May 15th, 2014 Full AgendaA Community of Choice, Committed to Excellence
Agenda
Board of Supervisors
Isle of Wight County
May 15, 2014
1. Call to Order (5:00 p.m.)
2. Closed Meeting
3. Invocation – The Honorable Byron B. Bailey (6:00 p.m.)
4. Pledge of Allegiance
5. Approval of Agenda
6. Consent Agenda
A. Resolution Celebrating 100th Years of the Virginia Cooperative
Extension
B. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate PEG Capital Fee Funds
C. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Department of Criminal Justice
Services Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Funds for Law Enforcement
D. Resolution to Return Grant Funds for the Zuni Well Relocation
Project
E. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds to the Benns Church
Intersection Improvement Project
A Community of Choice, Committed to Excellence
F. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the Virginia
Cooperative Extension Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Program
G. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Fiscal Year
2013 Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
H. Resolution to Elect/Recertify Member Contribution for Virginia
Retirement System
I. Resolution to Elect/Recertify Employer Contribution Rate for
Virginia Retirement System
J. Motion to Approve Tax Refund for John and Billie Jo Melting
K. Motion to Consent to Vacation of Norsworthy Plat Dated July 10,
2012
L. September 19, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes
M. October 17, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes
N. November 21, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes
7. Regional Reports
8. Appointments
9. Special Presentation/Appearances
A. Animal Control Adoption Program
B. Route 460 Update – VDOT
A Community of Choice, Committed to Excellence
C. Resolution to Recognize the Retirement of Rusty Chase
D. Read to Them
10. Citizens’ Comments
11. Public Hearings
A. Ordinance to Designate as Exempt from Taxation All Real and
Personal Property Owned or Operated by Windsor Athletic
Association
B. Motion to Adopt the Brewers Neck Transportation Corridor Study
C. Motion to Authorize Changes to the Benn’s Grant Mixed-Use
Development by Amending the Proffer Statement, Master Plan and
Neighborhood Plan Book
D. Motion to Adopt the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
FY2015-2020 Secondary Six-Year Improvement Program (SSYIP)
and Construction Priority List
12. County Administrator’s Report
A. Resolution to Recognize the Accomplishments of Bria Kelly
B. Resolution – Purchasing Policy Amendment
C. Resolution – Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds
D. Motion to Deny Request to Enter into Funding Agreement for the
Monitoring of Streamgages in the Chowan River Basin
A Community of Choice, Committed to Excellence
E. Requests from School Superintendent
F. Fire and Rescue Titling and Facility Use Update
13. Unfinished/Old Business
14. New Business
15. Informational Items
A. Tourism Activities
B. Charter Transition to Comcast
C. Monthly Reports: Delinquent Tax Information and Statement of
Treasurer’s Accountability
16. Adjournment
Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study / RDR / May 5, 2014
ISSUE:
Motion to Adopt the Brewer’s Neck Transportation Corridor Study
BACKGROUND:
In 2011 Planning Staff advised the Board of Supervisors that the County,
through a VDOT administered grant, would be conducting a Corridor
Study of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and the alternative road network for
improvements needed to support the growth of the County, particularly in
the Newport Development Service District (DSD).
The study was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA),
engineering and planning firm, under the coordination of Department of
Planning and Zoning. Staff held regular meetings with KHA, to review the
traffic counts both current and projected, collision data, roadway
improvement options and alternatives. Staff and KHA also conducted
public meetings to gain citizen input on route alternatives, roadway
sections, and any additional public comment. This input was combined
with the best transportation engineering practices, including advanced
modeling, to develop the study.
The study provides County officials, staff, citizens and the development
community with a more complete understanding of the transportation
issues we face in the future as development continues in the Carrollton and
Smithfield areas. This study looks at alternative routes and facilities
improvements which will need to be constructed moving forward in order
to properly move traffic within and through this area of the County. Once
adopted, the results of this study will be incorporated into the County
Comprehensive Plan, and will guide future transportation improvement
needs as development occurs in the Newport DSD, and will be used by the
County to pursue funding under VDOT and other funding programs, and to
solicit participation from the development community in building the
necessary improvements.
Strengths: The study identifies the means for resolving a current and
growing problem with the County transportation network in
the Newport DSD.
Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study / RDR / May 5, 2014
Weaknesses: None identified at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study as an appendix of the Isle of
Wight County Comprehensive Plan. At its April 22, 2014 meeting, the
Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend adoption of the
Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study as an appendix of the Isle of Wight County
Comprehensive Plan with the recommended changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study
- Planning Commission Comments
Planning Commission Comments on the Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study from the April 22, 2014 meeting
Page 8, Section 2.5, 4th bullet – The PC felt like this was a little unclear, they wanted it more
directly spelled out that we used traffic information from X developments plus X% background
growth. They also wanted a mention of Mallory Point.
Page 24 – The PC would like the text pertaining to Heavy Vehicles to directly spell out what
qualifies as a heavy vehicle.
Page 33 – The PC asked if there is a way to project the safety improvement that would occur
based on the recommended actions in the plan.
Page 39 – The PC would like the Hazardous Materials section to more clearly state that these
sites are identified as a precaution and to identify locations that could warrant a closer look in
the future but are not known issues.
Page 54 and all following Road Sections – The PC would like to know if there is a way to take an
image of the roadway similar to those on Page 13, and show what the road would look like with
the improvements.
The PC would like to see a recommendation(s) encouraging transit options within the study area
as appropriate.
Page 71, Section 7.0, Paragraph 2 – The PC would like elaboration on the criteria for
prioritization. Ease of implementation? Development Provided? Costs? Why do all 3 come out
very similar in price? (fluke?)
The PC felt all Maps with road names should also include a route number for those roads.
The PC would like the Nike Park/Titus Creek Road image from the PowerPoint added to the
document with a description as appropriate.
The question was asked why Nike Park Road Extension wouldn’t/shouldn’t be built as a full 4
lane configuration from the start and just taper down to 2 lanes at Reynolds Drive for the short
term. If the intent is for developer driven implementation of part/all of the extension this seem
to make sense.
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
February 2014
Isle of Wight County Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
s
b
u
r
g
-
J
a
m
e
s
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
t
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
Th
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
h
e
re
i
n
,
a
s
a
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
r
v
ic
e
,
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
pecific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse
of
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
r
e
l
i
a
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
w
it
h
o
u
t
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
d
a
p
t
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
s
h
a
l
l be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates,
In
c
.
i
Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study
Isle of Wight County, Virginia
February 2014
Study Area: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard/Nike Park Road
Prepared for:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Hampton Roads District
1700 North Main Street
Suffolk, VA 23434
Project ID: 30647-2-09-14
Region 2 Consultant Services
Isle of Wight County
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4500 Main Street
Suite 500
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Project Number: 117306014
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................ 5
Chapter 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................. 7
Section 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 7
Section 2.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 7
Section 2.3 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 7
Section 2.4 Study Process .............................................................................................................................. 7
Section 2.5 Study Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 8
Section 2.6 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3.0 Existing Conditions Analysis ............................................. 10
Section 3.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................... 10
Section 3.2 Key Transportation Corridors .................................................................................................... 13
Section 3.3 Access Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 17
Section 3.4 Existing Traffic Volumes and Characteristics ............................................................................ 19
Section 3.5 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 25
3.5.1 Intersection LOS Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 25
3.5.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Section 3.6 Existing Traffic Deficiencies ...................................................................................................... 32
Section 3.7 Crash Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 32
Section 3.8 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Activity .................................................................................... 36
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Screening ................................................... 37
Section 4.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................................................................................... 37
Section 4.2 Floodplain .................................................................................................................................. 37
Section 4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................... 37
Section 4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................ 38
Section 4.5 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................. 39
Section 4.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 5.0 Future Conditions ................................................................. 40
Section 5.1 Future Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 40
Section 5.2 Planned Development Sites ...................................................................................................... 40
Section 5.3 Planned Roadway Improvements .............................................................................................. 40
Section 5.4 Recommended Future Roadway Improvements ....................................................................... 43
5.4.1 Proffered Improvements ................................................................................................................................................. 43
5.4.2 Additional Major Roadway Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 43
Section 5.5 Nike Park Road Extension ......................................................................................................... 52
Section 5.6 Future LOS ................................................................................................................................. 56
5.6.1 Intersection LOS Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 56
5.6.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 66
Chapter 6.0 Future Access Management ............................................... 67
Section 6.1 Symptoms and Benefits of Access Management ...................................................................... 67
Section 6.2 Access Management Strategies ................................................................................................ 68
Section 6.3 Site Access Treatments ............................................................................................................. 68
Section 6.4 Signal Spacing for Coordination ................................................................................................ 69
Section 6.5 Median Treatments .................................................................................................................... 69
Section 6.6 Managing Access ....................................................................................................................... 70
Section 6.7 Short-Term Access Management Strategies ............................................................................. 70
Section 6.8 Mid-Term and Long-Term Access Management Strategies ....................................................... 70
Chapter 7.0 Corridor Study Recommendations .................................. 71
Section 7.1 Short Term Recommendations and Planning Level Cost Estimates ......................................... 71
7.1.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Short Term .................................................................................................................. 73
Section 7.2 Mid-Term Recommendations and Planning Level Cost Estimates ........................................... 75
7.2.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Mid Term ..................................................................................................................... 78
Section 7.3 Long Term Recommendations and Planning Level Cost Estimates .......................................... 81
7.3.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Long Term ................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter 8.0 Conclusions ............................................................................. 84
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor Study Area ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 3-1: Isle of Wight County, Newport Development Service District (DSD) ................................................ 11
Figure 3-2: Isle of Wight County, Virginia Zoning Map for Project Study Area .................................................. 12
Figure 3-3: VDOT Roadway Functional Classification Map .................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-4A: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access......................................................................... 17
Figure 3-4B: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access ......................................................................... 17
Figure 3-4C: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access ......................................................................... 17
Figure 3-5A: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access ................................................................................ 17
Figure 3-5B: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access ................................................................................ 18
Figure 3-5C: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access ................................................................................ 18
Figure 3-6A: Existing (2012) Intersection Lane Configuration .............................................................................. 20
Figure 3-6B: Existing (2012) Intersection Lane Configuration ............................................................................... 21
Figure 3-7A: Existing (2012) Peak Hour and Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes ...................... 22
Figure 3-7B: Existing (2012) Peak Hour and Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes ...................... 23
Figure 3-8A: Existing (2012) Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................... 30
Figure 3-8B: Existing (2012) Intersection Level of Service .................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-8: Distribution of Crashes by Severity – Major Corridors ........................................................................ 33
Figure 3-9: Distribution of Crashes by Type – Major Corridors ............................................................................. 33
Figure 3-10: Distribution of Crashes by Day of Week – Major Corridors .............................................................. 33
Figure 3-11: Distribution of Crashes by Weather Conditions – Major Corridors ................................................... 33
Figure 3-12: Distribution of Crashes by Severity – Cut Through Routes ............................................................... 34
Figure 3-13: Distribution of Crashes by Type – Cut Through Routes .................................................................... 35
Figure 3-14: Distribution of Crashes by Day of Week – Cut Through Routes ....................................................... 35
Figure 3-15: Distribution of Crashes by Weather – Cut Through Routes ............................................................... 36
Figure 5-2A: Future (2034) Volumes with Planned Roadway Improvements (Unimproved Network) ................. 41
Figure 5-2B: Future (2034) Volumes with Planned Roadway Improvements (Unimproved Network) ................. 42
Figure 5-3A: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned and Proposed Roadway Improvements ..................... 50
Figure 5-3B: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned and Proposed Roadway Improvements ..................... 51
Figure 5-4: Potential Nike Park Road Alternative Alignments and Typical Section Alternatives .......................... 53
Figure 5-5: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1 ......................................................................... 54
Figure 5-6: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 2 ......................................................................... 54
Figure 5-7: Preferred Nike Park Road Alignment and Intersection Laneage at Carrollton Boulevard ................... 55
Figure 5-8A: Future (2034) Unimproved Conditions Intersection Level of Service............................................... 62
Figure 5-8B: Future (2034) Unimproved Conditions Intersection Level of Service ............................................... 63
Figure 5-9A: Future (2034) Improved Conditions Intersection Level of Service ................................................... 64
Figure 5-9B: Future (2034) Improved Conditions Intersection Level of Service ................................................... 65
Figure 6-1: Shared Access Driveway Schematic ..................................................................................................... 69
Figure 7-1: Battery Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1 ..................................................................... 72
Figure 7-2: Carrollton Boulevard 6-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1 ................................................................. 75
Figure 7-3: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard 6-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1 ......................................................... 77
Figure 7-4: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 2 ......................................................................... 81
Figure 7-5: Battery Park Road at Nike Park Road Roundabout .............................................................................. 82
iv
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Intersection Heavy Vehicle Percentages ................................................................................................ 24
Table 3-1: Intersection Heavy Vehicle Percentages (continued) ............................................................................. 24
Table 3-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection HCM LOS Criteria .............................................................. 25
Table 3-3: S. Church Street and Battery Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection A) ........................ 25
Table 3-4: Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection B) ......................... 25
Table 3-5: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benns Church Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection C)
.................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Table 3-6: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Queen Anne’s Court Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection D) 25
Table 3-7: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection E) ............. 26
Table 3-8: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Campbells Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection F) ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3-9: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection G) ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
Table 3-10: Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection H) ................... 26
Table 3-11: Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection I) ........................ 26
Table 3-12: Nike Park Road and Titus Creek Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection J) .................... 26
Table 3-13: Titus Creek Drive and Smith’s Neck Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection K) ............. 26
Table 3-14: Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection L) ................. 26
Table 3-15: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection M) 27
Table 3-16: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection N).. 27
Table 3-17: Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection O) ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 3-18: Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection P) .............. 27
Table 3-19: Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection Q) ............ 27
Table 3-20: Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection R) ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 3-21: Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection S) ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 3-22: Carrollton Boulevard and Omera Drive/Ashby Way Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection T) ... 27
Table 3-23: HCM Arterial Classification I – LOS Criteria ..................................................................................... 28
Table 3-24: HCM Arterial Classification II – LOS Criteria .................................................................................... 28
Table 3-25: HCM Arterial Classification III – LOS Criteria ................................................................................... 28
Table 3-26: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard ............................... 28
Table 3-27: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard .............................. 29
Table 3-28: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Northbound Carrollton Boulevard .................................... 29
Table 3-29: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Southbound Carrollton Boulevard .................................... 29
Table 3-30: Crash Summary By Roadway .............................................................................................................. 32
Table 4-1: VDHR Identified Sites ........................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-2: Hazardous Materials Generators ............................................................................................................ 39
Table 4-3: Sites of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 5-1: Surface Street Growth Rates .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 5-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection HCM LOS Criteria .............................................................. 56
Table 5-3: Future (2034) Overall Signalized Intersection LOS ............................................................................... 56
Table 5-4: Future (2034) Overall Unsignalized Intersection LOS .......................................................................... 57
Table 5-5: S. Church Street and Battery Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection A) ........................ 57
Table 5-6: Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road Intersection LOS (Intersection B) .......................................... 57
Table 5-7: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benns Church Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection
C).............................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Table 5-8: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Blvd Extended Signalized
Intersection LOS (Intersection D) ............................................................................................................................ 58
Table 5-9: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection E) ............. 58
Table 5-10: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Campbell’s Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection
LOS (Intersection F) ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Table 5-11: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection G) ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
Table 5-12: Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection H) ................... 58
Table 5-13: Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive Intersection LOS (Intersection I) .............................................. 59
Table 5-14: Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection L) ................. 59
Table 5-15: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection
M) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 5-16: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection N).. 59
Table 5-17: Carrollton Boulevard and Ashby Way/Omera Drive Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection T) ... 59
Table 5-18: Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection O) ........................................................................................................................................................ 60
Table 5-19: Carrollton Boulevard and Nike Park Road Extension Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection V) . 60
Table 5-20: Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive Intersection LOS (Intersection P) .................................... 60
Table 5-21: Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection Q) ............ 60
Table 5-22: Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/Kings Crossing Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection R) ........................................................................................................................................................ 60
Table 5-23: Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway Signalized Intersection
LOS (Intersection S) ................................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 5-24: Titus Creek Drive and Nike Park Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection J) .................... 61
Table 5-25: Titus Creek Drive and Smith’s Neck Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection K) ............. 61
Table 5-26: Benn’s Church Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection U) ........................................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 5-27: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Arterial LOS .............................................................................................. 66
Table 5-28: Carrollton Boulevard Arterial LOS ...................................................................................................... 66
Table 6-1: Benefits of Corridor Access Management ............................................................................................. 68
Table 7-1: Short-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” .............................................................................. 74
Table 7-2: Mid-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” ................................................................................ 79
Table 7-3: Long-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” ............................................................................... 83
5 5
Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary
The Isle of Wight County Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study provides a comprehensive understanding of the operational and capacity
improvements necessary along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, and Nike Park Road to accommodate anticipated
growth and economic vitality within the study area and identifies a preferred alignment for the extension of Nike Park Road from its
terminus with Reynolds Drive in the west to its terminus with Carrollton Boulevard in the east. The implementation of system-wide
improvements will occur through local policies, programs, and funding as well as state contributions and private investment. The study
provides a blueprint for a coordinated approach to defining a transportation network capable of supporting the County’s vision of land
development, economic vitality, and quality of life.
The report will serve as a beneficial tool to both Isle of Wight County and VDOT in their discussions with developers as they convey
future plans and projects for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard corridors as well as Nike Park Road. This
strategic vision will provide the opportunity to obtain right-of-way, as well as realize implementation of both specific and regional
improvements through the development review process. On a much broader scale, the study will ultimately be used as a planning tool
by the County and VDOT to manage growth and assess the transportation network impacts created by regional influences internally
and externally to the study area.
The study examined existing and future conditions for the horizon year of 2034, with the intent of gaining a better understanding of the
more immediate needs along Nike Park Road, Smith’s Neck Road, and Battery Park Road as well as coordinated signal system
needs along Carrollton Boulevard. Growth within and adjacent to the study area corridor is very dynamic in terms of anticipated
residential and commercial/retail development, as well as increases in traffic volumes stemming from the corridor’s role in the regional
transportation network. This study considered a robust list of planned and approved growth opportunities within the study area (e.g.,
Benn’s Grant, The Crossings, St. Luke’s Village, Norsworthy, Bridge Point Commons, etc). The comprehensive approach to the
development of future traffic projections was necessary due to regional travel pattern behavior, the anticipated cumulative impact on
the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard intersection operations, as well as the need to capture the operational benefit of
the proposed extension of Nike Park Road. This will assist the County in making informed land use and economic development
decisions as they relate to roadway and utility infrastructure improvements/investments necessary to support development.
As a result of the field reviews, traffic analyses, policy review, and discussions with the County, project stakeholders, and VDOT,
recommendations for improvements have been identified within the study area to include; operational and capacity improvements as
well as bike and pedestrian improvements along the corridor, and the extension of Nike Park Road to Carrollton Boulevard to relieve
corridor congestion through the enhancement of network connectivity. The recommendations were based on the desire to safely and
efficiently address future internal and external traffic growth associated with the key study area components (i.e., operational and
capacity enhancements along the corridor, network connectivity, and overall traffic safety). A key short-term recommendation of the
study is the proposed extension of Nike Park Road approximately 1.0 mile from its current intersection with Reynolds Drive in the west
to a proposed intersection with Carrollton Boulevard in the east. This will address a missing link in the local street network and provide
local travelers and/or local residents with a more direct and safe alternate route to the Smith’s Neck Road to Titus Creek Drive to Nike
Park Road route used by many today. Thus this new connection is expected to reduce traffic volumes through the Smith’s Neck
Road/Reynolds Drive, Smith’s Neck Road/Titus Creek Drive, and Carrollton Boulevard/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard intersections. The
major recommendations of the study involve the widening of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, and ultimately Nike Park
Road. These projects are economically significant in nature and therefore it is not practical under current economic conditions to
expect that the construction of these improvements would all occur within a relatively short period of one another. Rather, projects are
grouped and/or categorized into short, mid, and long-term based on the magnitude of the project (i.e., cost), timing/schedule of when
the particular project could be constructed, as well as the scale of the issue a particular project is intended to address. This approach
allows communities to prioritize larger scale projects over time while also being able to implement “quick hitter” projects that mitigate
immediate needs.
Short-term recommendations are those that are intended to be implemented within six months to five years. These improvements
typically cost less than longer term improvements. Due to the cost associated with some of the following improvements (e.g., roadway
widening, raised/landscaped median, new roadway, etc.), they would typically be considered/grouped as long-term recommendations.
However, for this case they can be constructed within the existing right-of-way and are intended to quickly mitigate existing congestion
problems. The short-term improvements include, but are not limited to the following:
Traffic signal timing phasing and timing/coordination improvements (Carrollton Boulevard)
New traffic signal (Northgate Drive at Carrollton Boulevard)
Widening of Battery Park Road from S. Church Street to Nike Park Road to include; multi-use path
Access management improvements with Battery Park Road widening
Extension of Nike Park Road from Reynolds Drive to Carrollton Boulevard
Construction of roundabout at the intersection of Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road
Turn-lane improvements at the intersections of Nike Park Road/Reynolds Drive, Smith’s Neck Road/Titus Creek Drive, and
Nike Park Road/Titus Creek Drive
Mid-term recommendations are those that are intended to be implemented within five to fifteen years, which will range from relatively
low cost to several million dollars. Mid-term improvements have been identified that include, but are not limited to the following:
Widening of the Carrollton Boulevard from a 4-lane to a 6-lane roadway between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to the south to a
location approximately 2,200 feet north of the Carrollton Boulevard/Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway
Install Signal System Wireless Interconnection along Carrollton Boulevard corridor
Widening of the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor from a 4-lane to a 6-lane roadway between Benn’s Church Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard
Construct/install access management improvements along both Carrollton Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Traffic signal improvements and signal equipment upgrades
To capture a longer term need of the corridor, 2034 projected traffic volumes were analyzed which suggested the need for additional
larger scale projects that involve the widening of Nike Park Road from a 2-lane to a 4-lane roadway, capacity and operational
improvements along Nike Park Road at Battery Park Road, Titus Creek Drive, and Reynolds Drive, as well as related access
management improvements. Long-term recommendations are those that are intended to be implemented within fifteen to twenty-plus
years. These long-term recommendations can range in cost and magnitude, but are typically higher in cost and larger in scale,
involving major construction and right-of-way acquisition. The long-term improvements have been identified that include, but are not
limited to the following:
Widening of the Nike Park Road from a 2-lane to a 4-lane roadway between Reynolds Drive and Carrollton Boulevard
Nike Park Road at Battery Park Drive intersection improvements
o Upgrade roundabout from single lane to double lane roundabout
o Install appropriate signage and pavement markings
Nike Park Road at Titus Creek Drive intersection improvements
o Install exclusive left and right turn-lane improvements
o Monitor for potential signalization
Nike Park Road at Reynolds Drive intersection improvements
o Install traffic signal
o Install exclusive left and right turn-lane improvements
6
Additionally there are recommendations that consist of recommended ongoing/cyclic activities, policies, and procedures. These
ongoing recommendations include the following:
Closing/modifying access points and consolidating commercial and residential driveways as site plan approval, rezoning
approval, and conditional use permits are given.
Routinely clearing vegetation that blocks sign visibility, especially on minor street approaches.
Retiming all traffic signals along the corridor on a regular schedule at 3 to 5 year intervals once all signals along the
Carrollton Boulevard and ultimately the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard corridor are interconnected.
Installation of pedestrian displays and pedestrian crosswalk push buttons at signalized intersections
Construction of a multi-use path and/or sidewalks as a part of any roadway improvement project and/or new development
along the identified corridors (Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, Smith’s Neck Road, and Nike Park Road)
Project specific recommendations focus on operational, capacity, and safety improvements within the study area.
Planning-level cost estimates, expressed in year 2013 dollars, have been included for all recommendations. These
planning-level cost estimates have been based on VDOT’s statewide four-year cost averages for 2009, the VDOT
Transportation & Mobility Planning Division’s (TMPD) “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet from 2006, as
well as familiarity with similar project and improvement costs throughout Virginia. Due to fluctuations in the costs of labor,
materials, and equipment, variability in the market and the outcome of competitive bidding, and the general planning-level
nature of the recommendations, these estimated costs are neither exact nor guaranteed.
Variation between actual and estimated costs will change as time passes, and the time value of money has not been taken into
account. Cost estimations performed using the “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet include right-of-way acquisition
cost estimates developed with the sheet’s methodology. The cost breakdown per scenario includes engineering costs, landscaping
costs, pavement marking costs, urban roadway costs, rigid material costs (milling, overlay, sidewalks, channelization, etc.), signal
costs (timing and construction), signing costs, and miscellaneous costs which includes, mobilization, sediment and erosion control,
traffic control (i.e., maintenance of traffic (MOT) during construction), right-of-way (ROW) and utility costs, and stormwater
management. Chapter 7.0 reflects the cost estimates for those all projects that fall within a particular time frame (i.e., short term, mid-
term, long term). Table 7-1 through Table 7-3 provides recommendations and action times for improvements to include general
project description, overall cost estimate, general timeframe for implementation, and likely responsible parties.
The study outlines the long-term vision for the corridor and its associated transportation network needs. The intent is to now use the
vision as projects emerge, whether small or large, public or private, to ensure that the ultimate overarching desires and needs of the
corridor study area are achieved. Each project should be evaluated against the overall Isle of Wight County Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Corridor Study to determine specifically how it can best contribute towards realizing the vision.
The next key step in the planning process is to determine how the recommended improvements will be implemented. Both the County
and VDOT officials will need to determine implementation strategies as well as establish project priorities. Implementation strategies
to consider include seeking and identifying funding streams, both public and private, to construct improvements. There are several
potential public programs that may assist with funding projects. At the federal level there are earmarks, National Highway System
funds, bridge funds, and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to name a few. At the state level there is the VDOT six-
year improvement program (SYIP), multimodal planning grants, and enhancement funds. At the local level Isle of Wight County is a
member of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) which can assist local planning efforts by providing
services and guidance on funding strategies/coordination with VDOT. Private funds may be realized through rezoning action and
proffer contributions, as well as dedication of right-of-way. All these programs must be considered for each recommended
improvement as outlined in the report. The recommended improvements should be prioritized into projects with both County and
VDOT input. Each project should be thoroughly evaluated then identified for priority order, time frame from implementation and
potential funding sources.
7 7
Chapter 2.0 Introduction
Section 2.1 Background
Isle of Wight County, Virginia is located in the southeastern corner of the state and a part of the Hampton Roads region. Within Isle of
Wight County and surrounding municipalities, development opportunities continue and growth in retail, commercial, and residential
development has resulted in operational impacts along the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route 32) corridor. This
vibrant economic activity adds to the intensity of traffic throughout the County along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Benn’s Church
Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route 10/32), and Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route 17/258/State Route 32). Additionally,
developments will alter the traffic’s character as they increase the demand for access points and add to the number of vehicles
entering and exiting the County’s roadway network.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to work directly with Isle
Wight County staff in an effort help define a vision for the County’s transportation network, to assess and evaluate current and future
conditions, and to make recommendations for mitigating near- and long-term improvements. The result of this effort is a corridor study
that will serve as a technical document which identifies future conditions, potential projects, and implementation strategies. The
project team included VDOT Transportation Mobility & Planning Division (TMPD) staff, VDOT Hampton Roads District staff, Isle of
Wight County staff, and Kimley-Horn.
Section 2.2 Purpose and Need
The key objective of the study is to serve as a planning level document that includes a technical review and analysis of the study area
corridor, as well as the proposed alternative route/connector road alignments. The study will be used for four (4) purposes: 1) as a
planning tool by Isle of Wight County and VDOT to identify operational and capacity improvements necessary to accommodate
anticipated growth and economic vitality along the study area corridor (i.e., Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, Nike Park
Road); 2) identification of a preferred alignment for an alternate route/connector road between a location/terminus along Benns
Church Boulevard/S. Church Street in the west and a location/terminus along Carrollton Boulevard in the east; 3) use by Isle of Wight
to manage growth and periodically assess the transportation network impacts created by regional influences internal and external to
the study corridor; 4) determine future planning activities, corridor transportation policies (e.g., Transportation Overlay District and/or
access management strategies), and levels of funding needed to support the proposed improvements. The project was prepared in
coordination with VDOT, Isle of Wight County, and appropriate Project Team/Stakeholder members.
Section 2.3 Study Area
The study area for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor and Alignment Study is in the immediate vicinity (i.e., 0.25 miles north and
south) of the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route 32)/Benn’s Church Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route
10/32) signalized intersection, continuing east along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, then north along Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route
17/258/State Route 32) to the southern base of the James River Bridge a distance of approximately 5.5 miles. The alignment study
area component will include segments of Smith’s Neck Road, Reynolds Drive, Nike Park Road, and Battery Park Road, which
currently provides a northern alternate route to Brewer’s Neck Boulevard. The alternative route/connector road study area to the north
also covers a distance of approximately 5.5 miles. This study area covers a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. The study area is
illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Within the study area, the key intersections include the following:
A. Battery Park Road at South Church Street (signalized)
B. Battery Park Road at Nike Park Road (signalized)
C. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Benns Church Boulevard (signalized)
D. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Queen Anne’s Court (unsignalized)
E. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Sentara St. Luke’s (unsignalized)
F. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Reynolds Drive/Campbells Chapel Drive (unsignalized)
G. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane (signalized)
H. Norsworthy Drive at Reynolds Drive (unsignalized)
I. Reynolds Drive at Nike Park Road (unsignalized)
J. Nike Park Road at Titus Creek Drive (unsignalized)
K. Smith’s Neck Road at Titus Creek Drive (unsignalized)
L. Smith’s Neck Road at Reynolds Drive (unsignalized)
M. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Deep Bottom Drive (unsignalized)
N. Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Carrollton Boulevard (signalized)
O. Carrollton Boulevard at Deep Bottom Drive (unsignalized)
P. Carrollton Boulevard at Northgate Drive (unsignalized)
Q. Carrollton Boulevard at Smith’s Neck Road (signalized)
R. Carrollton Boulevard at Eagle Harbor Parkway (signalized)
S. Carrollton Boulevard at Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway (signalized)
T. Carrollton Boulevard at Omera Drive/Ashby Way (signalized)
Study area roadways and intersections were identified during conversations with VDOT and Isle of Wight County staff. The study
area is illustrated in Figure 2-1. In addition to these intersections, there are numerous paved and unpaved public and private
driveways along the study corridor.
Section 2.4 Study Process
The process to develop the traffic study and implementation strategy for the corridor consisted of the following major efforts:
Stakeholder and Public Involvement. At the onset of the study, the project Team or key stakeholders were identified and
the initiative for public involvement/public participation was established. The stakeholders attended project status meetings
and working sessions, provided valuable input on key future developments, as well as participation in the alternatives
improvements selection process. In addition to the involvement of the project stakeholders, a public hearing/public
information meeting was held to present the corridor and connector road alignment alternatives. The public involvement
component was emphasized in an effort to solicit input and comments as well as share information regarding the project.
8
Data Collection and Baselining. This involved collecting and assimilating background information including previous
transportation and land use plans, traffic impact studies, future development plans, mapping, traffic volumes, crash data, and
other information to firmly establish a starting point for the study.
Development of Improvement Concepts. To address current and anticipated future transportation deficiencies, challenges,
and opportunities in the County, several corridor typical section alternatives, intersection improvement options, and connector
road alignment concepts were developed for consideration.
Traffic Study Recommendations. Following input from the public, project stakeholders, and County staff, traffic study
recommendations were developed focusing on sustaining or improving traffic operations via level-of-service conditions,
network connectivity, and the proposed timing of strategic improvements.
Implementation. The first step in implementing the proposed transportation improvements involves the approval and support
of the study by the project stakeholders, the Planning Commission members, and final adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
Once the study is “adopted” it will serve as a tool for the County to use in prioritizing projects, pursuing funding sources as
they become available, and getting them programmed into the VDOT system/Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP).
Section 2.5 Study Assumptions
At the onset of this project the following key assumptions were identified:
The study is a technical review and planning level analysis of the corridor;
A planning horizon is a future year milestone used to evaluate level of service (LOS) along the study corridor. For consistency
with the soon to be updated 2034 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan, the planning horizon year for this study is 2034;
Analysis scenarios consider the weekday AM (6:30 AM to 8:30 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peaks;
Historical traffic data provided by VDOT was used to develop background annual growth rates for the analysis of future
conditions. Trip generation estimates for potential development sites (e.g., Benn’s Grant, Norsworthy, St. Luke’s, Bridge Point
Commons, The Crossings, etc.) were added in addition to annual background growth obtained from the historical data. For
detailed intersection and arterial analyses, a Synchro (Version 7.0) model was developed by Kimley-Horn for Existing,
Unimproved, Improved, and Improved with Connector conditions during the AM and PM peak hours;
The study assesses the benefits of a connector road between Benns Church Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard via Nike
Park Road and Battery Park Road;
The study identifies short-, mid-, and long-term recommendations to mitigate anticipated future traffic demand; and
VDOT Hampton Roads District staff and Isle of Wight County staff were involved throughout the planning process.
Section 2.6 Public Involvement
Public outreach and public involvement can add a very valuable component in the evaluation and decision making process. A
community’s citizens typically have a detailed first-hand knowledge of the places where they live and travel and of the transportation
problems they encounter on a daily basis. To make sure the corridor and connector road traffic study considered citizen concerns and
interests, input was requested from the general public, as well as through project stakeholders, County staff, elected officials, and
VDOT. A summary of the public involvement is noted below.
Project Team Work Session
Two project team work sessions were conducted to present future conditions, findings, typical section alternatives, connector road
alignment and typical section options, and to solicit input (i.e., support – do not support, like-dislike, etc.) from the key project team
members regarding the transportation issues and possible solutions. These team meetings were held on October 30, 2012 and
December 20, 2012.
Public Information Meeting # 1
A public information meeting was held on January 10, 2013 at the Mary Wells Senior Center, located along Nike Park Road near
Carrollton, Virginia. The public meeting focused on the goals and objectives of the corridor study along with the various improvement
alternatives being considered as solutions to existing and future traffic concerns. Citizens were informed about the intent of the
evening’s meeting, asked to review the various concepts under consideration, and asked to identify the alternative concepts they
preferred or liked versus those they did not by marking them with green or red dots. Citizens were also asked to fill out and turn in a
public input survey regarding the project and alternatives discussed. Attendees were reminded that their input was needed and valued
in helping to determine a preferred alternative consistent with the community’s objectives and character. The summary of comments
from Public Information Meeting # 1 is included in Appendix A.
Carrollton Civic League Discussion
Members of the project team were invited to attend the Carrollton Civic League monthly meeting to discuss the Brewer’s Neck
Corridor Study. The project team reviewed the goals and objectives of the corridor study and discussed the conceptual improvement
alternatives under consideration for the various roadway segments in the study area. The meeting was held on February 4, 2013 in
the Conference Room of Sentara St. Luke's Medical Center on Brewer’s Neck Boulevard near Benns Church, Virginia. During the
conversation with the group, citizens were asked to consider and identify the alternative concepts they preferred or liked versus those
they did not like as a part of the need for public input and feedback to establish the community’s preferred alternatives. As a part of
this meeting it was noted that just the widening of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard or the extension and widening of
Nike Park Road would not meet the needs of the community based on anticipated future growth and related traffic volumes. From this
conversation, input during Pubic Information #1, discussions among project team members, traffic volumes projections for both
corridors, and the long range significance of these corridors at the local and regional level, it was determined that both projects should
be included as future roadway network improvements.
Figure 2-1: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor Study Area
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Legend
Intersection
Corridor
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
10
Chapter 3.0 Existing Conditions Analysis
Section 3.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning
Land use in the study area is regulated by the Comprehensive Plan, the County’s zoning ordinances, and existing land uses pre-
dating zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the land in the study area as being in the Newport Development Service
District (DSD) because of the location of the major County transportation corridors that traverse the district and existing or planned
future sewer and water service areas. Figure 3-1 shows the extent of the Newport DSD boundary within the project study area.
Within the DSD, lands are broken into five land use planning areas:
Mixed Use Activity Center
Business and Employment
Suburban Residential
Suburban Estate
Resource Conservation
Isle of Wight County identifies six general land use area types with individual land-use policies:
Rural Districts
Residential Districts
Commercial Districts
Industrial Districts
Planned Development Zoning Districts
Special Overlay Districts
Of the six main land uses, the majority of Isle of Wight County is zoned as Rural Agricultural Conservation District (RAC), which
includes all types of agricultural uses and single family homes. Within the study area of the Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study, adjacent
zoning is comprised of a combination of RAC (Rural Agricultural Conservation), PD-MX (Planned Development Mixed Use), PD-MH
(Planned Development Manufactured Home Park), PD-R (Planned Development Residential), SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban
Residential), RR (Rural Residential), NC (Neighborhood Conservation), SE (Suburban Estate), GC (General Commercial), and LI
(Limited Industrial) as shown in Figure 3-2. Although there has been growth along the corridors within the study area, it is anticipated
that remaining undeveloped parcels will continue to undergo rezoning in the future to accommodate land uses more consistent with
the vision for this area.
The vision for this area is to provide a mix of land uses that meet the needs and desires of the public by managing and developing
vacant land along major transportation corridors. It is expected that the impact of development on major transportation corridors will
be minimized within the Newport DSD since residents will have the opportunity to be located physically close to jobs and the services
they will require. This allows residents to maximize the function and capacity of the major transportation corridors traversing the
district.
Figure 3-1 Newport Development Service District Land Use Plan
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Legend
Figure 3-2 Isle of Wight County, Virginia Zoning Map for Project Study Area
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
13 13
Section 3.2 Key Transportation Corridors
The transportation network is comprised of a collection of roadways with different functional classifications. Functional classification
refers to a hierarchy of street types used to describe the purposes of different streets in a network. In the study area, there are four
classes of streets represented, as shown in Figure 3-3. These roadways form a network that seeks to provide a balance between
access and mobility. A main focus of the transportation network are the corridors linking activity centers such as home, school, work,
shopping, social, and recreational destinations to one another. Furthermore, a transportation network lays the groundwork to
encourage development on and around these linked roadways.
In Isle of Wight County, transportation corridors need to support diverse travel purposes including regional travel, such as the work
trips of Isle of Wight residents who are employed outside of the county (e.g., Newport News), the commuter traffic destined to and
from major regional employers like Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) and Smithfield foods, and
local travel between activity centers in Isle of Wight. In addition to supporting a combination of regional and local trip purposes, key
corridors need to serve vehicular and other (i.e. bicyclists) users as well as pedestrians. The following briefly describes characteristic
of each functional class of roads in the study area:
Interstates and Arterials. These roadways provide a high level of
mobility; however, they offer little opportunity for access (driveways
and intersections). This classification includes limited access
roadways such as freeways and expressways. Typically, arterials
have higher operating speeds and significant vehicular capacity. They
are also largely focused on serving longer distance travel. Most
arterials and interstates in Virginia are maintained by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT). Carrollton Boulevard, Brewer’s
Neck Boulevard, and Benns Church Boulevard are the principal
arterials within the study area. South Church Street is a minor arterial
within the study area.
Collectors. These roadways balance mobility and access.
Depending upon their purpose, they are further classified as major
and minor collectors. Major collectors typically provide service to
roadways on an arterial system, link nearby towns and counties, and
serve the intra-county corridors. Minor collectors are typically spaced
depending upon population density, serve as an intermediate route
between local roads and bring traffic within a reasonable distance of a
major collector and/or arterial, and provide service to smaller
communities. Reynolds Drive, Smith’s Neck Road, and Battery Park
Road are the collectors within the study area.
Locals. This classification of streets provides the least mobility, but
the highest level of access to property. Similar to collectors, local streets are stratified into major and minor streets. Local
streets typically connect to one another and to collectors. Less often, local streets connect to arterials. However, this is the
case for much of the study area. Typical characteristics of local streets include low posted speeds, narrow lane widths, on-
street parking, frequent driveways, and low traffic volumes.
Functional classification information for the study roadways was obtained through the VDOT Functional Classification link for Isle of
Wight County on VDOT’s website (Hampton Roads Construction District – County/City/Town: Isle of Wight).
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route 32) is oriented east/west and extends from Benns Church Boulevard (U.S.
Route 258/State Route 10/32) to the west to Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route 17/258/State Route 32) to the east. The corridor is a
significant through-traffic facility as it serves as the main connector between two of the most heavily traveled principal arterials in the
county and subsequently a major river crossing in the Hampton Roads Region, the James River Bridge.
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Typical Section looking east Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Typical Section looking west
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard is configured as a four-lane, divided facility with a posted speed limit of 55 mph from Benns Church to
Carrollton Boulevard. It has signalized intersections at Benns Church Boulevard, Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane, and
Carrollton Boulevard. There are also several unsignalized median crossovers located along the roadway. Pedestrian facilities are
relatively limited to non-existent along this section of roadway.
14
Carrollton Boulevard
Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route 17/258/State Route 32) is a primary north/south route within the study area. The corridor extends
from the James River to the north to the City of Suffolk in the south. To the north, it provides direct access to the James River Bridge
and the City of Newport News. The corridor provides access to several residential and commercial properties. Within the study area,
it is configured as a four-lane, divided facility with a posted speed limit of 55 mph to the south and 45 mph to the north of its
intersection with Brewer’s Neck Boulevard. It has signalized intersections at Omera Drive/Ashby Way, Brewer’s Neck Boulevard,
Smith’s Neck Road, Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing, and Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway. There are several
unsignalized median crossovers located along the roadway. Pedestrian facilities are relatively limited to non-existent along this section
of roadway. A multi-use path is located on the east side of Carrollton Boulevard across the frontage of the shopping center/Bojangles’
near Smith’s Neck Road as well as between King’s Crossing and Whippingham Parkway.
Carrollton Boulevard Typical Section looking north Carrollton Boulevard Typical Section looking south
Smith’s Neck Road
Smith’s Neck Road (State Route 665) is an urban collector generally oriented in a north/south direction within the study area. Smith’s
Neck Road extends from Carrollton Boulevard in the south to the community of Rescue in the north, a distance of approximately 3.7
miles. Rescue Road, Titus Creek Drive, and Reynolds Drive are all provided access to Carrollton Boulevard via Smith’s Neck Road.
The roadway provides access to several residential and commercial properties and serves as an important link for access between
the James River Bridge and the Town of Smithfield. Within the study area, it is primarily configured as a two-lane, undivided facility
with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. It is a four-lane undivided facility only for a distance of approximately 1,800 feet between
Graystone Drive/Harbor Drive and its intersection with Carrollton Boulevard to the south. The three key intersecting streets along
Smith’s Neck Road (i.e., Rescue Road, Titus Creek Drive, and Reynolds Drive) are all unsignalized intersections along the roadway.
Pedestrian facilities are non-existent along this section of roadway.
Smith’s Neck Rd Two-Lane Typical Section looking north Smith’s Neck Rd Four-Lane Typical Section looking north
15 15
Nike Park Road
Nike Park Road (State Route 669) is also listed as an urban collector generally oriented in a northwest/southeast direction within the
study area. Nike Park Road extends from Reynolds Drive in the south to Battery Park Road in the north, a distance of approximately
2.8 miles. The roadway provides access to numerous residential properties, Nike Park, and serves as the key alternative link for
access between the James River Bridge and the Town of Smithfield. Within the study area, it is primarily configured as a two-lane,
undivided facility with a posted speed limit of 45 mph beginning in the area along Titus Creek Drive and continuing north to Battery
Park Road. To the south of this location, down to Reynolds Drive the roadway is assumed to have a statutory speed limit of 55 miles
per hour since the speed limit is otherwise not posted. Pedestrian facilities are non-existent along this section of roadway.
Nike Park Road Typical Section looking north Nike Park Road Typical Section looking south
Battery Park Road
Battery Park Road (State Route 704) is an urban collector serving as a secondary east/west route within the study area. Battery Park
Road extends from South Church Street in the west to Todd Avenue and the community of Battery Park in the east/north, a distance
of approximately 2.5 miles. The roadway provides access to numerous individual residential properties as well as several
neighborhoods, and serves as a key link for access between the Town of Smithfield and Carrollton Boulevard via Nike Park Road and
Smith’s Neck Road. Within the study area, the roadway is primarily configured as a two-lane, undivided facility with a posted speed
limit of 45 mph. Some pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalk) are present along the south side of the roadway in the Town of Smithfield for
a distance of approximately 1,800 feet. Beyond this section of roadway pedestrian facilities are essentially non-existent.
Battery Park Road Typical Section looking west Battery Park Road Typical Section looking east
Figure 3-3: VDOT Roadway Functional Classification Map
Source: VDOT
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17 17
Section 3.3 Access Characteristics
Within the study area, access is relatively uncontrolled with modestly spaced driveways located along both Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
and Carrollton Boulevard. These entrances access both residential and commercial land uses with varying access configurations
including single business driveways, strip center development driveways, signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and
unsignalized private roadways. Figure 3-4A through Figure 3-4C: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access and
Figure 3-5A through 3-5C: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Access illustrate field observed access configurations along the
corridors.
Figure 3-4A: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Typical Section looking east Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Typical Section looking west
Figure 3-4B: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
New Towne Haven Lane approach looking north Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Norsworthy Drive looking west
Figure 3-4C: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
Sentara Way approach at Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Reynolds Drive approach looking south
Figure 3-5A: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
Carrollton Boulevard Typical Section looking south Carrollton Boulevard Typical Section looking north
18
Figure 3-5B: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
Northgate Drive approach looking east Smith’s Neck Road approach looking east
Figure 3-5C: Carrollton Boulevard Existing Corridor Access
Eagle Harbor Parkway approach looking east Whippingham Parkway approach looking west
19 19
Section 3.4 Existing Traffic Volumes and Characteristics
Existing traffic volumes along a highway corridor are determined by stationing people or automated counting equipment at selected
points on the corridor and counting the number of vehicles that pass through that point during a given timeframe. Both automated and
human counters can collect data on vehicle classification to distinguish passenger cars, small trucks, and SUVs from heavy vehicles
while counting volumes. Automated counters can also collect speed data while counting volumes. The existing geometry of the study
intersections is shown in Figures 3-6A and 3-6B.
Weekday turning movement counts (TMCs) were conducted manually by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. sub-consultant Peggy
Malone & Associates, Inc., (PMA) at twelve intersections within the study area from March 13 through March 15, 2012:
A) S. Church Street and Holt Road/Battery Park Road
B) Nike Park Road and Battery Park Road
C) Benns Church Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
F) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Campbells Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive
H) Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive
I) Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive
L) Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive
M) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive
O) Carrollton Boulevard and Channell Way/Deep Bottom Drive
Q) Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road
R) Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing
S) Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway
The intersections were observed for two hours each during typical weekday AM (6:30 to 8:30) and PM (4:00 to 6:00) peak periods.
In addition to those intersections, counts were conducted manually by Data Collection Group from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00
PM to 6:00 PM, May 24 through May 26, 2011 for the following intersections:
G) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane
D) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Queen Anne’s Court
E) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way
The intersection of Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive was manually counted by Peggy Malone & Associates, Inc. (PMA) from
6:00 AM until 6:00 PM on June 7, 2011.
Counts for the intersections of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard and Omera Drive/Ashby
Way were obtained from a Traffic Impact Analysis for The Crossings completed by DRW Consultants, LLC dated December 28, 2010.
The AM and PM peak period TMCs for each intersection are shown in Figures 3-7A and 3-7B. The detailed counts are provided in
the Appendix A.
Kimley-Horn also collected average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts using automated counting tubes at twelve locations from
March 13 through March 15, 2012:.
1) Battery Park Road north of Nike Park Road
2) Battery Park Road west of Nike Park Road
3) Benns Church Boulevard between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Turner Drive
4) Benns Church Boulevard north of Turner Drive
5) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard west of Campbells Chapel Drive
6) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard west of Deep Bottom Drive
7) Carrollton Boulevard north of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
8) Carrollton Boulevard south of Deep Bottom Drive
9) Nike Park Road east of Battery Park Road
10) Nike Park Road north of Reynolds Drive
11) Reynolds Road west of Smith’s Neck Road
12) Route 258 west of Benns Church
13) Smith’s Neck Road north of Harbor Drive
Average weekday daily traffic volumes are shown in Figures 3-7A and 3-7B along with the TMCs for each intersection.
A
B
C D
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 3-6A: Existing (2012) Intersection Lane Configuration
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
S
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
J
K
K
J
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
B
C D
E
F
F
H
I
M N
O
P
S A
N M O
G
L
Q
R
T
S
P
Q R
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
K
J
L
T
S
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road Figure 3-6B: Existing (2012) Intersection Lane Configuration
A
B
C
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 3-7A: Existing (2012) Peak Hour TMCs and Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes
A
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
S
4 (2
)
10
3
(2
0
4
)
14
3
(1
5
6
)
(139) 32
(286) 504
(3
)
0
(2
8
2
)
10
9
(3
9
1
)
18
8
(5) 3
(7) 16
(1) 3
D
99 (211)
6 (7)
254 (316)
(5
9
7
)
11
6
(1
4
8
)
7
110 (95)
134 (62)
5 (5)
826 (1,420)
9 (1
2
)
7 (4
)
(13) 7
(887) 1,254
11 (7)
734 (1,538)
4 (0)
2 (2
5
)
1
(1
6
)
(10) 15
(813) 1,227
61
(4
4
)
0 (0
)
5 (3
)
(6
)
6
(0
)
1
(2
)
4
(35) 23
(824) 1,120
(5) 4
0 (9)
661 (1,439)
0 (4)
3 (8
)
18
(5
)
33
(1
8
)
(2
5
)
16
(1
4
)
1
(2
9
)
36
(7) 5
(766) 1,185
(10) 10
5 (49)
655 (1,464)
27 (48)
(37) 24
(6) 0
(1
4
)
1
(7
8
)
7
50 (63)
54 (25)
17 (261)
49 (51)
50
(3
0
)
10
5
(6
8
)
(79) 6
(32) 21
1 (2
)
30
0
(3
0
3
)
72
1
(6
7
3
)
(1
)
0
(2
2
4
)
14
0
(2
3
0
)
43
7
(2) 0
(0) 0
(0) 1
555 (1,097)
2 (1)
165 (361)
25,780 vpd
25,430 vpd
10,160 vpd
4,070 vpd
26,540 vpd
26,220 vpd
24,230 vpd
20,160 vpd
9,120 vpd
3,090 vpd
1,870 vpd
3,060 vpd
10,810 vpd
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
XXXX Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volume (vpd)
12
9
(7
8
)
50
9
(2
3
9
)
(3
1
4
)
17
(2
6
)
6
J
K
(26) 6
(239) 509
(3
5
4
)
96
(1
1
9
)
26
96 (354)
19 (20)
19
(2
0
)
12
9
(9
3
)
K
J
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
B
C
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
A
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
L N M O
G
L
Q
R
T
S
P
Q R
D
32
(1
6
)
59
1
(2
6
1
)
(12) 10
(92) 125
(3
0
6
)
36
(6
2
0
)
10
8
(2) 0
(889) 1,200
(9) 2
(1
4
)
0
(5
)
1
726 (1,501)
0 (4)
26
5
(8
9
7
)
27
5
(5
3
2
)
(5
4
1
)
29
3
(3
0
7
)
47
2
(477) 750
(411) 401
2 (1
)
65
1
(9
6
4
)
5 (1
8
)
(1
0
)
2
(9
1
9
)
71
2
(1
9
)
1
(0) 0
(0) 0
(3) 3
20 (8)
0 (1)
11 (10)
6 (2
5
)
58
7
(1
,
4
3
8
)
1 (0
)
(2
5
)
11
(7
4
7
)
1,
2
1
4
(0
)
0
(8) 37
(0) 0
(9) 19
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10
8
(6
2
1
)
41
3
(1
,
5
2
1
)
8 (2
6
)
(2
2
2
)
40
(5
6
6
)
1,
1
8
4
(9
)
17
(214) 617
(24) 19
(90) 113
36 (12)
5 (28)
15 (33)
7 (1
2
3
)
48
0
(2
,
1
2
2
)
1 (2
1
)
(3
2
)
7
(8
1
9
)
1,
9
2
6
(2
7
)
9
(57) 113
(11) 1
(27) 37
17 (9)
2 (3)
17 (19)
11
(2
4
)
46
1
(2
,
2
0
6
)
5 (5
5
)
(9
)
5
(8
6
3
)
2,0
4
4
(3
6
)
5
(11) 27
(0) 0
(30) 8
58 (22)
0 (0)
27 (30)
25,780 vpd
25,430 vpd
10,160 vpd
4,070 vpd
26,540 vpd
26,220 vpd
24,230 vpd
20,160 vpd
9,120 vpd
3,090 vpd
1,870 vpd
3,060 vpd
10,810 vpd
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
XXXX Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volume (vpd)
K
J
S
T
4 (1
6
)
59
0
(7
8
8
)
32
(8
9
)
(3
4
)
7
(6
5
9
)
56
5
(1
1
)
6
(40) 44
(8) 4
(11) 18
56 (49)
3 (3)
34 (26)
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road Figure 3-7B: Existing (2012) Peak Hour TMCs and Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes
24
Based on the turning movement counts, an imbalance was discovered between Battery Park Road and Reynolds Drive along Nike
Park Road. Previous assumptions had suggested a possible cut-through route existed from Battery Park Road to Smith’s Neck Road
via Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive. However, after further evaluation of the traffic counts and subsequent field observations it
was confirmed that cut-through traffic is actually using Titus Creek Drive as a part of the route to access Smith’s Neck Road.
Smith’s Neck Road north of Reynolds Drive Eastbound Traffic on Titus Creek Drive
The turning movement counts performed by KHA also included classification counts. The percent of heavy vehicles on each approach
for the intersections during the two-hour AM and PM counts are shown in Table 3-1.
For existing conditions analysis, actual heavy vehicle percentages per movement were applied. Since no heavy vehicle percentages
are available for the future 2034 analysis, it was assumed for all movements that heavy vehicle percentages would remain the same
under future conditions. If truck percentages were not available, the default 2% was used.
Table 3-1: Intersection Heavy Vehicle Percentages
ID Intersecting Street Peak
Hour
Northbound
%HV
Southbound
%HV
Eastbound
%HV
Westbound
%HV
A S. Church Street & Battery Park
Road
AM 5% 2% 9% 3%
PM 1% 1% 4% 1%
B Battery Park Road & Nike Park
Road
AM 1% - 1% 2%
PM 0% - 1% 2%
C Brewer’s Neck Boulevard & Benns
Church Boulevard
AM 5% 4% 0% 7%
PM 4% 4% 10% 3%
D Brewer’s Neck Boulevard & Queen
Anne’s Court
AM - 11% 5% 8%
PM - 9% 4% 3%
E Brewer’s Neck Boulevard &
Sentara Way
AM - 0% 3% 2%
PM - 0% 5% 6%
F
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard &
Campbells Chapel Drive/Reynolds
Drive
AM 0% 3% 5% 6%
PM 15% 1% 4% 3%
Table 3-2: Intersection Heavy Vehicle Percentages (continued)
ID Intersecting Street Peak
Hour
Northbound
% HV
Southbound
% HV
Eastbound
% HV
Westbound
% HV
G
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard &
Norsworthy Drive/New Towne
Haven Lane
AM 8% 0% 5% 6%
PM 0% 7% 3% 2%
H Norsworthy Drive & Reynolds Drive AM 6% - 11% 2%
PM 2% - 1% 2%
I Nike Park Road & Reynolds Drive AM -- 2% 11% 1%
PM -- 1% 3% 0%
J Nike Park Road & Titus Creek
Drive
AM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
PM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
K Smith’s Neck Road &Titus Creek
Drive
AM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
PM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
L Smith’s Neck Road & Reynolds
Drive
AM 2% 1% 3% -
PM 1% 1% 2% -
M Brewer’s Neck Boulevard & Deep
Bottom Drive
AM 0% - 4% 8%
PM 7% - 4% 3%
N Brewer’s Neck Boulevard &
Carrollton Boulevard
AM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
PM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
O Carrollton Boulevard & Deep
Bottom Drive/Channell Way
AM 6% 4% 33% 9%
PM 3% 3% 10% 9%
P Carrollton Boulevard & Northgate
Drive
AM 3% 5% 2% 0%
PM 2% 2% 0% 0%
Q Carrollton Boulevard & Smith’s
Neck Road
AM 3% 4% 1% 0%
PM 3% 1% 2% 0%
R Carrollton Boulevard & Eagle
Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing
AM 3% 6% 3% 6%
PM 3% 2% 3% 4%
S Carrollton Boulevard & Harbor
Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway
AM 3% 6% 0% 1%
PM 3% 2% 4% 2%
T Carrollton Boulevard & Omera
Drive/Ashby Way
AM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
PM 2%* 2%* 2%* 2%*
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
- Indicates default value of 2% used since data were not available
25 25
Section 3.5 Existing Level of Service
Through methodology outlined by the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), turning movement and ADT
counts were used in conjunction with Synchro Professional 7.0 and HCS+ software to determine levels of service for the intersections
and arterial segments. Level of service (LOS) describes the quality of the driving experience using six levels designated A through F.
Each LOS is defined by a range of quantitative measurements appropriate to the described facility, such as the density and speed of
traffic for a highway LOS or the number of vehicles stopped and average stop duration for a traffic signal LOS. The ranges of delay
(seconds per vehicle) for each intersection LOS are shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-3: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection HCM LOS Criteria
LOS Intersection Delay per Vehicle(s)
Signalized Unsignalized
A 0.0 - 10 0.0 - 10
B >10 - 20 >10 - 15
C >20 - 35 >15 - 25
D >35 - 55 >25 - 35
E >55 - 80 >35 - 50
F >80 >50
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000
3.5.1 Intersection LOS Analysis
Capacity analyses for signalized and unsignalized intersections in the weekday AM and PM peak hours were performed using
Synchro Professional 7.0. This software uses methodologies contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [TRB Special
Report 209, 2000].
Intersection turning movement counts were used in conjunction with geometric data including number of lanes and traffic control
(signalization) to determine existing levels of service (LOS). For intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all
traffic using the intersection during the busiest 15-minute peak period. LOS A through D is considered acceptable.
Existing peak hour LOS throughout the study area are shown in Figure 3-8A and Figure 3-8B. Overall intersection LOS operations
are summarized as well as per approach LOS for signalized intersections and per lane LOS for unsignalized intersections. For lanes
serving only through and right-turn movements on uncontrolled approaches of unsignalized intersections, no LOS results were
calculated as the HCM does not provide LOS criteria for the major street’s through and right-turn movements at a two-way stop. LOS
for all intersections are based on average per-vehicle seconds of delay calculated from the intersection laneage and geometry, traffic
volumes and characteristics, and the traffic signal timing (for signalized intersections). Table 3-3 through Table 3-22 report the LOS
for the studied intersections both signalized and unsignalized. The tables depict the LOS for each approach and the overall
intersection LOS.
Table 3-4: S. Church Street and Battery Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection A)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) D
(36.5)
E
(59.1)
C
(24.9)
C
(28.1)
D
(39.3)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) D
(40.8)
D
(39.8)
C
(23.9)
C
(28.4)
C
(30.4)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-5: Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection B)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(26.1)
B
(16.9)
C
(24.8) - C
(23.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) F
(98.3)
C
(23.1)
F
(>300) - F
(212.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-6: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benns Church Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection C)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) D
(51.6)
C
(21.0)
A
(8.1)
D
(47.9)
C
(29.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) E
(59.8)
E
(70.1)
B
(19.7)
F
(85.4)
E
(66.5)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-7: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Queen Anne’s Court Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection D)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(9.9)
A
(0.0) - C
(16.0)
A
(0.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(13.8)
A
(0.0) - C
(22.3)
A
(0.3)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
26
Table 3-8: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection E)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(10.0)
A
(0.0) - C
(21.6)
A
(0.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(14.4)
A
(0.0) - E
(43.4)
A
(0.8)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-9: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Campbells Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection F)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(9.5)
A
(0.0)
E
(35.2)
B
(13.1)
A
(1.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(15.5)
A
(10.0)
E
(36.1)
D
(29.3)
A
(1.3)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-10: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection G)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(20.9)
B
(15.3)
D
(37.1)
D
(37.9)
C
(20.1)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(17.9)
C
(26.5)
D
(35.7)
D
(38.7)
C
(24.1)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-11: Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection H)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(0.0)
A
(3.9)
A
(8.9) - A
(3.7)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(0.0)
A
(2.6)
A
(9.2) - A
(4.8)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-12: Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection I)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(2.6)
A
(0.0) - B
(10.3)
A
(6.1)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(6.1)
A
(0.0) - B
(13.9)
A
(4.4)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-13: Nike Park Road and Titus Creek Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection J)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) - C
(15.6)
A
(0.0)
A
(7.4)
A
(8.4)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) - C
(21.2)
A
(0.0)
A
(7.2)
A
(9.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-14: Titus Creek Drive and Smith’s Neck Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection K)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(15.6) - A
(6.2)
A
(0.0)
B
(11.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(14.0) - A
(6.8)
A
(0.0)
A
(8.2)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-15: Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection L)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(19.8) - A
(3.3)
A
(0.0)
A
(3.5)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(21.7) - A
(5.6)
A
(0.0)
A
(6.2)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
27 27
Table 3-16: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection M)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(0.0)
A
(0.0)
B
(14.1) -- A
(0.0)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(0.0)
B
(10.8)
C
(23.1) -- A
(0.3)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-17: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection N)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(18.7) - B
(19.3)
B
(12.2)
B
(17.3)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(17.6) - E
(71.4)
B
(12.2)
C
(29.6)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-18: Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection O)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) B
(11.2)
C
(16.9)
A
(9.2)
A
(9.2)
A
(0.6)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) A
(9.9)
F
(51.3)
A
(10.0)
B
(10.3)
A
(1.2)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-19: Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection P)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) F
(53.7)
A
(0.0)
A
(8.9)
B
(11.9)
A
(1.2)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) F
(154.1)
A
(0.0)
B
(14.4)
A
(0.0)
A
(0.8)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 3-20: Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection Q)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) E
(57.2)
D
(52.5)
C
(31.7)
C
(22.4)
D
(37.7)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) E
(57.4)
E
(62.5)
C
(33.2)
D
(35.6)
D
(38.1)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-21: Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection R)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) D
(51.5)
D
(52.7)
E
(62.1)
B
(17.3)
D
(52.9)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) E
(59.0)
E
(60.5)
B
(11.5)
C
(26.1)
C
(23.5)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-22: Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection S)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) E
(56.4)
D
(52.1)
C
(22.5)
A
(8.8)
C
(21.7)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(27.4)
C
(29.5)
C
(22.3)
F
(229.6)
F
(157.3)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 3-23: Carrollton Boulevard and Omera Drive/Ashby Way Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection T)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) C
(28.8)
C
(25.8)
B
(15.4)
B
(15.2)
B
(16.7)
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2012) D
(37.6)
C
(33.8)
B
(18.7)
B
(16.5)
B
(18.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
28
3.5.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis
Roadway capacity analyses were performed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours using Synchro Professional 7.0. This
software uses methodologies contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [TRB Special Report 209, 2000]. The ranges of
delay for arterial LOS are shown in Table 3-23 through Table 3-25: HCM Arterial Classification – LOS Criteria. Arterial analysis
includes analysis of the roadway capacity in terms of average travel speed on the arterial. The LOS ranges are based on the roadway
classification types: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Within the study area, Brewer’s Neck Boulevard is currently classified as Class I
while the majority of Carrollton Boulevard, Nike Park Road, Smith’s Neck Road, and Battery Park Road are Class II arterial facilities.
Tables 3-21 and 3-23 display the typical LOS ranges for Class I, Class II and Class III arterial segments based on average travel
speed (miles per hour).
Table 3-24: HCM Arterial Classification I – LOS Criteria
Arterial Street Classification – I (Range of Free Flow Speed 50-45 MPH)
LOS Average Travel Speed (MPH)
A > 55
B > 50 – 55
C > 45 – 50
D > 40 – 45
E ≤ 40
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
Table 3-25: HCM Arterial Classification II – LOS Criteria
Arterial Street Classification – II (Range of Free Flow Speed 35-45 MPH)
LOS Average Travel Speed (MPH)
A > 35
B > 28-35
C > 22-28
D > 17-22
E > 13-17
F < 13
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Table 3-26: HCM Arterial Classification III – LOS Criteria
Arterial Street Classification – III (Range of Free Flow Speed 35-30 MPH)
LOS Average Travel Speed (MPH)
A > 30
B > 24-30
C > 18-24
D > 14-18
E > 10-14
F < 10
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Using intersection turning movement county (TMC) and average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts conducted by KHA and data
from VDOT, the arterial level of service was determined for Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard. Level of service (LOS)
describes traffic conditions at an intersection or on a roadway. LOS ranges from A to F—A indicating a condition of little or no
congestion and F indicating a condition with severe congestion, unstable traffic flow, and stop-and-go conditions. For roadways, the
arterial LOS is determined based on the arterial speed (i.e., average travel speed (ATS)) and distance between intersections. A LOS
D or better is typically considered acceptable. Table 3-26 through Table 3-29 summarize the results of the arterial LOS analyses with
detailed results provided in the Appendix D. It should be noted the class of each segment of the arterial may vary based on the
posted speed limit and signal spacing. Therefore, LOS as reported by Synchro may not always match the above tables.
As shown in the level of service results, all arterial sections along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard operate at an acceptable LOS D or better
under existing peak hour conditions. Carrollton Boulevard operates acceptably except for the portion between the Eagle Harbor
Parkway/King’s Crossing and Smith’s Neck Road intersections. It should be noted that the two segments that have poor arterial LOS
are relatively short segments (i.e., ~ 1,000 feet between signalized intersections) with relatively high mainline volumes. These short
distances combined with a lack of proper coordination between traffic signals at adjacent intersections results in very low travel
speeds as traffic is forced to stop and queue at each signalized intersection.
Table 3-27: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Cross Street
AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS ATS
(mph) LOS
Benns Church Boulevard 34.7 B 34.7 B
New Towne Haven Lane/Norsworthy Drive 45.3 A 46.8 A
Carrollton Boulevard 33.2 C 32.3 C
Overall 39.5 B 39.6 B
29 29
Table 3-28: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Cross Street
AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS ATS
(mph) LOS
New Towne Haven Lane/Norsworthy Drive 39.9 B 36.4 B
Benns Church Boulevard 38.3 B 36.7 B
Overall 38.9 B 36.6 B
Table 3-29: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Cross Street
AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS ATS
(mph) LOS
Omera Drive/Ashby Way 26.8 D 24.6 D
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard 45.4 A 48.2 A
Smith’s Neck Road 31.9 C 35.6 B
Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing 12.7 F 23.9 D
Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway 20.5 E 17.6 E
Overall 28.7 C 31.8 C
Table 3-30: 2012 Existing Arterial Level of Service – Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Cross Street
AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS ATS
(mph) LOS
Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway 41.0 B 16.5 E
Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing 20.4 E 17.1 E
Smith’s Neck Road 17.106 E 12.3 F
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard 31.802 C 30.7 C
Omera Drive/Ashby Way 42.8 A 41.2 B
Overall 31.9 C 23.9 D
A
B
C D
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 3-8A: Existing (2012) Peak Hour Level of Service
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
S
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
C (C
)
(F
)
C
B (C)
(F) C
(C
)
C
(D) D
E (D) C (E)
D (F
)
(B
)
A
(E) D
A (A)
C (C
)
(B) A
A (A) C (E
)
(B) A
A (A) B (D
)
(C) A
(E
)
E
B (C)
D (D
)
(B) C
(D
)
D
(A
)
A
A (A)
(A) A
A (A)
B (B
)
(A) A
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
J
K
C (C)
A (A
)
(A
)
A
A (A
)
(A
)
A
(B) C
K
J
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
B
C D
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
A
L N M O
G
L
Q
R
T
S
P
Q R
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
A (A
)
(C) C
(A
)
A
(C
)
B
A (B)
(A) A
B (B
)
(B) B
(E
)
B
C (F)
(A) B
A (B
)
(A
)
A
A (A)
(F) F
B (A
)
(B
)
A
C (D
)
(C
)
C (E) E
D (E)
B (C
)
(B
)
E
(E) D
D (E)
(C
)
C
(C) E
D (C)
A (F
)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
K
J
S
(B
)
B
(D) C
C (C)
B (B
)
T
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road Figure 3-8B: Existing (2012) Peak Hour Level of Service
32
Section 3.6 Existing Traffic Deficiencies
Within the LOS framework, operating conditions that achieve a LOS of A to D are generally considered acceptable while LOS E and F
are regarded as unacceptable. At an intersection, a LOS E or F indicates lengthy queuing with vehicles experiencing prolonged waits.
On a street or highway segment, a LOS E or F indicates dense, slow-moving, or stop-and-go traffic. Typically, LOS E indicates
unstable conditions and an imminent need for improvements while LOS F indicates a failed element of the transportation network and
a strong, current need for improvements. In general, the overall intersection and approach LOS throughout the study area are
acceptable under existing conditions. Some stop-controlled minor street approaches like the southbound approach at Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard and Sentara Way, the northbound approach at Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Campbells Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive, the
westbound approach at Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way and the eastbound approach at Carrollton
Boulevard and Northgate Drive experience long delays due to heavy mainline volumes and lack of gaps to enter the roadway. Poor
coordination, heavy mainline volumes, and left-turn phasing impact the levels of delay on several approaches including approaches at
the signalized intersections of S. Church Street and Battery Park Road/Holt Street, Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road, Brewer’s
Neck Boulevard and Benns Church Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road, Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor
Parkway/King’s Crossing, and Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Point Lane/Whippingham Parkway.
Carrollton Boulevard at Eagle Harbor Parkway Carrollton Boulevard looking south at Eagle Harbor Parkway
The primary operational issue observed during field investigations resulted from a lack of coordination between traffic signals that was
causing poor progression along Carrollton Boulevard. The traffic signals lacking coordination are from Smith’s Neck Road to
Whippingham Parkway/Harbor Point Lane on Carrollton Boulevard. The relatively high volume of traffic combined with the close
spacing of these signals results in significant backups and delays when the signals are poorly coordinated. Of particular concern is
the progression of the eastbound left-turn off of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard that proceeds north along Carrollton Boulevard during the
AM peak hour. Under the current timings, vehicles turning left off of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard have the potential to be stopped again
at Smith’s Neck Road, Eagle Harbor Parkway/King’s Crossing, and Whippingham Parkway/Harbor Point Lane. Coordination of these
traffic signals will be an important improvement necessary to enhance traffic operations along these particular segments of the
corridor.
Field observations generally confirm the results of the existing conditions analyses. Periods of congestion was observed at the
Brewer’s Neck and Benns Church Boulevard intersection during the AM peak which supports a LOS D on this approach of the
intersection. Whereas severe periods of congestion and queuing were observed/documented during the PM peak hour as the
southbound and westbound approaches to the intersection experienced LOS F and LOS E respectively.
Benns Church Boulevard looking north Southbound Left-Turn Queue along Benns Church Boulevard
Section 3.7 Crash Analysis
An analysis of existing crash data was conducted within the study area in order to identify existing safety concerns and potential
countermeasures. VDOT provided crash data from the Highway Traffic Records Information System (HTRIS) for a three-year period
between January 2008 and December 2010. Crash data were examined along Carrollton Boulevard, Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Benns
Church Boulevard, Battery Park Road, Nike Park Road, Reynolds Drive, and Smith’s Neck Road.
Review of the available crash data indicated that a total of 268 crashes occurred on the above mentioned roadways within the study
area during the three year study period as summarized in Table 3-30 below.
Table 3-31: Crash Summary By Roadway
Roadway No. of Crashes
over 3 Years
Crash Rate (Per 100 Million
Vehicle-miles)
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard 57 66.0
Benns Church Boulevard 37 66.3
Carrollton Boulevard 73 109.7
Battery Park Road 9 62.0
Nike Park Road 43 155.8
Reynolds Drive 17 676.8
Smith’s Neck Road 32 451.0
Titus Creek Road 13 209.4
Total 268 102.9
Note: statewide average crash rate for similar facilities which is approximately 125
33 33
When examining the overall crash rate, it can be observed that the study area crash rate of 102.9 is lower than the statewide average
crash rate for similar facilities which is approximately 125. It should be noted, however, that a handful of roadways within the study
area experience much higher crash rates, especially Reynolds Drive and Smith’s Neck Road. The study area segments of both of
these high crash rate roadways are two-lane, undivided typical sections with substantial curvature and essentially no shoulder area on
either side of the roadway. Several portions of these roadways also feature relatively deep drainage ditches and trees within close
proximity to the edge of the traveled way. This would essentially suggest that the poor geometric conditions of roadways potentially
combined with speed and/or driver error are leading contributors to the high crash rates documented along these secondary facilities.
These factors all combine to contribute to the relatively high crash rate along these two segments. The 268 crashes were broken
down by severity and type as listed in Figure 3-8 through Figure 3-15.
Figure 3-8: Distribution of Crashes by Severity – Major Corridors
Figure 3-9: Distribution of Crashes by Type – Major Corridors
As shown in Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9, between a half and two thirds of all crashes on major roadways resulted in property damage
only. Property damage crashes are only reported if the damage is equal to or more than $1,000; therefore, it should be noted that
crashes with property damage resulting in less than $1,000 of damage may not be captured. There are no crashes in the three year
period that resulted in a fatality along major roadways. With respect to type of crash, rear end crashes accounted for nearly half of all
crashes during the study period. Fixed object, angle, and sideswipe crashes accounted for nearly a third of all crashes.
The number of crashes varied little from year to year, with 59 during the first year, 65 during the second year, and 43 during the third
year. The weekly distribution of crashes was fairly evenly distributed throughout the week as shown in Figure 3-10. Over three
fourths of all crashes occurred during clear weather conditions. A detailed distribution of crashes by weather conditions is provided in
Figure 3-11.
Figure 3-10: Distribution of Crashes by Day of Week – Major Corridors
Figure 3-11: Distribution of Crashes by Weather Conditions – Major Corridors
Overall the primary roadways within corridor study area have crash rates near or well below the statewide average, particularly Battery
Park Road, Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Benns Church Boulevard, and Carrollton Boulevard.
34
Skid Marks on westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Skid Marks on westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
In addition to the major corridors, existing traffic counts indicate a cut through route via Nike Park Road and either Titus Creek Drive
or Reynolds Drive to Smith’s Neck Road. Because of the relatively high traffic volumes and the potential cut through routes, crash
analyses were also conducted for the Battery Park Road, Nike Park Road, Reynolds Drive, Titus Creek Drive, and Smith’s Neck Road
corridors. Figure 3-12 illustrates the distribution of crashes by severity along these cut through routes while Figure 3-13 shows the
distribution of crashes by type. Between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010, there were 9 reported crashes along Battery Park
Road, 42 reported crashes along Nike Park Road, 17 reported crashes along Reynolds Drive between Nike Park Road and Smith’s
Neck Road, 13 reported crashes along Titus Creek Drive and 31 reported crashes along Smith’s Neck Road between Carrollton
Boulevard (Route 17) and Titus Creek Drive.
Figure 3-12: Distribution of Crashes by Severity – Cut Through Routes
35 35
Figure 3-13: Distribution of Crashes by Type – Cut Through Routes
As can be seen from the above charts, of the 114 crashes analyzed for the cut through routes, roughly 45% had injuries or at least
one fatality. The majority of crashes involved a fixed object off of the roadway. Additional information provided in the crash reports
indicate several crashes were caused by vehicles leaving the roadway. Of the two crashes resulting in fatalities, the crash along
Smith’s Neck Road was a head-on collision while the fatal crash along Nike Park Road was caused by a fixed object (off the road)
collision.
As noted previously, Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive both experience relatively high crash rates. The cause of many of these
crashes can be attributed to the relatively narrow travel way, sharp curves, and lack of significant shoulder area for errant vehicles to
recover and return to the roadway which results in vehicles striking a fixed object off the roadway. Recommendations to help mitigate
these types of crashes along Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive will be included with recommended future capacity
improvements.
Figure 3-14 illustrates the distribution of crashes by day of week and Figure 3-15 shows the distribution of crashes by weather.
Figure 3-14: Distribution of Crashes by Day of Week – Cut Through Routes
36
Figure 3-15: Distribution of Crashes by Weather – Cut Through Routes
As Figure 3-14 indicates, there is no distinguishable pattern for a particular day of the week crashes occur on the cut through routes.
Figure 3-15 shows that the majority of crashes occur during clear conditions with no adverse weather effects.
Section 3.8 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Activity
The Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard corridors currently have very limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There
are no dedicated bicycle lanes in the roadway and only limited segments of sidewalks/multi-use paths along the corridors. None of the
unsignalized and signalized intersections along the corridors have marked crosswalks or additional pedestrian features such as
pedestrian signage, pedestrian signal heads, and/or crosswalk push buttons.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety and awareness is an issue within the project area due to the higher travel speeds observed throughout
the corridor as well as the general lack of pavement markings, signage, and accommodations. Recommendations considering bicycle
and pedestrian accommodation improvements will potentially be made where deemed necessary or applicable. Bicycle and
pedestrian recommendations should be consistent with the Isle of Wight County Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan
updated in August 2009.
There are currently no active transit operations/Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) services within the study area. The County in
coordination with HRT should consider conducting a survey of County residents to assess potential ridership demand if public
transportation services were offered. To address congestion along Carrollton Boulevard and/or the James River Bridge in the near
term, Isle of Wight County in cooperation with VDOT should also consider the construction and designation of a Park-N-Ride lot along
the Carrollton Boulevard corridor.
Pedestrian Facilities along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Unmaintained Pedestrian Facilities along Carrollton Boulevard
Pedestrian Facilities along Carrollton Boulevard Pedestrian Facilities along Carrollton Boulevard
37 37
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Screening
Kimley-Horn conducted a preliminary environmental screening of the study corridor in order to provide a cursory assessment of
potential environmental constraints that may be relevant to the project. The specific portions of the project area reviewed in the field
are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix B and include:
Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route 17) starting at Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (U.S. Route 258) to the James River Bridge
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard from Carrollton Boulevard to Benns Church Boulevard (U.S. Route 258)
Benns Church Boulevard from Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to South Church Street (U.S. Route 258)
South Church Street from Benns Church Boulevard to Battery Park Road (State Route 704)
Battery Park Road from South Church Street to Nike Park Road (State Route 669)
Nike Park Road from Battery Park Road to Reynolds Drive (State Route 665)
Titus Creek Drive from Nike Park Road to Smith’s Neck Road (State Route 668)
Reynolds Drive from Nike Park Road to Smith’s Neck Road (State Route 669)
Smith’s Neck Road from Titus Creek Drive to Carrollton Boulevard
The screening consisted of a desktop review of data obtained from various standard environmental data sources related to wetlands
and other surface waters, threatened and endangered species, cultural and historic resources, and hazardous materials. Staff from
Kimley-Horn then visually inspected the project area to review local topographic and hydrographic conditions and review the results of
the hazardous materials and cultural resources databases against actual field conditions.
The data sources consulted to perform the review were:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Facility Registration System
Federal Emergency Management Agency – Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Virginia Department of Historic Resources – Data Sharing System
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries – Fish and Wildlife Information System
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation – Natural Heritage Explorer
Army Corps of Engineers – Regulatory In-Lieu Fee Bank Information Tracking System
Section 4.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters within the study area are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix B and include Titus Creek, a tributary to Jones Creek as
well as Jones Creek, a tributary to the Pagan River which flows into the James River. Nike Park Road crosses Jones Creek as it flows
northeast to its confluence with the Pagan River. The Nike Park Road crossing of Jones Creek is via an elevated bridge.
Improvements along Nike Park Road could potentially impact Jones Creek and any associated wetlands within its floodplain.
Carrollton Boulevard at the James River Bridge crosses an area called Ragged Island which includes Kings Creek, Coopers Creek
and their associated wetlands.
Through research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, patches of wetlands were identified throughout
the study area. When nearing the James River Bridge on Carrollton Boulevard, estuarine and marine deep water and wetland habitats
can be found within an immediate vicinity of the road. These areas are associated with Kings Creek and Cooper Creek, tributaries of
the James River. Reynolds Drive borders an area of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. Along Smith’s Neck Road, the study area
borders areas of freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands.
Titus Creek Drive comes in contact with estuarine and marine deep water and wetland areas that are associated with Titus Creek, a
tributary of Jones Creek. Nike Park Road has freshwater forested/shrub wetlands at numerous locations throughout the study area.
Nike Park Road also crosses Jones Creek and its associated estuarine and marine deep water and wetland habitats. Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard has many areas of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands along the entire length of the study area. A map of these areas can
be found as Figure 1 in Appendix B.
A full wetland delineation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) confirmation will be necessary to determine the extent of
potential impacts from any enhancements to roadways within the study area. Permits from the USACE, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and possibly the Virginia Marine Resources Commission would be required for the roadway improvements
depending upon the final selected design, quantity of impacts, and contributing drainage area upstream of the impact location.
Wetland impacts associated with roadway construction would likely require mitigation in the form of purchase of mitigation bank
credits from a commercial bank serving the area (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 02080206). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ online
Regulatory and In-Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) (Accessed May 14, 2012 at:
http://geo.usace.army.mil/ribits/index.html) shows that there are three wetland mitigation banks in HUC 02080206 with available
wetland credits for purchase: East Henrico, Scandia, and Chickahominy. The East Henrico mitigation bank also offers stream credits
for purchase by the linear foot to offset any impacts made to streams.
Section 4.2 Floodplain
Locations where the project corridor crosses the 100-year floodplain were determined by reviewing Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel numbers 51093C0155D, and 51093C00160D dated September 4, 2002
(included in Appendix B). FIRM mapping shows that the project elements cross the 100-year floodplain in five areas:
Nike Park Road crossing Jones Creek (Zone AE; base flood elevation (BFE) of 8.5 feet above mean sea level);
A portion of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard between Norsworthy Slant Drive and Campbells Church Drive (Zone AE; BFE of 8.5
feet);
Carrollton Boulevard between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Smith Neck Road(Zone AE; BFE of 8.5 feet);
Carrollton Boulevard East towards the James River (Zone AE; BFE between 9 and 10 feet; Zone VE; BFE of 12 feet)
Titus Creek Road crossing Titus Creek (Zone AE; BFE 8.5 feet)
Flood zone AE denotes the 100-year flood plain where base flood elevations have been established or areas with a 1 percent annual
chance of water levels exceeding the base flood elevation. Zone VE denotes the areas where base flood elevations have been
established or areas with a 1 percent annual chance of water levels exceeding the base flood elevation with additional hazards due to
storm surges. Zone X denotes areas with an elevation higher than a 0.2 percent chance of annual flooding.
It is the professional opinion of KHA that potential enhancements to the roads in the study area would not be greatly impacted by the
flood plain. Special considerations should be made while planning any impacts to the areas crossing the 100-year flood plain as listed
above to reduce adverse effects by the 1 percent annual chance of waters exceeding the base flood elevation.
Section 4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) database
was consulted on May 4, 2012 for the presence of federal and state threatened or endangered species within a two-mile radius of the
project area. Although several databases are represented in the VAFWIS, the Collections database is the only one of interest due to
the requirement for coordination with federal and/or state agencies when it identifies a species of legally protected status. Other
databases in the VAFWIS do not require coordination with federal or state agencies and are, therefore, of no concern to this
investigation.
38
The Collections database found only two threatened or endangered species of concern within the researched area. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a federal species of concern as well as a state threatened animal. A bald eagle’s nest was observed
twice in March and April, 2011 within a quarter mile of Nike Park Road (ObsIDs 20112822 and 20112821). It is in the opinion of KHA
that improvements to the roads in the study area would not impact the bald eagles in the area as long as the regulations outlined by
VDGIF in “Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia” are abided by. These guidelines state that construction activities must be at
least 750 feet from the active nest at all times. Occupied nests require up to a 1,320 foot buffer zone. The specific distance is
dependent on the eagles’ tolerance for human activity. The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is federally endangered, and was
observed twice in March 1997 (ObsIDs 62961 and62960). These sightings were over a half mile away from the study area but
considering the sturgeons are anadromous, meaning they spend the first period of their lives in fresh water, then move to salt water,
and return to fresh water to spawn, any impacts to fresh and brackish water habitats such as Jones Creek could impact this species.
Special considerations would need to be made when planning improvements to Nike Park Road over Jones Creek as well as
Carrollton Boulevard at the mouth of the James River Bridge. Coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
recommended if changes to the Jones Creek Bridge are planned. Additional information on locations and observation information can
be found in Appendix B.
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Natural Heritage Explorer was reviewed on May 3, 2012 for the
presence of protected natural areas, conservation lands or known rare plant communities within the project area. In their report dated
June 1, 2012, VDCR mentions the Bartlett Conservation site for the bald eagle. This conservation site has been given a ranking of B5,
indicating a site of significant conservation importance. Details on this site can be found in Appendix B. As stated above, it is in
KHA’s professional opinion that improvements to the roads in the study area will not have a negative impact to the bald eagles’ nest
as long as the necessary precautions, as outlined in the VDGIF document “Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia,” are taken.
Section 4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) Data Sharing System was searched on April 12, 2012. The archaeological and
architectural sites that were found within the study area are detailed in Table 4-1.
It is Kimley-Horn’s opinion that impacts to these sites can be avoided by careful planning of improvements to the roads in the study
area and prior to acquisition of right-of-way from the parcels, a determination of the eligibility of these properties being included on the
national Register of Historic Places should be undertaken. Potential impacts to listed or eligible resources should be coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The James River Bridge is a
continuation of Carrollton Boulevard and any impacts to it would need to be approved by DHR. The Archeological sites found near the
study area are not close enough to the roads to be impacted by road improvements. Additional information on these archaeological
and architectural sites is located in Appendix B and reflected graphically on Figure 1 in the same section of the Appendices.
Table 4-1: VDHR Identified Sites
VDH ID # Site Description Status
046-0024 St. Luke’s Church and Grounds, ca. 1632, at 14477 Benns Church Boulevard Recommended Eligible
44IW0271 St. Luke’s Church and Grounds: Euro-American from 4th Quarter 17th Century
046-5002 James River Bridge Not Evaluated
046-5052 The ARADCOM NDA Nike-Ajax Missile Launch Site located off of Nike Park
Road and was the site of ground to air missile construction and testing during
the Cold War Era
Recommended Eligible
046-5246 Benns Church, at 17571 Benns Church Boulevard, ca. 1924
Table 4-1: VDHR Identified Sites (continued)
VDH ID # Site Description Status
300-5029 House ca. 1910 on Battery Park Road Not Evaluated
300-5027 House ca. 1910 on Battery Park Road Not Evaluated
300-5028 Moonfield School ca. 1910 Not Evaluated
300-5030 Smithfield Livestock Market ca. 1930 Not Evaluated
300-5020 –
300-5024 Houses ca. 1930 to 1940 on S. Church Street Not Evaluated
046-5282 House ca. 1970 at 12545 Vellines Lane Not Evaluated
300-0112 House ca. 1830 on S. Church Street Not Evaluated
300-5025 Tastee Treetz, ca. 1950, at the corner of S. Church Street and Mercer Street Not Evaluated
44IW0216 EH-1: a prehistoric, Native American open-air site
44IW0005/0007 a prehistoric, Native American open-air site
44IW0230 EH-20: an indeterminate, 20th century open-air site
44IW0225 EH-15: an indeterminate, 18th century, 4th Quarter, open-air site
EH-15: an indeterminate, 19th century, 1st Half, open-air site
44IW0132 Indeterminate, 19th century open air site along S. Church Street
44IW0190 Euro-American, 18th Century, 4th Quarter, open air site
39 39
Section 4.5 Hazardous Materials
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Facility Registry System (FRS) database was accessed on May 14, 2012
in order to obtain information related to hazardous material generation within the project corridor. The FRS identifies facilities, sites or
places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest and includes records from the following programs: Toxic
Release Inventory submitters; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo); Risk Management Plans; Permit
Compliance System; Biennial Reporting System; Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS); and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS).
A total of five sites were identified by the FRS within the project corridor, including one active conditionally exempt small quantity
generator site, two small quantity generators, one potentially active minor air emissions site, and one site that discharges wastewater
into a river (Table 4-2). Based on the information reviewed and visual inspection of the sites during field investigations, KHA does not
feel that these sites have released hazardous substances that would be encountered during construction within the project area.
Appendix B contains a reference map of the sites (Figure 1) as well as the EPA FRS results.
Table 4-2: Hazardous Materials Generators
Map
Label
EPA FRS
Registry ID Facility Name Facility Address Environmental
Interest Type
Compliance
Status
FRS-1 110006454728 Knox Automotive
Center Inc.
21301 Brewer’s Neck Blvd
Carrollton, VA 23314
SQG In Compliance
FRS-2 110039135691 Southern Food Store
#7
1229 Benns Church Blvd
Smithfield, VA 23430
POTENTIAL
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION
In Compliance
FRS-3 110010912977 Capehart Homes Nike Park Rd
Carrollton, VA 23314
NPDES (NON-
MAJOR) In Compliance
FRS-4 110006458528 Charlie’s Body Shop
Inc.
213 Battery Park Rd
Smithfield, VA 23430
SQG (ACTIVE) In Compliance
FRS-5 110006454979 Keen Auto Machine
Shop Inc.
1802 S Church St
Smithfield, VA 23430
CESQG (ACTIVE) In Compliance
During site reconnaissance, other sites of interest were identified in the study area. It is in the professional opinion of Kimley-Horn that
these sites will not pose a problem to improvements in the study area. Details on these sites can be found in Table 4-3. These sites
are also identified on Figure 1 in Appendix B.
Table 4-3: Sites of Interest
Facility
Number Facility Name Facility Address Environmental Interest
1 Joe’s Auto Parts 22251 Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Carrollton, VA 23314
Automobile Repair and
Salvage
2 Carrollton Metals Recycling 22097 Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Carrollton, VA 23314 Metal Recycling
3 US 258 Auto Parts 22073 Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Carrollton, VA 23314
Automobile Salvage
4 Ken’s Auto Parts 21401 Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Carrollton, VA 23314 Automobile Retail
5 BP 19417 Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Carrollton, VA 23314 Gas Station
6 Brown Brothers Inc. 101 Moore Avenue
Smithfield, VA 23430 Gas Station
7 Colonial Rentals 219 Battery Park Road
Smithfield, VA 23430 Tanks and Scrap Material
Section 4.6 Summary
A delineation of wetlands and surface waters with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmation within the limits of the study area
corridors is recommended to verify the presence of wetlands and the accuracy of the limits of surface waters observed during the field
inspection of the project area. Coordination with the VDHR and SHPO is also recommended prior to the submission of a Joint Permit
Application to identify concerns regarding potential impacts to archeological or architectural resources associated with the project. An
evaluation of Jones Creek for the presence of the Atlantic Sturgeon and confirmation of the active bald eagle nest off Nike Park Road
may be requested by the VDGIF. Whenever possible, measures should be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and
cultural resource sites to the maximum extent practicable in order to facilitate the acquisition of environmental permits and minimize
mitigation costs.
In addition, a Corridor Hazardous Materials Reconnaissance Survey is recommended to identify known or suspected areas of
subsurface contamination within or immediately adjacent to the proposed limits of construction which may be encountered by the
contractor and would require special handling or disposal of impacted soil or groundwater during the construction phase. Based on
the results of the environmental screening, no critical flaws related to environmental considerations have been identified for the study.
40
Chapter 5.0 Future Conditions
In order to determine 2034 horizon year traffic volumes within the study area, numerous factors were taken into consideration.
Anticipated future development within the study area was established through conversations with Isle of Wight County Planning staff
and VDOT. For purposes of this study, existing traffic patterns were assumed to remain constant through 2034 if no improvements
were made to the roadway network; however, with the improvements recommended as a part of this study it is anticipated that travel
patterns would change as facilities offer improved operational conditions through additional capacity or alternative routes enhance the
connectivity of surrounding area roadway network. Based on planned development future traffic volumes are expected to increase
driving the need for roadway network improvements. The more direct factors that influenced the future volumes are discussed in detail
in the following sections.
Section 5.1 Future Traffic Volumes
To determine 2034 horizon year traffic volumes, annual background growth rates were first established. Based on both historical data
and projected future volumes from the Statewide Planning System (SPS) provided by VDOT, annual growth rates were determined for
the study corridors that would be used to project future mainline traffic volumes.
In order to project future traffic volumes for the surface street network, background growth rates were applied to 2012 Existing
volumes. VDOT provided growth rates for local streets derived from data within the Statewide Planning System. Table 5-1: Surface
Street Growth Rates summarizes the growth rates used to develop future traffic projections.
Table 5-1: Surface Street Growth Rates
Route Segment Annual Growth Rate
Benns Church Boulevard (Route 10/32) All 1.50%
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (Route 32) All 1.00%
Carrollton Boulevard (US Route 17)
Whippingham
Parkway/Harbor Point Lane
to Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
1.50%
Carrollton Boulevard (US Route 17) Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to
Omera Drive/Ashby Way 1.25%
The growth rates shown in Table 5-1 were applied to only the mainline volumes. For those streets within the study area but not listed
in Table 5-1 above, a growth rate of 0.5% per year was applied to account for general background growth. Additionally, after growing
2012 Existing volumes, traffic was redistributed to/from Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to Benn’s Church Boulevard to reflect the impact of
a proposed connector road. The proposed connector road location is part of the Brewer’s Neck Extension project and provides an
additional connection between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benn’s Church Boulevard.
Section 5.2 Planned Development Sites
In addition to natural background growth, approved developments were also included to comprehensively project future traffic
volumes. The following developments were added to the background growth to develop the 2034 Future volumes:
St. Luke’s Village
Frank Property
Riverside Medical Center
The Crossings
Red Oaks
Bridge Point Commons
Benn’s Grant
Norsworthy
Figure 5-1: Approved Developments
Figure 5-1 above shows the approximate locations of the parcels identified for future anticipated developments included with this
study. Using the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports and working with VDOT and Isle of Wight County staff, anticipated trip
distributions were determined for each of the developments. Detailed figures depicting the distribution percentages used for assigning
site trips to the roadway network as well as the anticipated site trips for each specific development can be found in the Appendix C.
By combining background growth with the anticipated development trips, the final 2034 traffic volumes were developed. These final
2034 traffic volumes on the unimproved study area network and operational conditions are summarized in Figure 5-2A and Figure 5-
2B. The unimproved network reflects the existing state of the intersection geometry and/or planned or proffered improvements.
Section 5.3 Planned Roadway Improvements
After determining anticipated future traffic volumes and analyzing unimproved network conditions, planned roadway improvements
were identified in order to more accurately analyze future conditions. Based on conversations with VDOT and Isle of Wight County, it
was determined that the only planned roadway improvements located within the study area, are the proposed
modifications/improvements to the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended intersection, the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Anne’s
Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended intersection, the Benn’s Church Boulevard/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard intersection. These
intersections are anticipated as a part of the Benn’s Grant development. Additionally as a part of recent land development rezoning
cases and expected constructed planned improvements are also anticipated at the intersections of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way. Since there are no significant changes to other study area
intersections, initial future traffic conditions were analyzed using existing geometry to determine the 2034 Unimproved operational
conditions. It should be noted that traffic signal timings were optimized for future volumes in order to more accurately model future
conditions.
A
B
C
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 5-2A: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned Roadway Improvements (Unimproved Network)
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
Q
4 (2
)
14
3
(2
8
3
)
16
0
(1
9
4
)
(173) 36
(356) 562
(3
)
0
(3
9
1
)
15
1
(4
8
7
)
21
0
(5) 3
(9) 18
(1) 3
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
D
U
110 (263)
7 (9)
283 (393)
(7
4
3
)
12
9
(1
8
4
)
8
123 (118)
150 (77) 87
6
(1
,
0
8
4
)
1,
1
3
3
(1
,
0
6
8
)
(1
,
0
4
7
)
57
2
782 (1,745)
5 (5)
809 (1,488)
721 (1,430)
9 (1
2
)
5 (1
0
)
7 (4
)
(13) 7
(1,048) 1,252
(2
5
)
5
(1
,
1
0
0
)
1,
1
2
8
129 (81)
1,288 (2,686)
13
0
(3
5
4
)
56
(1
5
7
)
(182) 291
(1,889) 2,062
61
(4
4
)
0 (0
)
5 (3
)
(6
)
6
(0
)
1
(2
)
4
(35) 23
(2,043) 1,984
(5) 4
0 (9)
1,315 (2,637)
0 (4)
20
(1
9
)
18
(5
)
40
(2
3
)
(2
5
)
16
(1
4
)
1
(2
9
)
36
(26) 11
(1,952) 2,059
(10) 10
7 (57)
1,291 (2,657)
27 (48)
(37) 24
(6) 0
(1
4
)
1
(7
8
)
7
50 (63)
54 (25)
19 (325)
55 (63)
56
(3
7
)
11
7
(8
5
)
(98) 7
(40) 23
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
14
4
(9
7
)
56
8
(2
9
7
)
(3
9
1
)
19
(3
2
)
7
J
K
(32) 7
(297) 568
(4
4
1
)
10
7
(1
4
8
)
29
107 (441)
21 (25)
21
(2
5
)
14
4
(1
1
6
)
K
J
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
51,200 vpd
50,700 vpd
4,500 vpd
56,800 vpd
56,500 vpd 40,400 vpd
3,500 vpd
12,100 vpd
11,400 vpd
11,200 vpd
2,300 vpd
3,450 vpd
58,300 vpd
B
C
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
A
G
L
Q
R
T
Q
D
U
36
(2
0
)
66
0
(3
2
5
)
(15) 11
(115) 139
(3
8
1
)
40
(7
7
2
)
12
1
M
(2,083) 2,070
(29) 17
(3
1
)
17
(5
)
1
1,364 (2,686)
0 (4)
N
60
9
(1
,
3
2
2
)
40
8
(7
6
7
)
44
(3
0
4
)
(9
9
2
)
61
3
(4
8
2
)
67
8
(6
1
)
20
(997) 1,272
(189) 81
(992) 792
45 (50)
58 (294)
36 (158)
O
17
(2
8
)
1,
1
6
7
(1
,
8
7
9
)
5 (1
8
)
(1
0
)
2
(1
,
6
1
7
)
1,
2
1
7
(4
5
)
14
(57) 39
(5) 3
(3) 3
20 (8)
2 (6)
22 (31)
P
6 (2
5
)
1,0
3
9
(2
,
5
3
4
)
1 (1
)
(2
5
)
11
(1
,
5
0
1
)
2,
0
1
9
(0
)
0 (8) 37
(0) 0
(9) 19
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Q
13
4
(7
7
3
)
79
0
(2
,
6
3
6
)
8 (2
6
)
(2
3
4
)
48
(1
,
2
3
7
)
1,
9
6
8
(9
)
17
(266) 768
(24) 19
(97) 120
36 (12)
5 (28)
15 (33)
R
7 (1
2
3
)
88
3
(3
,
4
7
0
)
1 (2
1
)
(3
2
)
7
(1
,
5
8
8
)
2,
8
9
8
(2
7
)
9 (57) 113
(11) 1
(27) 37
17 (9)
2 (3)
17 (19)
S
11
(2
4
)
85
7
(3
,
5
8
7
)
5 (5
5
)
(9
)
5
(1
,
6
4
9
)
3,0
6
1
(3
6
)
5 (11) 27
(0) 0
(30) 8
58 (22)
0 (0)
27 (30)
T
4 (1
6
)
1,
0
9
8
(1
,
6
6
9
)
32
(8
9
)
(3
4
)
2
(1
,
5
6
4
)
1,
0
3
7
(1
1
)
6 (40) 44
(8) 4
(11) 18
56 (49)
3 (3)
34 (26)
U
18
8
(2
3
8
)
69
1
(8
4
6
)
(8
2
)
64
(6
4
3
)
40
2
(7
9
8
)
95
7
(406) 173
(302) 170
(90) 41
7 (12)
135 (224)
586 (1,206)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
K
J
L
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
51,200 vpd
50,700 vpd
11,400 vpd
56,800 vpd
56,500 vpd 40,400 vpd
11,200 vpd
3,500 vpd
12,100 vpd
4,500 vpd
2,300 vpd
3,450 vpd
58,300 vpd
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
Figure 5-2B: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned Roadway Improvements (Unimproved Network)
43 43
Section 5.4 Recommended Future Roadway Improvements
Based upon the results of both 2012 Existing conditions and 2034 Unimproved conditions analyses, roadway improvements are
required to mitigate anticipated congestion which will occur as traffic volumes increase. The following intersection descriptions reflect
the necessary lane configurations for the corridor to operate at acceptable levels of service under future conditions. The following
improvements require modifications to traffic signal operations, lane striping, turn lanes, etc. Detailed descriptions of the modifications
required to fully accommodate the recommended improvements are provided in Chapter 7.0 Corridor Study Recommendations.
With the proposed intersection and corridor capacity improvements there are anticipated changes in travel patterns on the study area
network. Figure 5-3A and Figure 5-3B reflect the future 2034 traffic volumes with the planned and proposed roadway improvements
in place. It is noted that planned (i.e., planned configuration) roadway improvements reflect those that have been proffered as a part
of an approved development or are currently listed in the VDOT six year improvement program (SYIP). Whereas proposed (i.e.,
recommended configuration) roadway improvements are those corridor or roadway infrastructure enhancements that have been
identified as necessary based on existing operational deficiencies or future operational deficiencies stemming from anticipated future
traffic volume projections.
5.4.1 Proffered Improvements
Several approved developments within the corridor study area have proffered intersection improvements to accommodate anticipated
traffic demand. The construction or installation of these proffered improvements is contingent upon either the development going to
construction or VDOT traffic volume thresholds and/or warrants being met before the improvement can be installed (e.g., traffic signal
warrants being met).
Carrollton Boulevard/Northgate Drive
To support future traffic volumes, a traffic signal should be installed at this currently unsignalized intersection when warrants are met.
Details regarding the modification to this intersection are discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.0.
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Sentara Way
To support future traffic, a traffic signal should be installed at this currently unsignalized intersection as future development occurs and
when warrants are met. Details regarding the modification to this intersection are discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.0.
Battery Park Road/Nike Park Road
To support existing and future traffic volume demand, a roundabout should be installed/constructed in conjunction with the planned
development to the north of the existing intersection, and to replace/address the operational deficiencies associated with the existing
traffic signal equipment and intersection configuration. Details regarding the replacement of traffic control at this intersection are
discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.0.
5.4.2 Additional Major Roadway Improvements
Carrollton Boulevard/Nike Park Road Extension
To support future traffic volumes, enhance operational safety, and to maintain adequate level-of-service conditions it is proposed that
Nike Park Road be extended from its current terminus with Reynolds Drive to the west, eastward approximately 1 mile creating a new
intersection with Carrollton Boulevard. The initial phase of the extension would be a two-lane typical section with the option of going to
an ultimate four-lane typical section at some point in the future. It is also anticipated that with this proposed extension of Nike Park
Road that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection with Carrollton Boulevard. Details regarding the proposed extension and
associated intersection improvements are noted in the intersection diagrams reflected in this section, in Section 5.5 Nike Park Road
Extension, and Chapter 7.0.
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Widening
To support future traffic volumes, Brewer’s Neck Boulevard should be widened to a 6-lane facility. Details regarding the preferred
typical section for this corridor and the resulting intersection improvements are outlined in further detail in Chapter 7.0.
Carrollton Boulevard Widening
To support future traffic volumes, Carrollton Boulevard should be widened to a 6-lane facility. Details regarding the preferred typical
section for this corridor and the resulting intersection improvements are outlined in further detail in Chapter 7.0.
S. Church Street at Battery Park Road (Intersection A)
To support future traffic volumes, this intersection should provide the following laneage:
S. Church Street (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane
S. Church Street (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane
Holt Street (eastbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Battery Park Road (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn
lane
Existing Configuration
N S.
C
h
u
r
c
h
S
t
.
Holt Street
Recommended Configuration
N S.
C
h
u
r
c
h
S
t
.
Battery Park
Road
Holt StreetBattery Park
Road
44
Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road (Intersection B)
To support future traffic volumes, this intersection should provide the following traffic control improvement and laneage:
Roundabout for traffic control
Nike Park Road (northbound) – two approach lanes – one for left traffic and one for left/right traffic
Battery Park Road (eastbound) – two approach lanes – one for through traffic and one free flow right slip-lane
Battery Park Road (westbound) – one approach lane to accommodate through/left traffic
Nike Park Road and Titus Creek Drive (Intersection J)
To support future traffic volumes, this intersection should be improved to provide the following laneage:
Nike Park Road (northbound) – two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane
Nike Park Road (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes
Titus Creek Drive (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Smith’s Neck Road and Titus Creek Drive (Intersection K)
To support future traffic volumes, this intersection should be improved to provide the following laneage:
Smith’s Neck Road (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one through lane
Smith’s Neck Road (southbound) – one shared through/right-turn lane
Titus Creek Drive (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Benn’s Church Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended (Intersection U)
In anticipation of future development and related traffic volumes, this new intersection should provide the following laneage:
Benn’s Church Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Benn’s Church Boulevard (southbound) – two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended (eastbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn
lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended (westbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes and two through lanes, and one exclusive right-
turn lane
Existing Configuration Recommended Configuration
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
R
o
a
d
N
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
R
o
a
d
N
Battery Park
Road
Battery Park
Road
Existing Configuration
N
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
Ro
a
d
Titus Creek
Drive
Recommended Configuration
N
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
Ro
a
d
Titus Creek
Drive
Existing Configuration
N Sm
i
t
h
’
s
N
e
c
k
Ro
a
d
Titus Creek
Drive
Recommended Configuration
N Sm
i
t
h
’
s
N
e
c
k
Ro
a
d
Titus Creek
Drive
Existing Configuration
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Planned Configuration
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Blvd Ext.
Recommended Configuration
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Blvd Ext.
45 45
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benn’s Church Boulevard (Intersection C)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should be modified to provide the following laneage:
Benn’s Church Boulevard (northbound) – two through lanes
Benn’s Church Boulevard (southbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one channelized right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive right out only turn-lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – two exclusive right-turn lanes
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended (Intersection D)
To support future traffic volumes, this proposed future signalized intersection should be improved to provide the following laneage:
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended (northbound) – one left-turn lane, one through lane, and two exclusive right-turn lanes
Queen Anne’s Court (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one exclusive right turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way (Intersection E)
To support future traffic volumes, this proposed future signalized intersection should be improved to provide the following laneage:
Sentara Way (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Reynolds Drive/Campbell’s Chapel Drive (Intersection F)
To support future traffic volumes, this unsignalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Campbell’s Chapel Drive (northbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (southbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Existing Configuration Planned Configuration
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
N Be
n
n
’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Existing Configuration Planned Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
N Qu
e
e
n
A
n
n
e
’
s
Co
u
r
t
Qu
e
e
n
A
n
n
e
’
s
Co
u
r
t
Br
e
w
e
r
’
s
Ne
c
k
B
l
v
d
E
x
t
.
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Br
e
w
e
r
’
s
Ne
c
k
B
l
v
d
E
x
t
.
Qu
e
e
n
A
n
n
e
’
s
Co
u
r
t
Existing Configuration
N
Se
n
t
a
r
a
Wa
y
Planned Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Se
n
t
a
r
a
Wa
y
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Se
n
t
a
r
a
Wa
y
Existing Configuration
N
Re
y
n
o
l
d
s
Dr
i
v
e
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N
Re
y
n
o
l
d
s
Dr
i
v
e
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
’
s
Ch
a
p
e
l
D
r
.
Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
’
s
Ch
a
p
e
l
D
r
.
46
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane (Intersection G)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
New Towne Haven Lane (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane
Norsworthy Drive (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive (Intersection H)
To support future traffic volumes, this unsignalized “T” intersection should provide the following laneage:
Norsworthy Drive (northbound) – one shared left and right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (eastbound) – one shared through/right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (westbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane
Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive (Intersection I)
To support future traffic volumes, this proposed future signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Nike Park Road Extended (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane
Nike Park Road (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (eastbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (westbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive (Intersection L)
To support future traffic volumes, this unsignalized “T” intersection should provide the following laneage:
Smith’s Neck Road (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one through lane
Smith’s Neck Road (southbound) – one shared through/right-turn lane
Reynolds Drive (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Existing Configuration
N
No
r
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
Dr
i
v
e
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N
No
r
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
Dr
i
v
e
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Ne
w
T
o
w
n
e
Ha
v
e
n
L
n
.
Ne
w
T
o
w
n
e
Ha
v
e
n
L
n
.
Existing Configuration Recommended Configuration
No
r
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
Dr
i
v
e
N
No
r
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
Dr
i
v
e
N
Reynolds
Drive
Reynolds
Drive
Existing Configuration
N
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
Ro
a
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ni
k
e
P
a
r
k
Ro
a
d
Reynolds
Drive
Reynolds
Drive
Existing Configuration
N Sm
i
t
h
’
s
N
e
c
k
Ro
a
d
Reynolds Drive
Recommended Configuration
N Sm
i
t
h
’
s
N
e
c
k
Ro
a
d
Reynolds Drive
47 47
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive (Intersection M)
To support future traffic volumes, this unsignalized “T” intersection should provide the following laneage:
Deep Bottom Drive (northbound) – one shared left and right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard (Intersection N)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one channelized right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (eastbound) – three exclusive left-turn lanes, one through lane and one channelized right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/The Crossings (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two exclusive right-turn lanes, and one
exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard and Ashby Way/Omera Drive (Intersection T)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should continue to provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Ashby Way (eastbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Omera Drive (westbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way (Intersection O)
To support future traffic volumes, this unsignalized intersection should continue to provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane
Deep Bottom Drive (eastbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Channell Way (westbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Existing Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Recommended Configuration
N
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
De
e
p
Bo
t
t
o
m
D
r
.
De
e
p
Bo
t
t
o
m
D
r
.
Existing Configuration Planned Configuration
N
Recommended Configuration
NN
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Omera
Drive
Recommended Configuration
N
Omera
Drive
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ashby
Way
Ashby
Way
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Deep Bottom
Drive
Deep Bottom
Drive
Channell
Way
Channell
Way
48
Carrollton Boulevard and Nike Park Road Extension (Intersection V)
To support future traffic volumes, this proposed new connection and signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – three through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane
Nike Park Road Extension (eastbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive (Intersection P)
To support future traffic volumes, this currently unsignalized intersection should be signalized and provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Northgate Drive (eastbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Northgate Drive (westbound) – one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road (Intersection Q)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Smith’s Neck Road (eastbound) – two exclusive left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Smith’s Neck Road (westbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/Kings Crossing (Intersection R)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Eagle Harbor Parkway (eastbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Kings Crossing (westbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Existing Configuration
N
Recommended Configuration
N
Nike Park
Road Extension
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Northgate
Drive
Northgate
Drive
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Smith’s Neck
Road
Smith’s Neck
Road
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Eagle Harbor
Parkway
Eagle Harbor
Parkway
Kings
Crossing
Kings
Crossing
49 49
Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Pointe Parkway/Whippingham Parkway (Intersection S)
To support future traffic volumes, this signalized intersection should provide the following laneage:
Carrollton Boulevard (northbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard (southbound) – one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane
Harbor Pointe Lane (eastbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Whippingham Parkway (westbound) – one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane
Existing Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Recommended Configuration
N
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
t
o
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Harbor Pointe
Lane
Harbor Pointe
Lane
Whippingham
Parkway
Whippingham
Parkway
A
B
C
E
F
H
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 5-3A: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned and Proposed Roadway Improvements
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
Q
4 (2
)
14
3
(2
8
3
)
25
5
(2
8
4
)
(173) 36
(525) 788
(3
)
0
(3
9
1
)
10
7
(5
2
5
)
25
1
(5) 3
(9) 18
(1) 3
D
U
222 (508)
7 (9)
237 (413)
(1
,
0
9
3
)
28
5
(1
8
4
)
8
123 (118)
150 (77) 0
(0
)
87
6
(1
,
0
8
4
)
90
7
(8
5
5
)
(1
,
0
4
7
)
57
2
626 (1,395)
5 (5)
653 (1,138)
721 (1,430)
9 (1
2
)
5 (1
0
)
7 (4
)
(13) 7
(835) 1,026
(1
0
)
5
(2
5
)
5
(1
,
1
0
0
)
1,
1
2
8
129 (81)
1,132 (2,336)
5 (0)
13
0
(3
5
4
)
56
(1
5
7
)
(182) 291
(1,676) 1,836
20
(1
9
)
18
(5
)
40
(2
3
)
(2
5
)
16
(1
4
)
1
(2
9
)
36
(26) 11
(1,739) 1,833
(10) 10
7 (57)
1,135 (2,307)
27 (48)
(37) 24
(6) 0
(1
4
)
1
(7
8
)
7
50 (63)
54 (25)
19 (325)
55 (63)
10 (10)
56
(3
7
)
45
6
(2
9
3
)
11
7
(8
5
)
(98) 7
(40) 23
(10) 10
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
60
0
(3
9
0
)
33
8
(2
1
7
)
(9
7
2
)
20
3
(3
2
)
7
J
K
(32) 7
(217) 338
(2
1
0
)
67
(1
4
8
)
29
67 (210)
21 (25)
21
(2
5
)
14
4
(1
1
6
)
K
J 10
(1
0
)
19
6
(5
8
1
)
10
(1
0
)
V
I
(0) 0
0 (9)
1,159 (2,287)
0 (4)
61
(4
4
)
0 (0
)
5 (3
)
(35) 23
(1,830) 1,758
(5) 4 4 (2
)
1 (0
)
6 (6
)
*Roundabout in
improved condition.
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
19,800 vpd
19,600 vpd
3,500 vpd
4,500 vpd
2,300 vpd
18,500 vpd
42,700 vpd
42,200 vpd
48,300 vpd
48,000 vpd 40,400 vpd
18,500 vpd
5,500 vpd
49,800 vpd
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
B
C
E
F
H
M N
O
P
Figure 5-3B: Future (2034) Traffic Volumes with Planned and Proposed Roadway Improvements
A
G
L
Q
R
T
Q
D
U
M
(1,870) 1,844
(29) 17
(3
1
)
17
(5
)
1
1,208 (2,336)
0 (4)
Q
94
(5
4
2
)
83
0
(2
,
8
6
7
)
8 (2
6
)
(2
3
4
)
48
(1
,
3
1
7
)
2,
1
9
8
(9
)
17
(186) 538
(24) 19
(97) 120
36 (12)
5 (28)
15 (33)
S
11
(2
4
)
85
7
(3
,
5
8
7
)
5 (5
5
)
(9
)
5
(1
,
6
4
9
)
3,
0
6
1
(3
6
)
5 (11) 27
(0) 0
(30) 8
58 (22)
0 (0)
27 (30)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
K
J
O
17
(2
8
)
1,
1
6
7
(1
,
8
7
9
)
5 (1
8
)
(1
0
)
2
(1
,
6
1
7
)
1,
2
1
7
(4
5
)
14
(57) 39
(5) 3
(3) 3
20 (8)
2 (6)
22 (31)
N
45
3
(9
7
2
)
40
8
(7
6
7
)
44
(3
0
4
)
(9
9
2
)
61
3
(4
8
2
)
67
8
(6
1
)
20
(784) 1,046
(189) 81
(992) 792
45 (50)
58 (294)
36 (158)
36
(2
0
)
43
0
(2
4
5
)
(15) 11
(115) 139
(3
8
1
)
40
(5
4
1
)
81
L
R
7 (1
2
3
)
88
3
(3
,
4
7
0
)
1 (2
1
)
(3
2
)
7
(1
,
5
8
8
)
2,
8
9
8
(2
7
)
9 (57) 113
(11) 1
(27) 37
17 (9)
2 (3)
17 (19)
U
18
8
(2
3
8
)
69
1
(8
4
6
)
(8
2
)
64
(6
4
3
)
40
2
(7
9
8
)
95
7
(406) 173
(302) 170
(90) 41
7 (12)
135 (224)
586 (1,206)
P
6 (2
5
)
10
7
9
(2
,
7
6
5
)
1 (1
)
(2
5
)
11
(1
,
5
8
1
)
2,
2
4
9
(0
)
0 (8) 37
(0) 0
(9) 19
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
T
4 (1
6
)
1,
0
9
8
(1
,
6
6
9
)
32
(8
9
)
(3
4
)
2
(1
,
5
6
4
)
1,
0
3
7
(1
1
)
6 (40) 44
(8) 4
(11) 18
56 (49)
3 (3)
34 (26)
I
V
V
19
6
(5
8
1
)
90
2
(2
,
1
9
3
)
(1
0
)
10
(1
,
3
1
3
)
1,7
6
9
(293) 456
(10) 10
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
19,800 vpd
19,600 vpd
3,500 vpd
4,500 vpd
2,300 vpd
18,500 vpd
42,700 vpd
42,200 vpd
48,300 vpd
48,000 vpd 40,400 vpd
18,500 vpd
5,500 vpd
49,800 vpd
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Approach Volumes XX (XX)
52
Section 5.5 Nike Park Road Extension
To support future traffic volumes, enhance operational safety, and to maintain adequate level-of-service conditions it is proposed that
Nike Park Road be extended from its current terminus with Reynolds Drive to the west, eastward approximately 1 mile creating a new
intersection with Carrollton Boulevard. In the initial phase of the extension it is recommended that Nike Park Road be constructed as a
two-lane typical section with the option of going to an ultimate four-lane typical section when traffic volume projections warrant
additional capacity. It is anticipated that with this proposed extension of Nike Park Road that a traffic signal will be installed at the
intersection with Carrollton Boulevard. Details regarding the proposed extension and associated intersection improvements are
outlined in Chapter 7.0.
As part of this study, two potential Nike Park Road alternative alignments were considered as depicted in Figure 5-4. As can be
seen, the primary objective of the improvement to Nike Park Road was to enhance the connection or existing alternative route that
traffic uses between the Town of Smithfield and Carrollton Boulevard. Both alignments were envisioned to more adequately
accommodate traffic that uses this alternative route today as well as relieve anticipated future traffic congestion along the Carrollton
Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard corridors. The primary difference between the two alignments is that Alignment 1 goes
along a longer segment of new alignment and would tie into the existing alignment of Smith’s Neck Road in the vicinity of the Smith’s
Neck Road/Reynolds Drive intersection. Whereas, Alignment 2 primarily follows along the existing alignment of Nike Park Road and
then simply includes an extension along new alignment between the intersection of Nike Park Road/Reynolds Drive and a new
intersection at Carrollton Boulevard. Alignment 2 attempts to impact as few properties as possible, capitalizes on the existing
alignment of Nike Park Road, is intended to draw cut-through traffic away from Titus Creek Drive as well as the intersection of Titus
Creek Drive/Smith’s Neck Road, and will relieve future traffic congestion conditions at the Carrollton Boulevard/Smith’s Neck Road
intersection. Based on feedback from VDOT, Isle of Wight County staff, as well as citizens of both Isle of Wight County and the Town
of Smithfield, it was determined that Alignment 2 or the Nike Park Road extension alternative was the preferred alignment.
Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 also present proposed typical sections for the Nike Park Road improvement. It is envisioned that the future
typical section of Nike Park Road will be a four-lane typical section with the capacity necessary to accommodate future traffic demand
associated with planned development while maintaining a context consistent with the surrounding study area.
Figure 5-7 reflects the proposed Nike Park Road Extension along its preferred alignment and conceptual laneage at its intersection
with Carrollton Boulevard. The preferred typical section was chosen to best accommodate all users of the roadway as well as to
provide an efficient and aesthetically pleasing corridor.
A traffic signal is proposed for traffic control at the Nike Park Road Extension/Carrollton Boulevard intersection. Based on future traffic
volume projections it is anticipated that this new connection will serve as critical relief valve for the Carrollton Boulevard/Smith’s Neck
Road intersection as well as extend the operational life of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard. Although it is anticipated that Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard will still need to be widened to a six-lane facility in the future. A traffic signal at this location will enable the intersection to
efficiently process anticipated traffic volumes, will minimize delays for traffic, and will help facilitate the progression of traffic along
Carrollton Boulevard.
Figure 5-4: Nike Park Road Extension Alignment Alternatives and Typical Sections Alternatives
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
54
Figure 5-5: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1
Figure 5-6: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 2
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure 5-7: Nike Park Road Extension (Alignment 2) at Carrollton Boulevard
56
Section 5.6 Future LOS
5.6.1 Intersection LOS Analysis
Year 2034 level of service analyses for signalized and unsignalized intersections in the AM and PM peak hours were performed for all
study area intersections. Intersections were analyzed with existing laneage (Unimproved conditions) as well as with recommended
improvements as outlined in Chapter 7.0 Recommendations (Improved conditions). Lastly, future volume projections were adjusted to
account for the proposed capacity and operational enhancements associated with the Nike Park Road Extension (as discussed in
Section 5.4). Synchro Professional 7.0, which uses methodologies contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [TRB
Special Report 209, 2000], was used for all intersection analyses. The 2034 Unimproved scenario serves as the “no build” scenario
with only the planned/proffered improvements and illustrates particular locations in need of improvements. It is noted that signal timing
was optimized for the 2034 Unimproved scenario which may result in little to no change when comparing existing to future conditions,
despite traffic volumes being significantly higher. To supplement the analysis, SimTraffic 7.0 simulations were performed to model
anticipated operations along the corridor and at study area intersections.
Table 5-2 summarizes levels of service for both AM and PM peak hours and delays for each study area intersection under 2034
Unimproved, 2034 Improved, and 2034 Improved with Connector Road scenarios. Full LOS analysis results for all study area
intersections are provided in Table 5-3 through Table 5-26. Figures 5-8A, 5-8B, 5-9A, and 5-9B reflect peak hour LOS throughout
the study area under 2034 future unimproved and improved operational conditions. Overall intersection LOS operations are
summarized as well as per approach LOS for signalized intersections and per lane LOS for unsignalized intersections.
Table 5-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection HCM LOS Criteria
LOS Intersection Delay per Vehicle(s)
Signalized Unsignalized
A 0.0 - 10 0.0 - 10
B >10 - 20 >10 - 15
C >20 - 35 >15 - 25
D >35 - 55 >25 - 35
E >55 - 80 >35 - 50
F >80 >50
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Table 5-3: Future (2034) Overall Signalized Intersection LOS
ID
Intersection
2034 Unimproved 2034 Improved
AM LOS PM LOS AM
LOS
PM
LOS
A S. Church Street and Battery Park
Road
C
(26.1)
C
(33.3)
C
(20.9)
C
(29.1)
U Benn’s Church Boulevard and
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended
D
(39.9)
D
(49.9)
C
(28.4)
D
(46.9)
C Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benn’s
Church Boulevard
C
(20.6)
E
(60.7)
B
(14.9)
C
(29.7)
D
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended
Blvd/Queen Ann’s Court
C
(29.8)
C
(30.3)
B
(16.7)
C
(20.2)
E Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara
Way
C
(20.3)*
F
(140.8)*
B
(13.2)
C
(32.6)
G Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven
C
(28.1)
E
(70.5)
B
(15.0)
B
(16.9)
I Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive A
(6.4)*
A
(4.1)*
A
(9.8)
C
(21.1)
N Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard
D
(42.8)
F
(80.6)
C
(29.8)
D
(51.0)
T Carrollton Boulevard and Ashby
Way/Omera Drive
B
(19.0)
C
(23.8)
B
(17.5)
C
(21.1)
V Carrollton Boulevard and Nike Park
Road Extension N/A** N/A** B
(18.4)
B
(11.0)
P Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate
Lane
A
(9.1)*
C
(19.8)*
A
(7.6)
B
(10.5)
Q Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck
Road
E
(72.6)
F
(102.1)
C
(34.9)
D
(54.2)
R Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor
Pkwy/Kings Crossing
F
(90.1)
F
(130.1)
C
(21.6)
E
(62.5)
S Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor
Pointe Lane/Whippingham Pkwy
F
(90.9)
F
(144.9)
B
(15.7)
E
(63.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
* Note: reflects unimproved condition as unsignalized intersection.
N/A** Note: reflects that intersection is a future improvement/new intersection.
57 57
Table 5-4: Future (2034) Overall Unsignalized Intersection LOS
ID
Intersection
2034 Unimproved 2034 Improved
AM LOS PM LOS AM
LOS
PM
LOS
B Battery Park Road and Nike Park
Road*
B
(18.8)
F
(133.9)
A
(2.9)
B
(12.6)
F Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Reynolds
Drive/Campbells Chapel Dr.
A
(0.7)
A
(2.5) N/A** N/A**
H Reynolds Drive and Norsworthy Drive A
(3.5)
A
(4.7)
A
(3.5)
A
(4.6)
L Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive A
(3.7)
A
(8.9)
A
(3.3)
A
(4.9)
M Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep
Bottom Drive
A
(0.6)
A
(2.2)
A
(2.1)
F
(90.8)
O Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom
Drive
B
(15.0)
F
(>300)
A
(1.4)
B
(10.7)
J Titus Creek Drive and Nike Park Road A
(9.2)
C
(24.0)
A
(3.6)
A
(5.7)
K Titus Creek Road and Smith’s Neck
Road
B
(13.4)
B
(10.9)
A
(7.7)
A
(6.0)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
*Note: reflects unimproved condition as existing signalized intersection
N/A** Note: LOS not reported due to Synchro analysis limitations
Table 5-5: S. Church Street and Battery Park Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection A)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall LOS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(34.8)
C
(30.2)
C
(24.2)
C
(22.5)
C
(26.1)
Improved (2034) C
(32.1)
B
(18.6)
C
(22.9)
C
(20.9)
C
(20.9)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) D
(50.8)
D
(41.3)
C
(25.2)
D
(36.4)
C
(33.3)
Improved (2034) D
(44.0)
C
(29.9)
C
(27.6)
C
(29.8)
C
(29.1)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-6: Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road Intersection LOS (Intersection B)
Scenario
Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh)
Overall LOS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* B
(17.2)
B
(19.8)
C
(23.8) - B
(18.8)
Improved (2034)** A
(0.3)
A
(8.2)
A
(4.6) - A
(2.9)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* F
(153.1)
F
(115.2)
F
(126.8) - F
(133.9)
Improved (2034)** A
(1.5)
C
(17.0)
C
(18.0) - B
(12.6)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
* Note: reflects unimproved condition as existing signalized intersection.
** Note: reflects improved condition as roundabout.
Table 5-7: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Benns Church Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection C)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall LOS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - C
(29.2)
C
(22.2)
B
(16.5)
C
(20.6)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
B
(16.5)
B
(19.1)
B
(12.9)
B
(14.9)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - F
(130.2)
D
(47.7)
A
(7.5)
E
(60.7)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
D
(45.8)
D
(52.1)
A
(5.9)
C
(29.7)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
58
Table 5-8: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Blvd Extended Signalized Intersection LOS
(Intersection D)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(26.7)
B
(17.4)
D
(49.6)
E
(67.3)
C
(29.8)
Improved (2034) B
(13.8)
B
(15.6)
C
(20.2)
D
(41.6)
B
(16.7)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) D
(41.2)
C
(28.1)
C
(24.1)
E
(66.7)
C
(30.3)
Improved (2034) D
(35.3)
B
(18.2)
B
(12.3)
D
(51.6)
C
(20.2)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-9: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection E)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* B
(14.7)
C
(26.5) - D
(37.0)
C
(20.3)
Improved (2034)** A
(9.0)
B
(18.5) - C
(20.1)
B
(13.2)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* E
(57.2)
D
(49.3) - F
(>300)
F
(140.8)
Improved (2034)** B
(12.2)
D
(44.0) - D
(45.7)
C
(32.6)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
* Note: reflects unimproved condition as existing unsignalized intersection.
** Note: reflects improved condition as signalized intersection.
Table 5-10: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Campbell’s Chapel Drive/Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection F)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) B
(13.9)
A
(0.0)
F
(51.5)
C
(21.2)
A
(0.7)
Improved (2034)* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(49.9)
C
(23.4)
F
(>300)
F
(131.9)
A
(2.5)
Improved (2034)* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
*Note: Synchro analysis is limited to two lanes per leg for unsignalized intersections
Table 5-11: Brewer’s Neck Blvd and Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection G)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(33.4)
B
(14.0)
E
(65.7)
F
(92.3)
C
(28.1)
Improved (2034) B
(15.6)
B
(10.7)
D
(39.8)
D
(45.4)
B
(15.0)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(34.7)
F
(98.3)
F
(85.3)
F
(82.5)
E
(70.5)
Improved (2034) B
(14.1)
B
(17.3)
D
(49.7)
D
(48.8)
B
(16.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-12: Norsworthy Drive and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection H)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(4.0)
A
(8.6) - A
(3.5)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(4.0)
A
(8.6) - A
(3.5)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(2.2)
A
(9.1) - A
(4.7)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(2.2)
A
(9.1) - A
(4.6)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
59 59
Table 5-13: Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive Intersection LOS (Intersection I)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* A
(1.8)
A
(0.0) - B
(10.1)
A
(6.4)
Improved (2034)** D
(39.3)
D
(40.9)
A
(6.2)
A
(4.6)
A
(9.8)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* A
(6.3)
A
(0.0) - B
(14.5)
A
(4.1)
Improved (2034)** C
(33.0)
D
(39.4)
B
(14.2)
A
(7.8)
C
(21.1)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
* Note: reflects unimproved condition as existing unsignalized intersection.
** Note: reflects improved condition as signalized intersection.
Table 5-14: Smith’s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection L)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(22.1) - A
(2.9)
A
(0.0)
A
(3.7)
Improved (2034) B
(14.0) - A
(8.7)
A
(0.0)
A
(3.3)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(41.3) - A
(7.6)
A
(0.0)
A
(8.9)
Improved (2034) C
(22.4) - A
(9.5)
A
(0.0)
A
(4.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 5-15: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection M)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(0.0)
F
(113.8) - A
(0.6)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
A
(0.0)
F
(>300) - A
(2.1)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) A
(0.0)
C
(24.7)
F
(298.7) - A
(2.2)
Improved (2034) A
(0.0)
C
(19.2)
F
(> 300) - F
(90.8)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 5-16: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection N)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) D
(36.1)
E
(61.9)
E
(57.8)
D
(35.4)
D
(42.8)
Improved (2034) C
(28.5)
D
(51.5)
D
(39.4)
B
(15.4)
C
(29.8)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(70.8)
F
(108.5)
F
(106.8)
E
(66.9)
F
(80.6)
Improved (2034) D
(37.5)
F
(80.7)
E
(61.2)
D
(49.0)
D
(51.0)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-17: Carrollton Boulevard and Ashby Way/Omera Drive Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection T)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(32.5)
C
(29.1)
B
(18.1)
B
(18.3)
B
(19.0)
Improved (2034) D
(36.4)
D
(37.3)
B
(17.0)
B
(15.2)
B
(17.5)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) D
(52.5)
D
(51.8)
C
(24.1)
C
(21.5)
C
(23.8)
Improved (2034) E
(59.7)
E
(59.9)
C
(21.6)
B
(17.6)
C
(21.1)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
60
Table 5-18: Carrollton Boulevard and Deep Bottom Drive/Channell Way Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection O)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(>300)
F
(190.1)
B
(11.9)
B
(11.7)
B
(15.0)
Improved (2034) E
(44.6)
D
(31.8)
A
(0.0)
B
(12.1)
A
(1.4)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(>300)
F
(>300)
C
(19.5)
C
(15.4)
F
(>300)
Improved (2034) F
(>300)
F
(149.8)
C
(19.0)
C
(16.4)
B
(10.7)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 5-19: Carrollton Boulevard and Nike Park Road Extension Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection V)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - - - - -
Improved (2034) D
(50.6) - B
(14.7)
B
(10.8)
B
(18.4)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - - - - -
Improved (2034) E
(65.7) - B
(10.6)
A
(5.2)
B
(11.0)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: New intersection associated with improved condition only.
Table 5-20: Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive Intersection LOS (Intersection P)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* F
(>300)
A
(0.0)
B
(11.0)
C
(20.2)
A
(9.1)
Improved (2034)** D
(54.5)
A
(0.0)
A
(9.0)
A
(2.3)
A
(7.6)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034)* F
(>300)
A
(0.0)
E
(37.3)
B
(14.2)
C
(19.8)
Improved (2034)** E
(71.7)
A
(0.0)
A
(1.6)
B
(15.2)
B
(10.5)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
* Note: reflects unimproved condition as existing unsignalized intersection.
** Note: reflects improved condition as signalized intersection.
Table 5-21: Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection Q)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(110.5)
F
(85.4)
F
(1.1)
B
(18.9)
E
(72.6)
Improved (2034) E
(58.9)
D
(52.4)
D
(36.9)
B
(12.2)
C
(34.9)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(165.4)
F
(82.3)
D
(48.5)
F
(121.4)
F
(102.1)
Improved (2034) E
(76.0)
E
(70.1)
C
(26.9)
E
(63.3)
D
(54.2)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-22: Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor Parkway/Kings Crossing Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection R)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(158.4)
F
(86.4)
F
(111.9)
A
(8.3)
F
(90.1)
Improved (2034) E
(65.0)
E
(57.5)
C
(23.4)
A
(6.3)
C
(21.6)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(78.4)
E
(74.3)
A
(9.5)
F
(195.2)
F
(130.1)
Improved (2034) F
(82.0)
E
(76.0)
B
(10.2)
F
(85.2)
E
(62.5)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
61 61
Table 5-23: Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection S)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) F
(88.6)
F
(83.8)
F
(115.3)
A
(7.8)
F
(90.9)
Improved (2034) E
(59.0)
D
(54.9)
B
(16.3)
A
(7.9)
B
(15.7)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(69.8)
E
(71.1)
A
(5.8)
F
(219.3)
F
(144.9)
Improved (2034) E
(69.9)
E
(71.1)
A
(4.8)
F
(90.5)
E
(63.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 5-24: Titus Creek Drive and Nike Park Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection J)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - C
(19.3)
A
(0.0)
A
(7.7)
A
(9.2)
Improved (2034) - C
(17.6)
A
(0.0)
A
(8.7)
A
(3.6)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) - F
(59.3)
A
(0.0)
A
(8.0)
C
(24.0)
Improved (2034) - D
(32.0)
A
(0.0)
B
(14.0)
A
(5.7)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 5-25: Titus Creek Drive and Smith’s Neck Road Unsignalized Intersection LOS (Intersection K)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(19.0) - A
(6.3)
A
(0.0)
B
(13.4)
Improved (2034) B
(12.0) - A
(7.7)
A
(0.0)
A
(7.7)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) C
(21.7) - A
(7.4)
A
(0.0)
B
(10.9)
Improved (2034) B
(11.3) - A
(8.0)
A
(0.0)
A
(6.0)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Note: Worst Control Delay is provided under each approach
Table 5-26: Benn’s Church Boulevard and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended Signalized Intersection LOS (Intersection U)
Scenario Level of Service per by Approach (Delay in sec/veh) Overall
LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
AM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(63.1)
F
(82.6)
B
(17.3)
C
(31.0)
D
(39.9)
Improved (2034) D
(38.9)
E
(58.0)
B
(13.7)
C
(23.0)
C
(28.4)
PM Peak Hour
Unimproved (2034) E
(73.8)
D
(51.6)
C
(25.1)
E
(64.9)
D
(49.9)
Improved (2034) D
(44.3)
E
(65.8)
B
(20.0)
E
(61.6)
D
(46.9)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
A
B
C D
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 5-8A: Future (2034) Peak Hour Unimproved Level of Service
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
S
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
C (D
)
(F
)
C
B (F)
(F) B
(C
)
C
(D) C
C (D) C (F)
B (A
)
(D
)
C
B (C)
E (E
)
(D) C
C (D) D (F
)
(E) B
A (C) C (F
)
(E) B
(F
)
F
B (F)
F (F
)
(C) C
(F
)
E
(A
)
A
A (A)
(A) A
A (A)
B (B
)
(A) A
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
J
K
C (F)
A (A
)
(A
)
A
A (A
)
(A
)
A
(C) C
K
J
U
(C
)
D
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
B
C D
E
F
H
I
M N
O
P
Figure 5-8B: Future (2034) Peak Hour Unimproved Level of Service
A
G
L
Q
R
T
S
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
K
J
U
A (C)
M
(F
)
F (A) A
L
A (A
)
(E) C
(A
)
A
O
F (F)
(F) F
B (C
)
(C
)
B
(C
)
B
(D) C
C (D)
B (C
)
T
N
D (E
)
(E) D
(F
)
E
E (F)
P
A (A)
(F) F
C (B
)
(E
)
B
S
(A
)
F
(E) F
F (E)
A (F
)
R
A (F
)
(A
)
F
(E) F
F (E)
Q
B (F
)
(D
)
F (F) F
F (F)
(C
)
B
C (E
)
U
(E) E
F (D)
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
A (A)
A
B
C D
E
F
H
M N
O
P
B C D E F
Figure 5-9A: Future (2034) Peak Hour Improved Level of Service
A G H
G
L
Q
R
I
T
S
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
C (C
)
(C
)
A
A (C)
(A) A
(C
)
C
(D) C
B (C) B (D)
B (A
)
(D
)
B
B (B)
D (D
)
(D) B
B (D) C (D
)
(B) A
B (B) D (D
)
(B) B
(D
)
D
(A
)
A
A (A)
(A) A
D (D) A (A
)
(C) D
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
J
K
C (D)
A (B
)
(A
)
A
A (A
)
(A
)
A
(B) B
K
J
U
(B
)
C
(B
)
A
*LOS not reported due to Synchro limitations *Roundabout in improved condition.
V
I
(A) A
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
A (F
)
(B
)
C
(F) E
E (E)
R
B
C D
E
F
H
M N
O
P
Figure 5-9B: Future (2034) Peak Hour Improved Level of Service
A
G
L
Q
R
T
S
Legend
AM PM
AM/PM Peak Hour LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Intersection LOS A or B
Intersection LOS C or D
Intersection LOS E or F
AM (PM) Approach LOS X (X)
L
A (A
)
(B) C
(A
)
A
S
(A
)
B
(E) E
D (E)
A (F
)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
K
J
U
O
D (F)
(F) E
B (C
)
(C
)
A
(B
)
B
C (E
)
M
(F
)
F
A (C)
(A) A
N
B (D
)
(D) C
(E
)
D
D (F)
(E) E
V
I
P
A (A)
(E) D
A (B
)
(A
)
A
Q
B (E
)
(C
)
D
D (E)
V
(B
)
B
(E) D
B (A
)
U
(D) D
E (E)
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Other Road
(C
)
B
(E) D
D (E)
B (B)
T
(E) E
(E) D
C (E)
(C
)
B
(B
)
B
66
5.6.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis
Roadway level of service capacity analyses were performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours under the 2034 Unimproved and
2034 Improved traffic conditions. These analyses were performed using Synchro Professional 7.0 which uses methodologies
contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [TRB Special Report 209, 2000].
Using the traffic volumes forecasted in Section 5.1, along with the planned roadway improvements identified in Section 5.3, and the
Nike Park Road Extension concept discussed in Section 5.4, arterial level of service was determined for the study area’s primary
roadways. Level of service describes traffic conditions at an intersection or on a roadway. LOS ranges from A to F—A indicating a
condition of little or no congestion and F indicating a condition with severe congestion, unstable traffic flow, and stop-and-go
conditions. For roadways, the arterial LOS is determined based on the arterial speed and distance between intersections. LOS D or
better is generally considered acceptable. Table 5-26 and Table 5-27 summarize the results of the arterial LOS analyses for Brewer’s
Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard under 2034 conditions. Detailed reports are presented in Appendix D – Capacity Analysis.
Table 5-27: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Arterial LOS
Scenario
Eastbound Westbound
AM PM AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
2034 Unimproved
Total 34.4 B 30.7 C 36.9 B 21.4 D
2034 Improved
Total 32.4 B 27.6 C 36.6 A 29.3 B
Table 5-28: Carrollton Boulevard Arterial LOS
Scenario
Northbound Southbound
AM PM AM PM
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
ATS
(mph) LOS
2034 Unimproved
Total 17.5 E 32.2 C 27.7 C 10.4 F
2034 Improved
Total 25.0 C 26.4 C 31.0 C 16.5 E
Overall, arterial LOS and associated operations along both Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard are expected to
improve, primarily as a result of the additional travel lane capacity and enhanced traffic signal operations (especially traffic signal
coordination) at the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road/Carrollton Boulevard intersections.
However, the eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard AM and PM as well as the northbound Carrollton Boulevard PM arterial LOS
decrease slightly in the 2034 Improved scenario due to the balance between additional capacity and operations.
67 67
Chapter 6.0 Future Access Management
As the region’s most traveled corridors continue to attract commercial development, protecting mobility becomes essential for the
efficiency of the transportation system and continued economic growth. Access management balances the needs of motorists using a
roadway with the needs of adjacent property owners dependent upon access to the roadway. In an environment with limited funds for
transportation projects and competing agendas, access management is not only good policy but also crucial to the health of the
entire transportation network.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines access management as “the process that provides access to land development
while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed.” According to the
Access Management Manual, access management results from a cooperative effort between state and local agencies and private land
owners to systematically control the “location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street
connections to a roadway.”1 Access management requires cooperation between government agencies and private land owners.
The 2008 Virginia General Assembly session enacted Chapter 274 legislation proposed to develop and implement access
management regulations and standards in phases. The first phase which included standards and regulations applying only to VDOT
highways classified as principal arterials took effect on July 1, 2008 while the second phase which includes minor arterials, collectors,
and local streets went into effect on October 14, 2009. Based on VDOT’s functional classification data, Carrollton Boulevard (U.S.
Route 17) and Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (U.S. Route 258/State Route 10) are federally designated as urban principal arterials. Nike
Park Road (between Titus Creek Drive and Battery Park Road), Reynolds Drive (between Norsworthy Drive and Smith’s Neck Road),
along with Titus Creek Drive and Smith’s Neck Road are designated as urban collectors between Carrollton Boulevard and the Town
of Smithfield.
VDOT regulations stipulate that access points must meet both VDOT standards, outlined in VDOT’s Access Management Regulations
and any local standards that are equal to or exceed VDOT standards. Since Isle of Wight County does not have a formal set of access
management regulations/guidelines, VDOT Access Management Regulations are relevant to all access proposals within the study
area.
In general, the following access management strategies should be considered:
Upon redevelopment or capital improvement projects, adjustments to median crossover spacing and driveway spacing
should be considered to achieve VDOT standards.
Upon development of vacant parcels or redevelopment of existing private residences, encourage shared use right-in/right-out
driveways with internal connections between parcels.
Upon redevelopment or capital improvement projects, adjustments to turn lanes and driveways (private and commercial)
should be considered to achieve VDOT standards.
All turn lane recommendations are preliminary and based upon operational and safety concerns.
All recommendations for improvements should meet minimum VDOT design standards unless otherwise noted and justified.
1 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 2003
Additionally, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has published Report 420, Impact of Access
Management Techniques, which provides an assessment of access management techniques. Common examples of access
management strategies are as follows:
Eliminating and consolidating access driveways
Establishing adequate signalized intersection spacing
Establishing adequate unsignalized intersection access spacing
Establishing appropriate median spacing
Providing exclusive turn lanes
Section 6.1 Symptoms and Benefits of Access Management
Poor access management directly affects the livability and economic vitality of commercial corridors, ultimately discouraging potential
customers from entering the area. A corridor with poor access management lengthens commute times, creates unsafe conditions,
lowers fuel efficiency, and increases vehicle emissions. Signs of a corridor with poor access management include:
Increased crashes between motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists
Worsening efficiency of the roadway
Congestion outpacing growth in traffic
Spillover cut-through traffic on adjacent residential streets
Limited sustainability of commercial development
Without access management, the function and character of major roadway corridors can deteriorate rapidly and adjacent properties
can suffer from declining property values and high turnover. Access management results from a cooperative effort between state and
local agencies and private land owners to systematically control the “location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median
openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway”. Access management has wide-ranging benefits to a variety of users as
shown in Table 6-1.
68
Driveway Throat
Before After
Table 6-1: Benefits of Corridor Access Management
User Benefit
Motorists Fewer delays and reduced travel times
Safer traveling conditions
Bicyclists
Safer traveling conditions
More predictable motorists movements
More options in a connected street network
Pedestrians Median refuges and fewer access points increases safety
More pleasant/comfortable walking environment
Transit Users
Fewer delays and reduced travel times
Safer, more convenient trips to and from transit stops in a connected street
and sidewalk network
Freight Fewer delays and reduced travel times
Lowers operational costs of delivering goods and services
Business
Owners
More efficient roadway system serves local and regional customers
More pleasant roadway corridor attracts customers
Improved corridor aesthetics
Potential to stabilize property values
Government
Agencies
Lower costs to achieve transportation goals and objectives
Protection of long-term investment in transportation infrastructure
Communities More attractive, efficient roadways without the need for constant roadway
widening
Section 6.2 Access Management Strategies
Access management is not a one-size fits all solution to corridor congestion. Successful strategies differ throughout a region and even
along the same road. A comprehensive access management program includes evaluation methods and supports the efficient and
safe use of the corridors for all transportation modes. The purpose of the toolkit is to provide local engineering and planning officials
with access management strategies as well as an overview of their application, use, and in some cases unit costs.
Section 6.3 Site Access Treatments
Improvements that reduce the total number of vehicle conflicts should be a key consideration during the approval of
redeveloped sites along corridors identified for access management programs. Site access treatments include the
following:
Improved On-Site Traffic Circulation
Number of Driveways
Driveway Placement/Relocation
Cross Access
Improved On-Site Traffic
Circulation
One way to reduce traffic congestion is to
promote on-site traffic circulation.
Increasing the throat length of an
entrance, as shown in the figures to the
right, helps to avoid spillback onto the
arterial. This action improves both the
safety and efficiency of the roadway. A
minimum separation of 100 feet should be
provided to prevent internal site
operations from affecting an adjacent
public street and causing spillback
problems. Approximate construction cost
varies and usually is the responsibility of
private development.
Number of Driveways
Only the minimum number of connections necessary to provide reasonable access should be permitted. For those situations where
outparcels are under separate ownership, easements for shared access can be used to reduce the number of necessary connections.
Reducing the number of access points also decreases the number of conflict points, making the arterial safer and more efficient.
Approximate construction cost varies and is usually the responsibility of private development.
Driveway Placement/Relocation
Driveways located close to intersections create and contribute to operational and safety issues. These issues include intersection and
driveway blockages, increased points of conflict, frequent/unexpected stops in the through travel lanes, and driver confusion as to
where vehicles are turning. Driveways that are close to intersections should be relocated or closed, as appropriate. As a best planning
practice, no driveway should be allowed within 100 feet of the nearest intersection.
69 69
Cross Access or Shared Access
Cross access refers to a service drive or secondary roadway that provides vehicular access between two or more contiguous
properties. Such access prevents the driver from having to enter the public street system to travel between adjacent uses. Cross
access can be a function of good internal traffic circulation at large developments with substantial frontage along a major roadway.
Similarly, backdoor access occurs when a parcel has access to a parallel street behind buildings and away from the main line. When
combined with a median treatment, cross access and backdoor access ensure that all parcels have access to a median opening or
traffic signal for left-turn movements.
Shared access and cross-access between adjacent developments will also offer the opportunity to better accommodate different
amenities (bike lane, sidewalks, multi-use path) expected as a part of the roadway design. This will also assist in reducing the number
of conflict points between different users. A schematic of a shared access driveway is illustrated in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1: Shared Access Driveway Schematic
Section 6.4 Signal Spacing for Coordination
Appropriate traffic signal spacing is critical in being able to provide good two-way vehicle progression along a corridor. It has become
understood that appropriate spacing of traffic signals can dramatically improve safety and traffic operations. To achieve good signal
coordination and provide traffic progression in both directions of travel, traffic signal spacing at multiples of ¼ mile is generally
recommended for roadways in developed segments of the corridor, although this does not mean that a signal is warranted every ¼
mile interval. Depending on desired speeds and development along a roadway, signal spacing should be adjusted accordingly. The
first priority for a proposed signal should be based on demand. In addition, consideration should be given to the type of property being
served whether it is a centralized location of neighborhood use or direct access for industrial development. Per VDOT Access
Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, signalized intersection spacing must be a minimum of ½ mile for a
principal arterial with a posted speed limit over 50 mph such as Brewer’s Neck Boulevard. However, the ½ mile minimum spacing is
not conducive to promoting efficient corridor traffic progression while the ¼ mile signal spacing reference is in regards to promoting
signal coordination and traffic progression.
Section 6.5 Median Treatments
Non-Traversable Median
These features are raised or depressed barriers that physically separate opposing
traffic flows. Inclusion in a new cross-section or retrofit of an existing cross-section
should be considered for multi-lane roadways with high pedestrian volumes or
collision rates as well as in locations where aesthetics are a priority. A non-
traversable median requires sufficient cross and backdoor access. As these
treatments are considered, sufficient spacing and locations for U- and left-turn
bays must be identified.
The advantage of non-traversable medians include increased safety and capacity
due to the separation of opposing vehicle flows, providing space for pedestrians to
find refuge, and restricting turning movements to locations with appropriate turn
lanes. Disadvantages include increased emergency vehicle response time
(indirect routes to some destinations), inconvenience, increased travel distance for some movements, and potential opposition from
the general public and affected property owners. To overcome some of these disadvantages, sufficient spacing and location of U-turn
and left-turn bays must be identified. Approximate construction cost varies.
Median U-Turn Treatment
These treatments involve prohibiting or preventing side street or driveway left-turn movements between signalized intersections.
Instead, these turns are made by first making a right turn and then making a U-turn at a nearby median crossover or intersection.
These treatments can increase safety and efficiency of roadway corridors with high volumes of through traffic, but should not be used
where there is not sufficient space available for the provision of U-turn movements. The location of U-turn bays must consider
weaving distance while not contributing to excessive travel distance.
Advantages of median U-turn treatments include reduced delay for major intersection movements, potential for better two-way traffic
progression (major and minor streets), fewer stops for through traffic, and fewer points of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles at
intersections. Disadvantages include increased delay for some turning movements, increased travel distance, increased travel time
for minor street left-turn movements, and increased driver confusion. Approximate construction cost is $50,000 to $60,000 per median
crossover.
Median U-Turn Movement
70
Directional Crossover (Left-Over Crossing)
When a median exists on a corridor, special
attention must be given to locations where left-
turn movements are necessary. A left-over is a
type of directional crossover that prohibits drivers
on the cross road (side street) from proceeding
straight through the intersection with the main
road but allows vehicles on the mainline to turn
left onto the cross road. Such designs are
appropriate in areas with high traffic volumes on
the major road and lower volumes of through
traffic on the cross road, particularly where traffic
needs to make left turns from the mainline onto
the minor street. A properly implemented left-over
crossing reduces delay for through-traffic and
diverts some left-turn maneuvers from
intersections. By reducing the number of conflict
points for vehicles along the corridor, these
treatments improve safety.
Left-Turn Storage Bays
Where necessary, exclusive left-turn lanes/bays
should be constructed to provide adequate
storage space exclusive of through traffic for
turning vehicles. The provision of these bays reduces vehicle delay related to waiting for vehicles to turn and also may decrease the
frequency of collisions attributable to lane blockages. In some cases, turn lanes/bays can be constructed within an existing median.
Where additional right-of-way is required, construction may be more costly.
Offset Left-Turn Treatment
Exclusive left-turn lanes at intersections generally are configured to the right of one
another, which causes opposing left-turning vehicles to block one another’s forward
visibility. An offset left-turn treatment shifts the left-turn lanes to the left, adjacent to
the innermost lane of oncoming through traffic. In cases where permissive left-turn
phasing is used, this treatment can improve efficiency by reducing crossing and
exposure time and distance for left-turning vehicles. In addition, the positive offset
improves sight distance and may improve gap recognition. In locations with sufficient
median width, this treatment can be easily retrofitted. Where insufficient right-of-way
width exists, the construction of this treatment can be difficult and costly. As a result,
approximate construction costs vary.
Section 6.6 Managing Access
The relationships that will exist between the transportation system of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, Nike Park Road,
and future adjacent roadway network improvements, as well as future development within this study area will require coordination
between the Isle of Wight County, the Town of Smithfield, and VDOT. This coordination was a key step in determining the location for
proposed full-movement signalized intersections, shared/cross-access driveway locations, and additional turn-lane capacity.
Managing access through land use planning and roadway design is necessary to establish and sustain orderly growth patterns that
will minimize the impacts of land use on the transportation system.
Section 6.7 Short-Term Access Management Strategies
Short-term recommendations generally include improvements that are relatively inexpensive and easily implemented. These kinds of
improvements usually do not require right-of-way acquisition and can be completed in a relatively short period of time. Some common
short-term access recommendations include the addition of turn lanes, the installation of additional signage, and the consolidation of
multiple access points for single parcels. In the short-term, these types of undertakings should be achieved.
Section 6.8 Mid-Term and Long-Term Access Management
Strategies
The mid-term and long-term goal for this corridor is full compliance with VDOT access management regulations. To reach this goal it
will be necessary to enact more significant and stringent access improvements over time. Mid-term and long-term recommendations
generally include improvements that are more expensive or are more difficult to implement. These kinds of improvements also usually
require right-of-way acquisition or easement agreements between land owners. Common long-term access recommendations include
the restriction of movements at driveways, closure or realignment of driveways, as well as closure or modification of median openings.
There are several overarching principles which should guide access management strategies along the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard corridors. Upon development of vacant parcels or redevelopment of existing private residences, the creation of
shared use right-in/right-out driveways with internal connections and/or reverse frontage roads between parcels should be highly
encouraged. Shared-use access points will limit the impact of redevelopment on the corridor and will improve efficiency while still
accommodating an increasing demand for access. Adjustments to driveway spacing and turn lanes should also be considered to
achieve VDOT standards as opportunities arise.
The most significant access management strategy for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard corridor between Benn’s Church Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard will be the conversion of the existing 4-lane median divided typical section to a 6-lane median divided typical
section and the need to truly restrict full movement median openings to only key intersection locations. Partial access should be
provided at all other driveway locations. Significant access management strategies for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton
Boulevard corridor may include modification, closing, or relocation of existing median crossovers and the reduction of the number of
driveways along the corridor.
Left-Over Crossing
71 71
Chapter 7.0 Corridor Study Recommendations
There are two types of recommendations for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor Study area. Ongoing recommendations consist of
recommended ongoing activities, policies, and procedures. These ongoing recommendations include the following:
Closing/modifying access points and consolidating commercial and residential driveways as site plan approval, rezoning
approval, and conditional use permits are given.
Routinely clearing vegetation that blocks sign visibility, especially on minor street approaches.
Retiming all traffic signals along the corridor on a regular schedule at 3 to 5 year intervals once all signals along the corridor
are interconnected.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the study area should be consistent with the Isle of Wight Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities Master Plan and be implemented/constructed as development occurs.
Recommendations for specific improvements to the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard corridors, as well as Nike Park
Road have been split into short-term (six months to five years), mid-term (five to fifteen years), and long-term (fifteen to twenty-plus
years) categories based primarily on their scale as well as the time frame in which they will be needed. Planning-level cost estimates,
expressed in year 2013 dollars, have been included for all recommendations (See Table 7-1 through Table 7-3). These planning-level
cost estimates have been based on VDOT’s statewide two-year cost averages for 2013, the VDOT Transportation & Mobility Planning
Division’s “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet from 2009, and familiarity with similar projects and improvements
throughout Virginia. Due to fluctuations in the costs of labor, materials, and equipment, fluctuations in the market and the outcome of
competitive bidding as well as the general planning-level nature of the recommendations, these estimated costs are neither exact nor
guaranteed.
Variation between actual and estimated costs will change as time passes, and the time value of money has not been taken into
account. Cost estimations performed using the “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet include right-of-way acquisition
cost estimates developed with the sheet’s methodology. The cost breakdown per scenario includes engineering/design costs,
roadway/intersection improvement costs (e.g., cost per mile for a particular roadway typical section, turn-lane improvements,
roundabout, bridges, milling, overlay, sidewalks, multi-use paths, channelization, etc.), traffic signal equipment improvement costs
(e.g., poles, mast arms, signal heads, pedestrian signal head equipment and construction), construction engineering and inspection
(CEI) costs, and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. Furthermore, a 10 percent contingency was applied to construction cost. In the
following cost summary tables, estimated dollars were rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Section 7.1 Short Term Recommendations and Planning Level
Cost Estimates
Short term recommendations for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor study area consist of plan adoption, signage and pavement
marking improvements, ongoing maintenance and upkeep, roadway safety enhancements (e.g., drainage and shoulder widening), the
Nike Park Road Extension, as well as select intersection improvements needed in the near future.
Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study Adoption
To memorialize the plan and the associated improvements envisioned for the corridor study area, Isle of Wight County must formally
adopt the Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study. The findings and recommendations from the study must then be incorporated in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s (HRTPO) Long Range Transportation Plan. It
will be important for Isle of Wight County to work closely with the HRTPO so key projects can be incorporated into the VDOT Six Year
Improvement Program (SYIP), and that funding sources are identified to ensure implementation.
Carrollton Boulevard (U.S. Route 17) Signal System
Develop and implement interim “time of day clock” coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM,
Midday, PM, Off, and Weekend peak hours for the Carrollton Boulevard coordinated signal system consisting of the Brewer’s Neck
Boulevard, Smith’s Neck Road, Eagle Harbor Parkway/Kings Crossing and Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway signalized
intersections. Plans will have to be monitored and updated periodically until communications equipment can be installed to maintain
consistent coordination between corridor traffic signals.
Nike Park Road Extension
Proposed construction of a new roadway/connection between the existing terminus/intersection of Nike Park Road at
Reynolds Drive to a location along Carrollton Boulevard approximately midway between the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
intersection to the south and the Northgate Drive intersection to the north. This new segment is approximately 1 mile in
length.
Construct initially as a two-lane typical section on right-of-way capable of accommodating an ultimate four-lane median
divided typical section.
Employ desirable access management strategies to accommodate, prohibit, restrict, or best mitigate full-movement
crossovers/intersections located along the corridor for proposed developments.
Nike Park Road Extension at Carrollton Boulevard
Install traffic signal as a part of the roadway extension/intersection project.
Coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with adjacent signalized intersections.
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard.
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain two through lanes
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain two through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Nike Park Road Extension
Construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Battery Park Road at Nike Park Road Roundabout
Construct a single-lane roundabout to serve as traffic control at the Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road intersection. This
will replace the existing traffic signal at this location.
Install “roundabout ahead” advance warning signage along northbound Nike Park Road as well as eastbound and westbound
Battery Park Road.
o Consider the construction and installation of a free-flow right “slip-lane”
o Construct a 750’ receiving lane along southbound Nike Park Road to receive right-turning traffic traveling from
eastbound Battery Boulevard to southbound Nike Park Road
72
Nike Park Road Roadway Improvements
Improve portions of Nike Park Road to address stormwater drainage deficiencies.
o Roadway needs to be improved in low lying areas to prevent ponding and/or flooding in the vicinity of Reynolds
Drive and near the Jones Creek Bridge.
o Maintain ditches on a regular basis to ensure roadway is able to drain appropriately.
Improve portions of Nike Park Road to address safety concerns.
o Improve/strengthen shoulders along Nike Park Road to enhance safety of the roadway.
o Install “intersection ahead” advance warning signage and/or flashing beacons along Nike Park Road for traffic
approaching Reynolds Drive, Titus Creek Drive, Carrollton Nike Park Entrance Driveway.
Smith’s Neck Road Roadway Improvements
Improve portions of Nike Park Road to address stormwater drainage deficiencies.
o Roadway needs to be improved in low lying areas to prevent ponding and/or flooding.
Improve portions of Smith’s Neck Road to address safety concerns.
o Improve/strengthen shoulders along Smith’s Neck Road to enhance driver safety along the roadway.
o Install “intersection ahead” advance warning signage and/or flashing beacons along Smith’s Neck Road for traffic
approaching Reynolds Drive and Titus Creek Drive intersections.
Battery Park Road Corridor
As a result of the public involvement process, Option 1 (as shown in Figure 7-1) was identified as the preferred option to
widen Battery Park Road from a 2-lane to a 4-lane, median divided typical section with a 10-foot multi-use path on either side
of Battery Park Road.
Construct a 10 to 12-foot variable width raised landscaped median along the corridor between the S. Church Street
intersection to the west and Nike Park Road intersection to the east.
o This will allow for the accommodation of an exclusive left-lane at primary full-movement intersections.
Employ desirable access management strategies to accommodate, prohibit, restrict, or best mitigate full-movement
crossovers/intersections located along the roadway. Maintain or locate full-movement intersections at the following locations:
o John Rolfe Drive
o Kendall Haven/Villa Drive
o Stratford Lane
o Location and spacing of other subsequent full-movement intersections will be based on the immediately adjacent
full-movement intersection(s) or partial access intersection(s), VDOT Access Management Guidelines, and
intersections serving high traffic demand side streets locations.
Figure 7-1: Battery Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1
Carrollton Boulevard at Northgate Drive
Install traffic signal (when signal warrants are met)
Coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with adjacent signalized intersections
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain two through lanes
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain two through lanes
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Northgate Drive
Maintain one shared through/left-turn lane
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Northgate Drive
Maintain one shared left/through/right-turn lane
73 73
Nike Park Road at Titus Creek Drive
Northbound Nike Park Road
Maintain one through lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Nike Park Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain one through lane
Westbound Titus Creek Drive
Stripe/delineate one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Smith’s Neck Road at Titus Creek Drive
Northbound Smith’s Neck Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain one through lane
Southbound Smith’s Neck Road
Maintain one shared through/right-turn lane
Eastbound Titus Creek Drive
Stripe/delineate one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Nike Park Road/Nike Park Road Extended at Reynolds Drive
Northbound Nike Park Road Extended
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one shared through/right-turn lane
Southbound Nike Park Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain one shared through/right-turn lane
Eastbound Reynolds Drive
Maintain one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Westbound Reynolds Drive
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain one through lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
7.1.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Short Term
Item Total
Engineering/Design $3,992,000.00
Roadway/Intersection Improvements* $22,322,500.00
Traffic Signal Equipment Improvements $1,308,250.00
Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) $2,365,000.00
Right-of-Way (ROW) $3,810,000.00
Construction Contingency (10%) $2,365,000.00
Total $36,162,750.00
*Roadway/intersection improvement costs include applicable signage, turn-lane, and pavement marking costs.
74
Table 7-1: Short-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” Cost Estimate A Timeframe B Responsible Party
Formally Adopt the Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study $0 2014 IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard Signal System – Develop and implement interim “time of day clock” coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM, Midday, PM, Off,
and Weekend peak hours. $30,000.00 2014 VDOT
Nike Park Road Extension – Construct a new two-lane roadway/connection between the existing terminus/intersection of Nike Park Road at Reynolds Drive to a location along Carrollton
Boulevard approximately midway between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Northgate Drive.
$8,025,000.00 2018 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
Nike Park Road Extension and Carrollton Boulevard – Install a traffic signal, coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with adjacent signalized intersections, optimize traffic signal phasing
and timings plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. Construct one exclusive northbound left-turn lane, one exclusive southbound right-turn lane, two
exclusive eastbound left-turn lanes, and one exclusive eastbound right-turn lane.
$1,263,000.00 2018 VDOT/County
Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road – Construct a single-lane roundabout to replace the existing traffic signal. Install “Roundabout Ahead” advance warning signage along northbound Nike
Park Road and eastbound/westbound Battery Park Road. Construct a 750-foot receiving lane along southbound Nike Park Road.
$1,961,000.00 2017 VDOT/Town of Smithfield/IOW
County
Nike Park Road – Improve portions of road to address stormwater drainage deficiencies such as low lying areas to prevent ponding and/or flooding near Jones Creek Bridge as well as maintain
ditches on a regular basis to ensure roadway drains properly. Improve portions of the road to address safety concerns such as improve/strengthen shoulders and install “Intersection Ahead”
advance warning signage and/or flashing beacons for traffic approaching key intersections.
$2,664,000.00 2016 VDOT/County
Smith’s Neck Road – Improve portions of road to address stormwater drainage deficiencies such as low lying areas to prevent ponding and/or flooding. Improve portions of the road to address
safety concerns such as improve/strengthen shoulders and install “Intersection Ahead” advance warning signage and/or flashing beacons for traffic approaching key intersections.
$3,793,000.00 2016 VDOT/County
Battery Park Road – Widen to a four-lane, median divided typical section with 10-foot multi-use paths on both sides of the corridor. The median should be a 10 to 12-foot variable width raised,
landscaped median between South Church Street and Nike Park Road.
$13,889,000.00 2017 VDOT/County
Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive – Install a traffic signal, coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with adjacent signalized intersections, optimize traffic signal phasing and timings
plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard.
$406,000.00 2015 Developer
Nike Park Road and Titus Creek Drive – Construct one exclusive northbound right-turn lane, one exclusive southbound left-turn lane, and one exclusive westbound right-turn lane as well as
stripe/delineate one exclusive westbound left-turn lane.
$1,471,000.00 2016 VDOT/County
Smith’s Neck Road and Titus Creek Drive – Construct one exclusive northbound left-turn lane and one exclusive westbound right-turn lane as well as stripe/delineate one exclusive
westbound left-turn lane.
$1,100,000.00 2016 VDOT/County
Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive – Construct one exclusive southbound left-turn lane, one exclusive northbound left-turn lane, and improve the westbound approach to include one
exclusive right-turn lane and one shared through/left-turn lane. Reynolds Drive approaches to the intersection will be STOP controlled.
$1,563,000.00 2016 VDOT/County
A Cost estimate includes estimated design cost and ten percent contingency. Probable cost estimate is engineer’s approximation in 2013 dollars and is subject to change based on increased construction materials, design, or time of implementation.
B Timeframe for implementation is an estimate based on project need and available funding. Actual timeframe may vary based on externalities.
75 75
Section 7.2 Mid-Term Recommendations and Planning Level
Cost Estimates
Mid-term recommendations for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard corridor study area include the widening of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and
Carrollton Boulevard from 4-lane typical sections to 6-lane typical sections, the installation of new or the modification of existing traffic
signals, as well as smaller scale intersection capacity improvements.
Carrollton Boulevard Corridor
As a result of the public involvement process, Option 1 (as shown in Figure 7-2) was identified as the preferred option to
widen Carrollton Boulevard from a 4-lane to a 6-lane, median divided typical section with 10-foot multi-use paths on either
side of the roadway.
Construct 16 to 20-foot variable width median along the corridor between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to the south and Harbor
Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway to the north
o This will allow for the construction of 12-foot full width left turn-lanes where applicable while maintaining a 4 to 8-foot
median to provide physical separation between traffic located in the turn-lane and traffic in the opposing/oncoming
travel lane.
Transition of the roadway from a 6-lane facility back down to a 4-lane facility should occur over a distance of approximately
2,200 feet north of the Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway intersection.
o This will allow for an adequate transition between the two typical sections and mitigate the potential for congestion
as vehicles merge down from 3 to 2 lanes traveling northbound toward the James River Bridge.
Maintain and/or implement desirable access management strategies to accommodate, prohibit, restrict, or best mitigate full-
movement crossovers/intersections located along the corridor. Maintain or locate full-movement intersections at the following
locations:
o Nike Park Road Extension
o Northgate Drive
o Smith’s Neck Road
o Eagle Harbor Parkway/Kings Crossing
o Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway
o Location and spacing of other subsequent full-movement intersections will be based on the immediately adjacent
full-movement intersection or partial access intersection, VDOT Access Management Guidelines, and intersections
serving high traffic demand side streets locations.
Construct exclusive left-turn lanes along Carrollton Boulevard at designated full-movement intersections
Construct partial access intersections along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard consisting of right-in/right-out/left –over laneage or
channelized U-Turns
Figure 7-2: Carrollton Boulevard 6-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1
Carrollton Boulevard Signal System Wireless Interconnect
Install wireless interconnect (underground fiber or overhead) and coordinate all signals along Carrollton Boulevard to operate
as one coordinated signal system.
o Implement coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM, Midday, PM, Off, and
Weekend peak hours as needed.
Interconnect installation and coordination of traffic signals along Carrollton Boulevard should take place as a part of the
proposed Carrollton Boulevard widening project
Maintain coordination of traffic signals between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard to the south and Carrollton
Boulevard/Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway intersections to the north
Carrollton Boulevard at Nike Park Road Extended
Install a new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
76
Eastbound Nike Park Road Extension
Maintain/construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard at Northgate Drive
Install a traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Northgate Drive
Maintain approach to reflect:
o One shared through/left-turn lane
o One exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Northgate Drive
Maintain approach to reflect one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard at Smith’s Neck Road
Install a new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Smith’s Neck Road
Construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Construct one exclusive through lane
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Smith’s Neck Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one exclusive through lane
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Carrollton Boulevard at Eagle Harbor/Kings Crossing
Install a new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Eagle Harbor Parkway
Maintain one shared through/left-turn lane
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Kings Crossing
Maintain one shared through/left-turn lane
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
77 77
Carrollton Boulevard at Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway
Install a new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Harbor Pointe Lane
Maintain one shared through/left-turn lane
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Whippingham Parkway
Maintain one shared through/left-turn lane
Maintain one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor
As a result of the public involvement process, Option 1 (as shown in Figure 7-3) was identified as the preferred option to
widen Brewer’s Neck Boulevard from a 4-lane to a 6-lane, median divided typical section with a 10-foot multi-use path on
both sides of the roadway.
Construct a 16 to 20-foot variable width median along the corridor between the proposed /Queen Anne’s Court intersection to
the west and Carrollton Boulevard to the east.
o This will allow for the construction of a 12-foot full width left-turn lane as well as a 4 to 8-foot median to
provide/maintain physical separation between traffic located in the left-turn lane and traffic in the opposing/oncoming
travel lane.
Employ desirable access management strategies to accommodate, prohibit, restrict, or best mitigate full-movement
crossovers/intersections located along the corridor. Maintain or locate full-movement intersections at the following locations:
o Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended/Queen Anne’s Court
o Sentara Way
o Reynolds Drive/Campbell’s Chapel Way
o Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane
o Deep Bottom Drive
o Location and spacing of other subsequent full-movement intersections will be based on the immediately adjacent
full-movement intersection(s) or partial access intersection(s), VDOT Access Management Guidelines, and
intersections serving high traffic demand side streets locations.
Construct exclusive left-turn lanes along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at designated full-movement intersections
Construct partial access intersections along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard consisting of right-in/right-out/left –over laneage or
channelized U-Turns
Figure 7-3: Brewer’s Neck Boulevard 6-Lane Typical Section – Option # 1
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Signal System Wireless Interconnect
Install wireless interconnect (underground fiber or overhead) and coordinate all signals along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to
operate as one coordinated signal system.
o Implement coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM, Midday, PM, Off, and
Weekend peak hours as needed.
Interconnect installation and coordination of traffic signals along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard should take place as a part of the
proposed Brewer’s Neck Boulevard widening project
Maintain coordination of traffic signals between the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard intersection to the east
and the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Ann’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended intersection to the west.
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended
Modify/upgrade traffic signal as a part of road widening project
Coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Benn’s Church Boulevard/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended traffic signal
timings/operations
Northbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Maintain one through lane
Maintain two exclusive right-turn lanes
Southbound Queen Anne’s Court
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one through lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
78
Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Modify/improve one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Maintain/construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
o The outside exclusive left-turn lane will be a “trap” lane for the inside through lane
Construct two through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Sentara Way
Install traffic signal when signal warrants are met
Coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Extended traffic signal timings/operations
Southbound Sentara Way
Maintain approach to reflect:
o One exclusive left-turn lane
o One exclusive right-turn lane
Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Modify/improve one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Norsworthy Drive/New Towne Haven Lane
Install new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Extended traffic signal timings/operations
Northbound New Towne Haven Lane
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one shared through/right-turn lane
Southbound Norsworthy Drive
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one shared through/right-turn lane
Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Maintain/construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct three through lanes
Maintain/construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard at Carrollton Boulevard
Install new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Maintain coordination of traffic signals as a part of the Carrollton Boulevard corridor coordinated signal system between the
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard intersection and Carrollton Boulevard Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham
Parkway intersection
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard
Northbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Maintain/construct two through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Carrollton Boulevard
Construct two exclusive left-turn lanes
Maintain/construct two through lanes
Construct one exclusive free-flow right-turn lane
o Right-turn lane is a “drop” lane for outside through lane.
Eastbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard
Construct three exclusive left-turn lanes
Construct one through lane
Construct one exclusive free-flow right-turn lane
Westbound Brewer’s Neck Boulevard (The Crossings)
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct two through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
7.2.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Mid Term
Item Total
Engineering/Design $4,580,000.00
Roadway/Intersection Improvements* $24,876,000.00
Traffic Signal Equipment Improvements $3,441,500.00
Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) $2,833,000.00
Right-of-Way (ROW) $2,518,000.00
Construction Contingency (10%) $2,833,000.00
Total $41,081,500.00
*Roadway/intersection improvement costs include applicable signage, turn-lane, and pavement marking costs.
79 79
Table 7-2: Mid-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” Cost Estimate A Timeframe B Responsible Party
Carrollton Boulevard – Widen to a six-lane, median divided typical section with 10-foot multi-use paths on both sides of the corridor. The median should be a 10 to 12-foot variable width
median between Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway. Transition from a six-lane roadway back down to a four-lane roadway should occur over a distance
approximately 2,200 feet north of Harbor Lane/Whippingham Parkway to allow adequate transition before the James River Bridge.
$15,299,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard Signal System Wireless Interconnect – Install wireless interconnect (underground fiber or overhead) and coordinate all signals along Carrollton Boulevard to operate as
one system. Implement coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM, Midday, PM, Off, and Weekend peak hours as needed.
$461,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard and Nike Park Road Extended – Install a traffic signal, coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with adjacent signalized intersections, optimize traffic signal phasing
and timings plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound and southbound approaches, construct three through lanes and maintain/construct
one exclusive northbound left-turn lane and one exclusive southbound right-turn lane.
$429,000 2023 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
Carrollton Boulevard and Northgate Drive – Install a new traffic signal, maintain coordination with adjacent signalized intersections, and optimize traffic signal phasing and timings plans to
accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound and southbound approaches, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one
exclusive right-turn lane.
$429,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard and Smith’s Neck Road – Install a new traffic signal, maintain coordination with adjacent signalized intersections, and optimize traffic signal phasing and timings plans to
accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound approach, construct two exclusive left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
On the southbound approach, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. On the eastbound approach, construct two exclusive left-turn lanes,
one through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. On the westbound approach, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and on exclusive right-turn lane.
$438,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard and Eagle Harbor/Kings Crossing – Install a new traffic signal, maintain coordination with adjacent signalized intersections, and optimize traffic signal phasing and
timings plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound and southbound approaches, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$438,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Carrollton Boulevard and Harbor Pointe Lane/Whippingham Parkway – Install a new traffic signal, maintain coordination with adjacent signalized intersections, and optimize traffic signal
phasing and timings plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound and southbound approaches, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, three
through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$438,000 2023 VDOT/IOW County
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard – Widen to a six-lane, median divided typical section with 10-foot multi-use paths on both sides of the corridor. The median should be a 10 to 12-foot variable width
median between Queen Anne’s Court and Carrollton Boulevard.
$21,026,000 2028 VDOT/IOW County
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Signal System Wireless Interconnect – Install wireless interconnect (underground fiber or overhead) and coordinate all signals along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard to
operate as one system. Implement coordinated signal timing plans to accommodate vehicle demands during the AM, Midday, PM, Off, and Weekend peak hours as needed.
$263,000 2028 VDOT/IOW County
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Queen Anne’s Court/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extension – Modify/upgrade the traffic signal and coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Benn’s
Church Boulevard/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Extended signal. Construct one exclusive northbound left-turn lane, three eastbound through lanes, two westbound through lanes, two exclusive
westbound left-turn lanes, and one exclusive westbound right-turn lane. Modify/stripe the southbound approach to have one shared through/left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane as well
as the eastbound approach to have one exclusive left-turn lane.
$376,000 2028 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Sentara Way – Install a traffic signal once signal warrants are met; coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Anne’s
Court. Construct three eastbound and westbound through lanes as well as modify the eastbound approach to have one exclusive left-turn lane and the westbound approach to contain one
exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$444,000 2028 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Norsworthy Drive/Towne Haven Lane – Install a new traffic signal and coordinate traffic signal timings/operations with Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Queen Anne’s
Court. Construct one exclusive northbound left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. On the southbound approach, construct one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. On the eastbound and westbound approaches, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$458,000 2028 VDOT/IOW
Count/Developers
80
Table 7-2: Mid-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” Cost Estimate A Timeframe B Responsible Party
Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard – Install a new traffic signal, maintain coordination with adjacent signalized intersections, and optimize traffic signal phasing and timings
plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic along Carrollton Boulevard. On the northbound and southbound approaches, construct two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one
exclusive right-turn lane. On the eastbound approach construct three exclusive left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one exclusive free-flow right-turn lane. On the westbound approach
construct one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$587,000 2028 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
A Cost estimate includes estimated design cost and ten percent contingency. Probable cost estimate is engineer’s approximation in 2013 dollars and is subject to change based on increased construction materials, design, or time of implementation.
B Timeframe for implementation is an estimate based on project need and available funding. Actual timeframe may vary based on externalities.
81 81
Section 7.3 Long Term Recommendations and Planning Level
Cost Estimates
Long-term recommendations for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Corridor study area consist of the widening of Nike Park Road between
Battery Park Road and Carrollton Boulevard, modification/upgrade of the proposed Battery Park Road/Nike Park Road roundabout,
the installation of new or modification of existing traffic signals, as well as select intersection improvements anticipated over time.
Nike Park Road Corridor
As a result of the public involvement process, Option 2 (as shown Figure 7-4) was identified as the preferred option to widen
Nike Park Road from a 2-lane to a 4-lane, median divided typical section with a multi-use path along the west side of the
roadway.
Construct a 16 to 20-foot variable width raised landscaped median along the corridor between the Battery Park Road
intersection to the north and the Carrollton Boulevard intersection to the south/east
o This will allow for the construction of 12-foot full width left turn-lanes where necessary while maintaining a 4 to 8-foot
median to provide physical separation between traffic located in the turn-lane and traffic in the opposing/oncoming
travel lane.
Employ desirable access management strategies to accommodate, prohibit, restrict, or best mitigate full-movement
crossovers/intersections located along the corridor Maintain or locate full-movement intersections at the following locations:
o Carrollton Nike Park Entrance
o Titus Creek Drive
o Reynolds Drive
o Location and spacing of other subsequent full-movement intersections will be based on the immediately adjacent
full-movement intersection(s) or partial access intersection(s), VDOT Access Management Guidelines, and
intersections serving high traffic demand side streets locations.
Figure 7-4: Nike Park Road 4-Lane Typical Section – Option # 2
Nike Park Road at Reynolds Drive
Install a new traffic signal to accommodate proposed roadway widening and intersection capacity/operational changes
Optimize traffic signal phasing and timing plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour vehicle demands during the AM,
Midday, PM, and Off peak hours as needed
Northbound Nike Park Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one through lane
Construct one shared through/right-turn lane
Southbound Nike Park Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one through lane
Construct one shared through/right-turn lane
Eastbound Reynolds Drive
Maintain/construct one shared left/through/right-turn lane
Westbound Reynolds Drive
Construct one shared through/left-turn lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
82
Nike Park Road at Titus Creek Drive
Monitor intersection operations and consider the installation of a traffic signal when warrants are met
Northbound Nike Park Road
Construct two through lanes
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Southbound Nike Park Road
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct two through lanes
Westbound Titus Creek Drive
Construct one exclusive left-turn lane
Construct one exclusive right-turn lane
Battery Park Road at Nike Park Road
Modify/upgrade originally proposed single lane roundabout to a two lane roundabout as shown in Figure 7-5
Northbound Nike Park Road
Construct two lane approach to accommodate northbound to westbound traffic volumes
Southbound Nike Park Road
Construct one lane approach to accommodate right/through/left-turn traffic
Eastbound Battery Park Road
Construct two approach lanes – one for through/left traffic and one free-flow right slip-lane
Westbound Battery Park Road
Construct one approach lane to accommodate right/through/left-turn traffic
Figure 7-5: Battery Park Road at Nike Park Road Roundabout
7.3.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates – Long Term
Item Total
Engineering/Design $4,017,000.00
Roadway/Intersection Improvements* $23,840,500.00
Traffic Signal Equipment Improvements $751,750.00
Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) $2,502,000.00
Right-of-Way (ROW) $3,482,000.00
Construction Contingency (10%) $2,460,000.00
Total $37,054,000.00
*Roadway/intersection improvement costs include applicable signage, turn-lane, pavement marking costs, and construction of a
new bridge over Jones Creek.
83 83
Table 7-3: Long-Term “Recommendations and Action Items” Cost Estimate A Timeframe B Responsible Party
Nike Park Road/Nike Park Road Corridor – Widen to a four-lane, median divided typical section with a 10-foot multi-use path along the west side of the roadway. The median should be a 10 to
12-foot variable width median between Battery Park Road and Carrollton Boulevard. Based on current planning activities it is expected that the multi-use path will be constructed and in place
prior to the widening of the roadway.
$35,331,000 2034 VDOT/IOW
County/Developers
Nike Park Road and Reynolds Drive – Install a new traffic signal and optimize traffic signal phasing and timings plans to accommodate peak/off-peak hour traffic. On the northbound and
southbound approaches, construct one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. On the westbound approach, construct one shared through/left-turn
lane and one exclusive right-turn lane.
$415,000 2034 VDOT/IOW County
Nike Park Road and Titus Creek Road – Monitor the unsignalized intersection operations and consider the installation of a new traffic signal when warrants are met. Construct two through
lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane on the northbound approach. Construct one exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes on the southbound approach. Construct one exclusive left-turn
lane and one exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach.
$425,000 2034 VDOT/IOW County
Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road – Modify/upgrade the originally proposed single lane roundabout to a two lane roundabout. Construct a two lane approach on the northbound leg, a one
lane approach on the southbound leg, a two lane approach on the eastbound leg, and a one lane approach on the westbound leg.
$883,000 2034 VDOT/Town of Smithfield/IOW
County
A Cost estimate includes estimated design cost and ten percent contingency. Probable cost estimate is engineer’s approximation in 2013 dollars and is subject to change based on increased construction materials, design, or time of implementation.
B Timeframe for implementation is an estimate based on project need and available funding. Actual timeframe may vary based on externalities.
84
Chapter 8.0 Conclusions
The Isle of Wight County Brewer’s Neck Boulevard Study provides a comprehensive understanding of the operational and capacity
improvements necessary along Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, and Nike Park Road to accommodate anticipated
growth and economic vitality within the study area and identifies a preferred alignment for the extension of Nike Park Road from its
terminus with Reynolds Drive in the west to its terminus with Carrollton Boulevard in the east. The implementation of system-wide
improvements will occur through local policies, programs, and funding as well as state contributions and private investment. The study
provides a blueprint for a coordinated approach to fulfilling the County’s vision.
The report will serve as a beneficial tool to both Isle of Wight County and VDOT in their discussions with developers as they convey
future plans and projects for the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard and Carrollton Boulevard corridors as well as Nike Park Road. This strategic
vision will provide the opportunity to obtain right-of-way, as well as realize implementation of both specific and regional improvements
through the development review process. On a much broader scale, the study will ultimately be used as a planning tool by the County
and VDOT to manage growth and assess the transportation network impacts created by regional influences internally and externally to
the study area.
The study examined existing and future conditions for the horizon year of 2034, with the intent of gaining a better understanding of the
more immediate needs along Nike Park Road, Smith’s Neck Road, and Battery Park Road as well as coordinated signal system needs
along Carrollton Boulevard. Growth within and adjacent to the study area corridor is very dynamic in terms of anticipated residential
and commercial/retail development, as well as increases in traffic volumes stemming from the corridor’s role in the regional
transportation network. This study considered a robust list of planned and approved growth opportunities within the study area (e.g.,
Benn’s Grant, The Crossings, St. Luke’s Village, Norsworthy, Bridge Point Commons, etc). The comprehensive approach to the
development of future traffic projections was necessary due to regional travel pattern behavior, the anticipated cumulative impact on
the Brewer’s Neck Boulevard/Carrollton Boulevard intersection operations, as well as the need to capture the operational benefit of the
proposed extension of Nike Park Road. This will assist the County in making informed land use and economic development decisions
as they relate to roadway and utility infrastructure improvements/investments necessary to support development.
As a result of the field reviews, traffic analyses, policy review, and discussions with the County, project stakeholders, and VDOT,
recommendations for improvements have been identified within the study area to include; operational and capacity improvements as
well as bike and pedestrian improvements along the corridor, and the extension of Nike Park Road to Carrollton Boulevard to relieve
corridor congestion through the enhancement of network connectivity. The recommendations were based on the desire to safely and
efficiently address future internal and external traffic growth associated with the key study area components (i.e., operational and
capacity enhancements along the corridor, network connectivity, and overall traffic safety). A key short-term recommendation of the
study is the proposed extension of Nike Park Road approximately 1.0 mile from its current intersection with Reynolds Drive in the west
to a proposed intersection with Carrollton Boulevard in the east. This will address a missing link in the local street network and provide
local travelers and/or local residents with a more direct and safe alternate route to the Smith’s Neck Road to Titus Creek Drive to Nike
Park Road route used by many today. Thus this new connection is expected to reduce traffic volumes through the Smith’s Neck
Road/Reynolds Drive, Smith’s Neck Road/Titus Creek Drive, and Carrollton Boulevard/Brewer’s Neck Boulevard intersections. The
major recommendations of the study involve the widening of Brewer’s Neck Boulevard, Carrollton Boulevard, and ultimately Nike Park
Road. These projects are economically significant in nature and therefore it is not practical under current economic conditions to expect
that the construction of these improvements would all occur within a relatively short period of one another. Rather, projects are
grouped and/or categorized into short, mid, and long-term based on the magnitude of the project (i.e., cost), timing/schedule of when
the particular project could be constructed, as well as the scale of the issue a particular project is intended to address. This approach
allows communities to prioritize larger scale projects over time while also being able to implement “quick hitter” projects that mitigate
immediate needs.
Project specific recommendations focus on operational, capacity, and safety improvements within the study area. Planning-level
cost estimates, expressed in year 2013 dollars, have been included for all recommendations. These planning-level cost estimates
have been based on VDOT’s statewide four-year cost averages for 2009, the VDOT Transportation & Mobility Planning Division’s
(TMPD) “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet from 2006, as well as familiarity with similar project and
improvement costs throughout Virginia. Due to fluctuations in the costs of labor, materials, and equipment, variability in the market
and the outcome of competitive bidding, and the general planning-level nature of the recommendations, these estimated costs are
neither exact nor guaranteed.
Variation between actual and estimated costs will change as time passes, and the time value of money has not been taken into
account. Cost estimations performed using the “Statewide Planning Level Cost Estimates” worksheet include right-of-way
acquisition cost estimates developed with the sheet’s methodology. The cost breakdown per scenario includes engineering costs,
landscaping costs, pavement marking costs, urban roadway costs, rigid material costs (milling, overlay, sidewalks, channelization,
etc.), signal costs (timing and construction), signing costs, and miscellaneous costs which includes, mobilization, sediment and
erosion control, traffic control (i.e., maintenance of traffic (MOT) during construction), right-of-way (ROW) and utility costs, and
stormwater management. Chapter 7.0 reflects the cost estimates for those all projects that fall within a particular time frame (i.e.,
short term, mid-term, long term). Table 7-1 through Table 7-3 provides recommendations and action times for improvements to
include general project description, overall cost estimate, general timeframe for implementation, and likely responsible parties.
The study outlines the long-term vision for the corridor and its associated transportation network needs. The intent is to now use
the vision as projects emerge, whether small or large, public or private, to ensure that the ultimate overarching desires and needs
of the corridor study area are achieved. Each project should be evaluated against the overall Isle of Wight County Brewer’s Neck
Corridor Study to determine specifically how it can best contribute towards realizing the County’s vision.
The next key step in the planning process is to determine how the recommended improvements will be implemented. Both the
County and VDOT officials will need to determine implementation strategies as well as establish project priorities. Implementation
strategies to consider include seeking and identifying funding streams, both public and private, to construct improvements. There
are several potential public programs that may assist with funding projects. At the federal level there are earmarks, National
Highway System funds, bridge funds, and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to name a few. At the state level
there is the VDOT six-year improvement program (SYIP), multimodal planning grants, and enhancement funds. At the local level
Isle of Wight County is a member of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) which can assist local
planning efforts by providing services and guidance on funding strategies/coordination with VDOT. Private funds may be realized
through rezoning action and proffer contributions, as well as dedication of right-of-way. All these programs must be considered for
each recommended improvement as outlined in the report. The recommended improvements should be prioritized into projects
with both County and VDOT input. Each project should be thoroughly evaluated then identified for priority order, time frame from
implementation and potential funding sources.
85 85
Technical Appendix
Appendix A. Data Collection
Appendix B. Environmental Screening
Appendix C. Future Development Trip Generation
Appendix D. Capacity Analysis
Appendix E. Typical Section Options
Appendix F. Public Meeting Comments
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
February 2014
Board of Supervisors
Public Hearing {May 15, 2014}
IOW projected allocations for 2015-2020 were
reduced $1,184,937.00 from last year.
Draft SSYIP has no new projects.
Draft SSYIP maintains project priorities
adopted in 2013.
5 paving projects were complete in 2013.
5 paving projects are in design, to be complete
in 2014.
Mogart’s Beach was previously fully-funded in
FY 18/19
NOW Mogart’s Beach is fully-funded in FY
14/15.
Rattlesnake Trail was previously fully-funded
in FY 18/19
NOW no longer fully-funded in SSYIP.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt the Resolution of approval of the VDOT FY
2015-2020 SSYIP and Construction Priority List.
May 15, 2014/asc/Fire and Rescue Equipment Acquisitions and Action Plan Update
ISSUE:
Fire and Rescue Titling and Facility Use Update
BACKGROUND:
At the Board’s meeting on December 5, 2013, Chief Rusty Chase
provided an overview of the fire and rescue equipment
acquisition process, upcoming major equipment purchases, and
recommendations to bring all county-funded Volunteer
Fire/Rescue major equipment purchases into alignment and
compliance with County policy.
Staff committed to the development of an action plan that
included resolution for the titling of equipment and other
standards for the May 2014 meeting. Staff has been meeting and
actively pursuing the development and resolution for consistent
standards and agreements to promote the protection, safety and
welfare of the citizens served by the County and volunteer
agencies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the update.
ATTACHMENTS:
December 5, 2013 Presentation to the Board
ISSUE:
Matters for the Board’s Information
BACKGROUND:
The matters attached to this Board report are included as means of
providing information to the Board relative to matters of interest.
These items do not require any action by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the Board’s information.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Press Release re: Comcast Charter Divestiture Agreement
2. Tourism PR Initiatives
3. Monthly Reports: Delinquent Tax Information and Statement of
Treasurer’s Accountability
Tourism-Positive Public Relations Initiatives April/May 2014
*The Isle of Wight County Branding initiative was finalized and choices presented to the Board of
Supervisors on April 17, 2014. The selections were narrowed to two and both selections were place on
the County website for voting and comments. The choices include the logo plus the tag line of “Local
Root…Global Reach”. Voting ends May 16th. The winner will be utilized in all County collateral,
signage and logo/branding opportunities beginning July 1, 2014.
*Local Smithfield & Isle of Wight teen, Bria Kelly has been featured on the hit NBC singing show,
“The VOICE”. Bria made it to the Top 10! Smithfield Foods and SmithfieldVAEvents are working with
Tourism, the Schools and other volunteers to present a special Welcome Home Event for the celebrity
teen. The event will take place on Saturday, May 10th at Smithfield Food Corporate Headquarters
from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. and will include a police escorted motorcade, welcome home ceremony, Bria
Kelly Concert and “Meet and Greet”. The event will be covered and promoted by WAVY TV 10, The
Daily Press, The Smithfield Times, The Virginian Pilot, and 97.3 The Eagle Radio. VIP invitations to the
Board and County Administrator are forthcoming.
*Thursday, May 1st, Smithfield Station in Smithfield and Isle of Wight County was featured in the
Showcase Showdown of the hit game show, “The Price Is Right!” Several years ago, Randy Pack
from Smithfield Station and Judy Winslow from Tourism put together a package in response to a
solicitation from Virginia Tourism and “The Price is Right!” The package includes tickets to Busch
Gardens, a 6 night stay at the Smithfield Station, all breakfasts and dinners (provided by the Station and
various local eateries) and tickets to all local attractions. They combined this package with an ATV and a
NEW CAR! The package was finally featured with many photos and copy after over two years but
garnered great national attention. The winner was a woman from Nashville, TN.
*On Friday, May 16th, Smithfield & Isle of Wight Tourism will be holding its 5th Annual Hospitality
Hero Awards Event at the Visitor Center from 5 p.m. til 6:30 p.m. This event allows Tourism to
honor and thank each front-line employee in the hospitality field who was nominated by a visitor as a
Hospitality Hero…someone who made their travel experience to Smithfield and Isle of Wight
EXTRAORDINARY! Also honored at the event are local Community Ambassadors-those folks that
have brought a meeting or event to Smithfield and Isle of Wight that significantly increased the economic
impact to tourism stakeholders. Also honored at the event will be Tourism HAMbassadors…The
Hambassador Program is a new initiative that offers front line employees a hospitality certification. The
program attendees participate in a local familiarization tour to showcase all there is to see and do here
locally, lead by one of Tourism’s well-trained tour guides. Participants also take an on-line customer
service training course designed by Tourism and then are required to visit and critique one local
attraction, accommodation and retail establishment. Their critique must be posted to a REAL on-line
website (such as TripAdvisor) that utilizes user-content to review and recommend venues to the public.
Actually being required to visit and post their own review really brings home how important great
customer service is and how a great experience OR a bad one can really effect each venues visitation and
bottom line.
Comcast and Charter Reach Agreement on Divestitures
Comcast to Divest 3.9 Million Customers of Merged Comcast - Time Warner Cable
Charter to Enhance Scale and Improve Geographic Footprint
Divestiture will be Executed through Three Separate Transactions, Including the Creation of a New,
Independent, Publicly-Traded Cable Provider
Philadelphia and Stamford – April 28, 2014 – Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) and
Charter Communications (Nasdaq: CHTR) today announced that the companies have reached an
agreement (the “Agreement”) on a series of tax-efficient transactions, whereby the combined Comcast-
Time Warner Cable entity, following completion of Comcast’s previously announced merger with Time
Warner Cable, will divest systems resulting in a net reduction of approximately 3.9 million video
customers. The divestiture follows through on Comcast’s willingness to reduce its post-merger managed
subscriber total to less than 30 percent of total national MVPD subscribers, while maintaining the
compelling strategic and financial rationale of its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable.
Pursuant to the Agreement, and following the close of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, Charter
will acquire approximately 1.4 million existing Time Warner Cable subscribers, increasing Charter’s
current residential and commercial video customer base from 4.4 million to approximately 5.7 million,
and making Charter the second largest cable operator in the United States.1 Charter and Comcast will
also each transfer approximately 1.6 million customers respectively. In addition, Charter, through a tax
free reorganization, will form a new holding company (New Charter) that will own 100% of Charter, and
acquire an approximate 33 percent stake in a new publicly-traded cable provider to be spun-off by
Comcast serving approximately 2.5 million customers (“SpinCo”). Charter will provide management
services to SpinCo. In aggregate, today’s announced transactions will significantly enhance Charter’s
scale and improve both companies geographic footprint, driving operational efficiencies for Comcast,
Charter and SpinCo.
The Agreement has been approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies and Time Warner
Cable’s Board has consented to the Agreement as required under the Comcast-Time Warner Cable
merger agreement.
1Charter customer count is based on its reporting methodologies; net additions and SpinCo on respective TWC and Comcast reporting
methodologies, where there may be small definitional differences. Totals may not recalculate due to rounding.
The Agreement will be executed via three separate transactions, which are subject to the completion of
the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger:
1. Comcast will divest Time Warner Cable systems serving approximately 1.4 million existing Time
Warner Cable customers directly to Charter for cash. Charter expects to fund the purchase with
proceeds from debt, and to have approximately a 5 times debt to EBITDA leverage ratio at closing.
2. Comcast and Charter will transfer assets serving approximately 1.6 million existing Time Warner Cable
customers and 1.6 million Charter customers in a tax-efficient like kind exchange, improving the
geographic presence of both companies, leading to greater operational efficiencies, improved
technology deployment and enhanced customer service.
3. Comcast will form and spin off to its shareholders a new, independent, publicly-traded company that
will operate systems serving approximately 2.5 million existing Comcast customers. Comcast
shareholders, including the former Time Warner Cable shareholders, are expected to own
approximately 67 percent of SpinCo, while New Charter is expected to directly own approximately 33
percent of SpinCo. SpinCo expects to incur leverage of approximately 5 times estimated pro-forma
EBITDA, and New Charter will then acquire its interest in SpinCo by issuing New Charter stock to
Comcast shareholders (including former Time Warner Cable shareholders). SpinCo’s nine-member Board
of Directors will include six independent directors and three directors designated by Charter. Comcast
will hold no ownership interest in SpinCo (or Charter) and will have no role in managing SpinCo.
The transfer of systems, asset purchase and SpinCo acquisition will be valued at a 7.125 times 2014
EBITDA multiple (as defined by the parties), and Charter will make additional payments to Comcast over
time as tax benefits from the asset sale are realized.
As a result of these transactions, following the completion of the merger between Comcast and Time
Warner Cable, Comcast’s managed residential subscribers will be below 30 percent of the total MVPD
subscribers in the United States, and approximately the same market share as Comcast’s subscriber base
after its completion of both the 2002 AT&T Broadband transaction and the 2006 Adelphia transaction –
and Charter’s subscriber base will increase by 1.4 million to a total of 5.7 million.
Comcast has reaffirmed that, after taking into account the transactions with Charter, it continues to
expect its merger with Time Warner Cable to generate approximately $1.5 billion in operating
efficiencies. Comcast shareholders will receive meaningful value with shares in New Charter, as well as
new shares in SpinCo. In addition, Comcast intends to use proceeds from these transactions to reduce
its debt in a leverage-neutral manner and expand its share buyback program.
“Today’s Agreement follows through on our willingness to divest subscribers, while also marking an
important step in our merger with Time Warner Cable,” said Brian Roberts, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Comcast Corporation. “These transactions enable us to deliver meaningful value to
our shareholders. The realignment of key cable markets achieved in these transactions will enable
Comcast to fill in our footprint and deliver operational efficiencies and technology improvements. We
look forward to working with the management teams at Time Warner Cable, Charter and the new entity
to close these transactions and ensure a smooth transition for the customers and employees of all
companies.”
“Charter’s new customers will benefit from our philosophy of providing highly valued products,
featuring enhanced on-demand, interactive video and increased broadband speeds, all in a simplified
package designed to provide better value and service,” said Tom Rutledge, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Charter Communications. “The transactions announced today will provide Charter
with greater scale, growth opportunities and improved geographical rationalization of our cable
systems, which in turn will drive value for shareholders and more effective customer service. And
through our meaningful ownership in and board representation at SpinCo, we can help it achieve similar
market share growth in the markets it serves.”
The transactions are subject to a number of conditions, including the closing of the Comcast-Time
Warner Cable merger, receipt of Hart-Scott-Rodino, FCC and other required regulatory approvals,
Charter shareholder approval, and various other matters.
J.P. Morgan and Paul J. Taubman acted as financial advisors to Comcast and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP are its legal advisors.
Goldman Sachs and LionTree Advisors are serving as lead financial advisors to Charter in connection with
this transaction. Guggenheim Securities is also a financial advisor to Charter. BofA Merrill Lynch, Credit
Suisse, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are also financial advisors to Charter, and together with
Goldman Sachs, are leading the financing for the transaction. The law firms Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz and Kirkland & Ellis LLP are also representing Charter.
Teleconference and Webcast for Financial Community
Charter and Comcast will host a conference call on Monday, April 28, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time
(ET) related to the contents of this release.
The conference call will be webcast live via Charter’s website at charter.com. The webcast can be
accessed by selecting "Investor & News Center" from the lower menu on the home page. The call will be
archived in the "Investor & News Center" in the "Financial Information" section on the left beginning
two hours after completion of the call. Participants should go to the webcast link no later than 10
minutes prior to the start time to register.
The conference call and related materials will also be broadcast live and posted on Comcast’s Investor
Relations website at www.cmcsa.com or www.cmcsk.com.
Those participating via telephone should dial 866-919-0894 no later than 10 minutes prior to the call.
International participants should dial 706-679-9379. The conference ID code for the call is 35997372. A
replay of the call will be available at 855-859-2056 or 404-537-3406 beginning two hours after the
completion of the call through the end of business on May 28, 2014. The conference ID code for the
replay is 35997372.
About Comcast Corporation
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) is a global media and technology company with two
primary businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast Cable is the nation's largest video, high-
speed Internet and phone provider to residential customers under the XFINITY brand and also provides
these services to businesses. NBCUniversal operates 30 news, entertainment and sports cable networks,
the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, television production operations, television station
groups, Universal Pictures and Universal Parks and Resorts. Visit www.comcastcorporation.com for
more information.
About Charter Communications
Charter (NASDAQ: CHTR) is a leading broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States. Charter provides a full range of advanced broadband services, including
advanced Charter TV® video entertainment programming, Charter Internet® access, and Charter
Phone®. Charter Business® similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective broadband
communications solutions to business organizations, such as business-to-business Internet access, data
networking, business telephone, video and music entertainment services, and wireless backhaul.
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under the Charter Media® brand. More
information about Charter can be found at charter.com.
Contacts:
Comcast:
Media Investor Relations
D’Arcy Rudnay Jason Armstrong
215-286-8582 215-286-7972
John Demming Jane Kearns
215-286-8011 215-286-4794
Charter:
Media Analysts
Alex Dudley Stefan Anninger
203-905-7960 203-905-7955
Justin Venech
203-905-7818
Important Information For Investors And Shareholders
This communication does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities
or a solicitation of any vote or approval. In connection with the proposed transaction between Comcast
Corporation (“Comcast”) and Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”), Charter will file with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) a registration statement on Form S-4 that will include a proxy
statement of Charter that also constitutes a prospectus of Charter, and a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus will be mailed to shareholders of Charter. INVESTORS AND SECURITY
HOLDERS OF COMCAST AND CHARTER ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY
STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC
CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT
INFORMATION. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the registration
statement and the proxy statement/prospectus (when available) and other documents filed with the SEC
by Comcast or Charter through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the
documents filed with the SEC by Comcast are available free of charge on Comcast’s website at
http://cmcsa.com or by contacting Comcast’s Investor Relations Department at 866-281-2100. Copies of
the documents filed with the SEC by Charter will be available free of charge on Charter’s website at
charter.com, in the “Investor and News Center” near the bottom of the page, or by contacting Charter’s
Investor Relations Department at 203-905-7955.
In addition, in connection with the proposed transaction between Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc.
(“Time Warner Cable”), on March 20, 2014, Comcast filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form
S-4 containing a preliminary joint proxy statement of Comcast and Time Warner Cable that also
constitutes a preliminary prospectus of Comcast. The registration statement has not yet become
effective. After the registration statement is declared effective by the SEC, a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus will be mailed to shareholders of Comcast and Time Warner Cable. INVESTORS
AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF COMCAST AND TIME WARNER CABLE ARE URGED TO READ THE
JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED OR THAT WILL BE
FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN OR WILL
CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors and security holders may obtain free copies of the
registration statement and the joint proxy statement/prospectus and other documents filed with the SEC
by Comcast or Time Warner Cable through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.
Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Comcast are available free of charge on Comcast’s
website at http://cmcsa.com or by contacting Comcast’s Investor Relations Department at 866-281-2100.
Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Time Warner Cable will be available free of charge on
Time Warner Cable’s website at http://ir.timewarnercable.com or by contacting Time Warner Cable’s
Investor Relations Department at 877-446-3689.
Shareholders of Comcast and Time Warner Cable are not being asked to vote on the proposed
transaction between Comcast and Charter, and the proposed transaction between Comcast and Time
Warner Cable is not contingent upon the proposed transaction between Comcast and Charter.
Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter and their respective directors and certain of their respective
executive officers may be considered participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the
proposed transaction between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, Charter and their
respective directors and certain of their respective executive officers may be considered participants in
the solicitation of proxies in connection with the proposed transaction between Comcast and Charter.
Information about the directors and executive officers of Time Warner Cable is set forth in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed with the SEC on February
18, 2014, and its preliminary proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which was filed
with the SEC on April 8, 2014. Information about the directors and executive officers of Comcast is set
forth in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed with the
SEC on February 12, 2014, and its proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which
was filed with the SEC on April 11, 2014. Information about the directors and executive officers of Charter
is set forth in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed
with the SEC on February 21, 2014, and its proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders,
which was filed with the SEC on March 27, 2014. These documents can be obtained free of charge from
the sources indicated above. Additional information regarding the participants in the proxy solicitations
and a description of their direct and indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, are contained in
the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus of Comcast and Time Warner Cable filed with the SEC
and will be contained in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of Comcast and Time Warner
Cable and other relevant materials to be filed with the SEC when they become available, and will also be
contained in the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus of Charter when it becomes available.
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this communication regarding the proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable by
Comcast and the proposed transaction between Comcast and Charter, including any statements
regarding the expected timetable for completing the transactions, benefits and synergies of the
transactions, future opportunities for the respective companies and products, and any other statements
regarding Comcast’s, Time Warner Cable’s and Charter’s future expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives,
financial conditions, assumptions or future events or performance that are not historical facts are
“forward-looking” statements made within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements are
often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “may”, “believe,” “anticipate,”
“could”, “should,” “intend,” “plan,” “will,” “expect(s),” “estimate(s),” “project(s),” “forecast(s)”, “positioned,”
“strategy,” “outlook” and similar expressions. All such forward-looking statements involve estimates and
assumptions that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from the results expressed in the statements. Among the key factors that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements are the following:
the timing to consummate the proposed transactions; the risk that a condition to closing either of the
proposed transactions may not be satisfied; the risk that a regulatory approval that may be required for
either of the proposed transactions is not obtained or is obtained subject to conditions that are not
anticipated; the parties’ ability to achieve the synergies and value creation contemplated by the proposed
transactions; the parties’ ability to promptly, efficiently and effectively integrate acquired operations into
their own operations; and the diversion of management time on transaction-related issues. Additional
information concerning these and other factors can be found in Comcast’s, Time Warner Cable’s and
Charter’s respective filings with the SEC, including Comcast’s, Time Warner Cable’s and Charter’s most
recent Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-
K. Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Charter assume no obligation to update any forward-looking
statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that
speak only as of the date hereof.