First, in discussing level of service (LOS) the report states that for signalized intersections, delayis evaluated for the overall intersection. Although the overall LOS is computed and provided in astudy, the LOS of each movement should be computed and should be shown. Just showing theoverall L
OS “masks” the problems individual approaches and lanes experience. Good operations
on an intersection approach on which the McMillan project has no direct impact should not beused to offset or somehow balance the deficiencies on another approach that are in fact causedby the McMillan project. It is necessary to know what potential deficiencies that the projectmay cause and where they are so adequate and appropriate mitigation be provided.Second, the study does not mention the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c). This ratio is an equallyimportant concept when determining intersection impacts and is a measurement that theanalysis computes. It, along with the actual vehicle delay values, should be reported for eachlane group, as well as the designated A thru F characterizations that the report has included. Afull picture of the computational measurements is important to clearly show what the impactsare. Simply
showing an F for instance does not tell you how bad an “F” or how bad the delays
are expected to be in a future condition. The report lacks this information when conducting itscapacity analyses.Lastly, the report fails to mention what analysis program is being used to calculate the levels of service. Although we assume HCS is being used, perhaps another program like Synchro wasemployed. The report does not mention if the signals are interconnected and are coordinated,as most within the District are. If they are, then a more suitable program to use would beSynchro because it takes into account this important timing aspect, and any timing adjustmentsproposed as mitigation in a future build condition would be programmed correctly in theroadway network.
Treating each location as an independent intersection when eachintersection is, in fact, within a coordinated pattern does not properly take into account vehicle queues and arrival patterns that are disrupted and thus could be misleading. Theseimpacts would then not be considered by the level-of-service delay calculations.
Traffic Counts, page 20. Although standard professional practice is to analyze the a.m. and p.m.peak periods during the weekday, as the report had considered, because this developmentcontains retail and significant residential land uses, a Saturday peak analysis may be warranted.Especially as many of the reduction factors taken rely on use of public transit, which generally isused less for weekend trips.5)
Existing Traffic Analysis, page 23. As previously mentioned, a detailed table showing the vehicledelays and v/c computations for EACH movement on each approach is warranted for proper assess-ment. Also, for the traffic signals included in the study
please note whether they are fixed-timeor actuated. The actual computed input and calculation pages should be included in an appendixso that inputs can be validated such as timing, phasing pedestrian movements, and geometry.6)
Future Traffic Impacts, page 24. Please provide a better justification for the 75% reduction inprojected traffic for the Irving mixed-use and Washington Hospital Center project. Thereduction seems very arbitrary and without valid justification or municipal concurrence. Also,the suggestion that less development may occur at Washington Hospital (page 2, Ex Summary)because of the increased medical office space proposed at McMillan hardly can be considered apositive for this proposal.