200 PROSPECT ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - Halifax · to prepare a traffic impact study ... station /convenience store with 16 fueling stations and a car wash, ... cross section and

200 PROSPECT ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

PREPARED FOR: BANC PROPERTIES LTD.

2760 JOSEPH HOWE DRIVE HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA

B3M 1M3

PREPARED BY: Harbourside Transportation Consultants

CONTACT: Robin King, P. Eng Email:

Michael MacDonald, P. Eng Email:Tel:

October 6, 2016

Status: Final Report

HTC File #16364

Project Name: 200 Prospect Road – Traffic Impact Study

Project Number: 16364

October - 6 - 2016 Final

Report C. McCarthy M. MacDonald R. King DATE STATUS PREPARED BY APPROVED BY APPROVED BY

Banc Properties Ltd. CLIENT

Original Signed

Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed

200 Prospect Road Traffic Impact Study

Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 i

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 12.1 Traffic Counts ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Horizon Year and Growth Rates ............................................................................................ 2

3 TRIP GENERATION/TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................... 23.1 Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 3

4 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE/CAPACITY ANALYSIS ............................................................ 54.1 Standard Terms and Measure of Performance .................................................................... 5 4.2 Software Used in Analysis ..................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Level of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................ 6

4.3.1 Existing Conditions with Development (2016) Level of Service Analysis............. 6 4.3.2 Future Conditions with Development (2021) Level of Service Analysis .............. 8

5 ACCESS REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 105.1 Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Transit Park & Ride Facility .................................................................................................. 10 5.3 Sight Distance ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.4 Left-turn Storage Lane ......................................................................................................... 11 5.5 Right-turn Storage Lane....................................................................................................... 12

6 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 13

List of Figures Figure 1 – Proposed Site Development Plan, by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd. ........ 1 Figure 2 – Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 – Trip Distribution – New Trips .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 4 – Trip Distribution – Pass-By Trips ......................................................................................... 4 Figure 5 – Trip Distribution – Total Trips ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 6 – Trip Distribution – Future Total Trips (2021) ..................................................................... 8 Figure 7 – Site Circulation – WB-20 Truck Turning Movements, by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8 – MTO Left-turn Storage Lane – AM Peak hour Volumes .................................................. 11 Figure 9 – MTO Left-turn Storage Lane – PM Peak hour Volumes .................................................. 11 Figure 10 – ODOT Right-turn Lane Criterion ..................................................................................... 12


Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 ii

List of Tables Table 1 – Proposed Development Trip Generation Rates – AM and PM Peak Hour ......................... 2 Table 2 – LOS Criteria Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ...................................................... 5 Table 3 – Existing Conditions with Development (2016) – AM Peak Hour Results ........................... 7 Table 4 – Existing Conditions with Development (2016) – PM Peak Hour Results ........................... 7 Table 5 – Future Conditions with Development (2021 – AM Peak Hour Results .............................. 9 Table 6 – Future Conditions with Development (2021) – PM Peak Hour Results ............................. 9

Appendices Appendix A – Traffic Counts Appendix B – Traffic Design Volumes Appendix C – Synchro Analysis Results


Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background Harbourside Transportation Consultants (HTC) was retained by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd. to prepare a traffic impact study (TIS) for the proposed development located at 200 Prospect Road in Goodwood, Nova Scotia. The proposed development is located next to the Halifax Exhibition Center. The development will consist of a gas station/convenience store with 16 fueling stations and a car wash, as well as an attached restaurant with a drive-through window.

2 Study Area The proposed development is located at 200 Prospect Road in Goodwood, NS near the Halifax Exhibition Centre. The proposed development, shown in Figure 1, is to have two access points along Prospect Road, which has a 2-lane cross section and a posted speed limit of 80 km/hr. The southernmost proposed access is on an existing driveway and the northernmost is a new shared driveway. There is an existing southbound left-turn storage lane on Prospect Road of approximately 440 meters in length in front of the site. Halifax Transit currently uses this site via Route 22 – Armdale.

Figure 1 – Proposed Site Development Plan, by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd.



2.1 Traffic Counts The traffic counts for this project were provided by HRM which included an August 2012 turning movement count at the intersection of Prospect Road/Ragged Lake Boulevard. The south leg of this intersection (Prospect Road) provided two-way traffic volumes of approximately 940 vehicles and 1,200 vehicles in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. The traffic counts can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 Horizon Year and Growth Rates For the purposes of this analysis, HTC selected a background traffic growth rate of 1.0%. Morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour background volumes were factored by this growth rate to reflect normal increases in traffic that can be expected on the study area road network without the proposed development.

3 Trip Generation/Trip Distribution 3.1 Trip Generation HTC quantified the trip generation rates for the proposed development based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9th edition of the Trip Generation Manual. Two land use codes were used to determine the additional trips on the network:

• ‘Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru’ (Land Use Code 937), and • ‘Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market and Car Wash’ (Land Use Code 946).

The proposed development is expected to generate 392 trips in the AM peak hour (201 in/191 out) and 308 trips in the PM peak hour (157 in/151 out). HTC reduced the trips generated to reflect the pass-by trips and the internal capture trips. HTC used 10% reduction for the internal captures and 80% for the pass-by traffic. Therefore, the new traffic volume added to the adjacent street, Prospect Road, is 71 trips AM peak hour (36 in/34 out) and 55 trips in the PM peak hour (28 in/27 out) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Proposed Development Trip Generation Rates – AM and PM Peak Hour

Number Unit1000 sq ft

GFA * Coverage

ITE Code

AM Peak Rate

AM Peak Trip Gen

AM Peak In

AM Peak Out

PM Peak Rate

PM Peak Rate Gen

PM Peak In

PM Peak Out

16Fuelling Stations

- 946 11.84 190 97 93 13.86 222 114 108

2,000 sq. ft. 2.0 937 100.58 202 104 98 42.80 86 43 43

392 201 191 308 157 15139 20 19 31 16 15

Adjusted Volumes for the Proposed Development 353 181 172 277 141 136282 145 138 222 113 10971 36 34 55 28 27Future Volume Added to Adjacent Streets

Internal Capture Trips (10%)

Pass-By Trips (80%)

Use

200 Prospect Road

Future Development Total

Gas Station - Convenience Store & Car WashCoffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru



3.2 Trip Distribution The traffic counts provided to Harbourside Transportation Consultants (HTC) by HRM and NSTIR were used to prepare base Synchro/SimTraffic models of the study area for the proposed development. The 2012 volumes provided to HTC were adjusted to produce base volumes for the existing conditions by 1% per year. The trip generation rates were then distributed onto the study intersections for both the AM and PM peak hours using the existing trip distribution patterns as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Trip Distribution

The traffic volumes associated with the new site-generated trips and the pass-by trips are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 and the total trips are shown in Figure 5.



Figure 3 – Trip Distribution – New Trips

Figure 4 – Trip Distribution – Pass-By Trips

Figure 5 – Trip Distribution – Total Trips

Development - New Trips

3 (1) 2 (1) Prospect Road 5 (18)

3 3 (1) 3 3 24(7) 27 (18) (1) (1) 2 (1) (7)

(8) 7 (20) 2829 (19) 7 (8)

Existing Driveway Proposed Driveway

Development - Pass-By Trips

-36 -(98) -36 -(98) 0 (0) Prospect Road 36 (98)

-(44) -145 34 0 -(44) -145 0 138(44) 145 (94) (0) (0) 0 (0) (42)

(44) 34 (98) 138145 (94) 36 (42)


Traffic Volumes with Development - Total Trips

155 (728) 152 (727) 2 (1) Prospect Road 42 (116)

(324) 608 38 3 (325) 611 3 162(51) 172 (112) (1) (1) 2 (1) (49)

(52) 41 (117) 165174 (113) 43 (50)




4 Intersection Performance/Capacity Analysis 4.1 Standard Terms and Measure of Performance There are three primary measures of performance that are typically used to evaluate the performance of an intersection. These are outlined below.

Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c) – Volume to capacity ratios relate the estimated traffic volumes (demand volume) to the theoretical maximum volume that could be accommodated (capacity volume/adjusted saturation flow rate). As the v/c ratio approaches 1.0, the movement has reduced ability to accommodate any additional volume of traffic. Generally, intersection control or road infrastructure movements can alleviate any reduced residual capacity.

Level of Service (LOS) – LOS is a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions. It is based on service measures such as freedom to maneuver, travel time, speed, and traffic interruptions. LOS is expressed as a scale from ‘A’ to ‘F’, where LOS A represents free flow conditions or very low delay (less than 10 seconds per vehicle at an intersection), and LOS F represents delay times that are unacceptable to motorists using the facility (greater than 50 seconds at a STOP sign control or greater than 80 seconds at traffic signals). Generally speaking, a minimum of LOS D is considered acceptable. Table 2 shown below describes the level of service criteria for both signalized and two way stop controlled intersections.

Table 2 – LOS Criteria Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections

LOS

Signalized Intersection Control Delay (seconds per

vehicle)

Level of Service (LOS) Descriptions

Two Way Stop Controlled Intersection Control Delay (seconds

per vehicle)

A ≤ 10 sec Very low delay. Majority of through traffic on main street does not stop at all. (Excellent) ≤ 10 sec

B 10 – 20 sec Somewhat higher delay. More vehicles have to stop for red lights. (Very Good) 10 – 15 sec

C 20 – 35 sec

Higher level of congestion and vehicles wait through more than one signal indication,

occasionally backups may develop, however traffic flow is still stable and acceptable. (Good)

15 – 25 sec

D 35 – 55 sec

Congestion is noticeable and delays may become extensive. Most cars have to wait more than one red light to pass. This threshold is the upper limit

for design. (Satisfactory)

25 – 35 sec

E 55 – 80 sec

Congested conditions. Traffic fills intersection capacity with long queues and delays. Many vehicles need to wait more than one green

indication. The LOS is nearing capacity and is unsatisfactory. (Unsatisfactory)

35 – 50 sec

F ≥ 80 sec

Very congested conditions. Traffic demand exceeds capacity of the intersection with very long

queues and delays. The LOS is generally considered to be unacceptable. (Unacceptable)

≥ 50 sec



Queue Capacity – Queue capacity at intersections is critical to the performance of the network. As part of the analysis process, queue lengths will be examined and recommendations made to ensure that sufficient vehicle storage is available to maintain efficient traffic flow. The 95% percentile queue length is the length of queue which is exceeded only 5% of the time.

4.2 Software Used in Analysis HTC used the Synchro/SimTraffic v9 software as the primary evaluation tool for the analysis completed for this report. Synchro was used to analyze network intersections and their LOS measures of performance based on the methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). SimTraffic, the micro-simulation component of the software package, was also used in the course of the analysis to check delay, illustrate and identify interactions between individual driver types and to illustrate the effects of adjacent or closely spaced intersections.

4.3 Level of Service Analysis For the purposes of this traffic impact study, HTC completed and analyzed two different network scenarios. These network scenarios are described as follows:

Existing Conditions with Development (2016) HTC built both an AM and PM peak hour Synchro model for the study area using the traffic volumes obtained and described in Section 2.1. HTC added in the new site-generated trips to the study network with the associated trip distribution.

Future Conditions with Development (2021) HTC used the same synchro models built for the existing conditions for both an AM and PM peak hour and increased the traffic volumes by 1% per year to the year 2021 to reflect background growth in the study area.

The design volumes used in the above scenarios can be found in Appendix B. The detailed Synchro/SimTraffic analysis results can be found in Appendix C.

4.3.1 Existing Conditions with Development (2016) Level of Service Analysis The level of service throughout the study area under the existing conditions scenario with development (2016) are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. In both the AM and PM peak hours, both intersections operate with LOS D or better; which is considered acceptable, except for one movement in the PM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement at the intersection of Prospect Road/Existing Driveway operates with LOS E, however as shown in the SimTraffic analysis the same movement is LOS C, which is considered acceptable.



Table 3 – Existing Conditions with Development (2016) – AM Peak Hour Results

Table 4 – Existing Conditions with Development (2016) – PM Peak Hour Results

Street MovementProspect Road & Existing Driveway 0.8 A 4.0 A

WB Left - Turn 19.0 C 0.14 3.8 14.7 B 14.5WB Right - Turn 13.9 B 0.01 0.2 4.1 A 3.9NB Through 4.9 ANB Right - Turn 2.1 ASB Left - Turn 9.6 A 0.00 0.1 6.2 A 2.8SB Through 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 0.2 A 0.0

Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway 3.4 A 3.1 AWB Left - Turn 17.8 C 0.01 0.3 10.9 B 5.0WB Right - Turn 17.6 C 0.38 14.2 10.3 B 30.9NB Through 1.8 ANB Right - Turn 0.4 ASB Left - Turn 9.1 A 0.05 1.3 4.0 A 11.6SB Through 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 0.3 A 0.0

Prospect Road

Existing Driveway

Proposed Driveway

Prospect Road

C

A

A

0.0

0.0

Existing 2016 with Development - AM Peak Hour

IntersectionSynchro

Delay/ Veh (s)

APP LOS

V/C Queue (m) 95th% ile

MVT LOS

C

A

A

SimTraffic

Delay/ Veh (s)

Equivalent LOS

Queue (m) 95th% ile

A 0.50 0.0

A 0.39 0.0

0.7

0.0


WB Left - Turn 42.7 E 0.57 25.3 17.7 C 26.1WB Right - Turn 10.4 B 0.00 0.0 2.0 A 7.2NB Through 1.2 ANB Right - Turn 0.4 ASB Left - Turn 8.1 A 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.8SB Through 0.0 - 0.47 0.0 0.5 A 0.0

Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway 1.2 A 1.2 AWB Left - Turn 31.0 D 0.01 0.2 14.9 B 2.9WB Right - Turn 10.6 B 0.08 2.0 3.3 A 14.3NB Through 0.5 ANB Right - Turn 0.1 ASB Left - Turn 8.3 A 0.10 2.8 2.3 A 12.9SB Through 0.0 - 0.46 0.0 1.2 A 0.0

0.0

A

0.0

A

Proposed Driveway B

Prospect Road0.0 A A 0.21 0.0

Equivalent LOS

Queue (m) 95th% ile

Existing Driveway E


Existing 2016 with Development - PM Peak Hour

IntersectionSynchro SimTraffic

Delay/ Veh (s)

APP LOS

MVT LOS


Delay/ Veh (s)



4.3.2 Future Conditions with Development (2021) Level of Service Analysis The level of service throughout the study area under the future conditions scenario with development (2016) are similar to existing conditions. In both the AM and PM peak hours, both intersections operate with LOS D or better, which is considered acceptable, except for one movement in the PM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement at the intersection of Prospect Road/Existing Driveway now operates with LOS F, however as shown in the SimTraffic analysis the same movement is LOS C, which is considered acceptable.

Figure 6 – Trip Distribution – Future Total Trips (2021)

Future Traffic Volumes with Development (2021) - Total Trips

163 (766) 160 (764) 2 (1) Prospect Road 44 (122)

(341) 639 40 4 (342) 643 4 170(53) 181 (117) (1) (1) 2 (1) (51)

(52) 41 (117) 165174 (113) 43 (50)




Table 5 – Future Conditions with Development (2021 – AM Peak Hour Results

Table 6 – Future Conditions with Development (2021) – PM Peak Hour Results


WB Left - Turn 20.3 C 0.15 4.3 15.7 C 15.1WB Right - Turn 14.4 B 0.01 0.2 5.4 A 4.9NB Through 5.3 ANB Right - Turn 2.3 ASB Left - Turn 9.7 A 0.00 0.1 4.9 A 2.8SB Through 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 0.2 A 0.0

Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway 3.6 A 3.4 AWB Left - Turn 18.8 C 0.02 0.4 10.7 B 5.6WB Right - Turn 19.0 C 0.42 16.4 11.9 B 34.8NB Through 1.9 ANB Right - Turn 0.3 ASB Left - Turn 9.2 A 0.05 1.4 4.4 A 12.1SB Through 0.0 - 0.10 0.0 0.3 A 0.0

0.0

A

1.1

A

Proposed Driveway C


Equivalent LOS

Queue (m) 95th% ile

Existing Driveway C


Future 2021 with Development - AM Peak Hour


Delay/ Veh (s)

APP LOS

MVT LOS


Delay/ Veh (s)


WB Left - Turn 52.8 F 0.65 30.9 22.1 C 28.2WB Right - Turn 10.5 B 0.00 0.0 4.1 A 8.3NB Through 1.3 ANB Right - Turn 0.3 ASB Left - Turn 8.2 A 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.7SB Through 0.0 - 0.49 0.0 0.6 A 0.0

Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway 1.3 A 1.3 AWB Left - Turn 34.1 D 0.01 0.2 9.9 A 2.7WB Right - Turn 10.8 B 0.08 2.1 3.5 A 14.4NB Through 0.5 ANB Right - Turn 0.1 ASB Left - Turn 8.4 A 0.11 3.0 2.5 A 13.6SB Through 0.0 - 0.49 0.0 1.2 A 0.0

0.0

A

0.0

A

Proposed Driveway B


Equivalent LOS

Queue (m) 95th% ile

Existing Driveway F


Future 2021 with Development - PM Peak Hour


Delay/ Veh (s)

APP LOS

MVT LOS


Delay/ Veh (s)



5 Access Review 5.1 Site Circulation The proposed development site layout was provided to HTC by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd., which included the truck turning movements throughout the proposed site. Based on preliminary reviews, the proposed site layout is adequate (with some minor encroachment) to accommodate a WB-20 truck throughout the development as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 – Site Circulation – WB-20 Truck Turning Movements, by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd.

5.2 Transit Park & Ride Facility HTC has reviewed the existing Transit Park & Ride and it is our understanding that there is currently only 5 available spaces to be utilized by the Park & Ride system. Therefore, there is little to no traffic accessing it via the existing driveway. There also appears to be little emphasis on expanding its operations under Metro Transit’s “Moving Forward Together” plan.

5.3 Sight Distance The sight distance for both the existing driveway and the proposed driveway along Prospect Road, were reviewed using the Transportation Association of Canada’s – Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. The posted speed limit along Prospect Road is 80 km/hr and therefore, for a vehicle to turn left onto a two-lane roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle approaching from the right, the minimum distance required is 170m. For a vehicle to turn right onto a two-lane roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle approaching from the left, the minimum distance required is 145m.

Prospect Road is relatively flat and straight and has very little obstruction on the side of the roadway. There is approximately 500 and 350 meters of unobstructed view to the north and south, respectively. Therefore, there is adequate sight distance for both the proposed and existing driveways to the development.



5.4 Left-turn Storage Lane On Prospect Road, near the Halifax Exhibition Center and our proposed development, there is currently a left-turn storage lane of approximately 440 meters. This left-turn lane is currently servicing the existing driveway to the proposed development. HTC completed a left-turn warrants analysis for the existing and the proposed new access to the development using the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) methodology. The existing driveway does not warrant a left-turn storage lane. However, the proposed driveway to the development requires a left-turn lane for both the AM and PM peak hours, shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The PM peak hour was greater, requiring a left-turn storage lane of 40 meters. Therefore, the existing left-turn storage lane on Prospect Road is adequate for the proposed driveway.

Figure 8 – MTO Left-turn Storage Lane – AM Peak hour Volumes

Figure 9 – MTO Left-turn Storage Lane – PM Peak hour Volumes



5.5 Right-turn Storage Lane HTC completed a right-turn warrants analysis for the existing and the proposed new access to the development using the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) methodology. The proposed driveway does not warrant a right-turn storage lane. However, the existing driveway to the development requires a right-turn lane in the northbound direction for the AM peak hours, shown in Figure 10. Therefore, the northbound right-turn storage lane on Prospect Road for the existing driveway should be designed in accordance with NSTIR/TAC guidelines.

Figure 10 – ODOT Right-turn Lane Criterion



6 Summary/Conclusions/Recommendations Harbourside Transportation Consultants (HTC) was retained by DesignPoint Engineering and Surveying Ltd. to prepare a traffic impact study (TIS) for the proposed development located at 200 Prospect Road in Goodwood, Nova Scotia, near the Halifax Exhibition Center.

The study area for this project focused on two intersections along Prospect Road, the first being an existing driveway and the second being a proposed driveway. Traffic volumes for our analysis were provided by HRM for the intersection of Prospect Road/Ragged Lake Boulevard for the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak traffic periods.

The trip generation rates for this development were based on the 9th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, two different land use codes were used. The project is expected to generate 71 new trips AM peak hour (36 in/34 out) and 55 new trips in the PM peak hour (28 in/27 out).

The site-generated traffic was distributed to the existing road network using existing traffic patterns; the details of which have been noted in Section 3.2.

HTC constructed a Synchro model for the study area which included the existing traffic counts with the proposed development traffic. Both the AM and PM peak hours were modelled in Synchro and in SimTraffic. The analysis of the existing conditions with development show both intersections operating with LOS D or better which is considered acceptable. The Westbound left-turn movement at the intersection of Prospect Road/Existing Driveway operates at LOS E in Synchro, however operates in SimTraffic with LOS C.

The proposed development of a gas station/convenience store with 16 fueling stations and a car wash, as well as an attached restaurant with a drive-through window, is not expected to cause any operational related problems on Prospect Road. The vast majority of traffic using the proposed development will be traffic already using Prospect Road (pass-by trips). The existing left-turn bay on Prospect Road is adequate for the purpose of the development. A right-turn lane/deceleration lane should be provided in the northbound direction. This should be designed in accordance with NSTIR/TAC guidelines.


Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 Appendix A

APPENDIX A Traffic Counts

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYTRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC WORKS CODE NO. 12TM165aTRAFFIC & RIGHT OF WAY

MANUAL TRAFFIC COUNTS

INTERSECTION: PROSPECT ROAD AT RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARDWEATHER RAIN

DAY DATE MONTH YEAR RECORDER THWED 1 AUG 2012

STREET: RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARD PROSPECT ROADTIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R07:00:00 AM 07:15:00 AM 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 33 17 2 183 0 24507:15:00 AM 07:30:00 AM 0 0 0 12 0 3 0 36 26 4 181 0 26207:30:00 AM 07:45:00 AM 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 58 16 2 197 0 28407:45:00 AM 08:00:00 AM 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 48 29 2 153 0 247

TOTAL 0 0 0 45 0 6 0 175 88 10 714 0 1038PEAK 0 51 263 72415 MIN PEAK 0 60 308 796PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0 0.85 0.85 0.91 PEAK HRTWO WAY TOTALS 0 149 1022 905 FACTOR

1.011048

DAY DATE MONTH YEARWED 1 AUG 2012

TIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R08:00:00 AM 08:15:00 AM 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 49 23 4 149 0 24308:15:00 AM 08:30:00 AM 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 52 27 0 135 0 22808:30:00 AM 08:45:00 AM 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 51 23 2 121 0 21408:45:00 AM 09:00:00 AM 0 0 0 17 0 2 0 46 20 2 120 0 207


1.01901

VEHICULAR GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET INTERSECTION : PROSPECT ROAD AT RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARD

DATE: AUG 1 2012TIME: 1 HOUR

PROSPECT ROAD FROM: 07:00:00 AM TO 08:00:00 AM

1022 FACTORED TOTAL PEAK VOLUME INTERSECTION APPROACH

VOLUME 1048

26388 175

149 PEAK VOLUME

RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARD

4551

6

10 714724

PEAK VOLUME

905

PROSPECT ROAD

PROSPECT ROAD

875PEAK VOLUME

29193 198

169 PEAK VOLUME


5968

9

8 525533


FROM: 08:00:00 AM TO 09:00:00 AM PEAK VOLUME

740FACTORED TOTAL INTERSECTION APPROACHVOLUME 901 PROSPECT ROAD

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYTRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC WORKS CODE NO. 12TM165oTRAFFIC & RIGHT OF WAY


INTERSECTION: PROSPECT ROAD AT RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARDWEATHER RAIN

DAY DATE MONTH YEAR RECORDER THWED 1 AUG 2012

STREET: RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARD PROSPECT ROADTIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R11:00:00 AM 11:15:00 AM 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 81 15 2 90 0 19911:15:00 AM 11:30:00 AM 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 93 9 1 100 0 21611:30:00 AM 11:45:00 AM 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 89 14 1 106 0 22511:45:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 0 0 0 29 0 2 0 56 16 2 82 0 187


1.01835

DAY DATE MONTH YEARWED 1 AUG 2012

TIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R12:00:00 PM 12:15:00 PM 0 0 0 14 0 3 0 78 12 4 91 0 20212:15:00 PM 12:30:00 PM 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 85 18 3 90 0 22112:30:00 PM 12:45:00 PM 0 0 0 25 0 4 0 79 16 1 103 0 22812:45:00 PM 01:00:00 PM 0 0 0 19 0 2 0 79 11 2 93 0 206


1.01866



PROSPECT ROAD FROM: 11:00:00 AM TO 12:00:00 PM


VOLUME 835

37354 319

130 PEAK VOLUME


6370

7

6 378384

PEAK VOLUME

710

PROSPECT ROAD

PROSPECT ROAD

837PEAK VOLUME

37857 321

159 PEAK VOLUME


8292

10

10 377387


FROM: 12:00:00 PM TO 01:00:00 PM PEAK VOLUME


HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYTRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC WORKS CODE NO. 12TM165pTRAFFIC & RIGHT OF WAY


INTERSECTION: PROSPECT ROAD AT RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARDWEATHER OVERCAST

DAY DATE MONTH YEAR RECORDER THTHURS 2 AUG 2012

STREET: RAGGED LAKE BOULEVARD PROSPECT ROADTIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R04:00:00 PM 04:15:00 PM 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 176 5 4 99 0 31104:15:00 PM 04:30:00 PM 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 188 10 1 90 0 31404:30:00 PM 04:45:00 PM 0 0 0 18 0 4 0 193 12 2 84 0 31304:45:00 PM 05:00:00 PM 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 196 8 1 73 0 296


0.981209

DAY DATE MONTH YEARTHURS 2 AUG 2012

TIME: FROM THE EAST FROM THE WEST FROM THE NORTH FROM THE SOUTH TOTAL15 MIN INTERVALS L S R L S R L S R L S R05:00:00 PM 05:15:00 PM 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 190 6 1 106 0 32905:15:00 PM 05:30:00 PM 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 208 6 0 87 0 31705:30:00 PM 05:45:00 PM 0 0 0 12 0 3 0 175 5 1 93 0 28905:45:00 PM 06:00:00 PM 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 161 5 2 84 0 262


0.981173



PROSPECT ROAD FROM: 04:00:00 PM TO 05:00:00 PM


VOLUME 1209

78835 753

135 PEAK VOLUME


8692

6

8 346354

PEAK VOLUME

1113

PROSPECT ROAD

PROSPECT ROAD

1187PEAK VOLUME

75622 734

93 PEAK VOLUME


6167

6

4 370374


FROM: 05:00:00 PM TO 06:00:00 PM PEAK VOLUME



Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 Appendix B

APPENDIX B Traffic Design Volumes

16364 - 200 Prospect Road Harbourside Transportation Consultants06/10/2016

Development - New Trips

3 (1) 2 (1) Prospect Road 5 (18)

3 3 (1) 3 3 24(7) 27 (18) (1) (1) 2 (1) (7)

(8) 7 (20) 2829 (19) 7 (8)

Development - Pass-By Trips

-36 -(98) -36 -(98) 0 (0) Prospect Road 36 (98)

-(44) -145 34 0 -(44) -145 0 138(44) 145 (94) (0) (0) 0 (0) (42)

(44) 34 (98) 138145 (94) 36 (42)

Existing Traffic Volumes (2016)

188 (825) 188 (825) 0 (0) Prospect Road 0 (0)

(368) 753 0 0 (368) 753 0 0(0) 0 (0) (0) (0) 0 (0) (0)

(0) 0 (0) 00 (0) 0 (0)

Traffic Volumes with Development - Total Trips

155 (728) 152 (727) 2 (1) Prospect Road 42 (116)

(324) 608 38 3 (325) 611 3 162(51) 172 (112) (1) (1) 2 (1) (49)

(52) 41 (117) 165174 (113) 43 (50)

Future Traffic Volumes with Development (2021) - Total Trips

163 (766) 160 (764) 2 (1) Prospect Road 44 (122)

(341) 639 40 4 (342) 643 4 170(53) 181 (117) (1) (1) 2 (1) (51)

(52) 41 (117) 165174 (113) 43 (50)







Harbourside Transportation Consultants - #16364 Appendix C

APPENDIX C Synchro Analysis Results

200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 AM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Existing Driveway 10/04/2016

Synchro 9 ReportHarbourside Transportation Consultants Page 1

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 38 3 608 172 2 155Future Volume (Veh/h) 38 3 608 172 2 155Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 41 3 661 187 2 168PedestriansLane Width (m)Walking Speed (m/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (m)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 926 754 848vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 926 754 848tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 86 99 100cM capacity (veh/h) 297 409 790

Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 41 3 848 2 168Volume Left 41 0 0 2 0Volume Right 0 3 187 0 0cSH 297 409 1700 790 1700Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.10Queue Length 95th (m) 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0Control Delay (s) 19.0 13.9 0.0 9.6 0.0Lane LOS C B AApproach Delay (s) 18.7 0.0 0.1Approach LOS C

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 AM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Proposed Driveway 10/04/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 3 176 666 46 165Volume Left 3 0 0 46 0Volume Right 0 176 2 0 0cSH 285 460 1700 923 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.05 0.10Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 14.2 0.0 1.3 0.0Control Delay (s) 17.8 17.6 0.0 9.1 0.0Lane LOS C C AApproach Delay (s) 17.6 0.0 2.0Approach LOS C


200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 AM with Development Entire Network 10/04/2016

SimTraffic ReportHarbourside Transportation Consultants Page 1

Summary of All Intervals

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6Start Time 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00Total Time (min) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Vehs Entered 1190 1212 1228 1179 1184 1183 1213Vehs Exited 1193 1217 1231 1179 1186 1182 1214Starting Vehs 13 12 16 15 12 14 13Ending Vehs 10 7 13 15 10 15 12Travel Distance (km) 719 735 739 711 713 716 739Travel Time (hr) 13.2 13.3 13.6 12.8 13.1 13.0 13.4Total Delay (hr) 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6Total Stops 244 234 250 224 240 222 208Fuel Used (l) 65.3 66.0 65.4 63.0 64.5 64.3 64.7


Run Number 7 8 9 AvgStart Time 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00Total Time (min) 90 90 90 90Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60# of Intervals 5 5 5 5# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4Vehs Entered 1147 1208 1212 1196Vehs Exited 1149 1205 1211 1196Starting Vehs 11 6 15 12Ending Vehs 9 9 16 12Travel Distance (km) 697 731 734 723Travel Time (hr) 12.6 13.3 13.2 13.2Total Delay (hr) 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6Total Stops 222 234 224 230Fuel Used (l) 62.3 64.8 65.4 64.6

Interval #0 Information SeedingStart Time 6:30End Time 7:00Total Time (min) 30Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.No data recorded this interval.



Interval #1 Information Recording #1Start Time 7:00End Time 7:15Total Time (min) 15Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF.

Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6Vehs Entered 300 318 320 278 279 284 315Vehs Exited 302 320 323 284 279 282 314Starting Vehs 13 12 16 15 12 14 13Ending Vehs 11 10 13 9 12 16 14Travel Distance (km) 185 192 190 171 166 170 189Travel Time (hr) 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7Total Stops 56 69 74 47 55 49 55Fuel Used (l) 16.4 17.8 16.8 14.8 15.4 15.3 16.6


Run Number 7 8 9 AvgVehs Entered 276 274 275 292Vehs Exited 276 274 275 293Starting Vehs 11 6 15 12Ending Vehs 11 6 15 11Travel Distance (km) 169 169 166 177Travel Time (hr) 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.1Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6Total Stops 51 51 51 56Fuel Used (l) 14.9 14.3 14.5 15.7



Interval #2 Information Recording #2Start Time 7:15End Time 7:30Total Time (min) 15Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.






Interval #3 Information Recorsding #3Start Time 7:30End Time 7:45Total Time (min) 15Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF.












1: Prospect Road & Existing Driveway Performance by movement

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT AllDenied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1Total Del/Veh (s) 14.7 4.1 4.9 2.1 6.2 0.2 4.0Stop Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Stop Del/Veh (s) 12.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.5

6: Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway Performance by movement


Total Network Performance

Denied Delay (hr) 0.3Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8Total Delay (hr) 2.3Total Del/Veh (s) 6.9Stop Delay (hr) 0.6Stop Del/Veh (s) 1.9



Intersection: 1: Prospect Road & Existing Driveway

Movement WB WB NB SBDirections Served L R TR LMaximum Queue (m) 16.2 6.7 0.7 6.2Average Queue (m) 6.8 0.6 0.0 0.395th Queue (m) 14.5 3.9 0.7 2.8Link Distance (m) 190.1 272.0Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 50.0Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 6: Prospect Road & Proposed Driveway

Movement WB WB SBDirections Served L R LMaximum Queue (m) 8.6 43.0 13.6Average Queue (m) 0.8 16.3 4.295th Queue (m) 5.0 30.9 11.6Link Distance (m) 96.8Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (m) 50.0 300.0Storage Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0

Network SummaryNetwork wide Queuing Penalty: 0

200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 PM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Existing Driveway 10/04/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 122 1 407 1 791Volume Left 122 0 0 1 0Volume Right 0 1 55 0 0cSH 212 667 1700 1152 1700Volume to Capacity 0.57 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.47Queue Length 95th (m) 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay (s) 42.7 10.4 0.0 8.1 0.0Lane LOS E B AApproach Delay (s) 42.4 0.0 0.0Approach LOS E


200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 PM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Proposed Driveway 10/04/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 1 53 354 126 790Volume Left 1 0 0 126 0Volume Right 0 53 1 0 0cSH 139 690 1700 1205 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.08 0.21 0.10 0.46Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 2.0 0.0 2.8 0.0Control Delay (s) 31.0 10.6 0.0 8.3 0.0Lane LOS D B AApproach Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 1.1Approach LOS B


200 Prospect Road TISEntire Network

Existing 2016 PM with Development 10/04/2016



































200 Prospect Road TIS Existing 2016 PM with DevelopmentEntire Network 10/04/2016



Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT AllDenied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8Total Del/Veh (s) 17.7 2.0 1.2 0.4 0.5 2.3Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5Stop Del/Veh (s) 15.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5











Movement WB WB SBDirections Served L R LMaximum Queue (m) 3.6 17.2 13.8Average Queue (m) 0.3 7.8 5.795th Queue (m) 2.9 14.3 12.9Link Distance (m) 96.8Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (m) 50.0 300.0Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 AM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Existing Driveway 10/05/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 43 4 892 2 177Volume Left 43 0 0 2 0Volume Right 0 4 197 0 0cSH 278 388 1700 760 1700Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.52 0.00 0.10Queue Length 95th (m) 4.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0Control Delay (s) 20.3 14.4 0.0 9.7 0.0Lane LOS C B AApproach Delay (s) 19.8 0.0 0.1Approach LOS C


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 AM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Proposed Driveway 10/05/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 4 185 701 48 174Volume Left 4 0 0 48 0Volume Right 0 185 2 0 0cSH 266 439 1700 896 1700Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.42 0.41 0.05 0.10Queue Length 95th (m) 0.4 16.4 0.0 1.4 0.0Control Delay (s) 18.8 19.0 0.0 9.2 0.0Lane LOS C C AApproach Delay (s) 19.0 0.0 2.0Approach LOS C


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 AM with DevelopmentEntire Network 10/05/2016










































Movement WB WB NB SBDirections Served L R TR LMaximum Queue (m) 16.2 7.4 1.6 5.6Average Queue (m) 6.9 0.9 0.1 0.395th Queue (m) 15.1 4.9 1.1 2.8Link Distance (m) 190.1 272.0Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (m) 30.0 50.0Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Movement WB WB SBDirections Served L R LMaximum Queue (m) 8.2 48.6 15.8Average Queue (m) 1.0 17.4 4.895th Queue (m) 5.6 34.8 12.1Link Distance (m) 96.8Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (m) 50.0 300.0Storage Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 PM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Existing Driveway 10/05/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 127 1 429 1 833Volume Left 127 0 0 1 0Volume Right 0 1 58 0 0cSH 195 650 1700 1130 1700Volume to Capacity 0.65 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.49Queue Length 95th (m) 30.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay (s) 52.8 10.5 0.0 8.2 0.0Lane LOS F B AApproach Delay (s) 52.4 0.0 0.0Approach LOS F


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 PM with DevelopmentProspect Road & Proposed Driveway 10/05/2016



Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 1 55 373 133 830Volume Left 1 0 0 133 0Volume Right 0 55 1 0 0cSH 125 673 1700 1185 1700Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.49Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 2.1 0.0 3.0 0.0Control Delay (s) 34.1 10.8 0.0 8.4 0.0Lane LOS D B AApproach Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 1.2Approach LOS B


200 Prospect Road TIS Future 2021 PM with DevelopmentEntire Network 10/05/2016


































Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT AllDenied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0Total Del/Veh (s) 22.1 4.1 1.3 0.3 0.6 2.7Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6Stop Del/Veh (s) 20.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8










Movement WB WB SBDirections Served L R LMaximum Queue (m) 3.6 16.8 16.2Average Queue (m) 0.3 7.9 6.095th Queue (m) 2.7 14.4 13.6Link Distance (m) 96.8Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (m) 50.0 300.0Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)


Documents

200 PROSPECT ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - Halifax · to prepare a traffic impact study ... station /convenience store with 16 fueling stations and a car wash, ... cross section and