Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
351 <br /> Michael Harvey <br /> From: Thomas Ten Eyck <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:05 PM <br /> To: Michael Harvey <br /> Cc: Tom Altieri <br /> Subject: Re: TIA for Research Triangle Logistics Park <br /> Attachments: Exhibit H - Traffic Impact Analysis - RTLP - June 5, 2020.pdf <br /> Michael, <br /> I've attached my copy of the 'marked up' TIA here, but for ease of reading, here's the highlights: <br /> • There may be an issue with the description of"2,2510,200 sq. feet of warehouse" that is presented in the <br /> executive summary(and main body of the report). My understanding is that this development could <br /> include a myriad of light manufacturing, warehousing, fulfillment services and research labs (among <br /> others) and that simply having one "type" of use (i.e. warehouses) would have different traffic patterns <br /> from business with 9-to-5 operational hours (and predictable peak times). <br /> • The predicted new trips generated is 3,648 per average weekday with 320 AM peak trips and 326 PM <br /> peak trips. These AM/PM "peaks" represent only 18% of all trips, which seems small for peaks. And, <br /> similarly to what I stated above, if the entire development is warehouses (with more than AM and PM <br /> peaks), this could cause issues with some of the lower-performing LOS intersections (and overall greater <br /> rates of congestion in the area). <br /> • A dedicated right-turn lane on southbound Old NC 86 is not recommended as there does not appear to <br /> be enough ROW to construct the lane, but this is the connection to three (A, B and C) of the four <br /> total driveways that will be constructed(the fourth, D, will be on Davis Rd.). These are also the first <br /> three driveways that will be constructed, so it seems like a dedicated right turn off of Old NC 86 might <br /> be important to functional operation of this area(especially since it's current use based on counts has <br /> been zero). <br /> • The three "exceptions" that do not meet LOS D or better for average intersections are all predicted on a <br /> "typical" AM and PM peak time (and then down time in-between). Not sure that this will be the case if <br /> the majority/entirety of the development is warehousing. <br /> • All consultant recommendations seem sensible and realistic. <br /> • The turn movements were calculated in October of 2016; I'm not sure how valid this data may still be (I <br /> have no frame of reference for how old is "too old"). <br /> • Page 31, Table 8: Old NC 86 at I-40 EB has an issue with maxing out the 200-feet of available storage <br /> in AM; none of the recommendations call for an additional lane or improvement for this beyond a traffic <br /> light. <br /> • The overall conclusions (page 34) identify the problems with LOS E and LOS F for these particular <br /> intersections,but offer no solutions. Turning north from WB I-40 onto Old NC 86 is simply going to be <br /> slow, turning east from Old NC 86 onto EB I-40 is going to be slow, and turning out of the Service Road <br /> (which houses three of the total four driveways for the development) onto Old NC 86 is going to be <br /> slow. That's it. <br /> Michael, this is my first analysis, so please let me know if anything else needs elaboration or if you have any <br /> other feedback for me. Hoping this is enough to start. <br /> i <br />