DRAFT TIA Report_v1TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
March 5, 2024
Project # 232009
New Hanover County, NC
Prepared For: D.R. Horton
Sidbury 187/Gore
Tract
DRAFT
Home Office: Wilmington Regional Office: Serving the Southeast since 2002
119 Brookstown Ave. Suite PH1 1426 Navaho Trail, #108 NC License: C-2522
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Wilmington, NC 28409
Main: 336.744.1636; Fax: 336.458.9377
Transportation Impact Analysis
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract
New Hanover County, NC
Prepared for
D.R. Horton
March 5, 2024
Analysis and Graphics by: Dylan Coley, PE
Reviewed and Sealed by: AJ Anastopoulo, PE
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specific purpose
and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others without written
authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT shall be without liability to DAVENPORT and shall be a violation of
the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SEAL
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts proposed development is located on the south side of Sidbury Road in New Hanover County, NC. It will consist of a total of 1,312 single family homes and 442 townhomes and will be built over three phases. One full movement access point is proposed on Sidbury Road as part of this development. The project also connects to the approved Sidbury Station development which provided additional access points on Sidbury Road. The project will be split into three phases. Phase 1 is planned for 2029, Phase 2 is planned for 2030, and full
build-out is expected in 2032. Information regarding the property was provided by McKim & Creed and DR Horton.
DAVENPORT was retained to determine the potential traffic impacts of this development and to identify transportation improvements that may be required to accommodate the impacts of the new development traffic.
The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed based on the scope agreed upon with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO). At full build, this site has a trip
generation potential of 14,093 daily trips, 999 trips in the AM peak hour, and 1,378 trips in the PM peak hour.
In conclusion, this study has determined the potential traffic impacts of this development and recommendations have been given where necessary to mitigate the impacts of future traffic. The analysis indicates that some intersections will operate below the ideal level of service even with the recommended improvements in place. Additional improvements should be explored by NCDOT to better address transportation capacity and mobility in the study area. The
recommendations summarized in Figures A, B, and C and in Table A should be constructed to comply with applicable NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways and local standards.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts ii
Table A – Recommended Improvements
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
US 117 (North College Road) and Blue Clay
Road
•Phase 1- Install an eastbound right-turn lane 200 feet of storage withappropriate deceleration and taper.
•Phase 1- Extend northbound right-turn lane to provide 550 feet of storage withappropriate deceleration and taper.
•Phase 1- Optimize signal timings.
•Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
•Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Blue
Clay Road •Phases 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road
•Phase 1- Provide signalization with protected eastbound left-turn phasing.
•Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
•Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Buck
Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
•Phases 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury
Station Access 2
•Phase 1- Provide signalization
•Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
•Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Sidbury Station Access 3
•Phase 1- No improvements recommended.
•Phase 2- Extend committed eastbound right-turn lane to provide125 feet ofstorage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
•Full Build- Extend committed eastbound right-turn lane to provide 375 feet ofstorage with 200 feet of taper.
•Full Build- Extend committed westbound left-turn lane to provide 100 feet ofstorage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
Sidbury Road and Site Access 1
•Phase 1- Provide signalization.
•
•
Phase 1- Install eastbound right-turn lane with100 feet of storage with
appropriate deceleration and taper.
Phase 1- Install westbound left-turn lane with 125 feet of storage with
appropriate deceleration and taper.
•Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
•Full Build- Extend westbound left-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage withappropriate deceleration and taper.
•Full Build- Extend eastbound right-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage withappropriate deceleration and taper.
Sidbury Road and US 17 •Phase 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE A PHASE 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE B PHASE 2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE C FULL BUILD RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
RED = PROPOSED IN PHASE 3
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts vi
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i Figure A: Recommendations ................................................................................................. iii
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Figure 1 – Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2A – Site Location Map ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2B – Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Inventory .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 – Existing Lane Geometry ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 – Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 7 3.0 Approved Development and Committed Improvements ..................................... 8 3.1 Approved Developments .................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Committed Improvements ................................................................................................ 9 4.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Base Assumptions and Standards ................................................................................ 11 5.0 Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Level of Service Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................. 12 6.0 Existing Analysis .................................................................................................. 19 7.0 2029 Phase 1 Build Conditions ........................................................................... 19
7.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................ 19
7.2 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................ 19
7.3 2029 Future No Build ...................................................................................................... 19 7.4 2029 Phase 1 Future Build Volumes ............................................................................ 19 Figure 5 – 2029 Lane Geometry .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 6 – 2029 Phase 1 Future No Build Volumes ......................................................... 21
Figure 7A – Approved Developments Phase 1 (Present-2029) ..................................... 22
Figure 7B – Phase 1 Trip Distribution ................................................................................. 23
Figure 7C – Phase 1 Site Trips ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 8 – 2029 Phase 1 Future Build Volumes ............................................................... 25 7.5 Phase 1 Discussion of Results ...................................................................................... 26 Figure 9 – Phase 1 Recommended Improvements ...................................................... 47 8.0 2030 Phase 2 Build Conditions ........................................................................... 48
8.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................ 48
8.2 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................ 48 8.3 2030 Future No Build ...................................................................................................... 48 8.4 2030 Phase 2 Future Build Volumes ............................................................................ 48 Figure 10 – 2030 Lane Geometry ........................................................................................ 49 Figure 11 – 2030 Phase 2 Future No Build Volumes ....................................................... 50 Figure 12A – Approved Developments Phase 2 (Present-2030) ................................... 51
Figure 12B – Phase 2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................... 52
Figure 12C – Phase 2 Site Trips .......................................................................................... 53 Figure 13 – 2030 Phase 2 Future Build Volumes ............................................................. 54 8.5 Phase 2 Discussion of Results ...................................................................................... 55
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts vii
Figure 14 – Phase 2 Recommended Improvements .................................................... 55 9.0 2032 Full Build Conditions....................................................................................77 9.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................ 77
9.2 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................ 77
9.3 2032 Full Build Future No Build ..................................................................................... 77
9.4 2032 Full Build Future Build Volumes .......................................................................... 77 Figure 15 – 2032 Lane Geometry ........................................................................................ 78 Figure 16 – 2032 Full Build Future No Build Volumes ..................................................... 79 Figure 17A – Approved Developments Full Build (Present-2032) ................................. 80 Figure 17B – Full Build Trip Distribution ............................................................................. 81
Figure 17C –Full Build Site Trips ......................................................................................... 82
Figure 18 – 2032 Full Build Future Build Volumes ........................................................... 83 9.5 Full Build Discussion of Results .................................................................................... 84 Figure 19 – Full Build Recommended Improvements ................................................ 106 10.0 Signal Warrant Analysis.................................................................................... 108 11.0 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................ 110
Appendix .................................................................................................................... 115
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 1
1.0 Introduction
The Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts proposed development is located on the south side of Sidbury Road
in New Hanover County, NC. It will consist of a total of 1,312 single family homes and 442 townhomes and will be built over three phases. One full movement access point is proposed on Sidbury Road as part of this development. The project also connects to the approved Sidbury
Station development which provided additional access points on Sidbury Road. The project will be split into three phases. Phase 1 is planned for 2029, Phase 2 is planned for 2030, and full build-out is expected in 2032. Information regarding the property was provided by McKim & Creed and DR Horton. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 1, and a site location map and a vicinity map are provided in Figures 2A and 2B, respectively.
DAVENPORT was retained to determine the potential traffic impacts of this development and to identify transportation improvements that may be required to accommodate the impacts of the new development traffic. The following intersections are included in the study: 1. US 117 (North College Road) and Blue Clay Road (signalized) 2. Sidbury Road and Blue Clay Road (unsignalized)
3. Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized) 4. Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 (unsignalized) 5. Sidbury Road and Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized)
6. Sidbury Road and Sidbury Station Phase 2 Access (unsignalized, committed improvement not yet built) 7. Sidbury Road and Site Access (unsignalized) 8. Sidbury Road and US 17 (signalized) These intersections were analyzed during the AM and PM peaks for the following conditions:
• 2023 Existing Conditions
• 2029 Future No Build Conditions
• 2029 Phase 1 Future Build Conditions (with signal warrant studies)
• 2029 Phase 1 Future Build Conditions + Improvements
• 2030 Future No Build Conditions
• 2030 Phase 2 Future Build Conditions (with signal warrant studies)
• 2030 Phase 2 Future Build Conditions + Improvements
• 2032 Future No Build Conditions
• 2032 Full Build Future Build Conditions (with signal warrant studies)
• 2032 Full Build Future Build Conditions + Improvements
The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed based on the scope agreed upon with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). It was conducted according to the standards and best practices of the
transportation engineering profession.
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract
Project Number 232009
FIGURE 2A
SITE LOCATION MAP SITE INDICATOR
SITE
FIGURE 2B
VICINITY MAP
1 2 3 4 5 7
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
8
6
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 5
2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Inventory Table 2.1 presents a summary of the study area roadway conditions. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry.
Table 2.1 - Street Inventory
Facility Name Route # AADT (vpd)
Typical Cross Section
Pavement Width
Speed Limit (MPH)
Maintained By
US 17 US 17 40,500 4-lane divided 12-foot lanes 55 NCDOT
Sidbury Road SR 1336 5,600 2-lane undivided 11-foot lanes 55 NCDOT
Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury
Station Access 2
SR 2202 / n/a Not reported 2-lane undivided 11-foot lanes 25* NCDOT / private
Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 n/a Not reported 2-lane undivided 11-foot lanes 25* New Hanover County / private
Dairy Farm Road SR 2181 Not reported 2-lane undivided 11-foot lanes 55 NCDOT
Blue Clay Road SR 1318 5,600 2-lane undivided 12-foot lanes 55 NCDOT
North College Road US 117 / NC 132 9,500 2-lane undivided 12-foot lanes 45 NCDOT
*Assumed speed limit 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Turning movement counts for this project, except for the intersection of US 117 and Blue Clay Road, were collected by Burns Services, Incorporated. Turning movement counts for US 117 and
Blue Clay Road were collected by Marr Traffic Data Collection. Schools were in session while all counts were collected. Table 2.2 contains the location, dates, and times these counts were conducted. US 17 and Sidbury Road was used as the controlling peak hour for all intersections except US 117 and Blue Clay Road, as those counts were collected on a different day. The traffic volumes were not balanced between the study intersections since the existing driveways and land uses account for the imbalance. Additionally, a minimum of four vehicles per hour were assigned to all movements (except for the SBT movement at Buck Drive and Sidbury Road, as the northbound approach at this intersection is right-in right-out; Synchro does not allow for this condition to be modeled directly), per NCDOT Congestion Management standards. The existing AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 4. Traffic count data are provided in the Appendix.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 6
Table 2.2 - Traffic Volume Data
Count Location Date Taken Hours
US 17 at Sidbury Road (signalized) Thursday, April 27, 2023 7-9 AM, 4-6 PM
Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury
Station Access 2 (unsignalized) Thursday, April 27, 2023 6 AM – 7 PM
Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized) Thursday, April 27, 2023 7-9 AM, 4-6 PM
Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized) Thursday, April 27, 2023 6 AM – 7 PM
Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road (unsignalized) Thursday, April 27, 2023 7-9 AM, 4-6 PM
US 117 at Blue Clay Road (signalized) Tuesday, September 13, 2022 7-9 AM, 4-6 PM
*Assumed Speed Limit
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 3 2023 LANE GEOMETRY
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
SPEED
LIMIT45
SPEEDLIMIT
45
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
SPEED
LIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
2021 AADT
VOLUMESXXXX
BLACK = EXISTING
GREY = UNANALYZED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEED
LIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
45
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this documentby others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability toDAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 4 2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREY = UNANALYZED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 9
3.0 Approved Development and Committed Improvements 3.1 Approved Developments Approved developments are developments that have been recently approved in the area but are not yet constructed. Per the approved scoping document, there are seven approved developments to consider for this study site. The following approved development volumes for each build year are shown in Figures 7A, 12A, and 17A in Sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 with relevant
information provided in the Appendix.
• Sidbury Crossing – a residential development located between Dairy Farm Road,
Sidbury Road, and I-40; TIA prepared by DAVENPORT and approved by the WMPO in
2020; full buildout 2024.
• Sidbury Station – a residential development located south of Sidbury Road, just west of
the study site; TIA prepared by DAVENPORT and approved by the WMPO in 2020; site
trips for Phases 1 and 2 were included in this study; full buildout is 2034, therefore full
build site trips were not included.
• Blake Farm Development – a mixed-use development located north of Blake Farm
Boulevard and west of US 17; TIA prepared by DAVENPORT and approved by the WMPO
in 2020; full build-out 2025; Site trips from Phases 1 were assumed to be accounted for in
the traffic counts; Phase 2 and 3 site trips were included as part of the approved
developments volumes.
• McAdams Sidbury – a residential development located north of Sidbury Road and west
of US 17; TIA prepared by DAVENPORT and approved by the WMPO in 2021; full build-
out 2028.
• Blue Clay Industrial – an industrial development located north of Blue Clay Road and
west of Juvenile Center Road; TIA prepared by DAVENPORT and approved by the
WMPO in 2022; full build-out 2032.
• Lake Pointe – a residential development located north of Sidbury Road and east of Dairy
Farm Road; TIA prepared by Timmons Group and approved by the WMPO in 2022; full
build-out 2025.
• Lee Hills – a residential development located south of Sidbury Road and west of US 17;
TIA prepared by Ramey Kemp Associates and approved by the WMPO in 2021; full build-
out 2026.
3.2 Committed Improvements Committed improvements are improvements that are planned by NCDOT, New Hanover County, or the WMPO, or that are associated with a prior approved development in the area but are not yet constructed. Per the approved scoping document, the below list of committed improvements is to be included in this study. The responsible party for each committed improvement is also listed. Several approved developments have committed improvements for a given intersection. In these cases, the committed improvement(s) providing the greatest level of mitigation was used for the purposes of this study. Additional relevant information is provided in the Appendix.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 10
• US 117 (North College Road) and Blue Clay Road (signalized) – Multiple
Developments
o Sidbury Crossing
Construct a westbound right turn lane with 150 feet of storage, 50 feet of
full width deceleration and 200 feet of taper.
Extend the westbound left turn lane ~150 feet to connect to the two-way
left-turn lane.
Revise signal.
o Sidbury Road – Phase 2
Provide a westbound right turn lane on Blue Clay Road with 250 feet of
storage, 50 feet of deceleration, and 200 feet of taper.
Extend the westbound left turn lane to 550 feet of storage, 50 feet of
deceleration, and 200 feet of taper.
Provide a southbound right turn lane on N College Road with 250 feet of
storage, 50 feet of full width deceleration, and 100 feet of taper.
Extend the existing northbound right turn lane on N College Road to
provide 400 feet of storage, 50 feet of full width deceleration, and 100 feet
of taper.
Provide protected + permitted overlap phasing for westbound and
southbound right turn lanes.
Optimize existing signal timing splits.
• Sidbury Road and Blue Clay Road (unsignalized) – Sidbury Crossing
o Realign the intersection to provide stop control for the southbound approach
only, allowing the eastbound and westbound approaches to operate free flow.
• Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized) – Sidbury Crossing
o Extend eastbound left turn lane to 275 feet of storage and appropriate taper.
o Construct a westbound right turn lane with taper only.
o Construct a southbound left turn lane with 50 feet of storage, 50 feet of full width
deceleration, and 200 feet of taper.
• Sidbury Road and US 17 (signalized) – McAdams Sidbury Road Development
o Construct a second eastbound right turn lane with 250 feet of storage (Phase 2)
o Maximize the northbound left turn storage (Phase 3)
o Provide 600 feet of storage for second eastbound right turn lane (full build)
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 11
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Base Assumptions and Standards In general, the analysis for this project was conducted utilizing commonly accepted NCDOT
standards. Table 4.1 contains a summary of the base assumptions.
Table 4.1 - Assumptions
Annual Growth Rate 1%
Analysis Software Synchro/SimTraffic
Lane Widths 12 feet
Peak Hour Factor 0.90
Truck Percentage 2%
NCDOT Congestion Management standards require a minimum of 4 vehicles per hour to be assigned to all movements. One exception is the SBT movement at Buck Drive and Sidbury
Road, as the northbound approach at this intersection is right-in right-out; Synchro does not allow for this condition to be modeled exactly. Zero vehicles per hour were assigned to this movement to approximate the condition.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 12
5.0 Capacity Analysis 5.1 Level of Service Evaluation Criteria
The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) utilizes a term “level of service” (LOS) to measure how traffic operates in intersections and on roadway segments. There are six levels of service ranging from A to F as shown in Table 5.1. Level of service “A” represents
low-volume traffic operations and level of service “F” represents high-volume, oversaturated traffic operations. Synchro traffic modeling software is used to determine the LOS and delay for study intersections. Synchro analysis worksheet reports are provided in the Appendix.
Table 5.1 – Highway Capacity Manual
Levels of Service and Control Delay Criteria
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Level of Service Control Delay Per vehicle (seconds) Level of Service Delay Range (seconds)
A ≤ 10 A ≤ 10
B > 10 and ≤ 20 B > 10 and ≤ 15
C > 20 and ≤ 35 C > 15 and ≤ 25
D > 35 and ≤ 55 D > 25 and ≤ 35
E > 55 and ≤ 80 E > 35 and ≤ 50
F > 80 F > 50
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 13
6.0 2023 Existing Analysis
US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road (signalized)
The intersection operates at LOS D under Existing conditions in both the AM and PM peak hours.
Table 6.1 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
D (50.7)
L TR L TR L T R L TR
C (35.0) F (114.0) D (47.3) D (53.7) C (27.0) C (21.7) A (8.9) B (13.0) E (59.5)
F (100.0) D (51.1) B (17.9) E (55.2)
Available
Storage (ft) 50 FULL 100 FULL 100 FULL 250 125 FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 85 #568 #364 #600 110 205 114 46 774
Max
Queue (ft) 150 524 200 460 199 243 160 225 598
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
D (52.6)
L TR L TR L T R L TR
C (23.6) F (139.3) C (30.3) D (38.6) C (30.7) C (31.8) A (8.5) B (15.9) E (56.7)
F (111.9) C (34.4) C (28.1) E (53.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 50 FULL 100 FULL 100 FULL 250 125 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 108 #596 218 263 198 431 63 27 400
Max
Queue (ft) 150 1105 199 334 200 480 350 224 481
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 14
Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS C or better under Existing conditions.
Table 6.2 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
WB Approach C (20.8)
LR TR LT
C (20.8) A (0.0) A (5.9)
Available Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 165 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 179 0 26
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
WB Approach C (18.8)
LR TR LT
C (18.8) A (0.0) A (5.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 120 0 0
Max
Queue (ft) 179 22 30
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 15
Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized)
Under Existing conditions, the approaches operate at LOS B or better in the AM peak hour and LOS C or better in the PM peak hour.
Table 6.3 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2023 Existing
SB Approach B (14.8)
L T TR LR
A (8.5) A (0.0) - -
A (3.2) A (0.0) B (14.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 125 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 5 0 0 45
Max
Queue (ft) 52 0 0 94
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2023 Existing
SB Approach C (16.3)
L T TR LR
A (8.9) A (0.0) - -
A (5.1) A (0.0) C (16.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 125 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 25 0 0 30
Max
Queue (ft) 97 0 0 91
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 16
Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS B or better under Existing conditions.
Table 6.4 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
SB Approach B (12.2)
LT R TR R LR
A (8.2) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.3) A (0.0) A (8.9) B (12.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 29
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
SB Approach B (11.0)
LT R TR R LR
A (7.8) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.2) A (0.0) A (9.3) B (11.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 30
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 17
Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 (unsignalized)
Under Existing conditions, the approaches operate at LOS B or better.
Table 6.5 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
SB Approach B (12.3)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.2) A (0.0) A (7.4) A (0.0) - -
A (0.4) A (0.1) B (11.9) B (12.3)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5 5
Max Queue (ft) 24 0 25 0 24 50
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
NB Approach B (11.8)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (7.7) A (0.0) A (7.6) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.1) B (11.8) B (11.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 49 31
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 18
US 17 at Sidbury Road (signalized)
Under Existing conditions, the intersection operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
Table 6.6 - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
C (27.0)
R UL T T R
- B (17.9) A (0.0) C (26.4) A (8.9)
B (11.6) ** C (24.3)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 325 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) 92 #300 ** #783 117
Max Queue (ft) 214 408 ** 609^ 225
Max
Queue (ft)
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2023 Existing
B (17.3)
R UL T T R
- C (28.8) A (0.0) B (14.7) A (7.3)
C (33.5) ** B (14.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 325 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) 157 131 ** 481 63
Max Queue (ft) 151 184 ** 342^ 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 19
7.0 2029 Phase 1 Analysis
7.1 Trip Generation
Phase 1 of the proposed development will contain 324 single family homes and 144 townhomes. The trip generation potential of this site was projected based on the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and guidance from NCDOT
Congestion Management on the selection of appropriate variables. Table 6.1 presents the results.
Table 7.1 – Phase 1 ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Land Use and Code Size Data Source Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 324 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 2,976 54 163 217 189 111 300
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 144 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 1,047 17 52 69 49 33 82
Total Primary Trips 4,023 71 215 286 238 144 382
7.2 2029 Future No Build The 2029 future no build volumes were computed by applying a one percent (1%) compounded annual growth rate to the 2023 Existing volumes and adding approved development trips.
Figure 6 shows 2029 future no build volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 7A shows trips for approved developments that are anticipated to be operational by 2029.
7.3 Trip Distribution Site trips for Phase 1 of the proposed development were distributed based on the existing traffic patterns and engineering judgement. The trip distribution model is shown in Figure 7B. The directional distribution for Phase 1 site trips is:
• 20% to/from the north on US 17
• 15% to/from the south on US 17
• 30% to/from the west on Blue Clay Road
• 10% to/from the north on US 117
• 25% to/from the south on US 117
7.4 2029 Phase 1 Future Build Volumes Phase 1 site trips were added to the 2029 future no build volumes to compute the 2029 Phase 1 future build volumes. Site trips and 2029 Phase 1 future build volumes are shown in Figures 7C and 8, respectively.
*Assumed Speed Limit
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 5 2029 LANE GEOMETRY
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
SPEED
LIMIT45
SPEEDLIMIT
45
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
SPEED
LIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
BLACK = EXISTING
GREY = UNANALYZED
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEED
LIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
45
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this documentby others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability toDAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 6 2029 FUTURE NO BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 7A APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS PHASE 1 (PRESENT-2029)
AM / PM PEAK
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
ORIGIN/DESTINATION
NODE%
IN = ENTERING
OUT = EXITING
25%
30%
10%
15%
20%
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 7B PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
FIGURE 7C PHASE 1 SITE TRIPS
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, thisdocument by others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be withoutliability to DAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the
client.
FIGURE 8 2029 PHASE 1 FUTURE BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
%
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 26
7.5 Phase 1 Discussion of Results
In addition to a capacity analysis, a queueing analysis was performed using Synchro and SimTraffic simulation, based on a minimum 10-minute seeding, a 60-minute recording period, and 10 runs. The maximum SimTraffic queues and 95th-percentile Synchro queues are provided,
along with the turn lane lengths. Synchro and SimTraffic queue reports are provided in the Appendix. The results of the capacity and queue analyses are discussed by intersection in the following paragraphs. The LOS, delay, and queue results are summarized in Tables 7.2 to 7.12.
US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road (signalized) Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS F in both peak hours; under future build conditions, delays are increased by approximately 30% and 21% in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. There are significant queues shown on the eastbound and westbound approaches in future no build and future build scenario. While no project traffic is attributed to the eastbound right movement, it is recommended to provide an eastbound right-turn lane with 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper. It is also recommended to optimize signal timings. Additionally, it is recommended to extend the northbound right-turn lane storage to provide 550 feet of storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to
improve to LOS E in both peak hours. It should be noted that constructability issues for the northbound right-turn lane extension have been discovered by previous projects. Project traffic is attributed to the westbound left. While this intersection would benefit from an additional
westbound left-turn lane, due to the lack of an additional receiving lane on the southbound leg on College Road and right-of-way constraints on the westbound approach with future committed improvements considered, an additional westbound left-turn lane is not recommended for this
project. In coordination with WMPO an alternative phasing scenario was analyzed in for the future no build, future build, and build with improvements scenario for both peak hours. With protected only phasing used per Congestion Management standards in the initial analysis, westbound queues were shown to back significantly, affecting the entire network. An alternative phasing scenario was analyzed which included allowing protected-permitted left-turn movements on all approaches, as this would simulate field operations. In the alternative phasing scenario, the intersection is shown to operate at LOS D in AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour with the previously recommended improvements in place.
Delay is shown to improve from the no build scenario in both peak hours. It should be noted that the future Hampstead Bypass will provide relief to this area. This project
is currently funded for construction with a completed project date of 2029. Sidbury Road to College Road currently provides relief to the Market Street corridor between Porters Neck and US 74 (Martin Luther King Blvd). The Hampstead Bypass in conjunction with the Gordon Road widening
will likely absorb some of the traffic in this area which is utilizing Sidbury Road to College Road to bypass Market Street to/from Wilmington.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 27
Table 7.2 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
F (100.8)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (60.2) F (184.4) F (219.2) F (154.6) C (27.9) E (61.4) C (29.3) B (13.8) E (60.0) D (51.8) B (16.0)
F (165.2) F (170.6) C (28.5) D (46.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 109 #678 #737 #939 90 185 255 187 142 609 95
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1094 650 1304 350 197 263 158 225 696 350
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (130.7)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (60.2) F (212.6) F (300.8) F (218.7) C (27.8) E (61.4) C (29.6) B (14.4) E (60.1) D (51.8) B (16.0)
F (190.2) F (234.6) C (28.5) D (46.6)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 109 #723 #860 #1084 112 185 256 202 150 609 95
Max Queue (ft) 400 1107 650 1304 350 199 272 193 225 632 350
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
E (62.2)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (104.5) F (95.3) D (49.6) E (79.6) E (57.5) C (27.0) F (108.3) D (44.8) B (13.1) F (85.6) E (74.1) C (29.2)
F (82.6) E (63.0) D (42.1) E (67.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) #156 #440 195 #700 #770 93 #275 345 203 178 #841 150
Max
Queue (ft) 230 406 289 535 533 326 199 417 209 225 1263 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 28
Table 7.2 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
F (135.2)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (56.3) F (452.5) F (129.7) E (58.9) C (27.0) F (81.1) D (48.4) B (14.0) E (55.4) D (43.6) B (14.8)
F (382.3) F (87.8) D (48.1) D (42.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 174 #1085 #588 #517 98 #461 534 169 131 347 43
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1118 650 1304 116 200 1970 500 224 470 50
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (164.6)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (57.4) F (566.0) F (179.4) E (74.4) C (27.1) E (57.8) D (50.8) B (19.3) E (57.0) D (36.7) B (13.4)
F (484.6) F (116.2) D (38.3) D (38.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 176 #1245 #675 #621 111 184 543 351 163 346 43
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1089 650 1303 183 200 657 500 224 359 72
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
E (72.5)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (86.5) F (94.6) C (32.8) F (110.0) D (41.2) C (24.2) F (106.6) F (87.3) C (27.0) F (159.7) E (64.4) C (28.6)
F (81.3) E (70.3) E (64.1) F (80.8)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 214 #831 172 #666 421 103 #271 #823 458 #282 506 73
Max Queue (ft) 400 1049 225 529 479 170 200 1212 650 225 743 298
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 29
Alternate Phasing
Table 7.3 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
E (72.5)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (30.9) F (165.3) F (102.1)
F (115.5)
C (27.4) C (22.0) C (27.3) B (12.2) B (14.6) D (55.0) B (16.8)
F (144.6) F (103.4) C (20.0) D (43.6)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 79 #650 #616 #871 91 98 232 162 61 606 100
Max Queue (ft) 400 1099 563 773 348 181 261 188 225 720 350
2029 Phase 1 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (95.4)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (30.9) F (191.8) F (159.1)
F (170.0)
C (27.4) C (22.1) C (27.5) B (12.6) B (14.8) D (54.9) B (16.8)
F (168.2) F (153.2) C (20.1) D (43.4)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 79 #697 #736 #1010 112 98 234 175 64 605 100
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1108 650 1251 350 181 252 180 225 729 350
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
D (48.2)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
C (32.0) E (67.5) D (60.1) D (45.8) E (60.3) C (24.5) E (59.2) D (38.8) B (13.0) C (26.1) E (64.0) C (24.5)
E (60.1) D (51.4) C (31.2) D (52.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 70 367 217 488 #810 104 #203 325 196 104 #788 140
Max
Queue (ft) 85 346 261 386 529 349 194 376 232 225 1084 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 30
Table 7.3 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
F (110.3)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (25.5) F (409.3) D (52.4) D (47.3) C (24.7) C (27.2) D (49.4) B (12.9) B (19.9) D (47.2) B (16.8)
F (341.3) D (47.1) C (34.5) D (38.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 119 #993 #446 #441 92 186 498 150 61 352 47
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1106 310 327 151 200 685 461 224 436 198
2029 Phase 1 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (136.0)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (27.3) F (516.6) E (75.3) D (54.2) C (24.9) B (17.4) D (50.0) B (17.5) C (20.8) D (35.6) B (13.5)
F (438.2) E (60.2) C (32.5) C (30.0)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 122 #1151 #534 #543 106 85 505 312 75 329 42
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1107 365 299 126 200 677 499 201 393 122
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
E (78.8)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
C (27.3) F (286.2) D (50.5) E (75.3) D (54.2) C (24.9) B (17.4) D (50.0) B (17.5) C (20.8) D (35.6) B (13.5)
F (198.7) E (60.2) C (32.5) C (30.0)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 122 #856 199 #534 #543 106 85 505 312 75 329 42
Max Queue (ft) 400 1103 225 312 321 192 200 536 326 215 384 122
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 31
Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road (unsignalized)
A committed improvement realigns the intersection and moves the stop-controlled movement from the westbound approach to the southbound approach for future condition. This approach operates at LOS A under all future conditions in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak
hour. There is significant queueing shown on the westbound approach under future no build and future build conditions. This is due to queues from the westbound approach of Blue Clay Road at College Road backing to this intersection. With the recommended improvements at College Road at Blue Clay Road, queues are reduced in the build with improvements scenario. No improvements are recommended.
Table 7.4 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1382 0 93
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
A (9.9) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 3655 0 165
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
A (9.9) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 98 8 188
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 32
Table 7.4 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
B (11.5) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1024 22 53
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
B (12.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 680 22 180
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (12.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 124 98 127
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 33
Alternate Phasing
Table 7.5 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 110 4 99
2029 Phase 1 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
A (9.9) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 916 9 165
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
A (9.9) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 99 13 161
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 34
Table 7.5 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
B (11.5) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 109 9 57
2029 Phase 1 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
B (12.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 109 17 94
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
B (12.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 109 27 94
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 35
Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Under future build conditions, there is
some queueing is shown on the westbound approach in the AM peak hour. This is due to queues from the westbound approach of Blue Clay Road at College Road backing to this intersection. With the recommended improvements at Blue Clay Road at College Road, these queues are relieved. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. It is recommended to install a traffic control signal in accordance with all applicable NCDOT standards and guidelines. With the recommended improvement in place, the intersection operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the peak hour.
Table 7.6 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
E (35.5) SB Approach
L T T R L R
A (9.8) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) D (33.0) E (35.9)
A (3.5) A (0.0) E (35.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 15 0 0 0 30 170
Max
Queue (ft) 74 0 0 0 137 182
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (67.3) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (10.6) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) E (49.1) F (70.2)
A (3.4) A (0.0) F (67.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 15 0 0 0 45 255
Max
Queue (ft) 94 0 594 31 149 990
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (24.7)
L T T R L R
E (55.5) A (4.2) C (23.1) A (2.3) D (35.2) C (34.1)
C (20.4) C (22.4) C (34.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) #145 64 540 8 60 263
Max
Queue (ft) 167 96 420 94 149 305
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 36
Table 7.6 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
F (67.9) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (11.4) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (286.7) B (14.1)
A (5.4) A (0.0) F (67.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 60 0 0 0 110 35
Max
Queue (ft) 144 0 0 22 76 94
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (136.9) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (12.5) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (628.4) C (16.2)
A (5.0) A (0.0) F (136.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 70 0 0 0 140 45
Max
Queue (ft) 142 0 0 22 52 118
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
D (35.8)
L T T R L R
F (84.8) A (8.5) C (32.9) A (5.7) C (30.0) D (43.2)
D (38.8) C (29.2) D (40.6)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) #483 256 #433 31 50 165
Max Queue (ft) 331 208 435 101 106 161
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 37
Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS C or better under future no build and future build conditions. Model results show greater than 25% increase in delay from future no build to future build conditions; however, the model assigned a minimum of 4 vehicles per hour to all permitted
movements. During data collection, several southbound movements were observed to have zero vehicles per hour, making the model results overly conservative. Sidbury Station Access 1 is a right-in right-out access, with an existing eastbound right-turn lane. No improvements are recommended.
Table 7.7 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
C (17.3) SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
A (9.1) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.2) A (0.0) A (9.5) C (17.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 52 0 0 0 29
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
C (21.6) SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
A (9.7) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) A (9.8) C (21.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 50 0 0 0 29
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 38
Table 7.7 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
C (15.6) SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
A (8.3) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) B (10.6) C (15.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 29
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
C (20.5)
SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
A (8.6) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.0) C (20.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 30
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 39
Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. There is an existing eastbound right-turn
lane and a westbound left-turn lane. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. It is recommended to install a traffic control signal in accordance with all applicable NCDOT standards and guidelines. With the recommended improvement in place, the intersection operates at an overall LOS C in both peak hours.
Table 7.8 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
E (38.1) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.4) A (0.0) A (7.7) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.4) E (38.1) C (15.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 140 5
Max
Queue (ft) 25 0 28 0 106 31
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (99.2) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.9) A (0.0) A (7.9) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.4) F (99.2) C (18.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 250 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 30 0 201 31
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (27.7)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
B (13.6) A (4.5) D (54.2) B (11.3) - -
B (12.6) B (13.2) F (81.5) D (53.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 172 16 54 389 #351 35
Max
Queue (ft) 155 44 107 257 338 63
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 40
Table 7.8 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
D (30.0) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (7.9) A (0.0) A (8.3) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (1.8) D (30.0) C (17.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 10 0 85 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 30 0 114 31
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
F (91.9) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.2) A (0.0) A (8.9) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (1.6) F (91.9) C (23.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 10 0 190 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 30 0 108 31
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (24.4)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
C (20.2) A (5.9) E (55.7) A (8.4) - -
B (17.7) B (16.9) E (63.7) D (53.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 375 48 120 217 220 29
Max Queue (ft) 248 149 145 192 264 58
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 41
Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3 (unsignalized, committed improvement not yet built)
The approaches operate at LOS B or better under future no build conditions. Under future build conditions, the approaches operate at LOS B or better in the AM peak hour and LOS C or better
in the PM peak hour. Increases in approach delay on the northbound approach are less than 25%. There is a committed eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane. No improvements are recommended.
Table 7.9 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2029 Future No Build
B (12.5) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (7.8) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 0 0 26 0 24
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
B (14.3) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (7.9) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (14.3)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 0 0 26 0 23
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 42
Table 7.9 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2029 Future No Build
B (12.5) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 24
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
C (15.5) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.4) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) C (15.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 24 0 24
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 43
US 17 at Sidbury Road (signalized)
Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The increase in overall delay is less than
25%. While there is a significant increase in delay for the northbound left-turn movement in the PM peak hour, there is minimal space in the existing median to construct an additional northbound left-turn lane. Furthermore, there is no receiving lane for an additional left-turn lane and there are right-of-way constraints on the receiving leg with the presence of the Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church. An additional eastbound right-turn lane is already a committed improvement. No improvements are recommended.
Table 7.10 - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
D (53.6)
R UL T T R
- E (75.8) A (0.0) E (59.7) B (10.5)
D (39.6) ** D (52.6)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th% Queue (ft) #267 #499 ** #909 160
Max
Queue (ft) 1173 80 ** 1434 225
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
E (55.8)
R UL T T R
- F (81.7) A (0.0) E (59.7) B (10.7)
D (49.5) ** D (52.4)
Available Storage (ft) FULL/600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #337 #514 ** #909 168
Max
Queue (ft) 965 107 ** 1443 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 44
Table 7.10 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2029 Future No Build
C (33.7)
R UL T T R
- E (58.5) A (0.0) C (32.4) B (11.6)
C (28.3) ** C (29.1)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) 201 #470 ** $655 154
Max
Queue (ft) 230 109 ** 742 225
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
D (40.9)
R UL T T R
- F (123.9) A (0.0) C (21.9) B (10.9)
D (40.6) ** B (20.0)
Available Storage (ft) FULL/600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #284 #605 ** 580 176
Max Queue (ft) 244 123 ** 524^ 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 45
Sidbury Road at Site Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS D or better under future build conditions as an unsignalized intersection. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in
Section 10.0 of this report. It is recommended to install a traffic control signal in accordance with all applicable NCDOT standards and guidelines. The need for left- and right-turn lanes was reviewed based on the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina
Highways. Turn lanes are warranted in both directions. Signalized analysis indicates an eastbound right turn-lane with 100 feet of storage and a westbound left-turn lane with 100 feet of storage would contain expected queues. It is recommended to install the eastbound right-turn lane with 100 feet of storage. While 100 feet of storage is adequate for Phase 1, Phase 2 warrants extending the westbound left-turn lane to provide 125 feet of storage. To prevent mobilization for a small extension to this turn lane, it is recommended to install the westbound left-turn lane to provide 125 feet of storage in Phase 1. See Section 8.5 for additional Phase 2 discussion. With the recommended improvement in place, the intersection operates at LOS B in both peak hours.
Table 7.11 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
D (27.2) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (0.4) D (27.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 5 100
Max
Queue (ft) 0 54 97
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (19.1)
T R L T LR
B (11.4) A (1.8) C (28.2) B (14.4) -
A (9.8) B (15.1) D (40.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 144 13 23 291 190
Max
Queue (ft) 120 48 86 205 226
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 46
Table 7.11 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2029 Phase 1 Future Build
D (30.3) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (1.6) D (30.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 10 75
Max
Queue (ft) 22 74 116
2029 Phase 1 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (15.7)
T R L T LR
B (14.5) A (3.5) C (31.8) A (9.0) -
B (10.8) B (13.1) D (39.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 198 46 65 165 136
Max
Queue (ft) 204 127 118 181 167
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 9 PHASE 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 48
8.0 2030 Phase 2 Analysis
8.1 Trip Generation
Phase 2 of the proposed development will contain a total of 601 single family homes 268 and townhomes. The trip generation potential of this site was projected based on the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and guidance from
NCDOT Congestion Management on the selection of appropriate variables. Table 8.1 presents the results.
Table 8.1 – Phase 2 ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Land Use and Code Size Data Source Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 601 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 5,254 95 286 381 338 198 536
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 268 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 1,992 33 101 134 93 64 157
Total Primary Trips 7,246 128 387 515 431 262 693
8.2 2030 Future No Build The 2030 Future No Build volumes were computed by applying a one percent (1%) compounded annual growth rate to the 2023 Existing volumes and adding approved development trips. Figure 11 shows 2030 Future No Build volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 12A shows trips for approved developments that area anticipated to be
operational by 2030. 8.3 Trip Distribution
Site trips for Phase 2 of the proposed development were distributed based on the existing traffic patterns and engineering judgement. The trip distribution model is shown in Figure 12B. The directional distribution for Phase 2 site trips is:
• 20% to/from the north on US 17
• 15% to/from the south on US 17
• 30% to/from the west on Blue Clay Road
• 10% to/from the north on US 117
• 25% to/from the south on US 117
8.4 2030 Phase 2 Future Build Volumes
Phase 2 site trips were added to the 2030 Future No Build volumes to compute the 2030 Phase 2 Future Build volumes. Site trips and 2030 Phase 2 Future Build volumes are shown in Figures 12C and 13, respectively.
*Assumed Speed Limit
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 10 2030 LANE GEOMETRY
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
SPEED
LIMIT45
SPEEDLIMIT
45
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
SPEED
LIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
BLACK = EXISTING
GREY = UNANALYZED
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEED
LIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
45
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, thisdocument by others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be withoutliability to DAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the
client.
FIGURE 11 2030 FUTURE NO BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 12A APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS PHASE 2 (PRESENT-2030)
AM / PM PEAK
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
ORIGIN/DESTINATION
NODE%
IN = ENTERING
OUT = EXITING
25%
30%
10%
15%
20%
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 12B PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
FIGURE 12C PHASE 2 SITE TRIPS
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, thisdocument by others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be withoutliability to DAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the
client.
FIGURE 13 2030 PHASE 2 FUTURE BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
%
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 55
8.5 Phase 2 Discussion of Results
In addition to a capacity analysis, a queueing analysis was performed using Synchro and SimTraffic simulation, based on a minimum 10-minute seeding, a 60-minute recording period, and 10 runs. The maximum SimTraffic queues and 95th-percentile Synchro queues are provided,
along with the turn lane lengths. Synchro and SimTraffic queue reports are provided in the Appendix. The results of the capacity and queue analyses are discussed by intersection in the following paragraphs. The LOS, delay, and queue results are summarized in Tables 7.2 to 7.9.
US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road (signalized) Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS F in both peak hours; under future build conditions the intersection is expected to continue operating a LOS F with a greater than 25% increase in delay in both peak hours. With the Phase 1 recommended improvements of an eastbound right-turn lane with 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper, signal timing optimization, an extending the northbound right-turn lane storage to provide 550 feet
of storage, the intersection is expected to function at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour, with an improvement in overall delay from the no build scenario.
In the alternative phasing scenario, the intersection is shown to operate at LOS D in AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour with the previously recommended improvements in place. Delay is shown to improve from the no build scenario in both peak hours. No additional
improvements are recommended in Phase 2. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion on this intersection.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 56
Table 8.2 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
F (104.0)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (60.7) F (191.8) F (227.1) F (161.5) C (28.3) E (62.0) C (29.2) B (13.8) E (60.5) D (51.9) B (15.9)
F (171.7) F (177.5) C (28.6) D (46.6)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 109 #688 #750 #954 90 188 259 188 144 617 96
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1089 650 1302 350 140 199 229 224 710 350
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
F (161.1)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (60.7) F (245.2) F (376.4) F (281.0) C (28.2) E (62.0) C (29.8) B (14.8) E (61.0) D (51.9) B (15.9)
F (219.4) F (295.2) C (28.6) D (46.9)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 109 #773 #970 #1214 132 188 259 215 161 617 96
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1107 650 1306 350 200 385 168 225 862 350
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
E (67.3)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (108.7) F (108.6) D (51.5) F (86.3) E (60.9) C (20.0) F (132.3) D (48.1) B (13.7) F (87.3) E (79.2) C (30.3)
F (91.7) E (67.1) D (47.2) E (71.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) #156 #492 197 #795 #911 103 #291 361 221 189 #869 154
Max Queue (ft) 271 499 299 612 778 350 200 395 242 225 1479 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 57
Table 8.2 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
F (137.6)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (56.7) F (461.1) F (134.3) E (60.1) C (27.3) F (83.8) D (48.5) B (14.0) E (55.8) D (43.6) B (14.7)
F (389.4) F (90.5) D (48.9) D (42.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 176 #1098 #596 #528 98 #471 540 171 132 350 44
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1094 650 1305 345 200 1986 500 224 340 28
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
F (200.5)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (58.6) F (677.6) F (234.0) F (103.5) C (27.5) E (58.9) D (51.7) C (21.5) E (59.0) D (36.2) B (13.3)
F (585.5) F (152.4) D (39.0) D (39.2)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 178 #1383 #750 #707 125 188 549 410 189 349 44
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1107 650 1303 139 200 529 499 225 361 72
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
F (82.7)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (87.2) F (115.3) C (31.2) F (127.3) D (40.8) C (22.4)
F (102.2)
F (107.0)
C (31.7)
F (177.6)
E (71.4) C (31.0)
F (95.8) E (77.2) E (72.9) F (92.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 216 #963 169 #739 462 109 #264 #887 561 #328 #550 77
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1098 300 606 783 226 200 1920 650 225 1238 322
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 58
Alternate Phasing
Table 8.3 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
E (74.9)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (31.3) F (171.8) F (107.2) F (120.6) C (27.8) C (22.6) C (27.2) B (12.1) B (14.6) E (55.1) B (16.7)
F (150.3) F (108.2) C (20.1) D (43.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 80 #663 #627 #886 91 101 236 162 61 616 100
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1103 623 1012 350 182 236 160 225 710 350
2030 Phase 2 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (119.9)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (31.3) F (221.6) F (216.6) F (224.2) C (27.8) C (22.3) C (27.7) B (12.9) B (14.9) D (55.0) B (16.7)
F (195.0) F (202.9) C (20.2) D (43.2)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 79 #747 #845 #1139 133 99 238 188 69 615 100
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1105 650 1303 350 194 281 192 225 759 350
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
D (53.8)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
C (33.3) E (79.6) D (65.0) D (55.0) E (60.0) C (22.5) F (80.7) D (43.8) B (12.4) C (30.8) E (73.3) C (28.4)
E (68.8) D (54.5) D (36.1) E (60.1)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 63 #429 219 573 828 111 #237 357 204 122 #920 154
Max
Queue (ft) 67 412 300 637 631 350 199 358 236 224 1646 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 59
Table 8.3 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
F (112.2)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (25.8) F (417.8) D (54.4) D (48.1) C (25.0) C (27.8) D (49.5) B (12.9) B (19.9) D (47.1) B (16.8)
F (348.3) D (48.3) C (34.6) D (38.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 120 #1004 #456 #449 93 191 505 151 61 356 47
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1112 336 296 141 200 642 432 225 435 232
2030 Phase 2 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (164.6)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
C (30.0) F (618.4) F (105.5) E (65.9) C (25.5) B (17.2) D (50.5) B (19.4) C (23.2) C (35.0) B (13.2)
F (530.9) E (78.6) C (32.9) C (29.8)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 126 #1297 #618 #637 120 86 518 374 92 331 42
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1104 430 358 213 200 659 500 224 373 116
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
E (66.9)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
C (23.5) F (113.0) D (47.8) E (78.9) C (31.9) B (18.0) D (49.6) F (99.1) C (29.2) F (114.7) E (60.3) C (33.5)
F (87.8) D (51.1) E (62.4) E (70.5)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 103 #963 211 #615 398 95 160 #875 537 #264 503 81
Max Queue (ft) 400 1096 300 447 285 126 200 1801 650 225 1333 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 60
Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road (unsignalized)
A committed improvement realigns the intersection and moves the stop-controlled movement from the westbound approach to the southbound approach for future conditions. All approaches operate at LOS B or better under future no build and future build conditions. No improvements
are recommended in Phase 2. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion regarding queues and alternative analysis.
Table 8.4 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 1615 0 98
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
B (10.0) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.0)
Available Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 3652 0 224
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (10.0) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.0)
Available Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 146 9 250
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 61
Table 8.4 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
B (11.5) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1847 22 162
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
B (13.1) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (13.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1870 0 138
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (13.1) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (13.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 178 123 173
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 62
Alternate Phasing
Table 8.5 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 263 7 133
2030 Phase 2 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
B (10.0) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 2736 9 203
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
B (10.0) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 66 52 254
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 63
Table 8.5 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
B (11.5) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 99 12 67
2030 Phase 2 Future Build – Alternate Phasing
B (13.1) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (13.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 107 19 99
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
B (13.1) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (13.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 131 108 177
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 64
Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Under future build conditions, there is
some queueing is shown on the westbound approach in the AM peak hour. This is due to queues from the westbound approach of Blue Clay Road at College Road backing to this intersection. With the recommended improvements at Blue Clay Road at College Road, these queues are relieved. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. With the recommended signalization from Phase 1, the intersection operates at LOS C in both peak hours. While queues are shown to exceed storage in the southbound left-turn lane and eastbound left-turn lane, no project trips are attributed to either movement. No additional improvements are recommended in Phase 2.
Table 8.6 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
E (36.5) SB Approach
L T T R L R
A (9.8) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) D (33.7) E (36.9)
A (3.6) A (0.0) E (36.5)
Available Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 15 0 0 0 30 170
Max Queue (ft) 74 0 0 0 149 180
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
F (122.8) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (11.5) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (75.0) F (130.2)
A (3.3) A (0.0) F (122.8)
Available Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 20 0 0 0 60 355
Max Queue (ft) 91 0 1734 101 150 2759
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (27.7)
L T T R L R
E (63.5) A (3.7) C (26.4) A (2.1) D (37.6) D (41.1)
C (20.9) C (25.7) D (40.6)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) #158 67 #738 8 62 #303
Max
Queue (ft) 186 93 439 94 149 330
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 65
Table 8.6 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
F (73.0) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (11.5) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (307.0) B (14.2)
A (5.4) A (0.0) F (73.0)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 60 0 0 0 115 35
Max
Queue (ft) 92 0 0 41 57 131
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
F (237.9) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (13.8) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (1110.2) C (18.5)
A (4.9) A (0.0) F (237.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 80 0 0 0 160 50
Max
Queue (ft) 126 0 0 40 73 91
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (25.9)
L T T R L R
C (32.0) A (5.2) D (51.1) B (12.6) D (41.8) B (12.3)
B (14.7) D (46.5) B (18.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 272 192 #699 60 60 76
Max Queue (ft) 307 223 579 101 80 153
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 66
Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS C or better under future no build, and at LOS D or better under future build conditions. Model results show greater than 25% increase in delay from future no build to future build conditions; however, the model assigned a minimum of 4 vehicles per hour to
all permitted movements. During data collection, several southbound movements were observed to have zero vehicles per hour, making the model results overly conservative. Sidbury Station Access 1 is a right-in right-out access, with an existing eastbound right-turn lane. No improvements are recommended.
Table 8.7 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
C (17.5) SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
A (9.1) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.2) A (0.0) A (9.5) C (17.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 52 0 0 0 29
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (26.4) SB Approach
LT R TR R LR
B (10.2) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) B (10.0) D (26.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 30
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 67
Table 8.7 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
SB Approach C (15.7)
LT R TR R LR
A (8.3) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) B (10.6) C (15.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 25 0 0 0 29
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
SB
Approach D (26.7)
LT R TR R LR
A (8.9) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (13.4) D (26.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max Queue (ft) 25 0 0 0 29
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 68
Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. There is an existing eastbound right-turn
lane and a westbound left-turn lane. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. With the Phase 1 recommended signalization in place, the intersection operates at an overall LOS C in both peak hours. No additional improvements are recommended in Phase 2.
Table 8.8 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
NB Approach E (39.8)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.4) A (0.0) A (7.7) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.4) E (39.8) C (15.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 145 5
Max
Queue (ft) 49 0 26 0 91 31
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
NB Approach F (244.1)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (9.3) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.3) F (244.1) C (21.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 405 5
Max
Queue (ft) 24 0 30 0 174 31
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (30.3)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
B (13.9) A (4.5) D (54.2) B (12.9) - -
B (12.8) B (14.5) F (94.1) D (53.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 198 19 54 496 #388 36
Max
Queue (ft) 181 60 117 311 500 62
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 69
Table 8.8 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
NB Approach D (30.6)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (7.9) A (0.0) A (8.3) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (1.8) D (30.6) C (17.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 10 0 85 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 52 0 88 31
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
NB Approach F (256.9)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.4) A (0.0) A (9.5) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (1.5) F (256.9) D (30.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 10 0 320 10
Max
Queue (ft) 26 0 72 0 159 31
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
C (25.1)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
C (22.9) A (5.9) E (55.7) A (9.1) - -
B (20.0) B (16.4) E (66.2) D (53.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 505 58 120 263 #249 29
Max Queue (ft) 326 200 144 228 305 58
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 70
Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3 (unsignalized, committed improvement not yet built)
The approaches operate at LOS B or better under future no build conditions. Under future build conditions, the approaches operate at LOS D or better with delays up to approximately 30
seconds. The need for additional storage for the committed left- and right-turn lanes was reviewed based on the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways. Based upon the turn lane warrants, it is recommended the committed eastbound right-turn lane provide 125 feet of storage in Phase 2. The current commitment is for a 100-foot eastbound right-turn lane. Northbound delay increase is primarily due to the lack of gap for left-turns exiting the site access. With signalization recommended at Sidbury Station Site Access 2 and the Sidbury 187/Gore Tract Site Access, vehicles would have the option to utilize these signals to exit the site. Furthermore, these signals would provide gaps on Sidbury Road at this intersection, therefore, signalization at this site access is not recommended.
Table 8.9 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2030 Future No Build
B (12.5) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (7.8) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 24 0 24
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (29.4) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.2) D (29.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 85
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 27 0 96
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
D (29.4) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.2) D (29.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 125 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 85
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 27 0 102
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 71
Table 8.9 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2030 Future No Build
B (12.5) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 26 0 49
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (31.4) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.1) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (1.1) D (31.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 65
Max Queue (ft) 0 0 31 0 109
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
D (31.4) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.1) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (1.1) D (31.4)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 125 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 65
Max Queue (ft) 0 2 52 0 98
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 72
US 17 at Sidbury Road (signalized)
Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The increase in overall delay is greater than
25% in the PM peak hour. As discussed in Phase 1, there is a significant increase in delay for the northbound left-turn movement in the PM peak hour. The existing median provides little space to construct an additional northbound left-turn lane. Furthermore, there is no receiving lane for an additional left-turn lane and there are right-of-way constraints on the receiving leg with the presence of the Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church. An additional eastbound right-turn lane is already a committed improvement, and this improvement is the last remaining constructable improvement at this intersection. Significant queues are shown on the eastbound leg in the AM peak hour. Overall delay increases by less than 25% in the AM peak hour. This intersection being an RCI, the only allowable movement on the eastbound leg is a right turn, therefore, the approach lane can be considered a full storage approach. The 600-foot of storage in the committed right-turn lane provides enough storage to function as a dual lane approach. Furthermore, there has been discussion of a potential on-ramp to the Hampstead by-pass on Sidbury Road. This potential by-pass connection should provide relief to this intersection. No improvements are recommended in Phase 2.
Table 8.10 - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
E (56.2)
R UL T T R
- E (77.2) A (0.0) E (63.6) B (10.6)
D (39.7) ** E (56.0)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #277 #502 ** #923 163
Max
Queue (ft) 681 980 ** 1434 225
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
E (61.9)
R UL T T R
- F (88.3) A (0.0) E (63.6) B (11.0)
E (66.0) ** E (55.6)
Available Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #386 #530 ** #923 178
Max Queue (ft) 2048 1024 ** 1443 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 73
Table 8.10 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2030 Future No Build
C (34.9)
R UL T T R
- E (59.2) A (0.0) C (34.2) B (11.7)
C (28.4) ** C (30.6)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) 202 #471 ** #665 154
Max
Queue (ft) 204 985 ** 752 225
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (47.1)
R UL T T R
- F (150.1) A (0.0) C (22.6) B (11.6)
D (45.8) ** C (20.5)
Available Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #320 #651 ** #595 202
Max Queue (ft) 204 1036 ** 424 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 74
Sidbury Road at Site Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS D or better under future build conditions as an unsignalized intersection. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is
provided in Section 10.0 of this report. Turn lanes are warranted in both directions in recommend in both directions in Phase 1. With the Phase 1 recommendations of signalization, an eastbound right turn-lane with 100 feet of storage, and a westbound left-turn lane with 100 feet of storage in place, the intersection operates at LOS B in both peak hours. Queues are shown to exceed the 100-foot storage in the westbound left-turn lane; therefore, 125 feet of storage is required to contain Phase 2 queues. This improvement was recommended in Phase 1. No additional improvements are recommended.
Table 8.11 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (28.1) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (0.4) D (28.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue
(ft) 0 5 90
Max
Queue (ft) 0 52 116
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (16.7)
T R L T LR
B (11.6) A (1.8) D (35.8) B (10.8) -
B (10.5) B (12.1) D (39.8)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th% Queue
(ft) 184 11 m25 m270 171
Max
Queue (ft) 182 70 121 230 233
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 75
Table 8.11 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2030 Phase 2 Future Build
D (33.5) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (1.4) D (33.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 10 75
Max
Queue (ft) 0 114 134
2030 Phase 2 Future Build w/ Imp.
B (15.5)
T R L T LR
B (14.7) A (3.6) C (32.2) A (9.1) -
B (11.6) B (12.8) D (39.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 227 40 m66 m188 127
Max
Queue (ft) 202 70 124 187 164
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 14 PHASE 2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 77
9.0 2032 Full Build Analysis
9.1 Trip Generation
Full Build of the proposed development will contain 1312 single family homes and 442 townhomes. The trip generation potential of this site was projected based on the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and guidance from
NCDOT Congestion Management on the selection of appropriate variables. Table 9.1 presents the results.
Table 9.1 – Full Build ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Land Use and Code Size Data Source Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 1,312 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 10,775 194 581 775 704 413 1,117
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 442 Dwelling Units Adjacent-Equation 3,318 56 168 224 154 107 261
Total Primary Trips 14,093 250 749 999 858 520 1,378
9.2 2032 Full Build Future No Build The 2032 Full Build Future No Build volumes were computed by applying a one percent (1%)
compounded annual growth rate to the 2023 Existing volumes and adding approved development trips. Figure 16 shows 2032 Full Build Future No Build volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 17A shows trips for approved developments that are anticipated to be
operational by 2032. 9.3 Trip Distribution Site trips for Full Build of the proposed development were distributed based on the existing traffic patterns and engineering judgement. The trip distribution model is shown in Figure 17B. The directional distribution for Full Build site trips is:
• 20% to/from the north on US 17
• 15% to/from the south on US 17
• 30% to/from the west on Blue Clay Road
• 10% to/from the north on US 117
• 25% to/from the south on US 117
9.4 2032 Full Build Future Build Volumes Full Build site trips were added to the 2032 Full Build Future No Build volumes to compute the 2032 Full Build Future Build volumes. Site trips and 2032 Full Build Future Build volumes are shown in Figures 17C and 18, respectively.
*Assumed Speed Limit
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 15 2032 LANE GEOMETRY
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
SPEED
LIMIT45
SPEEDLIMIT
45
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEEDLIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
SPEED
LIMIT25*
SPEEDLIMIT
25*
BLACK = EXISTING
GREY = UNANALYZED
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
SPEEDLIMIT
55
SPEED
LIMIT55
SPEEDLIMIT
45
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, thisdocument by others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be withoutliability to DAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the
client.
FIGURE 16 2032 FUTURE NO BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 17A APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS FULL BUILD (PRESENT-2032)
AM / PM PEAK
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
ORIGIN/DESTINATION
NODE%
IN = ENTERING
OUT = EXITING
25%
30%
10%
15%
20%
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
FIGURE 17B FULL BUILD TRIP DISTRIBUTION
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
FIGURE 17C FULL BUILD SITE TRIPS
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for thespecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, thisdocument by others without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be withoutliability to DAVENPORT, and shall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the
client.
FIGURE 18 2032 FULL BUILD FUTURE BUILD VOLUMES
** A minimum of 4 vehicles per hour is analyzed for each movement perNCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE
1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
%
AM / PM PEAK
RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT
SIGNALIZED RCI
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 84
9.5 Full Build Discussion of Results
In addition to a capacity analysis, a queueing analysis was performed using Synchro and SimTraffic simulation, based on a minimum 10-minute seeding, a 60-minute recording period, and 10 runs. The maximum SimTraffic queues and 95th-percentile Synchro queues are provided,
along with the turn lane lengths. Synchro and SimTraffic queue reports are provided in the Appendix. The results of the capacity and queue analyses are discussed by intersection in the following paragraphs. The LOS, delay, and queue results are summarized in Tables 9.2 to 8.11.
US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road (signalized)
Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS F in both peak hours; under future build conditions the intersection is expected to continue operating a LOS F with a greater than 25% increase in delay in both peak hours. With the Phase 1 recommended improvements
of an eastbound right-turn lane with 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper, signal timing optimization, an extending the northbound right-turn lane storage to provide 550 feet of storage, the intersection is expected to remain functioning at LOS F.
In the alternative phasing scenario, the intersection is shown to operate at LOS E in AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour with the previously recommended improvements in place. Delay is shown to improve from the no build scenario in both peak hours. No additional improvements are recommended in Phase 2. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion on this intersection.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 85
Table 9.2 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
F (133.3)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (63.4) F (231.3) F (241.2) F (290.7) C (32.1) E (63.2) C (29.0) B (13.8) E (61.5) D (52.1) B (13.6)
F (187.6) F (252.0) C (28.8) D (46.5)
Available
Storage
(ft)
300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 200 #751 #770 #1075 96 194 263 194 147 634 91
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1094 650 1306 350 199 292 194 225 742 350
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (268.1)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
E (63.4) F (343.0) F (542.2) F (584.0) C (32.7) E (63.2) C (30.2) B (15.7) E (62.8) D (52.1) B (13.6)
F (279.9) F (511.8) C (28.8) D (47.1)
Available Storage (ft)
300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) 200 #922 #1200 #1579 182 194 263 244 182 634 91
Max Queue (ft) 400 1094 650 1305 350 147 189 220 225 1174 350
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
F (89.6)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (175.5) F (136.4) D (52.3) F (115.6) F (95.8) B (18.9) F (166.0) E (55.7) B (16.0) F (87.9) F (99.5) C (31.4)
F (124.3) F (95.7) E (55.3) F (86.4)
Available
Storage
(ft)
300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) #324 #599 212 #995 #1222 126 #310 394 271 209 #961 160
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1102 300 650 1304 350 200 1231 650 225 1722 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 86
Table 9.2 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
F (161.0)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
F (80.8) F (539.0) F (144.3)
F (110.1)
C (29.7) F (90.6) D (48.9) B (14.0) E (56.5) D (42.9) B (13.3)
F (402.2) F (116.5) D (51.0) D (41.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) #459 #1209 #618 #570 101 #492 557 172 135 356 45
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1089 650 1305 94 200 1975 500 224 287 91
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (322.1)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
F (94.9) F (997.9) F (368.9)
F (348.5)
C (30.3) E (61.7) D (54.5) C (28.9) E (63.0) C (34.7) B (12.0)
F (790.6) F (317.2) D (42.7) D (40.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) #464 #1757 #910 #923 156 192 563 571 #270 356 45
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1118 650 1304 350 200 999 500 224 314 50
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
F (118.5)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
F (93.1) F (203.1) C (32.4) F (205.6) E (60.1) C (27.1) F (134.9) F (147.3) D (46.7) F (192.5) E (69.1) C (23.5)
F (152.1) F (118.8) F (96.7) F (100.7)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th%
Queue (ft) #458 #1320 194 #935 671 145 #306 #965 834 #417 533 68
Max Queue (ft) 400 1102 300 650 1304 345 199 1980 650 225 1704 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 87
Alternate Phasing
Table 9.3 - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
F (97.3)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
D (35.4) F (209.5) F (120.6)
F (211.5)
C (31.9) C (23.5) C (27.0) B (12.1) B (14.4) E (55.5) B (14.5)
F (164.2) F (162.6) C (20.1) D (43.7)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 152 #726 #672 #1043 101 107 239 166 62 636 92
Max Queue (ft) 400 1105 650 1306 350 188 256 190 225 735 350
2032 Full Build Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (206.5)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
D (35.3) F (314.6) F (353.0)
F (464.8)
C (32.3) C (23.3) C (27.8) B (13.7) B (15.0) E (55.3) B (14.4)
F (251.6) F (377.5) C (20.5) D (42.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) 151 #893 #1095 #1533 186 105 244 217 76 634 91
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1109 650 1306 350 189 316 218 225 805 350
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
E (72.3)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
E (69.9) F (86.5) E (63.0) E (58.0) D (48.4) B (14.9) F (93.2) E (60.3) B (14.8) D (44.9) F (179.3) D (40.0)
E (76.8) D (48.7) D (44.4) F (136.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) #194 #523 232 #743 942 111 #246 412 252 156 #1113 186
Max
Queue (ft) 333 489 299 469 526 350 200 693 345 225 1721 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 88
Table 9.3 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 117 (N College Road) at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
F (131.6)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
D (37.5) F (491.0) E (58.0) F (93.6) C (29.3) C (28.5) D (49.6) B (12.8) C (20.1) D (46.8) B (13.9)
F (355.6) E (70.1) C (34.9) D (38.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue (ft) #313 #1105 #461 #514 98 200 518 152 62 362 46
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1108 343 392 263 200 654 435 224 454 264
2032 Full Build Future Build – Alternate Phasing
F (271.0)
L TR L T R L T R L T R
D (42.0) F (909.7) F (195.6)
F (301.7)
C (30.5) B (16.7) D (51.9) C (25.6) C (32.0) C (33.3) B (10.5)
F (710.5) F (221.7) D (35.4) C (30.6)
Available Storage (ft) 300 FULL 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 400 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) #346 #1703 #788 #892 154 86 548 544 155 335 41
Max Queue (ft) 400 1105 650 1251 350 200 1051 500 224 385 154
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
F (95.5)
L T R L T R L T R L T R
C (29.8) F (154.0) C (32.4) F (181.7) D (45.7) C (24.7) E (55.1) F (113.0) D (45.1) F (230.6) E (63.3) C (26.2)
F (107.2) F (101.8) E (73.7) F (108.7)
Available
Storage (ft) 300 FULL 200 550 FULL 250 100 FULL 550 125 FULL 250
95th% Queue
(ft) 212 #1257 194 #874 626 143 #166 #914 823 #391 591 70
Max
Queue (ft) 400 1089 300 553 371 349 200 1962 650 225 1685 350
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 89
Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road (unsignalized)
A committed improvement realigns the intersection and moves the stop-controlled movement from the westbound approach to the southbound approach for future conditions. All approaches operate at LOS C or better under future no build and future build conditions. In the PM peak hour,
the delay increases by greater than 25%, however this increase is less than 4 seconds. In the alternative phasing scenario, queues are shown on the southbound approach in the AM peak hour. This is due to the lack of gaps in free-flowing westbound traffic on Sidbury Road and northbound traffic on Blue Clay Road. Westbound and northbound traffic volumes are far greater than southbound volumes, thus, stop control would not be beneficial on either approach. Southbound volumes would not warrant a traffic signal. No improvements are recommended at Full Build. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion regarding queues and alternative analysis.
Table 9.4 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 1721 0 138
2032 Full Build Future Build
B (10.4) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.4)
Available Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 3657 0 356
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
B (10.4) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1844 17 482
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 90
Table 9.4 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
B (11.6) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 2753 55 116
2032 Full Build Future Build
C (15.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) C (15.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 3654 0 244
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
C (15.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) C (15.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 1295 141 443
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 91
Alternate Phasing
Table 9.5 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
A (9.7) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.7)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 2157 7 161
2032 Full Build Future Build – Alternate Phasing
B (10.4) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 3652 13 318
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
B (10.4) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (10.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 162 0 662
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 92
Table 9.5 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Blue Clay Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build – Alternate Phasing
B (11.6) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 105 15 56
2032 Full Build Future Build – Alternate Phasing
C (15.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) C (15.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 1152 27 242
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp. – Alternate Phasing
C (15.3) SB Approach
LR TR LT
A (0.0) A (0.0) C (15.3)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5
Max Queue (ft) 152 99 157
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 93
Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. A signal warrant analysis was required as
part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. With the recommended signalization from Phase 1, the intersection operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour and E in the PM peak hour. While queues are shown to exceed storage in the southbound left-turn lane and eastbound left-turn lane, no project trips are attributed to either movement. No additional improvements are recommended in Phase 3.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 94
Table 9.6 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
E (42.2) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (10.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) E (36.9) E (43.0)
A (3.6) A (0.0) E (42.2)
Available Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 15 0 0 0 35 195
Max Queue (ft) 53 0 0 22 149 194
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (360.2) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (14.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (247.4) F (377.9)
A (3.3) A (0.0) F (360.2)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 25 0 0 0 115 590
Max
Queue (ft) 118 0 4619 101 150 2759
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
D (53.2)
L T T R L R
E (64.6) A (3.1) E (69.9) A (2.1) D (42.6) D (54.4)
B (17.7) E (68.2) D (52.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) #162 74 #1065 8 65 #342
Max
Queue (ft) 182 74 1103 100 149 334
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 95
Table 9.6 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Dairy Farm Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
F (84.0) SB Approach
L T T R L R
B (11.8) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (363.0) B (14.6)
A (5.4) A (0.0) F (84.0)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 60 0 0 0 120 40
Max
Queue (ft) 116 0 0 22 58 132
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (881.8) SB Approach
L T T R L R
C (18.5) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) F (4317.5) D (27.8)
A (5.2) A (0.0) F (881.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 115 0 0 0 190 80
Max
Queue (ft) 330 280 1633 101 149 860
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
E (69.1)
L T T R L R
D (37.3) B (15.0) F (175.8) B (10.8) C (34.7) B (11.2)
C (21.3) F (160.1) B (15.9)
Available
Storage (ft) 275 FULL FULL TAPER 50 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 315 #682 #972 52 55 75
Max Queue (ft) 367 381 1432 101 68 116
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 96
Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS C or better under future no build conditions. Under future build conditions, the southbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and at LOS F in the PM peak hour. Model results show greater than 25% increase in delay from future no build to
future build conditions; however, the model assigned a minimum of 4 vehicles per hour to all permitted movements. During data collection, several southbound movements were observed to have zero vehicles per hour, making the model results overly conservative. Sidbury Station Access 1 is a right-in right-out access, with an existing eastbound right-turn lane. No improvements are recommended.
Table 9.7 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
SB Approach C (18.2)
LT R TR R LR
A (9.2) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) A (9.5) C (18.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 30
2032 Full Build Future Build
SB Approach E (44.5)
LT R TR R LR
B (11.8) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) B (10.8) E (44.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 10
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 2143 0 53
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 97
Table 9.7 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario *Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
SB Approach C (16.4)
LT R TR R LR
A (8.4) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.1) A (0.0) B (10.8) C (16.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5
Max
Queue (ft) 27 0 0 0 30
2032 Full Build Future Build
SB
Approach F (57.8)
LT R TR R LR
A (9.7) A (0.0) - - -
A (0.0) A (0.0) C (18.4) F (57.8)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 75 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 10
Max Queue (ft) 24 0 0 0 52
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 98
Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 (unsignalized)
Under future no build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the northbound approach operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. There is an existing eastbound right-turn
lane and a westbound left-turn lane. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is provided in Section 10.0 of this report. With the Phase 1 recommended signalization in place, the intersection operates at an overall LOS C in both peak hours. No additional improvements are recommended in Phase 3.
Table 9.8 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
E (46.9) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.5) A (0.0) A (7.8) A (0.0) - -
A (0.2) A (0.4) E (46.9) C (15.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 160 5
Max
Queue (ft) 52 0 43 0 129 31
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (836.3) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
B (10.4) A (0.0) A (8.2) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (0.2) F (836.3) D (34.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th% Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 685 10
Max
Queue (ft) 24 0 149 1586 1009 53
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
C (34.5)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
B (14.9) A (4.4) D (54.2) C (20.3) - -
B (13.8) C (21.3) F (110.2) D (53.5)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 269 22 54 #1003 #426 36
Max
Queue (ft) 206 92 149 1593 1010 57
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 99
Table 9.8 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
D (34.6) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (8.0) A (0.0) A (8.4) A (0.0) - -
A (0.1) A (1.8) D (34.6) C (18.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 10 0 95 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 49 0 88 53
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (1224.7) NB Approach
LT R L TR LTR LTR
A (9.0) A (0.0) B (11.2) A (0.0) - -
A (0.0) A (1.3) F (1224.7) F (70.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 15 0 575 20
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 53 0 243 31
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
C (30.5)
LT R L TR LTR LTR
D (38.0) A (5.9) E (55.7) B (11.6) - -
C (33.5) B (16.9) E (64.8) D (53.0)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 50 FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) #1033 68 120 416 #275 29
Max Queue (ft) 429 200 148 278 272 65
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 100
Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3 (unsignalized, committed improvement not yet built)
The approaches operate at LOS B or better under future no build conditions. Under future build conditions, the northbound site access approach operate at LOS F with significant delay. This
delay increase is primarily due to the lack of gap for left-turns exiting the site access. With signalization recommended at Sidbury Station Site Access 2 and the Sidbury 187/Gore Tract Site Access, vehicles would have the option to utilize these signals to exit the site. Furthermore, these signals would provide gaps along Sidbury Road, therefore, signalization at this access is not recommended. The need for additional storage for the committed left- and right-turn lanes was reviewed based on the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina
Highways. The turn lane warrants, extending the committed eastbound right-turn lane provide 500 feet of storage at full build. No queues are shown for this unsignalized free flow right-turn. In order to meet the desirable deceleration length for the design speed of 60 mph (Sidbury Road is 55 mph) as outline on page 78 in the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways, it is recommended to extend the eastbound right-turn lane to provide 375 feet of storage with 200 feet of taper The current commitment is for a 100-foot eastbound right-turn lane, and an extension to 125 feet in Phase 2. It is also recommended to extend the committed westbound left-turn lane to provide 100 feet of storage at full build. The current commitment is for
75 feet of storage.
Table 9.9 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2032 Future No Build
B (12.9) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (7.8) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 24
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (302.8) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.3) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.4) F (302.8)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 570
Max Queue (ft) 0 0 30 1038 472
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
F (302.8) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.3) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.4) F (302.8)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 375 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 5 0 570
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 30 0 408
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 101
Table 9.9 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Sidbury Station Access 3
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2032 Future No Build
B (12.9) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.0) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (0.1) B (12.9)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 5
Max
Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 24
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (478.4) NB Approach
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.1) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (2.1) F (478.4)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 75 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 20 0 505
Max Queue (ft) 0 21 54 0 176
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
F (478.4)
T R L T LR
A (0.0) A (0.0) B (11.1) A (0.0) -
A (0.0) A (2.1) F (478.4)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 375 100 0 FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 0 20 0 505
Max Queue (ft) 0 42 88 15 239
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 102
US 17 at Sidbury Road (signalized)
Under future no build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. Under future build conditions, the intersection operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The increase in overall delay is greater than
25% in the PM peak hour. As discussed in Phases 1 and 2, there is a significant increase in delay for the northbound left-turn movement in both peak hours. The existing median provides little space to construct an additional northbound left-turn lane. Furthermore, there is no receiving lane for an additional left-turn lane and there are right-of-way constraints on the receiving leg with the presence of the Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church. An additional eastbound right-turn lane is already a committed improvement, and this improvement is the last remaining constructable improvement at this intersection. Significant queues are shown on the eastbound leg in the AM peak hour. This intersection being an RCI, the only allowable movement on the eastbound leg is a right turn, therefore, the approach lane can be considered a full storage approach. The 600-foot of storage in the committed right-turn lane provides enough storage to function as a dual lane approach. Signal timing adjustments to provide more time to the eastbound approach would negatively impact the mainline of US 17. Furthermore, there has been discussion of a potential on-ramp to the Hampstead by-pass on Sidbury Road. This potential by-pass connection should provide relief to this intersection. No improvements are recommended
at full build.
Table 9.10 - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
E (62.6)
R UL T T R
- F (86.0) A (0.0) E (72.1) B (10.9)
D (40.6) ** E (63.1)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #284 #525 ** #952 174
Max
Queue (ft) 960 1009 ** 1424^ 225
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (83.6)
R UL T T R
- F (111.7) A (0.0) E (72.1) B (11.7)
F (132.0) ** E (62.2)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) #497 #580 ** #952 205
Max
Queue (ft) 4684 1035 ** 1432 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 103
Table 9.10 cont. - LOS and Queueing US 17 at Sidbury Road
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound
2032 Future No Build
D (38.1)
R UL T T R
- E (63.6) A (0.0) D (38.6) B (11.9)
C (29.1) ** C (34.3)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th%
Queue (ft) 212 #485 ** #686 161
Max
Queue (ft) 212 998 ** 1386 225
2032 Full Build Future Build
E (66.2)
R UL T T R
- F (213.7) A (0.0) C (24.1) B (13.7)
E (77.0) ** C (21.8)
Available
Storage (ft) 600 800 FULL FULL 125
95th% Queue (ft) #410 #755 ** #653 276
Max
Queue (ft) 384 1025 ** 562^ 225
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 104
Sidbury Road at Site Access 1 (unsignalized)
The approaches operate at LOS D or better under future build conditions as an unsignalized intersection. A signal warrant analysis was required as part of the study scope. MUTCD Signal Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were met in Phase 1. Additional signal warrant analysis information is
provided in Section 10.0 of this report. Turn lanes 100-foot turn lanes were recommended in both directions in Phase 1, with the recommendations extend the westbound left-turn storage to 125 feet to contain the expected queues in Phase 2. Queues are shown to exceed the available storage at full build, therefore, it is recommended to extend the eastbound right-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage and extend the westbound left-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage at full build.
Table 9.11 - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
AM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (281.1) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (0.7) F (281.1)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 5 605
Max
Queue (ft) 0 53 284
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
C (26.2)
T R L T LR
B (18.7) A (2.8) D (38.1) A (9.8) -
B (15.9) B (12.2) E (60.3)
Available Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 241 21 m44 m218 #404
Max Queue (ft) 210 101 129 299 576
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 105
Table 9.11 cont. - LOS and Queueing Sidbury Road at Site Access 1
PM Peak Hour
Scenario
*Overall or Worst Approach
Level of Service per Movement & by Approach (delay in seconds/vehicle)
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
2032 Full Build Future Build
F (662.2) NB Approach
TR LT LR
A (0.0) A (2.5) F (662.2)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 0 20 620
Max
Queue (ft) 22 233 280
2032 Full Build Future Build w/ Imp.
C (21.4)
T R L T LR
C (23.9) A (5.3) C (31.9) B (13.5) -
B (16.6) B (18.0) D (42.6)
Available
Storage (ft) FULL 100 100 FULL FULL
95th%
Queue (ft) 304 83 m116 m233 232
Max
Queue (ft) 279 192 189 234 272
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 19 FULL BUILD RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
RED = PROPOSED IN PHASE 3
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 107
10.0 Signal Warrant Analysis An analysis was performed to determine if a traffic control signal would be warranted at the study intersections of:
• Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road
• Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
• Sidbury 187/Gore Tract and Site Access
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) criteria presented in the 2009 Edition of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were established to justify the installation of a traffic control signal.
• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour
• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5, School Crossing
• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7, Crash Experience
• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
• Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing The applicable warrants (1, 2, and 3) were examined for the future build conditions for each phase of development. The other warrants were not applied to this analysis. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal.
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road This unsignalized intersection was analyzed for a signal using the MUTCD vehicular traffic volume signal warrants. Future 2029, 2030, 2032 build volumes were developed from the 13-hour traffic counts, approved development volumes, and generated site trips. Because the posted speed limit
exceeds 40 mph on Sidbury Road, the 70 percent factor was used. The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions without a right turn reduction. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are met in each build year. While a right turn reduction factor of 60 percent based on Pagones Theorem may be an over-assumption, this was applied for analysis purposes. The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions with the right turn reduction applied. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are once again met in each build year. Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2
This unsignalized intersection was analyzed for a signal using the MUTCD vehicular traffic volume signal warrants. Future 2029, 2030, 2032 build volumes were developed from the 13-hour traffic counts, approved development volumes, and generated site trips. Because the posted speed limit exceeds 40 mph on Sidbury Road, the 70 percent factor was used.
The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions without a right turn reduction. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are met in each build year.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 108
While a right turn reduction factor of 60 percent based on Pagones Theorem may be an over-
assumption, this was applied for analysis purposes. The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions with the right turn reduction applied. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are once again met in each build year.
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract and Site Access 1 This proposed unsignalized intersection was analyzed for a signal using the MUTCD vehicular traffic volume signal warrants. Future 2029, 2030, 2032 build volumes were developed from the 13-hour traffic counts, approved development volumes, and generated site trips. Because the posted speed limit exceeds 40 mph on Sidbury Road, the 70 percent factor was used. The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions without a right turn reduction. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are met in each build year.
While a right turn reduction factor of 60 percent based on Pagones Theorem may be an over-assumption, this was applied for analysis purposes. The results of the analysis show that a traffic control signal is warranted under all future build year conditions with the right turn reduction
applied. Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are once again met in each build year.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 109
Summary of Signal Warrants Tables 10.1-10.3 provide the results with the right-turn reduction factor. Additional warrant information can be found in the Appendix.
Table 10.1 – 2029 Signal Warrant Summary
Intersection MUTCD Warrant Met? NCDOT Consideration? 1A 1B 1C 2 3*
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road NO YES YES YES YES YES
Sidbury Road and Edna
Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 YES NO YES YES YES YES
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract
and Site Access 1 YES NO YES YES YES YES
*Warrant 3 shall be applied only in unusual cases at locations that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Volumes are high enough to meet this warrant; however, this site is not an unusual case.
Table 10.2 – 2030 Signal Warrant Summary
Intersection MUTCD Warrant Met? NCDOT Consideration? 1A 1B 1C 2 3*
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road NO YES YES YES YES YES
Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury
Station Access 2
YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract and Site Access 1 YES NO YES YES YES YES
*Warrant 3 shall be applied only in unusual cases at locations that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Volumes are high enough to meet this warrant; however, this site is not an unusual case. Table 10.3 – 2032 Signal Warrant Summary
Intersection MUTCD Warrant Met? NCDOT Consideration? 1A 1B 1C 2 3*
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road NO YES YES YES YES YES
Sidbury Road and Edna
Buck Drive/Sidbury Station Access 2 YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sidbury 187/Gore Tract and Site Access 1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
*Warrant 3 shall be applied only in unusual cases at locations that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Volumes are high enough to meet this warrant; however, this site is not an unusual case.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 110
11.0 Summary and Conclusion The Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts proposed development is located on the south side of Sidbury Road in New Hanover County, NC. It will consist of a total of 1,312 single family homes and 442 townhomes and will be built over three phases. One full movement access point is proposed on Sidbury Road as part of this development. The project also connects to the approved Sidbury Station development which provided additional access points on Sidbury Road. The project will be split into three phases. Phase 1 is planned for 2029, Phase 2 is planned for 2030, and full
build-out is expected in 2032. Information regarding the property was provided by McKim & Creed and DR Horton.
The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed based on the scope agreed upon with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO). At full build, this site has a trip generation potential of 14,093 daily trips, 999 trips in the AM peak hour, and 1,378 trips in the PM
peak hour. In conclusion, this study has determined the potential traffic impacts of this development.
Improvements are recommended to accommodate the impacts of new development traffic. Table 11.1 summarizes the recommended improvements, which are also reflected in Figures 20A, 20B, and 20C. With the recommended improvements in place, the anticipated transportation impacts of the proposed development can be minimized.
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 111
Table 11.1 – Summary of Recommended Improvements
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
US 117 (North College Road) and Blue Clay
Road
• Phase 1- Install an eastbound right-turn lane 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Phase 1- Extend northbound right-turn lane to provide 550 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Phase 1- Optimize signal timings.
• Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
• Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Blue
Clay Road • Phases 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road
• Phase 1- Provide signalization with protected eastbound left-turn phasing.
• Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
• Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Buck
Drive/Sidbury Station Access 1
• Phases 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Edna Buck Drive/Sidbury
Station Access 2
• Phase 1- Provide signalization
• Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
• Full Build- No additional improvements are recommended.
Sidbury Road and Sidbury Station Access 3
• Phase 1- No improvements recommended.
• Phase 2- Extend committed eastbound right-turn lane to provide125 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Full Build- Extend committed eastbound right-turn lane to provide 375 feet of storage with 200 feet of taper.
• Full Build- Extend committed westbound left-turn lane to provide 100 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
Sidbury Road and Site Access 1
• Phase 1- Provide signalization.
• Phase 1- Install eastbound right-turn lane with100 feet of storage with
appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Phase 1- Install westbound left-turn lane with125 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Phase 2- No additional improvements are recommended.
• Full Build- Extend westbound left-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
• Full Build- Extend eastbound right-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage with appropriate deceleration and taper.
Sidbury Road and US 17 • Phase 1, 2, and Full Build- No improvements are recommended.
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 20A PHASE 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 20B PHASE 2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
*** NOT TO SCALE ***
N
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, is intended only for the specificpurpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of, or improper reliance on, this document by others
without written authorization and adaptation by DAVENPORT, shall be without liability to DAVENPORT, andshall be a violation of the agreement between DAVENPORT and the client.
FIGURE 20C FULL BUILD RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SIDBURY 187 - GORE TRACTS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NUMBER 232009
BLACK = EXISTING
GREEN = COMMITTED
BLUE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 1
PURPLE = PROPOSED IN PHASE 2
RED = PROPOSED IN PHASE 3
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
ROADWAY
LEGEND
SIGNAL
STOP
Optimize signal timings
2/29/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts 115
Appendix
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Approved Scoping Documents
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Capacity Analysis
Synchro Worksheets
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Existing Conditions
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Future No Build Conditions
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Future Build Conditions
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Future Build Conditions
with Improvements
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Queueing Analysis
SimTraffic Worksheets
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Turning Movement Counts
02/08/2024 232009 Sidbury 187-Gore Tracts
Supporting Documentation