Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 September 19, 2011Gwen SoutherlandChairMcMillan Advisory Group121 Franklin Street, NE, Apt. K24Washington, DC 20002McMillan Sand Filtration Site DevelopmentTraffic Impact Study - Review _____________________________________________________________________________________The McMillan project is a substantial development and as such, the accompanying traffic study shouldbe comprehensive and well documented in its calculations and assumptions. While well written, thereport lacked the technical back up and detailed calculations normally associated with traffic studies andas such, verifying the assertions and conclusions of the study is difficult. Whether it is the computationof the traffic projections, use of reduction factors, assignment of projected trips on the network, or thelevel-of-service analyses performed, the report included insufficient detail to properly validate thetechnical aspects of the work. This gap does not mean that ultimately we will not concur with the
report’s efforts and findings, but without the details we cannot concur or refute them.
 Key comments and observations regarding the review of the McMillan Site Traffic Study
—
as well asspecific information we seek
—
are listed below:General Comment: The original site plan suggests the site was developed with Smart Growth principals.The latest site plan actually seems to segregate the residential, retail and office/medical land usecomponents and dramatically increases the need for driveway access to accomplish this. This is contrary
to smart growth/sustainable concepts. Perhaps the developer should abandon the idea of a “mixed”
use site and continue the surrounding street grid through the site and develop it accordingly.1)
 
Without a figure that clearly shows the immediate environs of the site and all anticipatedaccess/egress points, it is hard to visualize the text on page 13 of the Executive Summarywherein 12 access driveways are described. This is a substantial change from the previous studyand it merits an appropriate visual (or at minimum a reference) to accompany the text.2)
 
Figure 4.1 classifies the segment of North Capitol Street as “Freeway.” Although it may have
limited access, the classification does not seem appropriate.3)
 
Existing Traffic Assessment, page 19. Three problems.
 
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.
4)
 
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.
 
7)
 
Additional Network Traffic, page 25. The immediate area around McMillan appears to onlyexperience a small percentage of the total new trips expected to be generated by the otherexpansion projects. A better breakdown of how the report assigns those trips would beneficialand thus, requested. Also, every segment showed a volume reduction from the August 2010study except along First Street. First Street remained the same
—
is this correct?8)
 
Level-of-Service Analysis, page 26. Comments of #3 above apply here as well. The textmentions the value of a signal at First Street and Channing Street. During the report review, onedid not appear to be programmed; however, in the final recommendation section, the signalwas listed as mitigation. We suggest this be noted up front to make it clear that the projectapplicant would be responsible for this improvement. In fact, improvements proposed as partof other project mitigation need to be carefully reviewed and considered as some may nothappen, and, therefore, without such roadway improvements, the actual traffic impacts of theMcMillan project may be greater and as such, require more mitigation than currently offered bythe development. Have signal warrant studies been conducted?9)
 
McMillan Site Development, page 27. The number of access points proposed seems excessiveand inconsistent with access management concepts. Please justify the need for 12 access pointson to local streets around this property. No rational was provided at all.10)
 
Traffic Projections, page 33. Please provide the calculations used to calculate trips. What landuse codes were specifically applied and whether regression equations used or average triprates? Please justify whatever you chose and provide the actual rates and computations forvalidation.The internal site-capture reduction of 5% and 8% for the
A
.
M
. and
P
.
M
.
 
was reduced from 2%
 
and5% respectively, appears reasonable
—
but how was it ascertained and why was it dropped?Please provide specific documentation from WMATA that supports the very high 22% transitreduction factor used.The 35% retail pass-by trip reduction is excessive, and we do not think it is justifiable. Pleaseexplain why such a high figure was used. What such a number means is that one out of everythree vehicles that access the retail component of the site will make an impulse decision to turninto the project site to buy groceries. This means that much of generated traffic of the retailcomponent of the site will come from traffic already on the immediate adjacent roadways. Thisis not a gas station or coffee shop; these are destination land uses and as such, a far lowerpasserby trip credit seems more appropriate. However, unlike the August 2010 study, the 35%retail pass-by trip reduction is not shown in the table. Please explain. It is also noted, thatdespite a reduction in the size of several planned land uses the most recent trip generation tableindicates substantially higher trips being generated by the McMillan project than the previousstudy. This is directly attributable to the much higher increased office space. It is further notedthat medical office generates trips at a higher daily rate that typical office. The impacts can besubstantial.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more