The URL can be used to link to this page

Z20-17 TIA Scoping and Previous TIA Approval August 3, 2020 Ms. Caroline Bojarski Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Farringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 RE: Updated Scope for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) associated with the proposed Hanover Reserve - original TIA sealed on 3/19/17 and approval dated 7/13/17 New Hanover County, NC Dear Ms. Bojarski, Based on the information provided in the scoping documents submitted, it is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of: o LUC 151: 102,700 SF Mini-Warehouse o LUC 220: 85 DU Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) o LIUC 221: 288 DU Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) o LUC 310: 100 Room Hotel o LUC 710: 26,000 SF General Office Building o LUC 720: 36,400 SF Medical - Dental Office Building o LUC 820: 106,922 SF Shopping Center o LUC 932: 17,540 SF High-Turnover (sit-Down) Restaurant o LUC 960: 5,610 SF Super Convenience Market/Gas Station The following is the scope to be used for the Traffic Impact Analysis: 1. Data collection – Analysis Parameters a) Study Intersections For existing intersections, provide turning movement counts for Weekday AM peak hour (7:00am – 9:00am) and PM peak hour (4:00pm – 6:00pm), signal timing (if applicable), and lane geometry: o US 117 / NC 132 (N. College Road) and SR 1322 (Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane) o SR 2048 (Gordon Road) and SR 1328 (White Road) o US 17 (Market Street) and SR 2717 (Torchwood Boulevard) / SR 1363 (Bayshore Drive) o NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) and SR 2722 (Brittany Lakes Drive) / SR 2892 (Lendire Road) o NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) and SR 2717 (Torchwood Boulevard) o NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) and northbound to southbound U-Turn, north of SR (Torchwood Boulevard) Page 2 of 3 o NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) and southbound to northbound U-Turn, south of SR 1322 (Murrayville Road) o NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) and SR 1322 (Murrayville Road) b) Site Trip Generation, Site Trip Distribution and Background Traffic Assumptions i. Site Trip Generation Estimate o Attached ii. Site Trip Distribution o To be submitted and approved prior to use in TIA. iii. Adjacent Developments (approved but not yet built) o Bayshore Commercial o The Landing at Lewis Creek o Cameron Trace iv. Planned Roadway Improvements o TIP U-4751 – NC 417 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension between US 17 (Market Street) and NC 140 o TIP U-4902D – US 17 (Market Street) Median Project between SR 1403 (Middle Sound Loop Road) SR 2892 (Lendire Road) and SR 2734 (Marsh Oaks Drive) / SR 2290 (Mendenhall Drive) v. Background Traffic Assumptions o Horizon year – 2030 o Growth rate – 1% per year 2. Capacity Analysis: Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours a) 2020 Existing Conditions b) 2030 Future No-Build Conditions [Existing + 1% background growth + approved development trips] c) 2030 Build Conditions [Existing + 1% background growth + approved development trips + site trips] d) 2030 Build Conditions (with improvements) e) 2035 U-4751 TIP Design Year Build Conditions (with improvements) 3. Final Report Submittal a) Completed TIA Application b) Sealed by a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer with expertise in traffic engineering c) Three bound copies d) Electronic copy to include PDF of TIA and Synchro output files as well as digital Synchro files 4. Notes a) This scope shall remain valid for three months from the date of this letter. b) Please note that if any changes occur (including but not limited to; land use, intensity, phasing, and/or site access) additional analysis may be required. Please contact me at 910-772-4170 with any questions regarding this scope. Page 3 of 3 Sincerely, Kayla Grubb, EI Project Manager Wilmington Urban Area MPO Attachments: Trip Generation Summary (provided by RKA) Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Guidelines Site Map (provided by RKA) Ec: Mike Kozlosky, Executive Director, WMPO Scott James, PE, Project Engineer, WMPO Denys Vielkanowitz, PE, City Traffic Engineer, City of Wilmington Ben Hughes, PE, District Engineer, NCDOT Eva Covarrubias, EI, Transportation Engineering Associate, NCDOT Jessi Leonard, PE, Division Traffic Engineer, NCDOT Brad Schuler, Senior Planner, New Hanover County TOTAL TRIPS Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)85.0 D.U.301 301 602 9 32 32 19 310 Hotel 100 Rooms 351 351 702 26 19 25 24 710 General Office Building 17.75 KSF 99 99 198 32 4 15 70 720 Medical - Dental Office Building 9.1 KSF 158 159 317 19 6 8 23 820 Shopping Center 17.75 KSF 928 928 1,856 100 61 72 79 1,837 1,838 3,675 186 122 152 215 176 112 139 202 176 112 115 178 TOTAL TRIPS Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)288 D.U.784 784 1,568 25 72 74 48 710 General Office Building 8.25 KSF 47 47 94 16 2 13 61 720 Medical - Dental Office Building 27.30 KSF 475 475 950 59 17 26 68 820 Shopping Center 63.25 KSF 2,201 2,202 4,403 113 70 186 201 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 15.80 KSF 886 886 1,772 126 96 143 132 960 Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 5.61 KSF 2,349 2,350 4,699 233 233 194 195 6,742 6,744 13,486 572 490 636 705 471 388 508 578 341 258 324 394 TOTAL TRIPS Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 151 Mini-Warehouse 102.7 KSF 77 78 155 6 4 8 9 820 Shopping Center 25.9 KSF 1,199 1,200 2,399 102 63 96 104 932 High-Turnover (sit-Down) Restaurant 1.7 KSF 95 96 191 14 10 15 15 1,371 1,374 2,745 122 77 119 128 122 77 79 88 639 447 518 660Total Primary Trips for all three Phases Table 2: Site Trip Generation Summary - North of Murrayville Road Extension AM Peak PM Peak Total Trips Total Primary Trips Table 1: Site Trip Generation Summary - South of Murrayville Road Extension Code Land Use Size Unit Daily Internal Capture 24 Pass-By Trips: Shopping Center (34% PM)242400 Internal Capture Rate - Residential 3 25 5 40 (0% AM Entering, 3% AM Exiting) (6% PM Entering, 14% PM Exiting) Internal Capture Rate - Hotel Internal Capture Rate - Office Internal Capture Rate - Retail (5% PM Entering, 9% PM Exiting) (5% AM Entering, 3% AM Exiting) (12% PM Entering, 1% PM Exiting) (9% AM Entering, 27% AM Exiting) (18% PM Entering, 8% PM Exiting) (0% AM Entering, 24% AM Exiting) Total External Trips 0 1 2 3 74 13 Code Land Use Size Unit Daily AM Peak PM Peak Total Trips Internal Capture Internal Capture Rate - Residential (7% AM Entering, 24% AM Exiting)0 17 13 4(17% PM Entering, 9% PM Exiting) Internal Capture Rate - Office (20% AM Entering, 90% AM Exiting)14 17 14 2(35% PM Entering, 2% PM Exiting) 62(30% PM Entering, 46% PM Exiting) Internal Capture Rate - Retail (6% AM Entering, 14% AM Exiting)21 43 57 59(15% PM Entering, 15% PM Exiting) 5600 Internal Capture Rate - Restaurant (52% AM Entering, 26% AM Exiting)66 25 44 00 56 Total External Trips Pass-By Trips: Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 130 130 92 92(62% AM, 56% PM)* Daily AM Peak PM Peak Total Primary Trips (34% PM) Pass-By Trips: Shopping Center (43% PM) Pass-By Trips: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 3636 600 Total Trips * Pass-By rates were unavaliable for LUC 960; therefore, pass-by rates from LUC 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market) were applied Table 3: Site Trip Generation Summary - East of Military Cutoff Extension Code Land Use Size Unit Total Primary Trips (34% PM) Pass-By Trips: Shopping Center 343400 (43% PM) Pass-By Trips: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 6 Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 710/720 27 KSF 61 51 10 Retail 820 18 KSF 161 100 61 Restaurant 0 Cinema/Entertainment Residential 220 85 D.U.41 9 32 Hotel 310 100 Rooms 26 19 All Other Land Uses2 0 263 186 122 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Retail 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Restaurant 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Residential 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Hotel 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% All Other Land Uses2 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 3 0 0 0 Retail 2 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 0 0 0 Hotel 2 3 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 339 205 134 Office 9%27% Internal Capture Percentage 6%5%8%Retail 5%3% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 288 176 112 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 0%3% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel 0%24% Wilmington, NC AM Street Peak Hour RKA GWH 2030 7/21/2020Combined Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3Land Use Hanover Reserve Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.10 51 56 1.10 10 11 Retail 1.10 100 110 1.10 61 67 Restaurant 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Residential 1.10 9 10 1.10 32 35 Hotel 1.10 26 29 1.10 19 21 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 3 7 0 0 Retail 19 9 9 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 0 7 0 Hotel 16 3 2 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 35 0 0 0 Retail 2 0 0 0 Restaurant 8 9 1 1 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 19 0 0 Hotel 2 4 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 5 51 56 46 0 0 Retail 6 104 110 95 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 10 10 9 0 0 Hotel 0 29 29 26 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 8 11 7 0 0 Retail 2 65 67 59 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 34 35 31 0 0 Hotel 5 16 21 15 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Hanover Reserve AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 710/720 27 KSF 116 23 93 Retail 820 18 KSF 151 72 79 Restaurant 0 Cinema/Entertainment Residential 220 85 D.U.51 32 19 Hotel 310 100 Rooms 25 24 All Other Land Uses2 0 318 152 215 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Retail 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Restaurant 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Residential 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Hotel 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% All Other Land Uses2 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 4000 4000 4000 Retail 4000 Restaurant 4000 Cinema/Entertainment 4000 Residential 4000 4000 Hotel 4000 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 2 0 2 4 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 1 0 1 Hotel 0 2 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 403 167 236 Office 12%1% Internal Capture Percentage 7%8%6%Retail 5%9% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 341 139 202 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 6%14% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel 18%8% 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Hanover Reserve RKA Wilmington, NC GWH *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Combined 7/21/2020 2030 PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only)Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.10 23 25 1.10 93 102 Retail 1.10 72 79 1.10 79 87 Restaurant 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Residential 1.10 32 35 1.10 19 21 Hotel 1.10 25 28 1.10 24 26 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 2 0 0 0 Retail 2 25 2 4 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 1 0 1 Hotel 0 4 18 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 1 0 Retail 8 0 16 5 Restaurant 8 40 6 20 Cinema/Entertainment 2 3 0 1 0 Residential 14 1 0 3 Hotel 0 2 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 22 25 20 0 0 Retail 4 75 79 68 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 33 35 30 0 0 Hotel 5 23 28 21 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 1 101 102 92 0 0 Retail 8 79 87 72 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 18 21 16 0 0 Hotel 2 24 26 22 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Hanover Reserve PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 3 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 710/720 36 KSF 94 75 19 Retail 820/960 67 KSF 649 346 303 Restaurant 932 16 KSF 222 126 96 Cinema/Entertainment Residential 221 288 D.U.97 25 72 Hotel All Other Land Uses2 0 1,062 572 490 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Retail 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Restaurant 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Residential 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Hotel 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% All Other Land Uses2 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 6 13 0 0 Retail 3 43 1 0 Restaurant 12 15 1 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 16 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 1,170 631 539 Office 20%90% Internal Capture Percentage 19%18%21%Retail 6%14% Restaurant 52%26% External Vehicle-Trips5 859 471 388 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 7%24% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A Wilmington, NC AM Street Peak Hour RKA GWH 2030 7/21/2020Combined Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3Land Use Hanover Reserve Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.10 75 83 1.10 19 21 Retail 1.10 346 381 1.10 303 333 Restaurant 1.10 126 139 1.10 96 106 Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Residential 1.10 25 28 1.10 72 79 Hotel 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 6 13 0 0 Retail 97 43 47 0 Restaurant 33 15 4 3 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 16 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 122 32 0 0 Retail 3 70 1 0 Restaurant 12 30 1 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 65 28 0 Hotel 2 15 8 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 17 66 83 60 0 0 Retail 22 359 381 326 0 0 Restaurant 72 67 139 61 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 26 28 24 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 19 2 21 2 0 0 Retail 47 286 333 260 0 0 Restaurant 28 78 106 71 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 19 60 79 55 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Hanover Reserve AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 710/720 36 KSF 168 39 129 Retail 820/960 67 KSF 776 380 396 Restaurant 932 16 KSF 275 143 132 Cinema/Entertainment Residential 221 288 D.U.122 74 48 Hotel All Other Land Uses2 0 1,341 636 705 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Retail 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Restaurant 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Residential 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Hotel 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% All Other Land Uses2 1.10 0%0%1.10 0%0% Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 4000 4000 4000 Retail 4000 Restaurant 4000 Cinema/Entertainment 4000 Residential 4000 4000 Hotel 4000 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 3 0 0 0 Retail 9 46 11 0 Restaurant 4 59 3 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 2 1 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 1,475 699 776 Office 35%2% Internal Capture Percentage 19%20%18%Retail 15%15% Restaurant 30%46% External Vehicle-Trips5 1,086 508 578 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 17%9% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Hanover Reserve RKA Wilmington, NC GWH *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Combined 7/21/2020 2030 PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only)Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*Veh. Occ.Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.10 39 43 1.10 129 142 Retail 1.10 380 418 1.10 396 436 Restaurant 1.10 143 157 1.10 132 145 Cinema/Entertainment 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Residential 1.10 74 81 1.10 48 53 Hotel 1.10 0 0 1.10 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 3 1 0 0 Retail 9 126 11 22 Restaurant 4 59 3 10 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 2 1 2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 3 0 3 0 Retail 13 46 37 0 Restaurant 13 209 13 0 Cinema/Entertainment 3 17 5 3 0 Residential 25 4 2 0 Hotel 0 8 8 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 15 28 43 25 0 0 Retail 64 354 418 322 0 0 Restaurant 47 110 157 100 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 14 67 81 61 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 139 142 126 0 0 Retail 66 370 436 336 0 0 Restaurant 66 79 145 72 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 5 48 53 44 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Hanover Reserve PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 17 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P B-2 ZONING±3.08 AC M I L I T A R Y C U T O F F E X T E N S I O N N C D O T R . O . W RESIDENTIALPD ZONING±20.63 AC CO M M E R C I A L PD Z O N I N G ±1 0 . 9 4 A C 1 B- 2 Z O N I N G ±7 . 3 4 A C B- 2 Z O N I N G ±1 . 8 1 A C RE S I D E N T I A L PD Z O N I N G ±6 . 1 8 A C PLANTATIONROADCROO K E D P I N E R O A D MUR R A Y V I L L E R O A D E X T E N S I O N 2 3 4 5 6 2 CO M M E R C I A L PD Z O N I N G ±6 . 0 8 A C Mc K E E H O M E S a t H A N O V E R RE S E R V E S E R V I C E R O A D 8 RE S I D E N T I A L PD Z O N I N G ±8 . 5 2 A C 7 E N D O F 1 0 ' W I D E N C D O T M U L T I - U S E P A T H N C D O T D R A I N A G E E A S E M E N T NCDOT DRAIN A G E E A S E M E N T N O R T H0 SCALE: 1"=100' at 24"x36"50'100'200'Prepared by:Date: 20 July 2020 Preliminary Master Planned Development PlanHanover Reserve Mixed UseNew Hanover County, North CarolinaPreliminary; Not For Construction. This site plan is a graphic representation and should be utilized for discussion purposes only. This site plan approxim a t e s e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o s t r u c t u r e s , w e t l a n d s , roads, parking, vegetation and property boundaries. Plan components may change based upon regulatory and municipal regulations and requirements a t t h e t i m e o f a p p r o v a l s a n d / o r d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y . SITE DATATotal Overall Site Acreage: + 68.96 Ac.Land East of Bypass:+ 12.23 Ac.Land West of Bypass:+ 56.73 Ac. Existing Zoning:R-15 (in Community Mixed Use FLUP Place Type)Proposed Zoning:Planned Development (PD), B-2PD LAND AREA:56.73 acAllowable Commercial Area (30% = 17.02 ac)Commercial - 30%510.94(19.3%)66.08(10.7%)Residential - 62.28%420.63(36.37%)78.52(15.02%)86.18(10.89%)Project Roads / Buffers4.38 Ac.(7.72%)B-2 LAND AREA:12.23 Ac Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Guidelines Developed by: NCDOT Division 3 Page 1 of 3 Updated: 2/5/2020 Submittal Framework for TIAs Step 1: Scoping Document - The documents to include for review and approval are: 1. Site Plan/Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Land Uses and Trip Generation 3. Proposed Study Intersections and Types of Accesses 4. Proposed Annual Growth Rate 5. Proposed Build Out Year 6. Study Method for Capacity Analysis – peak periods and conditions 7. Approved Developments 8. Committed Improvements If the proposed development is to be phased, then land uses, trip generation, build out year, roadway improvements and analysis must reflect the proposed phasing. The phase breakdown must be submitted for approval prior to use in the TIA. Step 2: Trip Generation with Pass-by and Internal Capture, Trip Distribution, and Proposed Volume Balancing 1. Traffic counts must be performed prior to submittal of this step. Step 3: Draft TIA Report for Input Verification - A digital copy to include the following: 1. All previously approved information from prior stages of submittal. 2. All diagrams – Existing Traffic Volumes, Future No Build Volumes, and Future Build Volumes 3. Synchro / Sidra Network Model Framework – Submit the framework for the Future No Build analysis. This Synchro / Sidra model can be modified for Existing analysis. Step 4: Final Sealed TIA Report - This is to be a hardcopy submittal of the completed document Direction for the Congestion Management Guidelines Site Trip Generation, Site Trip Distribution, and Background Traffic Assumptions 1. Peak Hour Determination – In efforts to establish a consistent peak hour that will be reported and studied, the peak hour for the controlling intersection shall be determined. Once determined, that peak hour timeframe shall be used for all other intersections. To further clarify: a) Analyze all study intersection volumes and determine the controlling intersection (intersection with highest total volume). b) Identify relevant peak hour for the controlling intersection. c) Use the same peak hour for all intersections in the study. 2. Site Trip Generation: a) Unadjusted Trips – Use the appropriate Land Use Code in the current ITE Trip Generation Manual (currently the 10th Edition). The NCDOT Congestion Management Rate vs. Equation Spreadsheet (currently July 1, 2018) specifies the variable, peak hour type, and type of trip calculation method to use. b) Internal Capture - The Congestion Management Guidelines state that “reductions for internal capture should be limited to the land use categories and time periods included in the current Handbook.” The current ITE Trip Generation Handbook is the 3rd Edition. It does not provide The NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines shall be the basis for the development of all TIA reports. This Supplement provides a submittal framework for TIAs, as well as direction on certain items within the Congestion Management Guidelines. Any deviations from the Congestion Management Guidelines or this supplement must be approved prior to preparation of the TIA. Developed by: NCDOT Division 3 Page 2 of 3 Updated: 2/5/2020 internal capture data for Saturdays, therefore none should be used. The Congestion Management Guidelines also state that “internal capture rates may be estimated using the NCHRP 684 spreadsheet procedure referenced in the current Handbook.” The current Handbook now uses this spreadsheet as the only method for determining internal capture. The Congestion Management Guidelines give guidance on using the spreadsheet: “When using this spreadsheet, transit or non-motorized splits should not be used unless otherwise justified and approved. Vehicle occupancy should be “1.1” in accordance with North Carolina averages. The Walking Distances between land uses should be 4000’ or the calculated maximum distance between a given pair of land use categories in the proposed site.” To determine the internal capture entering and exiting per Land Use, use the percentages in Table 6-P: Internal Capture Percentages by Land Use with the “Estimated Vehicle-Trips” in Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates. (Tables found in the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool.) c) Pass-by – The Congestion Management Guidelines state that “pass-by percentages should be obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook.” The current ITE Trip Generation Handbook is the 3rd Edition. The calculation of the trips should be based on the total peak hour trips with a 50/50 entering/exiting split; they are pass-by trips which means they enter and exit along the same path, in the same direction, within the same hour. 3. Site Trip Distribution – To be determined based on collected traffic count data. Both site trip distribution and pass-by trip distribution shall be submitted for approval prior to use in the TIA. Signal Analysis 1. For existing signals, the size and position of the detector loops and the signal timings set in Synchro must match the existing signal plans. 2. For proposed signals, size and place the detector loops in Synchro according to Part 1, Section 4 of the NCDOT Signal Design Manual. 3. Existing signal timings shall be “locked” for all scenarios unless phase changes are recommended as an improvement. 4. Check for Recall Mode on Signalized Intersection. If simulating ‘free run’ operation (actuated-uncoordinated), use Min Recall on main street phase. If simulating ‘Coordinated Mode’ (Actuated- Coordinate), use C-Max. 5. Use the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for proposed full-movement signals to conduct signal warrant analysis based upon a 13-hour turning movement count. 6. Use the Guidelines for Signalization of Intersections with Two or Three Approaches (ITRE report dated December 31, 2017) to determine possible signalization for Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCI). Synchro Analysis and Data Reports 1. Any “Field Condition” analysis that the engineer wishes to include is supplemental to that which is required by the approved scope and Congestion Management Guidelines. a) Congestion Management Guidelines state that right-turn-on-red (RTOR) is not to be used in existing or future conditions. b) Congestion Management Guidelines state that analysis of protected-only phasing in future conditions will identify required storage in the event that protected-only phasing is necessary. Existing permissive left-turn phasing should remain permissive in future conditions, except where Developed by: NCDOT Division 3 Page 3 of 3 Updated: 2/5/2020 protected-only phasing is being analyzed as an improvement to the intersection in the Future + Improvement condition. 2. The “Future No-Build” and “Future Build” analysis conditions should only include improvements that are currently a requirement of another approved development or a State/Municipal project to be constructed in the build year for the proposed development. Any other capacity gained from lane improvements shown in the analysis is assumed to be proposed by the developer and should only be included in the “Future Build+Improvements” analysis condition. 3. The TIA shall include a chart that shows the “Level of Service” and “Delay” for each movement, approach, and overall intersection, for every access alternative and build scenario. 4. A SimTraffic “Queuing and Blocking Report” for the network shall be included for review. 5. A comparison chart listing the Synchro 95th Percentile Queues and the SimTraffic Maximum Queues shall be provided for all exclusive turn lanes. Recommendations of the TIA Report 1. The NCDOT Policy On Street And Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways (p. 21-22) states, “The applicant shall be required to identify mitigation improvements to the roadway network if at least one of the following conditions exists when comparing base network conditions to project conditions: a) The total average delay at an intersection or individual approach increases by 25% or greater, while maintaining the same level of service, b) The Level of Service degrades by at least one level, or c) Level of Service is “F.” 2. The Congestion Management Guidelines state “when performing analyses, providing an adequate overall intersection LOS alone is not sufficient. Items such as queuing, individual movement level of service, and volume-to-capacity ratio should be evaluated and addressed.” The information in the charts listed under “Synchro Analysis and Data Reports” in the previous section, should be used when determining the improvements to address the impacts of site-generated traffic. 3. Recommended storage lane lengths shall be provided for all exclusive turn lanes and based on the Synchro 95th Percentile Queue or the SimTraffic Maximum Queue, whichever is larger. 4. If phase changes are recommended as an improvement, then a Synchro analysis for “Future Build+Improvements” shall be included in the TIA. 5. Signal timing adjustments and/or Signal Optimization in Synchro (i.e. “Optimize Splits”) shall not be used unless phase changes are recommended as an improvement. Signal timing adjustment and/or Signal Optimization as a sole “improvement” to mitigate the impacts of site-generated traffic will not be permitted. Traffic Impact Analysis Hanover Reserve New Hanover County, NC Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve –New Hanover County, NC i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Site Location and Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Proposed Land Use and Site Access ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3. Existing and Proposed Adjacent Land Uses ................................................................................................ 2 1.4. Existing Roadways....................................................................................................................................... 3 2. EXISTING (2015) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 7 2.1. Analysis of Existing (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 7 3. BACKGROUND (2018 / 2021) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...................................................... 9 3.1. Ambient Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................................. 9 3.2. Future Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................................... 9 3.3. Background (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 10 3.4. Analysis of Background (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ..................................................... 11 4. TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................................................ 18 5. SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .............................................................. 19 6. COMBINED (2018 / 2021) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... 26 6.1. Analysis of Combined (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ........................................................ 26 7. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .................................................................................... 30 8. CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 31 8.1. College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane ............................................................................... 31 8.2. Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive ...................................................................... 34 8.3. Gordon Road and White Road ................................................................................................................... 37 8.4. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road ................................................................................... 39 8.5. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive ....................................................................... 40 8.6. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) ............................................... 41 8.7. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) ................................................ 42 8.8. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn .................................... 43 8.9. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U-Turn .......................... 44 8.10. Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension ........................................................... 45 9. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 46 10. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 48 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve –New Hanover County, NC ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Site Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2 Highway Capacity Manual - Levels of Service and Delay ............................................................... 30 Table 3 Analysis Summary of College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane .................................. 31 Table 4 Analysis Summary of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive ......................... 34 Table 5 Analysis Summary of Gordon Road and White Road ...................................................................... 37 Table 6 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road ...................................... 39 Table 7 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive ........................... 40 Table 8 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound)... 41 Table 9 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) .... 42 Table 10 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 11 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U-Turn ............................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 12 Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension ............... 45 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve –New Hanover County, NC iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map. .............................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations and Storage .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Existing (2015) Peak Hour Traffic ...................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5a Adjacent Development Traffic (2018) .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 5b Adjacent Development Traffic (2021) .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 5c Adjacent Development Traffic (2021) with Murrayville Road Extension ........................................ 14 Figure 6a Background (2018) Peak Hour Traffic.............................................................................................. 15 Figure 6b Background (2021) Peak Hour Traffic.............................................................................................. 16 Figure 6c Background (2021) Peak Hour Traffic with Murrayville Road Extension ....................................... 17 Figure 7a Site Trip Distribution (2018) ............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 7b Site Trip Distribution (2021) ............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 7c Site Trip Distribution (2021) with Murrayville Road Extension ...................................................... 22 Figure 8a Site Trip Assignment (2018) ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 8b Site Trip Assignment (2021) ............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 8c Site TripAssignment (2021) with Murrayville Road Extension ....................................................... 25 Figure 9a Combined (2018) Peak Hour Traffic ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 9b Combined (2021) Peak Hour Traffic ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 9c Combined (2021) Peak Hour Traffic with Murrayville Road Extension .......................................... 29 Figure 10 Recommended Lane Configurations ................................................................................................. 49 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve –New Hanover County, NC iv TECHNICAL APPENDIX Appendix A Approved Scope Appendix B Existing Traffic Counts Appendix C Signal Information Appendix D Adjacent Development Information Appendix E Military Cutoff Road Extension (TIP U 4751) Information Appendix F Capacity Calculations – College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane Appendix G Capacity Calculations – Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive Appendix H Capacity Calculations – Gordon Road and White Road Appendix I Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road Appendix J Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive Appendix K Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) Appendix L Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) Appendix M Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn Appendix N Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road U-Turn Appendix O Capacity Calculations – Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT HANOVER RESERVE NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Hanover Reserve residential development, located north of Gordon Road and west of Market Street in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The proposed development will consist of 330 single family homes at full build out. Access to the site is proposed via Murrayville Road, Quail Woods Road, and Rabbit Hollow Drive. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential impacts to the adjacent roadway network due to traffic generated by the proposed development. In order to accomplish this objective, this study analyzes traffic conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hour for the following scenarios:  Existing (2015) Traffic Conditions  Background (2018) Traffic Conditions  Combined (2018) Traffic Conditions  Background (2021) Traffic Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension  Combined (2021) Traffic Conditions  Combined (2021) Traffic Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension The site is proposed to be fully built out by 2018. Military Cutoff Road is being extended through the study area, and is proposed to be completed by 2021. The extension of Military Cutoff Road is expected to have an impact on the traffic distribution; therefore, the year 2021 was also examined. Additionally, there is a possibility that Murrayville Road will be extended through the site to provide a connection to Military Cutoff Road Extension. This scenario was also considered as part of this study. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 2 1.1 Site Location and Study Area The proposed development is located north of Gordon Road and west of Market Street in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Refer to Figure 1 for the site location map. The scope for this study was developed based on coordination with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), New Hanover County (County), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The TIA scope approval letter is included in Appendix A. The study area includes the following intersections:  College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane  Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive  Gordon Road and White Road  Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive / Lendire Road  Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard  Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn  Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U-Turn  Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension 1.2 Proposed Land Use and Site Access The proposed development consists of 330 single-family homes. A portion of these homes are approved and under construction. Access to the site is proposed via the following existing roadways: Murrayville Road, Quail Woods Road and Rabbit Hollow Drive. Refer to Figure 2 for an illustration of the preliminary site plan. 1.3 Existing and Proposed Adjacent Land Uses The proposed development is located in an area consisting primarily of residential development and undeveloped land. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 3 1.4 Existing Roadways Murrayville Road is a two-lane roadway running in an east-west direction with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph) within the study area. Based on the most recent data (2015) from the NCDOT, Murrayville Road had an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of approximately 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) west of its intersection with College Road. College Road is a four lane roadway running in a north-south direction with a posted speed limit of 45 mph within the study area. Based on the most recent data (2015) from the NCDOT, College Road had an AADT volume of approximately 25,000 vpd south of its intersection with Murrayville Road. Torchwood Boulevard is a two-lane roadway running in an east-west direction with a posted speed limit of 35 mph within the study area. Based on the most recent data (2015) from the NCDOT, Torchwood Boulevard had an AADT volume of approximately 4,800 vpd east of its intersection with Market Street. Market Street is a four-lane roadway running in a north-south direction with a posted speed limit of 45 mph within the study area. Based on the most recent data (2015) from the NCDOT, Market Street had an AADT volume of approximately 42,000 vpd south of its intersection with Torchwood Boulevard. White Road is a two-lane roadway running in a north-south direction with a posted speed limit of 35 mph within the study area. Based on the traffic counts from 2015, and assuming that the peak hour volume is 10% of the average daily traffic, White Road has an AADT volume of approximately 2,120 vpd north of its intersection with Gordon Road. Gordon Road is a two-lane roadway running in an east-west direction with a posted speed limit of 45 mph within the study area. Based on the most recent data (2015) from the NCDOT, Gordon Road had an AADT volume of approximately 7,700 vpd west of its intersection with White Road. Existing lane configurations (number of traffic lanes on the intersection approach), lane widths, storage capacities, and other intersection and roadway information was collected through field reconnaissance. Refer to Figure 3 for existing lane configurations and storage. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 7 2 EXISTING (2015) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Turning movement traffic counts were conducted by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. (RKA) and Quality Counts, Inc. in February and March of 2015 during typical weekdays at the existing study intersections. Local schools were in session while traffic count data was collected. Refer to Figure 4 for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. A summary of the traffic count data is provided in Appendix B of this report. The traffic signal at the intersection of North College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane operates with northbound and southbound protected left-turn phasing with an overlapping westbound and eastbound right-turn phase. Because of the heavy northbound and southbound U-turn movements at this intersection, an analysis scenario was completed with the westbound and eastbound right-turn movements operating with permitted phasing, allowing right-turn-on-red (RTOR) to model how the signal currently operates. This was done to more accurately model traffic operations at the intersection. 2.1 Analysis of Existing (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions The existing (2015) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections were analyzed to determine the current levels of service under existing traffic control. Signal timing information was provided by NCDOT for the study intersections. Refer to Appendix C for signal information. The results of the analysis are presented in Section 8 of this report. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 9 3 BACKGROUND (2018 / 2021) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to account for the growth of traffic and subsequent traffic conditions at a future year, background traffic projections are needed. Background traffic includes traffic due to the growth of the community and surrounding area anticipated to occur, regardless of whether the site is developed. Background traffic growth includes two components – ambient traffic growth and new trips from approved, but not yet built adjacent developments. At the request of the County, Cameron Trace residential development was identified as an adjacent development. Cameron Trace is a residential development located immediately west of the proposed Hanover Reserve property. At build out, the development is expected to include 120 single-family homes with access provided via connections to existing roadway stub outs to the property. Refer to Figures 5a – 5c for an illustration of the adjacent development traffic for each analysis scenario. Refer to Appendix D for the adjacent development information. 3.1 Ambient Traffic Growth Based on coordination with the reviewing agencies, an annual growth rate of 1% was used to project existing traffic volumes at the study intersections to the future analysis years. The ambient traffic growth rate was applied only to existing intersections within the study area. 3.2 Future Roadway Improvements Through coordination with the reviewing agencies, the NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project U-4751 and a possible Murrayville Road Extension were considered as future roadway improvements for this study. STIP Project U-4751 is the extension of Military Cutoff Road, which is expected to be constructed through the eastern portion of the proposed development property. Military Cutoff Road Extension will be constructed with a 6 lane cross section and a raised median. Many of the intersections along the Military Cutoff Road Extension will be constructed as superstreet intersections, restricting minor- streets to right-turn only. As a part of U-4751, all proposed U-turn locations included in this study are Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 10 planned to be signalized. Based on the design speed, it is assumed that the speed limit on Military Cutoff Road Extension will be 45 mph. For more information regarding U-4751, refer to Appendix E. Per WMPO requirements, a possible extension of Murrayville Road is also considered as a part of the 2021 analysis scenarios. This considers Murrayville Road extending to provide a connection to the Military Cutoff Road Extension. This will affect the background and combined traffic conditions, and is therefore included in the analysis. Through coordination with NCDOT, it was determined that the potential intersection would likely be a left-over intersection, similar to the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension corridor, and will therefore require a U-turn bulb-out south of the site. The proposed U-turn location was assumed to be signalized, consistent with the other proposed U-turn locations. The U-turn intersection is also included in the analysis. 3.3 Background (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Based on coordination with the reviewing agencies, there is one approved adjacent development to be included as part of this study, therefore the background (2018 / 2021) peak hour traffic volumes at the existing study intersections are based on ambient traffic growth and the trips generated from the Cameron Trace residential development. Refer to Figures 6a – 6c for an illustration of the background peak hour traffic volumes for each analysis scenario. Background (2021) traffic volumes at the proposed intersections of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road / Brittany Lakes Road, and Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard were obtained using the STIP traffic projections. Using the Intersection Analysis Utility (IAU) provided by NCDOT Congestion Management Unit, the 2017 traffic forecast was converted to peak hour turning movement volumes at these study intersections. The turning movement volumes were then grown to 2021 using a 1% growth rate on the side streets and a 3.5% growth rate on the Military Cutoff Road Extension. The traffic was then diverted due to the turn restrictions. Refer to Appendix E for the 2017 and 2021 turning movement volumes, obtained for the proposed intersections from the STIP documents. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 11 The STIP projections were not provided for the intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and the possible Murrayville Road Extension. Volumes at this intersection were taken as an average of the two study intersections where STIP projections were provided. This excludes the through movements; therefore, the resulting volumes at Murrayville Road Extension are expected to be lower than Torchwood Boulevard and Brittany Lakes Drive. It should be noted that the future 2021 traffic volumes do not consider a reduction in through traffic on Market Street; however, some reduction is expected upon completion of the Military Cutoff Road Extension. 3.4 Analysis of Background (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions Background conditions at the existing study intersections were analyzed using the existing lane configurations and traffic control. Background (2021) conditions at the proposed intersections were analyzed with improvements associated with U 4751 (Military Cutoff Road Extension). Signals along the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension were analyzed with assumed signal timings and phasing. The results of the background traffic conditions analysis are presented in Section 8 of this report. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 18 4 TRIP GENERATION The proposed development consists of 330 single family homes at full build out. The average weekday daily, AM, and PM peak hour trips anticipated for the proposed development were calculated using methodology contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of the trip generation results. Table 1 – Site Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Units Weekday 24 Hour Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Detached Homes 210 330 homes 3,150 62 186 208 122 It is estimated the proposed development will generate approximately 3,150 trips during a typical weekday. Of these daily site trips, it is estimated that 248 total trips (62 entering and 186 exiting) will occur during the AM peak hour and 330 total trips (208 entering and 122 exiting) will occur during the PM peak hour. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 19 5 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution percentages for the proposed development were determined based on a combination of existing traffic patterns, surrounding land uses, and engineering judgment. The anticipated trip distribution was approved through coordination with the reviewing agencies. The anticipated future roadway projects will each distribute the traffic differently; therefore three trip distributions are necessary. Trip distribution was performed separately for three analysis scenarios:  Prior to Military Cutoff Road Extension (2018)  With Military Cutoff Road Extension (2021)  With Military Cutoff Road Extension and with Murrayville Road Extension (2021) Refer to Figures 7a – 7c for an illustration of the site trip distribution for each analysis scenario. Refer to Figures 8a – 8c for an illustration of the site trip assignment for each analysis scenario. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 26 6 COMBINED (2018 / 2021) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Site trips were added to the background (2018) and (2021) traffic volumes for each scenario to determine the combined peak hour traffic volumes. Refer to Figures 9a – 9c for an illustration of the combined peak hour traffic for each analysis scenario. 6.1 Analysis of Combined (2018 / 2021) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions The combined peak hour conditions were analyzed according to the same methodology as described for background conditions. The results of the capacity analysis for each intersection are presented in Section 8 of this report. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 30 7 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE All intersection capacity analyses were completed using Synchro (Version 9.0). Synchro is a comprehensive software package that allows the user to model and optimize signal timing for coordinated and uncoordinated signalized intersections to determine levels of service (based on the thresholds specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board). Analysis results for signalized intersections provide level of service calculations for all approaches, as well as an overall intersection level of service. Analysis results for unsignalized intersections do not provide level of service calculations for all approaches or an overall level of service, but rather a level of service for movements and / or approaches that have a conflicting movement. Capacity and level of service are the design criteria for this study. Table 2 – Highway Capacity Manual – Levels of Service and Delay UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SECONDS) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SECONDS) A B C D E F 0-10 10-15 15-25 25-35 35-50 >50 A B C D E F 0-10 10-20 20-35 35-55 55-80 >80 The HCM defines capacity as "the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions". Level of service (LOS) is a term used to represent different driving conditions, and is defined as a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers". Level of service varies from level "A", representing free flow, to level "F" where greater vehicle delays are evident. Refer to Table 2 for HCM levels of service and related delay per vehicle for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. As shown in Table 2, levels of service are stated in terms of delay. Control delay as defined by the HCM includes “initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.” For example, a control delay of 40 seconds at a signalized intersection results in level of service D at the intersection. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 31 8 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8.1 College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane The signalized intersection of College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane was analyzed under each scenario using existing lane configurations and traffic control. Refer to Table 3 for a summary of the capacity analysis results with levels of service and overall expected delay. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix F. Table 3 – Analysis Summary of College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Existing (2015) Conditions EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E D C D (50) E D D C D (43) Background (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D D (54) E D D D D (45) Combined (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D E (56) E D D D D (48) Existing (2015) Conditions without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (172) E D F F F (212) Background (2018) Conditions without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (184) E D F F F (236) Combined (2018) Conditions without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (188) E D F F F (260) Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 32 ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D E (56) E D D D D (47) Combined (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D E (59) E D D D D (50) Background (2021) Conditions without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (192) E D F F F (244) Combined (2021) Conditions without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (196) F D F F F (268) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D E (56) E D D D D (47) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E F D D E (59) E D D D D (50) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (192) E D F F F (244) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension without RTOR EB WB NB SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 2 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E E F F F (196) F D F F F (268) Red text indicates a new analysis scenario that was requested by the NCDOT / WMPO. The traffic signal at the intersection of North College Road and Murrayville Road / Bavarian Lane operates with northbound and southbound protected left-turn phasing with an overlapping westbound and eastbound right-turn phase. Because of the heavy northbound and southbound U-turn movements Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 33 at this intersection, an analysis scenario was completed with the westbound and eastbound right-turn movements operating with permitted phasing, allowing right-turn-on-red (RTOR) to model how the signal currently operates. This was done to more accurately model traffic operations at the intersection. Capacity analysis of existing (2015) and background (2018) traffic conditions indicates the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Under combined (2018), background (2021), and combined (2021) traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour and LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour. Per NCDOT Congestion Management guidelines, RTOR should not be allowed for the purpose of traffic impact analyses. Separate scenarios were studied without RTOR and the signal phasing was set to match the signal plans provided by the NCDOT. All signalized right-turn movements are phased as permitted+overlap, left-turns are protected (westbound left is split phasing), and U-turns are permissive-only, per existing signage at the intersection calling for U-turns to yield to right-turns. Without RTOR, under existing (2015), background (2018), combined (2018), background (2021) , and combined (2021) traffic conditions the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that analyzing the signal in this operation caused queuing for the northbound and southbound left-turn movement, especially in the weekday AM peak hour, that is unlikely for this intersection. The westbound approach is expected to experience delays due to the heavy approach volumes. It should be noted that the westbound right-turn movements were restricted to permitted only to allow time for the southbound U-turn volumes. Due to the limitations of Synchro, U-turn movements can sometimes not be modeled in a similar fashion to what is observed in the field, and this modification allows for the U-turns to move through the intersection. If the westbound right-turn movement was run as protected+permitted in the Synchro simulation, the westbound approach is expected to operate with smaller delay times. However, this results in an error in the delay calculations for the U-turn movement. Because the in-field signal operations allow for a permitted+protected eastbound right-turn movement, no improvements are being recommended at this intersection. It should also be noted that the heavy westbound queuing could be due to the nearby schools that utilize this intersection. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 34 8.2 Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive The signalized intersection of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive was analyzed under each analysis scenario using existing lane configurations and signal timings. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of the capacity analysis results with levels of service. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix G. Table 4 – Analysis Summary of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Existing (2015) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C D D (50) F D C C D (37) Background (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (57) F D C D D (41) Combined (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (63) F D C D D (46) Combined (2018) Conditions with Signal Timing Modifications EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C D D (49) -- -- -- -- -- Background (2018) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F C E E (69) F F C D D (47) Combined (2018) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F D E E (74) F F D D D (52) Background (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (60) E D D D D (49) Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 35 ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Combined (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (60) E D D D D (49) Combined (2021) Conditions with Signal Timing Modifications EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E D C D D (46) -- -- -- -- -- Background (2021) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F C E E (74) E E E D E (56) Combined (2021) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F C E E (74) E E E D E (56) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (60) E D D D D (49) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F D C E E (62) E D D D D (51) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Signal Timing Modifications EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT E D C D D (47) -- -- -- -- -- Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F C E E (74) E E E D E (56) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT F F C F E (76) E E E D E (60) Red text indicates a new analysis scenario that was requested by the NCDOT / WMPO. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 36 Capacity analysis of existing (2015) traffic conditions indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Under background (2018), combined (2018), background (2021), and combined (2021) traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour and LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour. Per NCDOT request, an analysis scenario with protected only left-turns in place of existing permitted+protected left-turns was considered. Utilizing protected only left-turn phasing is not anticipated to significantly affect intersection operations. It should be noted that both the northbound and southbound approach have two-way left-turn lanes, so the left-turn lane storage should not cause a major issue for these approaches. It is encouraged that the signal remains operating with a permiteed+protected phasing to keep intersection delay to a minimum. The eastbound approach is expected to experience delays due to the heavy approach volumes under background traffic conditions. In order to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, signal timing adjustments are recommended for the weekday AM peak hour. With this improvement, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D during the weekday AM peak hour. It should be noted that this study does not account for a reduction in through traffic on Market Street that is expected to occur upon completion of Military Cutoff Road Extension. It can be expected that the eastbound approach volumes would decrease with the completion of the Military Cutoff Road Extension. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 37 8.3 Gordon Road and White Road The signalized intersection of Gordon Road and White Road was analyzed under each scenario using existing lane configurations and signal timings. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix H. Table 5 – Analysis Summary of Gordon Road and White Road ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Existing (2015) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (28) A B D E B (18) Background (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (32) B C D E C (22) Combined (2018) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F D (43) B C D E C (27) Background (2018) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (33) D C D E D (36) Combined (2018) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT B B D F D (45) E C D E D (49) Background (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (34) B C D E C (25) Combined (2021) Conditions EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F D (45) C C D E C (31) Background (2021) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (35) D C D E D (38) Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 38 ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Combined (2021) Conditions with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT B B D F D (46) E C D E D (52) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (34) B C D E C (25) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F D (45) C C D E C (31) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT A B D F C (35) D C D E D (38) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension with Protected-Only Left- Turns EB WB NB SB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT 1 LT-TH-RT 1 LT-TH, 1 RT B B D F D (46) E C D E D (52) Red text indicates a new analysis scenario that was requested by the NCDOT / WMPO. Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the southbound approach is expected to operate with delays due to heavy approach volumes. To mitigate this impact in the future, consideration should be taken to allow more time for the southbound approach to turn onto Gordon Road. It should also be noted that the eastbound left-turn queuing is not expected to queue past the Indian Wells Way intersection on Gordon Road under combined (2018) traffic conditions. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 39 8.4 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road was analyzed using lane configurations from the STIP design documents and proposed signal timings. Refer to Table 6 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix I. Table 6 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Lendire Road ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C C A B (14) C D B B (16) Combined (2021) Conditions SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C C A B (14) C D B B (16) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C C A B (13) C D B B (16) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C C A B (14) C D B B (16) *Southbound left turns and U-turns are considered eastbound through and left-turn movements for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 40 8.5 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive was analyzed using lane configurations from the STIP design documents. Refer to Table 7 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix J. Table 7 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Brittany Lakes Drive ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (10) D C A A (9) Combined (2021) Conditions EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (10) D C A A (9) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (9) D C A A (8) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (9) D C A A (8) *Northbound left turn is considered westbound through movement for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS A during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 41 8.6 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) was analyzed using lane configurations from the STIP design documents. Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix K. Table 8 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C D A B (11) C D A B (11) Combined (2021) Conditions SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C D A B (11) C D A B (11) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C D A B (11) C D A B (11) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* WB NB 1 LT 1 RT 3 TH, 1 RT C D A B (11) C D A B (12) *Southbound left turn movement is considered eastbound through movement for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 42 8.7 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) was analyzed using lane configurations from the STIP design documents. The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard operates as two separate signals. The Torchwood Boulevard (Westbound) signal is discussed in the next section. Refer to Table 9 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix L. Table 9 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Torchwood Boulevard (Eastbound) ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A B (12) C D A B (12) Combined (2021) Conditions EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A B (14) C D A B (14) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (9) C D A B (10) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A A (9) C D A B (10) *Northbound left turns and U-turns are considered westbound through and left-turn movements for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 43 8.8 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn was analyzed using lane configurations from the STIP design documents and proposed signal timings. Refer to Table 10 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix M. Table 10 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Northbound Torchwood Boulevard U-Turn ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions NB* SB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (9) D A B (10) Combined (2021) Conditions NB* SB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (9) D A B (10) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension NB* SB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (9) D A B (11) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension NB* SB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (8) D A A (10) *Northbound U-turn is considered westbound left turn movement for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 44 8.9 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U-Turn The intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U- Turn was analyzed using lane configurations from STIP design documents. This intersection serves vehicles traveling east on Murrayville Road Extension wanting to travel north on the Military Cutoff Road Extension. Refer to Table 11 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix N. Table 11 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Southbound Murrayville Road Extension U-Turn ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATIONS WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* NB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (4) D A A (3) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension SB* NB 1 UT 3 TH D A A (5) D A A (3) *Southbound U-turn is considered eastbound left turn movement for analysis purposes. Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS A during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 45 8.10 Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension The proposed intersection of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension was analyzed with estimated lane configurations and assumed signal timings. Assumptions in traffic signal operation were made following NCDOT Congestion Management guidelines. Refer to Table 12 for a summary of the capacity analysis results. Copies of the Synchro analysis reports are provided in Appendix O. Table 12 – Analysis Summary of Military Cutoff Road Extension and Murrayville Road Extension ANALYSIS SCENARIO A P P R O A C H LANE CONFIGURATION S WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Approach Overall (sec) Approach Overall (sec) Background (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C A B (12) D C A A (9) Combined (2021) Conditions with Murrayville Road Extension EB NB* SB 1 RT 1 LT 3 TH, 1 RT D C B B (15) D C A B (12) *Northbound left turn movement is considered westbound through movement for analysis purposes Capacity analysis of each analysis scenarios indicate the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 46 9 CONCLUSIONS This report summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Hanover Reserve residential development, located north of Gordon Road and west of Market Street in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The proposed development will consist of 330 single family homes at full build out and the initial phase is under construction. Access to the site is proposed via connections to Murrayville Road, Quail Woods Road, and Rabbit Hollow Drive. The proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on the study area. It is estimated the proposed development will generate approximately 3,150 trips during a typical weekday. Of these daily site trips, it is estimated that 248 total trips (62 entering and 186 exiting) will occur during the AM peak hour and 330 total trips (208 entering and 122 exiting) will occur during the PM peak hour. The development has numerous access routes to primary routes of Market Street, Gordon Road, and College Road; therefore, the site trips would be expected to adjust travel patterns to the route and intersection with less congestion and delay. NCDOT STIP project U-4751 will extend Military Cutoff Road through the eastern portion of the development property and through the study area. Due to this STIP project, the analysis year 2021 was included in the study. The current U-4751 roadway design diverts traffic from the intersection at Torchwood Boulevard to Brittany Lake Drive / Lendire Road and vice versa (ie traffic traveling westbound on Lendire Road wishing to turn left, must make a U-turn at Torchwood Boulevard). The U- turns that are created by this design at both intersections could potentially benefit from two U-turns located halfway between the two intersections. This would allow traffic to travel less distance to make the U-turns, while also allowing them to do so without conflicting with the opposing right turn traffic. This would require adequate space between the intersections. Traffic signals along the new Military Cutoff Road Extension were analyzed with assumed timings and operations based on Congestion Management guidelines. These guidelines should provide a conservative estimate of the traffic operations. Due to conflicts between right turning vehicles and U- turning vehicles, each new signal operates with three phases, which allow a separate phase for both the U-turns and for the right turns. It is possible that U-turns would be prohibited at intersections with side Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 47 streets to minimize right turn conflicts; however, the analysis in this study should be conservative with a three-phase signal operation. Capacity analysis indicates that most signalized intersections are expected to operate with acceptable overall LOS with the exception of the Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard /Bayshore Drive intersection. Intersection delays are expected to increase slightly from existing to background conditions and from background to combined conditions. It should be noted that this study does not account for a reduction in through traffic on Market Street that is expected to occur upon completion of Military Cutoff Road Extension. In order to accommodate the proposed development site traffic, signal timing adjustments are recommended for the weekday AM peak hour. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hanover Reserve – New Hanover County, NC 48 10 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study, specific geometric improvements have been identified and are recommended to accommodate future traffic conditions. See a more detailed description of the recommended improvements below. Refer to Figure 10 for an illustration of the recommended lane configuration for the proposed development. As indicated by the analysis, the extension of Murrayville Road to the Military Cutoff Road is not necessary for the proposed site traffic. This the traffic produced by the residential development will be able to progress to and from the proposed site without significant impact to the surrounding infrastructure, even without the additional access provided by the possible Murrayville Road extension. Recommended Improvements by Developer Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard / Bayshore Drive  Modify weekday AM peak hour signal timings. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: 919.872.5115 Fax: 919.878.5416 www.rameykemp.com