================================| | e ourne Rd N/S ST | ' ^ 218 � ^ [1] | / | | SB TOTAL | 2 | 25 ^ | | (N) « > / 12.0 0 47 1036 135� TH � TOTAL| _________ -------- 3 v-WB . | � NORTH | ____________� ------ | « ^ ---RT-12.01-1 � | ;IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-13.0'--TH---> | � |1.Volu__ Limes _______________ ^ | 12.Lanes,lane widths | ----------------_} | |3^Mo«ements by lane ^ TH | Holmes | 30 � |4^Parking locations _ | 12~0; E/W STREET | ;5^BaY storge lngths [ 4q3 _> | | 1122 | 0 | |6^Islands E/B TOTAL _ | 2 | 12 <^> 29 | 17.Bus stops v 10 | � [1163] / |TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS | N/B TOTAL � |=================== ========================== | |Ap!Grd.| % HV | Adj.Pkg.Lane | Buses | PHF================================� |pr| (%)| /Cnf.Ped| Pedstrn | y/N | Nm | (Nb) | Button| Arr.| |(pd/hr)| Y/N |Mn.Time| Type! ------/-------|-------|-------|-----| |EB|+0.0| 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0^90 ) �WB|+0.0! 1.0 | N | 0 0 | N | 0 | 0^90 / |NB!+0.0| 2.0 � N � 0 � N | 0 | 3 | 0 | O | � 0^90 N | 0 0 � N ) 0 | 3 | | 0 | o.90 0 N | 0 | 3 | �Grade: +up, -down Nb:buses stopping--------------------------------------| |HV:»eh~ > 4 whls pHF:peak_hour fac/nr �ur Min^Timing: min.green for | |Nm:Pkg^maneuvers/hr Cnf peds:Cnfl t |=========================,=========c=ng=peds/hr pedestrian crossing� Arr.Type: Type 1-5 | :PHASING ======| |================ ============================ | | D 1 I | A v | G v | R } ^ | +| | M i | | * | v| | | | | | | |-----|--------|--------|-_______|______ | |Tim- | G= 51.0| G= 10.0| G= 0 0| G= 0--|--------|--------|--------�--------| ^0|y+R ^» b= 0^0/ � ing !Y+R= 5|Y+R= 4|y+R= = 0|Y+R= G= 0^0| ~0| --- -------->--------|--------|--------|-___ 0|Y+R= 0|Y+R= 0;Y+R= �Ptmd/Act| | | |----------_____ | ______________________------------------- | Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ ; Permitted---------------------| |__-________________________________-_ turns: | ++++^ ----------------------------------------| | Cycle Length 70 Sec| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP N , orwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI / ---------------------------------------------- |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road --------------------------- 1Anal yst:KJK Timeperiod Anlyzd:1qq0 AM Date:6/28/90 | |Project No.Lakewood 3 Area Type: CBD XOther|City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | LEVEL-OF-SERVICE_WORKSHEET ======| ' '------ First Ter 'Del. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { I hdP IT l'JORKSHEET : Inter =.ect i on : Shel b+_trne Road/Holmes !goad Date: 6 ,- 90 1Ana1yst:KJk: TimaPeriod Anlycd:1990 PM DHV Are._. Type: CBD XOther1 0roject No.Lakewood _ Cit•'y/S;tate:South Burlington, Vermont ; :VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS :Shelburne Rd N/S ST. ! ; C13463 81 ' 1 S.B TOTAL 1 2 1 C 1133 : v > 1 12.0 -WB TCITAL 1 (N) 16 1288 421 TH 1 1 1 i ='1 v ; NORTH '-•-•_'-RT-12. 0' --1 1 v--LTH'-" 12. 0' - l , 1 1 I DENT I EY IN DIAGRAM 1-1 3 . 01 -- T H ! !!.Volumes ----------------- 1 2. Lanes, .lane widths TH : Holmes ; 17.Move{menta by lane 135 ; 12.0: E/W STREET 14.Parkinglocations 1 1 q i 15.Ba.`y' _torge ingth=_. C 1623 -> _ 2 1 9 1 _. Islands E/ B TOTAL -- 1 114523 1 :'. Bus stops v 24 1 N/B TOTAL : RAEF I C AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS I : Ap 1 Grd .: % H'<' Ad j . Pkg . Lang'_ 1 Buses 1 PHF : Cnf . Ped : Pei =t Button! J __ r n r=; r r. 1 1 :Pr: ("e) 1 : `f/r`', 1 Nm 1 (Nb) 1 i:pd/hr) : Y/N :Mn.Time: Type: 1 EB 1 +0. 0 1 1.0 1 N 1 0 ; is ; 0.90 1 0 1 N : 0 1 1 _ 1 : WB: +0. 01 1.0 1 N 1 0 1 0 1 0.90 1 t, 1 N ; 0 1 _ ; 1NB1+0.01 2.0 1 N 1 0 1 0 1 0.90 1 0 1 N 1 a 1 _ ; 1 SB: +0. 01 2.0 1 N 1 0 1 0 1 0.90 ' 1 0 1 N 1 0 1 1 _ i ------------- 1Grade:+upe-down Nb:b!_tses stopping/hr- ------------ -- Min.Timing: min.green for 1 :HV:veh. > 4 whls PHE:peak--hour 'factor pedestrian crossing: : him: pk:g. mane{_tvers/hr- Cnf . Peds: Cnf l ctng peds/hr- Ar-r . Type: Type 1-5 : !PHASING 1 : L: 1 1 1 1 %yy� 1 1 �(�� 11yy yy 1 I 1 '�. **+:• A 1 1 1 ''✓ i + 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 'J 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 -t- 1 M 4' i i 1 1 1 !Tim- 1 G= 51.01 G= 10.01 G= 0,01 G= 0,01 1 1,_1= 0, o; G= 0,01 G= 0.01 G= 0. 0: 1 i n gY+F:= 5 1 •.r�..i R= 4 1 Y.+R= <_� : Y+R= O 1 Y+h= l i i; 'Y-i R= O 1 •Y+R= i; 1 Y+R= c_� : 1 1 :-'t {m d iA c t' ' 1 1 -'r"atected turns: �.+..�. ** *•:.' a000- 1 Permitted turns; •------------------------------------------ -------------------------- ' c'._ +-I-..- : Cycle Length 70 .sec I R 1•_ S CI L' ! ", 1_ SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, s i I { g NA I~''b by 1- S .. 1 lntersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes_. Road Date:5/9/9(:) ; :Analyst:kW:: TimePeriod Anlyzd:1990 PM DHV Area. Type: CBD XOther: ; Project No.Lakewood _ City/ State: South Burlington, Vermont ; _ LEVEL-OF-SERV 1• CE_WORKSHEET _ ___ _First Term Delay_,__:._ _._Second Term Delay...____; Tot . Delay__&_LOS LANE : - ; 4 : ; b : 7 ; S ; ; 1 (:) : 1 1 : 12 : 1 GROUP: v/c : Green: Cycle: Delay : Lane: Delay :Prgrsn:Lane Gp: Ln: Apprch;Apr Ratio: Ratio:Length; d1 :Group: d2 ;Factor-: Delay : Gp: Delay :LOS 1 : X ; g / C : C ! sac / veh : Cap , c : sec / veh : PF : =.ec / veh : LOS : ec / veh : Tb l Ap;M,,,: : : (sec): : (vph) : : I".9-1 : (b+8) *9:9-1: :9-1 EB ; H : 1.1001 0.1431 70.01 23.191 1641 92.661 1.00 1 115.851 F ; 115.851 F tip'; )_ i 0.1371 0.1431 70.01 19.931 2561 _ 1.00 1 19.951 1 C ' 21.081 C : 01 0.4141 0.1431 70.01 20.771 2171 0.751 1.00 1 21.521 C: : NB I H ! 0.8981 0.7291 70. 0: 5.671 18871 4.491 1 1.00 ; 10.161 1 8 i 10.161 B SB : H : 1.0861 0.7291 70.01 1 9.381 14471 45.901 1.00 : 55.281 E : 55.281 E : ntersection Delay 35.72 sec/veh, Intersection LO`=; D Table 9.1 ; '----------------------------------------.--------------•-------------------------' !Lf-'NE GROUP DIAGRAMS-E*** = PROTCTD, ++•+ = PERMTTD, i+## = PROTCTD & PERMTTDY •-------- D H , '-----•------------------------------------•--------------------------------------- ' : RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI --INPUT WORKSHEET, !Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Dater/23/90 ;Anal•yst:KJk:: TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 AM NB Area Type_: CBD XQth`r: :Project No.Lakewood _ Ci ty/Gtate: South Burlington, Vermont ; :VOLUME AND GEGMETRICB ;Shelburne Rd N/S ST. ; ; C12243 : ; 25 sB TOTAL ; 1 1 1 ; 12. i ; ; {:> C 283 v ; 12.0 ; 12. 0 ; -WB TOTAL ; (N) 47 1042 135; R-FH TH LT = v ; 1 1 1 1---•-------------- ' •.'•----------------- ' , NORTH v v '---RT-12. 0' --1 v--LTH-12 . i >' --1 ; 1 ; :' I C'iENT I F Y IN DIAGRAM 1-12. 01 -•---; H---- :1.'Jolumes-------------------- ; ::,.- ---------------- 12.Lanes,lane widths LT TH RTH ; Holmes ;'.Movements by lane 30 ; 12.0 : 12.0; E/W STREET ; :4.Park:ing locations - ; ; 12.0 ; ; 1128 1 , Ba'y storge l rigt;-t=_ E 49 0 1 1 1 1 12 . 29 ; Islands E/B TOTAL - ; ; C11691 ; ; 7. Bu_. stops a 19 ; ; ;'J/tic TOTAL ; !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS ; Ap : Grd . ; HV : Ad . Pkg . La.ne ; Buse'_ ; PHF= : Cnf . Ped : Pedstr-n Button! Arr.: :Pr: (%) ; : Y:`Il ; rdm ; (Nb) : ; Vpd/hr? ; Y/;'d ;Mn.Time; Type; ; E B ; +0 . i 7 : 1.0 ; N ; 0 : 0 : 0.90 ; 0 : N : 0 : _ : ; WB : +0. 0 1 1.0 ; N ; 0 : 0 ; 0.90 ; 0 : N ; 0 , 1 _ ' I :NB:+0.0; 2.0 : N ; 0 ; 0 ; 0,90 ; 0 ; N : 0 1 i 1 _ t ; Ste; ; + . 0 : 2.0 ; N : 0 ; 0 ; 0.90 ; 0 : N ; 0 : _ ; —_--'__--._._.—.___....-_--_.._-----.--.-----__--._:.__._--_...._--.._._—...—._.._._..—__....___...._.----_......—..__....._-----_--__—._....._._.__.. _.__— � :Grade:ft._{p,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: min.green for : HV:veh. > 4 whls PHF:peak:-hour factor pedestrian crossing; :Nm:pk:g.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng pods/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 : :PHASING 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 � I ?• i 1 1 1 i 1 I A 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 i v 1 + I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I � i i v I , I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I—� i 1 + A : +**i•; *****>i M ; * ; * ; 1 I * 1 v ;Tim- ; G= 51.01 G= 10.01 G= 0,01 G'= 0,01 G= 0, o i G= o, 0 1 G= 0, 0: G= - 1 i n g ; Y+R= 5: Y+R= 4; Y-I' R= O; Y+R= O; Y+R= i); Y+R= O; Y+R= i i: Y+R= 0; : Ftmd / fact : '------•-----•-----------------------------------...----------------•--------------•----•-- ; 1 _: , Protected turns: %{t * %i{ %F • , U (:1 U Ci' �' ; Permitted turns: ..I. _I_ -{_ -i_ •'•• ; t_ y 1= 1 e Length l 1_� Sec! e RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, '•Vermont, using NCAP by PSI ' -. ____________________________________________________________ |Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/28/90 -------------- |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 AM NO Area Type: CBD XOth | |�roject No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington Vermont er/ |======================================================'=========== | | --- EVEL-OF-SERVICE_WORKSHEET |__|___ FirstDelay______!__ _Second Ter | LANE 1 3 | 4 | 5 | | 7 | 8 | ^' ~~^�/-____''/u�^ue�ay_a_�U� " GROUP! «/c | Green! Cycle! DelayDelay rg | Lane; D l |p � / 10 � 11| 12 ) 13 -----| Ratio! Ratio|Length| ~1 !Group: d2 :Factor! GPI Ln| Apprch|Apr 1 | 2| X | g/C | C |se�'veh|Cap,c|sec/veh| acror/ Delay | Gp| Delay |LOS Ap|MvI I | (sec): �:(vph); r� |sec/veh|LOS|sec/veh|Tbl pn=�= |T.9-13|(6+8)*9|9-1| |9-1 EB| H| 0.2491 0.1431 70.01 20.261 217� 0.131 1.00 | 20 39| C � 20 39| C . . . ----/------- ------|-------|-- | | WB| D| 0.0121 0.143| 70.01 19.58! 256| 0.00| 1.00 | 19 58| C | 19 89| C | Q| 0.129| 0.143| 70.01 19.911 2171 0.02' � 1.00 | 19^^921 C | ^ | --|--|------|------|--____|__ | | | B| 0.0611 0.7291 70.01 2.051 213' 0.001 1.00 | 2.051 A |-------|--- NB| O| 0.5211 0.7291 70.01 3.161 2587' 0.161 1.00 | 3^32| A | 3.311 A . | | . | --|--|------|------|______|___----|-____|____---|------|-------|---|----- | | B| 0.8951 0.7291 70.01 5.631 1681 28.461 1.00 | 34.091 D | --|--- SB| O| 0.4931 0.7291 70.01 3.061 25801 0.131 1.00 | 3.^18| A | 6.451 B __|__|______|___________________ |||________________________-___ ||||| | !Intersection Delay 5.36 sec/veh, Intersection LOS B T------------ |_______________________________________________________ Table �.l | !LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD ,, +++ = PERMTTD ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| ----------------------� |_________________________________________________-___- | B ^ � Q | ---------------------- ^ | D ^ | H | O| | + | + | + } | | | | ++++ | | | * | * | * | | | | | v | v | v | | |_______________________________________________________---------------------- ,| | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Norwich,Vermont, using NCAPbyPSI Verm t i | ____________________________________________________________| if ill I CTI If If L C7', if 1 0 13H X, if I if QL L-.j -i.,) LEI ... ---- r T ... 0 H r-- u it If 1_c V) If E 2" if if If 1 Ulf I if If ur, 4 i if z z if I U j it if CD ii 2-1 1 5 fl! k if if ff, I if If C L -- L.. if If if if 1=1 if ;1 fi i 1-1 !.-" I P. if I c- 0'.. :T: if If TO i I I I Of 4 Ul I a it if If u U-1 if if -0 1 is U 11 EL' I z T If H ! l D, 'q- 11 If I V 0 if if if! Li if --I if if if -.) e it Z if 'Wl if 70 if if �p in. El- if H If f urf IL cl c if If If 21-- - w if 11 H If I C. Y) 1 i -I.' I -cu -n 113 if H Z Z Z Z I If I '.q I J 11 CA 4 if Cr 1 U-11 QIvl J1 U !D it u cl I if CA CA 1 if i 14- if 11 43 C C: tj! CE if If it Qii c -Ti if -1 FEE 11 ;Y .... V u-1 C- if If I U P it Z. Ljj 0 rill Cl rr� ro, url -i 1 D.- 5-- 4- Tj > 'f:.- rl) If 70 k Ozi r-j if <1: 01 ft: vi '-d -3. Z 0) _'' ___0______________________________________________________________________ }Intersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road Date:6/29/90 ---- |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:1995 PM NB Area Type: CBD XOther' | |Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont | ===================| .._.___.LEVEL-OF-EERVICE_WORKSHEET | irst Term Delay______|Second Ter Delay ...... ''"`^"=^='-*-+uc LANE | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | � , 10 | 11| 12 | 13 GROUP! v/c | Green! Cycle! Delay | Lane! Delay 'Prgrsn|Lane Gp| Ln| Apprch|Apr -----� Ratio! Ratio|Length| d1 |Group| d2 Factor! Delay | Gp| Delay |LOS � | 21 X | g/C | C |sec/veh|Cap,c|sec/veh' PF 1sec/veh1LOS1sec/veh1Tbl AP|Mv| | | (sec)1 |(vph)| �T.9-131(6+8)*919-11 19-1 EB| H| 0.6071 0.3331 78.01 16.511 372; 2.031 1.00 | 18.551 C | 18.551 C | | | | | | | | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | | } WB| D| 0.0741 0.3331 78.0| 13.501 5171 0.001 1.00 | 13.511 B | 14.061 B | Q| 0.219| 0.3331 78.01 14.211 5071 0.041 1.00 | 14.25| B | ^ | |___|_______|___ | B| 0.1201 0.5381 78.0| 6.75| 921 0.031 1.00 | 6.781B | | NB| O| 0.9701 0.5381 78.0| 13.21i 19181 10.49| 1.00 | 23.701 C | 23.601 C | | | | | | | | | | | ^ | --|--|------|------|------|-------|-----|-------|------|-------|---|-------{--- | B| 0.5681 0.530 78.01 9.09| 921 5.71| 1.00 | 14.801 B | | SB| O| 0.876| 0.5381 78.01 11.961 19161 3.551 1.00 | 15.51| C | 15.491 C |__|______|______|______|_______|_____|_______|______|_______| _____|____^__| |Intersection Delay 19.42 sec/veh, Intersection LOS C Table 9 1�___ | |_____________________________________________________ . |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD,+++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| ------------------------| |_________________________________________________| ___________________________| B ^ | D ^ | H ^ | O | Q | | + | + | + | | | | | | ++++ | ****> | ****> } ****> | **** | | | | | * | * ( * ( | | | | « | v . | |----------------------___________________________ ____________________________| /RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI _____________| �-------------------------------- -------------------�������������������������������������������� | ` ________________ INPUT WORKSHEET . |�ntersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes Road ' |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:95 AM Build!Project Area Type: CBD XOther| City/State:South Burlington, !VOLUME AND GE3METRICS !Shelburne . e Ro m/E ST.| } . [1224] | | 25 ^ | | ^ SB TOTAL � | | | | | | 12.0 | | 0 <- - [ 28] ^ ^ | . | < v > | 12 0 | 12 0 | � | (N) 47 1042 1351 RTn TH L/ -WB TOTAL| | ||| __ ----| 3 v | ----------- < | > | NORTH -----------------| v v ^ � ---RT-12.0'-1 | | <v--LTH-12.01-1 | | | !IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12.0'--TH---> ^ ^ | 11.Volumes -----___----| ----- ----------- ----__ < | > | |2.Lanes,lane widths | LT TH RTH | Holmes 13.Movements by lane ^ 5O | 12.0 | 12.01 E/�o| |4.Parking locations - | | 12.0 || � STREET � 15.Bay storge lngths [ 883 -> 0 � 1 1` 1 | 12 1142 | 16^Islands E/G TOTAL _ | (^| 29 | [1183] |7.Bus stops v 38 | | | !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITION | N/B TOTAL S | |================================================================rn| |�p|Grd.| % HV | Adj.Pkg.Lane | Buses | PHF |Cnf Ped| Peds t =============| | Y/N } Nm | (Nb) | |(pd�hr)| M�u��on| Arr^| ' | `/'� / n./zmel |ype| 1EB1+0.01 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0.90 � 0 � N | --- ----- |WB|+0.01 1.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0^/ 90 � 0 ' � } 3 | |NB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0^90 0 | N | 0 | 3 | |SB|+0.01 2.0 | N | 0 | 0 | 0./ 90 � 0 / N | 0 | 3 | |_____________________________________________________/ N | 0 | 3 | |Grade:+up,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Mi n. T----------------------| |Hy:veh, > 4 whls pHF:peak_hour factor zmzng: min.green for | T Pedestrian crossing| |Nm:pkg.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Ar |====================================================r.=ype:=!ype 1-5 | !PHASING | | * | ~ | | | | | ===============| 1 D | * |* | | | | | | | � I |<**+> | A | v | G | |v ^| | | | | | | | R i | A | <+**>| | M | * | | | * | v| | | | | | | |-----|--------|--------|--------|--- | | / | | |7im- | G= 51.01 G= G | 0| G= 0,C 10. ------------- --------|--------|--------| = o.o|b= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 G= 0.01 | ing |Y+R= 5|Y+R= 5|Y+R= 0|Y+R=� 0�Y+R= 0|Y+R= ^0|Y+R= ^0|Y+R= ^0| |_____|________|________|________|________.________|________|_____ | | |Ftmd/Act| | | | --- -------- |_________________________________________|________-|____ | | | | Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ | Permitted turns: ++++ ! Cycle Length 70 Sec! ^ ----------------------| |______________________________________________ | RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich Vermont�-------------------------| , , using NCAP by PSI | L if 0 L-! ci —'1 1 1! I'D U I if !—,I IV- 01- A if CA JJ N -c if CO f 01. P F- 0 LI ILI if 0- 17- J I > it H 0- 1 ch I a IM U C-4 Cl CA ID U CA H H f nj 4-1 it i if LJ U 1 <f Cr Ul a V I 1 F, El- C it -c cr if CI -I CA 1 110 b -,1 10 i 1 0 if 1.9 ti.1 it I -If L if a.- Y) 0'- -4 i Li ff 10 > f I! . I CA f�i if ILI — -, , -.' , a-- 0. . b i ! C. W u 4. H 04 i CA if q It Uri if 4-1 (D 0 1 C) it [L it if Flu Ct •00 UI i u i c LD 0 0 iD 1 Ld 1 1 4.1 CI Ii, if 1 ! Lf- I U LI CA K 1 i 1 ca if 1 0-! w w > - H I (", 0. u LLI CO A 1 -c I 0 H u CT 4-1 if !Tj Ci L if yj CA CA 1 CA U 13 % 1 u i 16 1 A ! 0- J L i CA 1 i 3 i 4-1 f I f 1 00 E L X It1 0:) Y 0) i --i ! il4-1 H rjr > if t. I 0 -4 1 1 -`.; 0 i U 1 cl CC -, il -.0 -, If . . CA 1 o- 1 41 LJ N I u H N 1 itM E ff .-j if 1 0 i 13 LU X 11 ILI (Ij -c if 1:D 1-,. 00 i it ff-j u q-..- if M 1 K ! if if if 16 0) 0 c 0 0 CP- if 71 if 4-! ILI -�; 11 i c - 4 c - 4CII -f- GI if t t L ril C11 if 1 j".. r-, to CD u.*.' If i I'D = - 0 0 !11 I It Cr1 - .., Oz I if f cl if CA rj,. 1 03 CA 1 0) 1 i I -. I i 1 of > 1 0 1 tf, u i i L X R! H - - -! - - 1 I LD f.!*..l !- 1- T CA G 1 OQ 0 1 tIf 1 < + + 4-1 f'Tj 0 1 ! D 1 i W I + IW 1 Z 1 + + if if if L OL if if 4-1 0 _!._ - 1 t.*-j t-.! if C." I 0 i!l if 1 tri H i.3 H if if 1 1 T, LL! I C L H V 1 1 + I C, o If II c ff I it 1 1711 fill I it if if I W 4 C it C L 1:u if if 0 H I X II if 1! If I I J 1 F 1E. it It 01 1 1 I Z, III if > 1 01- ' if C: Lt .. if !1 1 0 0 1 V- I al: 1 L) L. If if "D I! E !I H if I I H if 11 1 0 1 i 11 Z F- it If c H !I if 11 if if 0 + 1 + I + I if U 11 if if I 1 0 1 F- CA H L H II C) 0 !L L 1 IIis L L Ill H X0.1 H NJ if if 4-1 if If H Cp LI UP 11 11 C 43 11 r". it c� c. C rl-; c If !I H if D 71 4) H V1 H 1 OL LI H if 1 E 1 I Cl i 1 if If. 1 rL L + L 1 0 It <[ 1 0 n CA I if -Ij 0 E H a) 0 > N MI _E: C.? I! I I ­4 if H if M Ill LJ H H 5 A 0 H if IT H H if I D 7j H it if cri 0 cl if ri�lZZ -1 ZZ I "A q—i qj if 1:1 L. if It if 0 if if H H + 2 H U- 11 H if t ii H it z H 1 CJ if fl to H QFJ L H U !I + > U n 71 H S-i to Ill if Ti if c >- if 0 H K CT C if L H If, H it 3 q w V IS 13 K a, -U -q ..-i --f I 1.:- 1 I I H H + > ILD + I U'l VI if M 1 LU 3 H Ll- ur" 0 > It TI I H Yi 1 0 it 13 11 f::l Z ri 174 04 1 1 A Ill H if H + I I I-!"." if q.., ji L cl Z H Iz H H + I I !I.J. - r- 43 73 4-1 Rl H it > H I u 1 f 4j +1 0 LL E: u c -o I L3 H + v ul ko u !I Ld !vfr:iif 73 C, .'D :D I + cp 1 u I 0 0 0 4D 4j it 11 H A Lul Ul A LL --> -i L — on ij --- + + + + -- -- --. > rl if C If 0111 1 TI I- C L H 0 0. H to . . . . . . el 11 vt Ul -_yj IE: it T 11 R T IZ I M I ur.) 2,- 11 If ,^ ^ _______________________________________________________________________________ :lntersection:Shelburne Road/Holmes load Dats:8/28/90 | |Analyst:KJK TimePeriod Anlyzd:95 PM Build Area Type: CBD XOther| !Project No.Lakewood 3 City/State:South Burlington, Vermont |=============================================================================| | EVEL-OF-SER'/ICE_WORKSHEET | |____|______First Term Del ay_______|______Second Term Delay______|Tot. Del ay_&_LOS _ANE | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 111 12 | 13 GROUP| v/c | Green! Cycle! Delay | Lane! Delay |Prgrsn|Lane Gp| Ln| Apprch|Apr -----| Ratio| Ratio|Length| d1 !Group! d2 |Factor| Delay | Gp| Delay |LOS 1 | 21 X | g/C | C |sec/veh|Cap,c|sec/veh| PF |sec/veh|LOS|sec/veh|Tbl Ap|Mv| | | (sec)| |(vph)| (T.9-131(6+8)*919-11 19-1 ==|==|======|======|======|=======|=====|=======|======|=======|===|=======|=== | | | | | | | | | | | | EB| H| 0.9101 0.3421 79.01 18.881 3811 17.971 1.00 1 36.861 D | 36.861 D --|--|------|------|------|-------|-----|-------|------|-------|---|-------|--- WB| D| 0.0751 0.3421 79.01 13.351 5041 0.001 1.00 | 13.351 B | 13.881 B | Q| 0.2131 0.3421 79.01 14.03| 5201 0.031 1.00 | 14.061 B | | --|--|------|------|------|-------|-----|-------|------|-------|---|-------|--- | B| 0.1221 0.5321 79.01 7.04| 901 0.03| 1.00 | 7.071 B | | N5| O| 0.9981 0.5321 79.01 14.031 18941 15.551 1.00 | 29.581 D | 29.451 D 1 BI B| 0.5751 0.5321 79.01 9.481 901 6.081 1.00 | 15.56| C | | SB| O| 0.8881 0.532| 79.01 12.471 18911 4.03 1.00 | 16.501 C | 16.471 C | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------ _______________________________ |Intersection Delay 24.07 sec/veh, Intersection LOS C Table 9.1 | |_____________________________________________________________________________| |LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| |_____________________________________________________________________________| !B ^ | D ^ | H ^ | O | Q | | | + | + | ++++ } ****> | ****> | ****> | **** | | | | | v | v | v | | |_____________________________________________________________________________| � RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP, Norwich, Vermont, using NCAP by PSI | _______________________________________________________________________________ W \11N v Wagner, Hein el, and Noyos, Inc. consulting geologists FO, Boer 1629 Burlington, Vermont 06402-1629 802-658-0820 November 4, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington S. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Lakewood Commons Dear Joe: This letter/report presents the results of our hydrologic evaluation of the proposed L-ftewood Commons expansion located within the North Brook portion of the Bartlett Brook watershed. The analysis was performed using information developed by Trudell CO nsultin; Engineers for the Lakewood Commons site. This included the identification of suhwnters,aeds, 'and the eom )utation of watershed area, h�diaulic curve number, and time of concentration for each sur)watcrshed. It was necessitry -or us to make some adjustments to the time of concentration figures computed by Trudc1l. Following this, the Lakewood Commons site data was input into the existing data file for the entire watershed. An evaluation was then performed for the 25-year, '24-hour storm which results in 4.00 inches of rain in South Burlington. To evaluate the overall impact of the development on the watershed, peak discharge rates have been computed at two locations. First, at the paint where North Brook crosses the railroad tracks (ndjacent to the Bartlett Bay Sewage Treatment Plant), the peak discharge rate is 175.8 cfs for the existing condition. For the post -development condition, a slight reduction in this peak discharge to 174.9 cfs is projected. Second, at the base of the watershed (Bartlett Bay), the peak discharge rates are 155.2 cfs and 154.7 cfs for pre; - development and post -development, respectively. Thus, there is no projected increase an the peak discharge rate in the watershed as as result of the project. This condition is attributed to the performance of the pro used stormwaater retention structure on the Lakewood Commons site, This structure reduces the peak discharge from this portion of the watershed from 11.6 cfs to 2.4 cfs. An annotated summary of peak dischar e rates at various points in the watershed for pre- and post -development conditions is attacfc;d. Mr. ,doe Weith December a, 1990 Page Two Based on these results, it is our conclusion that the stormw«t r management goals of the South Burlington Planning Commission for the Bartlett Brook/North Brook watershed vvill be met with the conipletion of the project in accordance with the proposed design. Should you have any additional :luestions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincere! , Jeffrey A. Nelson Hydrogeologist JAN/tjr Enclosures cc: K.C. Eberly John Gieb,nk M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: December 4, 1990 agenda items Date: November 30, 1990 3) LAKEWOOD COMMONS. FINAL PLAT This project consists of the construction of an 18,000 square foot building for retail/office use and a 108 room hotel on the Lakewood Commons property located on Shelburne Road. This property is in a Commercial 1 District. Preliminary Plat approv- al was granted on September 25, 1990 (minutes enclosed). Unre- solved issues have been addressed as follows: a) Survey Plat - The survey plan has been adequately revised to address stipulations #3. The legend should also be revised to show permanent property lines. Also, the plat should be revised to clearly indicate that the "Crown Road" easement extends all the way to Shelburne Road. Sheets SP2 and SP5 should be revised to show the Al Lewis property as one parcel, consistent with the survey plat. b) Stormwater Drainage - The stormwater drainage plans are currently being evaluated by Wagner, Heindel and Noyse (WHN). Any recommendations by WHN and approved by the City Engineer should be incorporated into the plans. c) Stormwater Retention Details - These details have been re- viewed by Bill Szymanski. He sees no problem at this point. d) An additional hydrant has been added and approved by Chief Goddette. Chief Goddette recommends that hose connections be provided in each stairwell on each floor of the hotel. If this is not done, two more hydrants will be required. e) Water line will be looped to Shelburne Road water line. f) Additional green space in front of hotel. g) Entrance drive revised for longer one way. h) Sidewalks extended along entrance drive and Route 7 in front of Suzuki building. i) Limits of Southbound Route 7 turn lane shown on sheet SP2. This should also be shown on Sheet SP5. 1 Memorandum - Planning nPr-Pmhar 4, lggn aQPnda items November 30, 1990 Page 2 j) Route 7 TMA - The applicant the propsoed TMA. He proposed are established when the TMA acceptable. Other: has agreed to become a member of that they contribute the dues that is established. I feel this is o Existing building on Lewis property is shown as "to be removed" on Sheets SP3 and SP4. This should also be indicated on Sheet SP2. o Notes on SP2 indicate 40' setback from Route 7. Require- ment is 50' setback. This should be changed. 4) COUNTRY PARK APARTMENTS, REVISED FINAL PLAT This project consists of constructing an addition containing 50 units to an existing 76 unit building. The two (2) buildings will be joined by a community room. The sketch plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1990 (minutes not yet available). Very few changes have been made to the plans. Most changes made involve providing the additional information requested by staff. Items such as setbacks/coverage, access/circulation and parking have not changed. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $22,973. The landscaping plan submitted is $3,257 short of the requirement. The landscaping plan involves 23 different species of plant material including: Austrian and Red Pine, Norway and Colorado Spruce, Sugar Maple, Birch, Juniper, Arborvitae, Viburnum and Lilac. Traffic: This property is within Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which allows 356 peak hour trips. Traffic information provided by the applicant indicates that the present P.M. peak is 22 trips and with the addition it will be 36 trips. The applicant will be required to contribute $2,316 toward the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive Improvement Fund based on the 14 additional peak trips. Sewer: A sewer allocation of 9,000 gpd is required based on 40 one bedroom apartments and 10 two bedroom apartments. 7