O28 Litwornia West Essex Highlands Traffic Report 82225 FINAL

Page 15 SIGHT TRIANGLES Sight triangles are a means of assuring drivers can see far enough to make a safe turning movement decision. The parking exits from building A and building D are questionable because of the road slopes and the curves. Applicant has not shown sight triangles on the plans to prove the sight distances are adequate. Further, 90 degree parking along Road “D “where the road curves and is also on a 10% grade doesn’t allow for sufficient sight distance in our opinion. This is a traffic safety issue that needs to be considered before application can be deemed complete or a waiver request be accepted by the Planning Board. STREET CLASSIFICATION RSIS identifies three categories of street depending upon its usage. Residential access is the lowest category, and it is limited to 1500 ADT. Minor collector is the next highest category and RSIS limits that category to 3500 ADT. The highest category is Major Collector and none of the roads in this development application qualifies for that category. The residential access category might apply which limits ADT to 1500. The calculated ADT for this application is 2728 which is 1228 more than this category. This applies to the Warner Road segment. Oval Road sees 5100 ADT and is also a residential access road as it is the cul-desac main access. CONCLUSIONS Remember, the RSIS was adopted so that residential projects would be based to the greatest extent possible upon sound, objective site improvement standards rather than upon discretionary design standards (RSIS 5:21-1.3). With this in mind, the application should not be approved as presently proposed for the following reasons: 1. The Traffic from One Cul-de-Sac Roadway Is Excessive. The RSIS states that a cul-de-sac must have a maximum of 250 vehicle trips per day. The application will create a single cul-de-sac with an estimated daily traffic of over 5,100 trips per day when existing development is taken into account. This would be created with only one way in or out of the entire complex. This violates good planning and violates the applicant’s requirement that two access points are required for emergency access. Providing a single access with 5,100 trips per day via one roadway, without an alternate access, is not sound planning and is unsafe. It is recommended that another full access roadway into the development be provided from a major collector.