TIA
Transportation Planning & Engineering Consulting Services
heffron
t ran S 0 r tat Ion Inc.
May 3, 2000
Ms. Cathy Carlson, City Planner
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue W
POBox 479
Yelm, W A 98597
Subject.
Yelm Safeway Gas Station
Dear Cathy,
The Safeway Gas Station traffic impact analysis (Safeway Gas Station - City ofYelm Traffic ImpactAnalysis,
Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 29,2000) currently being reviewed by the City ofYelm reflects a pro-
posed fuehng facihty with five gas pumps (10 fueling positions) Safeway is proposing to increase the number
of gas pumps at this site to seven (14 fueling positions). Because project trip generation was based on the
amount of traffic passing the site during the PM peak hour, no increase in project trip generation is expected due
to the additional gas pumps. Therefore, the analysis and mitigation described in the referenced memorandum
would continue to be appropriate for the proposed Yelm Safeway Gas Station.
Please contact me at (206) 855-9273 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Heffron Transportation, Inc.
~~~
Laura VanDyke, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
LSV/Isv
cC" Stanley Paulus, SSOE, Inc.
Laura Delaney, Safeway, Inc.
II
4133 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206-547-7170 Fax 206-547-1744
."
I ~~ Of TIlE .~~ I
~ ~
FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF YELM
PO BOX 479 - 105 YELM AVE W
YELM WA 98597
360-458-3244
FAX. 360-458-4348
To: 'Sfa(ll~ Pttv.-l U,?
Fax #: @-2-)) ~ L 7- ~ +( L-
From: &H1(~ G/(~
Date:
5 (, /0 C)
Pages: L, including this cover sheet.
Subject:
~~Oj ruJ~J 0-/d7~
COMMENTS
**
If you do not receive all copies or any copy is not legible, please call (360) 458-3244 as
soon as possible.
dslc:\office\forms\fax.3
mcmO~.An:J) um
To.
From:
Date:
Subject:
Stanley Paulus/I! /'
CathIe Carlso~
May 1, 2000
RevIsed SIte Plan for Safeway Fuelmg StatIOn
VIA Fax (425) 827-8412
A revIsed sIte plan applIcatIon wIll reqUIre the followmg mformatIon
1 RevIsed SIte Plan
2 RevIsed Landscape/ImgatIOn Plan
3 Letter from the Traffic Consultant regardmg the mcreased traffic and any changes to
the ongmal traffic analysIs.
4 RevIsed UtilIty Plan mcorporatmg the followmg comments
A. Must mamtam a 10' separatIon between water and sewer lInes,
B Show any changes m mfrastructure locatIons,
C ProvIde detaIl on OIl/water separator;
o ProvIde detaIl for qUIck shut-off valve,
E S T.E.P Tank can be located under the landscape stnp Iflocated elsewhere
It WIll need a traffic beanng lId, and
F Need to provIde a hose bib wIthm 75' of facIlIty
Changes to the process WIll mclude
1 The CIty wIll Issue a revIsed MItIgated DetenmnatIOn ofNonSIgmficance wIthm 2
weeks of receIVmg the above mformatIon - no addItIonal publIc comment tIme IS
reqUIred.
2 The CIty wIll Issue a ReVIsed NotIce of ApplIcatIon wIthm 1 week of receIVmg the
above mformatIon - a 15 day publIc comment penod reqUIred.
3 The CIty should be ready to Issue a SIte plan approval wIthm 30 days of receIVmg the
above mformatIOn.
If you have any questIons regardmg the reVISIOns to the utIlIty plan, please contact TIm Peterson at
(360) 458-8410 Any other questIons should be dIrected to me at (360) 458-8408
TRANSMISSION VEPIFICATION REPORT
TIME 05/01/2000 14 24
DATE,TIME
FAX NO INAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
05/01 14 23
14258278412
00 00 38
02
Of<'
STANDARD
ECM
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
Efi]3
SSOE, INC
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
3015112'" Avenue, NE, Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Telephone 425 827 2950
Facsimile 425 827 8412
www ssoe com
""~""'~"~,~~,~~,~"'''~""''"''".........."...,,..,,,..........,,''."".................. ........""".."....""",............"""".".."..".. """"""",,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,.........,... .... ....".""""",.>>>>>>>...".."",,,..,,.....,,...,,,,,,,,,>>>.,,,,,,,,>>.>>....",,,.>>>>,,..,,....,,,,.>>......,,.,,,,,,,,,,,......,,.,,,,,,,,,,
Transmittal No
Project No
Proposal No
Deliver To
Company'
Page
1 Of
00-5024
Catherine Carlson
City of Yelm
Date
Project Title
Subject:
March 29, 2000
Traffic Report
Yelm Safeway Fuel
.... .......... ............. ..... ............_u.. ..
We are sending you the following via.
REGULAR MAIL D
OVERNIGHT MAIL D
Pickup D
Priority D
Hand Delivered D
Standard 0
Second Day D
Item Qty Code Rev Dwg/Spec No TitlelDescrj ption
1 1 D-8 Traffic Report
CODES
A - Print
B - Vellum Reproducible
C - 11 x 17 Lasers
D - Copy
E - Specification
F - Shop Dwg Submittal No
G - Diskette/CD
H - Original
I -
1 - For Construction
2 - For Purchasing
3 - For Bids Due
4 - Reference Only
5 - For Approval
6 - For Review/Comment
7 - As Requested
8 - For Your Use
9 - A/E Review - No Exceptions
10 - NE Review - As Noted
11 - A/E Review - Rejected
12 - Resubmit Copies
13 - Preliminary
14 - Addendum No
15 - Bulletin No
16 - Sealed
17 - To be Sealed
18 - Signature Required
19 -
Remarks
cC'
By' Stanley Paulus
Document2
~.'....
t" . '''''1 *'
'I<... "' ~ P
'i
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
PO Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
(360) 458-3244
March 23, 2000
XIaolI LlU
SSOE, Inc
3015 112lh Avenue, NE, SUite 101
Believue, W A 98004
Re Case # SPR-00-8249-YL, Yelm Safeway Fuelmg StatIOn
Dear Ms. Lm.
The CIty has receIved the applIcatIon packet and fee for the above referenced project. The CIty wIll
Issue a notice of applicatIOn on March 24, 2000 The notice of applicatiOn WIll nottfy surroundmg
property owners and other agenCIes of the proposed project and proVIde a ttme hne m wluch
comments regardmg the project will be receIved.
The EnVironmental Checklist, 14 f, page 10 mdIcates the proposed us~ WIll generate
approxImately 65 new p.m. peak hour tnps The City reqUIres all projects that generate 25 or more
p.m peak hour tnps to submIt a Traffic Impact AnalysIs (TIA) City reVIew of the project Will be
suspended unttl such time the CIty receives the TIA for the project.
If you have any questIOns please contact me at (360) 458-8408
Smcerely
(1 ,. () l
L&:-f lu(v ~ vc--"-1/J- "l
Cathenne Carlson
City Planner
-1'
o
Transportation Planning & Engineering ConsUlting Services
1\". 11-, r}.-:l."' ~
Ilt'i " I. \.;'! t
t. r a' n s' 0' r<t;a~;t"L.O~n-t~.1 n c.
MEMORANDUM
Date
February 29, 2000
To
Stanley Paulus, SSOE, Inc
CC
Laura Delaney, Safeway, Inc
From
k P E L,V
Laura Van Dye, .J
Subject:
Safeway Gas Station - City of Yelm
Traffic Impact AnalysIs
TIns memorandum summanzes the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Safeway gas station to be
located in the City of Yelm, Washington. The scope of work and study area for this analysis were developed
with assIstance from City ofYelm staff. The analYSIS evaluates the project's Impact to the adjacent off-site
roadways and mtersection as well as site access. This memorandum is organized to mclude a project descnp-
tion, roadway network, trIp generation, trIp distribution and assignment, traffic volumes, level of service, queu-
ing, mternal circulation, and nutigation.
Project Descri ption
Safeway is proposing to construct a new fueling facility at ItS existing supermarket site located on the southwest
comer of the Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road intersection. The new fuelmg facility IS proposed to be located near the
northwest comer of the eXIsting parkmg lot, Immediately south of the proposed retail pad. The facility would
include five gas pumps and a small kiosk. Each of the five gas pumps would be able to fuel two vehicles at one
time, for a total of 10 fuehng positions. The small kiosk would house one employee to answer questIOns and
receive payments, and have one uni-sex restroom. Access to and from the proposed fueling facility would occur
from four eXIsting Safeway access driveways. No new driveways are proposed with this project Due to ItS
proposed locatIOn, drivers using the new fueling facility would pnmarily utilize the westernmost dnveway on
Yelm Avenue and the northernmost driveway on Vancil Road. The attached Figure I shows the proposed SIte
plan. The proposed fuelmg facility is expected to be constructed and operational by 2001
Roadway Network
The study area for this analysis was deternuned based on the proposed project's trIp generation and trIp dIstri-
bution pattern (presented later in this memorandum). As will be described later, this project will not impact any
roadways or mtersections by 20 or more peak direction PM peak hour trips. However, City ofYelm review staff
has requested SIte access analyses be performed. Therefore, tlus study focuses on Yelm Avenue, Vancil Road
and theIr sIgnahzed intersection.
4133 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206-547-7170 Fax 206-547-7744
1
a p
Safeway Gas Station - CIty ofYelm
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 29, 2000
Page 2 of7
-I f"' '"
. . _.1....,. _~
..1 e .6- 11 () 11
.I. III -=_ .......... -..._11811I:... _-lIn PIlI......
Yelm Avenue is a two/three-lane artenal (also designated as SR-507) WIth sIdewalks on both sides of the street.
Adjacent to the SIte, Y elm Avenue has three lanes (one in each direction, and a center, two-way turn lane) as
well as a bike lane on the north side of the street. The posted speed hmit is 35mph west of the site and reduces
to 30 mph east of the site.
Vandl Road is a two-lane, north-south roadway providing access between residential areas and Y elm Avenue.
The Vancil Road/Yelm Avenue intersecllon is currently offset from the driveway serving the QFC retail center
on the north side ofYelm Avenue. All four legs of the intersection (including the offset QFC driveway) are
controlled by one traffic SIgnal, with crosswalks, pedestrian buttons and pedestrian signals. The posted speed
limit on Vancil Road is 25 mph.
One key transportation improvement planned by the City of Yelm would directly affect the project study area
and access. The City ofYelm is working to realign the Vancil Road/Yelm Avenue intersection. This realign-
ment would create a four-leg, 90-degree mtersection consisting of Vancil Road, the existing QFC access dnve,
and the two approaches of Y elm Avenue. This realignment is planned to be complete in the near future; how-
ever, to provide for a worst-case analysis, the future-with-project analysis does not include the realigned lane
configuration.
Trip Generation
PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed fuelmg facility was determined using equations presented in Trip
Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 6th Edition, 1997) for gas stations (Land Use 844).
There are two sets oftnp equations for gas stations mcluded in Trip Generation. One set of equations uses the
amount of traffic passing the site as its independent variable and the other set uses the number of fueling posi-
tions. The trip equations based on peak hour traffic showed a much stronger correlation to the data m Trip Gen-
eration than the equations based on the number of fueling positions. Therefore, the equations based on peak
hour traffic passing the site were used in tlus analysis. This decision was coordinated with City of Yelm staff.
Since no corresponding information is included in Trip Generation to estimate daily trips for a fueling facility
based on traffic volumes passing the site, daily trips generated by a gas station were estimated based on two
recent articles presented in the ITE Journal. This ITE publication mcludes more recent studies and describes
specdic transportatIOn issues in greater detail than found in Trip Generation. One article, Trip Generation
Characteristics at Gasoline Service Stations (Tapan K. Datta and Paul A. Guzek, July 1992), found that daily
trIps at fueling facIhties are approxinIately 14 times the trIps generated by the fueling facility during the PM
peak hour One other artIcle, Transportation Characteristics of Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps (Wilham
E. Tipton, Sr and William E. Tipton, Jr , June 1990), describe trip charactenstics at a similar land use (conven-
ience stores with gas pumps) and found that daily tnps were approXImately 15 times the number of trips gener-
ated during the PM peak hour For tlus analysis, daily trIps generated by the proposed fueling facility were
assumed to be 15 times the PM peak hour trip generatlon. This is a conservatively !ugh estlmate of daily top
generation based on the information in the articles described above.
The combmed future-without-project PM peak hour traffic volumes on Yelm Avenue and Vancil Road were
used to estimate trIp generation for the proposed fueling facility These volumes (described later) include back-
ground and pipeline traffic growth as drrected by CIty of Yelm staff. The proposed Safeway gas station IS
expected to generate a total of about 980 daily trips with 65 trips (33 tnps m and 32 tnps out) occumng m the
PM peak hour
There are three dIfferent types of tnps that reflect the traffic impact charactenstics of retail developments-
pass-by, dIverted-hnked, and new trips-which are described as follows'
l'
Safeway Gas Station - City of Yelm
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 29, 2000
Page 3 of7
l1\ eft'" r'(l q
.~. I ~. 1 ~ .11.....
1i1ll"-:. .....--. ..... -=- (111..111 Ji'MfII....
. Pass-by Trips are already on the roadway network on the way to another destination. For example, a
trip to the gas station made during a trip home from work would be considered a pass-by top.
. Diverted-linked Trips are attracted from traffic on roadways WIthIn the project vicinity but require a
dIversion to gain access to the site. For example, a driver on 1st Street would divert to Yelm Avenue to
access this project. This dIverted-linked top would add traffic to the SIte's adjacent streets and mter-
sections, but would not be a new tnp to the overall Yelm area.
. New (primary) Trips are single purpose trips generated by the gas stations. New tops are generally
assumed to begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work or other locations.
The fraction of dnveway trips that is attributed to each of the above components depends on the size, type, and
location of the proposed project as well as the location of other similar facilities. The City of Yelm allows a
maximum pass-by rate of 50% for fueling facilities as described in Trip Generation Rate Default Values (City
ofYelm's Concurrency Management Ordmance (15 40)). Based on trip information presented in Trip Genera-
tion Handbook (ITE, October 1998), an average of 15% of all trips to and from a gasoline/servIce station (Land
Use 844) are new trips and about 35% of all trips are diverted-linked trips during the PM peak hour Trip gen-
eration for the proposed Yelm Safeway gas station is summanzed in Table 1
Table 1 Trip Generation Summary - Yelm Safeway Gas Station
T ri Com onent
Pass-by Trips 1
Diverted-Linked Trips 2
New (Primary) Trips 2
Total Driveway Trips
Percent T ri s
50%
35%
15%
100%
In
16
12
~
33
PM Peak Hour Trips
Out
16
11
~
32
Total
32
23
jQ
65
Source. Heffron Transportation, Inc, 2000
1 The pass-by trip rate for fueling facilities was obtained from T rip Generation Rate Default Values (City of Ye/m s Concurrency Management
Ordinance (1540))
2 Diverted and new trip percentages were obtained from Trip Generation Handbook, (lTE, October 1998) for GasolinelService Station (Land Use 844)
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip dIstribution pattern for new project trips was based on the pattern developed for the recently con-
structed Safeway store located on the same site. Based on this pattern, 60% of the new tops would be destined
to and from the west on Yelm Avenue; 40% would be destined to and from the east on Yelm Avenue. A negli-
gible amount of new trips were expected from Vancil Road.
Based on eXIsting traffic volumes In the VICllllty of the project, the maJonty of the dIverted-linked trips gener-
ated by this project were assumed to be dIverted from the west (e.g., from SR 507 (Raimer-Yelm Hwy) and SR
510 (Olympia-Yelm Hwy)) This analysis assumes that 80% of all diverted trips would be destrned to and from
the west, while the remammg 20% would be destIned to and from the east.
The pass-by trips were assigned based on the PM peak hour traffic on Yelm Avenue and Vancil Road smce
pass-by tnps are assumed to come from traffic passmg the SIte. The pass-by trip dIstribution pattern used for
thIS analYSIS Included 50% from the west on Yelm Avenue, 40% from the east on Yelm Avenue, and 10% from
south on Vancil Road.
.l
Safeway Gas Station - City of Yelm
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 29, 2000
Page 4 of7
'}.~ !1.-3 f'fr' d')ln
. it"c ..IL..it. ,_ 1. t
&......11--. .Ie. ftllf:1ia13 lIeDl Bl!5iI.....
Using the distributlon patterns described above, a total of 25 trips generated by the project (including new and
diverted-hnked trips) would travel through the Yelm A venueN ancil Road intersection dunng the PM peak
hour Thirteen trips would occur in the peak eastbound direction.
Traffic Volumes
The CIty of Yelm requues that project impacts be evaluated during weekday PM peak hour conditions. TIns is
because the PM peak hour is the time when traffic volumes on vicmity streets are highest, congestion is most
noticeable, and the proposed project would generate the largest number of driveway trips. A PM peak hour
turning movement count, performed m January 2000 The existmg PM peak hour traffic volume entering tIus
intersection is approximately 1,555 vehicles.
The proposed fuelmg facility is expected to be built and occupied by 2001 To determine the traffic condItions
that would exist m the future WIthout the proposed project, existmg traffic volumes were increased using a 2%
annual growth rate. This growth rate was provided by CIty of Yelm transportation review staff.
Pipelme-project traffic growth was also added to year 200 I-without -project traffic forecasts, including the pre-
viously approved, but currently unconstructed, planned retail development on the Safeway SIte and Phase 1 of
the Prairie Park development (the proposed cinema). Project trip assignments from the impact analyses prepared
for each of these projects were used to assign pIpeline development traffic to the study area roadways and inter-
sections (Traffic Impact Analysis Safeway Store and Retail Center, Heffron Transportation, May 6, 1998, Traf-
fic Impact Analysis Prairie Park, Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 11, 2000).
As mentioned in the previous section, the proposed fuehng facility is expected to generate 65 PM peak hour
driveway trips. Of these, 25 trips would be new to the site's adjacent roadways and intersections. Table 2
summanzes PM peak hour traffic volumes through the Yelm AvenueNancil Road mtersectlon for eXIsting,
future-without-project, and future-with-project condItions.
Table 2. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Yelm AvenueNancil Road Intersection
roach
From the North
From the South
From the East
From the West
Total
2001-Without-Pro'ect
185
115
610
740
1,650
2001-With-Pro.ect
185
133
604
753
1,675
Source. Heffron Transportation, Inc..
The maJonty of drIveway trIps are expected to utilize the two site access dnveways nearest the proposed fuehng
facility-the westernmost driveway on Yelm Avenue, and the northernnIost driveway on Vancil Road.
Approximately 66% of PM peak hour driveway tnps (43 trips) are expected to use the northernmost dnveway
on Vancil Road. The remainmg driveway trIps (22 trips) are expected to utilize the westernmost driveway on
y elm Avenue.
3
Safeway Gas Station - CIty of Yelm
Traffic Impact AnalYSIS
February 29, 2000
Page 5 of7
11 ~"'f-'
.6. .-", -'"' - . - .~ ( ~1
i.let 1..11_
Ii III -=_. ____ .... liMJ-=. ill Rolli 'i~~n.....
Level of Service
Level of servIce (LOS) IS a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditIOns. SIX letter
deSIgnations, "A" through "F," are used to define the level of service. LOS A IS the best and represents good
traffic operations With little or no delay to motorists. LOS F IS the worst and indicates poor traffic operations
WIth long delays. LOS F IS acceptable to the City ofYelm and represents intersections and roadways that are
above theoretical capacity The threshold between LOS E and LOS F is generally considered to be an inter-
section's capacIty
Level of service IS defined ill terms of delay For SIgnalized intersections, delay is dependent on a number of
variables, including the traffic volumes for each turning movement, number of lanes on each approach, and sig-
nal cycle length and phasing. For unsignahzed intersechons, delay is based on the number of gaps in the major
street traffic through wluch a vehicle entering or leavillg the side street can pass.
Levels of service for the Yelm AvenueNancil Road intersection and the two site access driveways likely to be
impacted by the proposed project were determmed using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 3
summanzes the existing, 2001-without-project, and 200 l-with-project levels of servIce. As mentioned preVI-
ously, the future analysis for the Yelm AvenueNancil Road intersection does not assume the proposed realign-
ment by the City of Yelm. Table 3 shows that all intersections would operate at LOS C or better in the future
WIth the project It should be noted that even if all traffic from the proposed fueling facility were assigned to
either access driveway, the driveway's intersection would continue to operate at LOS C Therefore, no off-site or
site-access Improvements would be requrred to accommodate the proposed fuelIng facility
Table 3 Level of SelVice Summary - Existing, 2001-Without-Project, and 2001-With-Project Conditions
Existing 2001-Without-Project 2001-With-Project
Siqnalized Intersection LOS 1 Delay 2 vlc 3 LOS Delay vlc LOS Delay vlc
Yelm AvenueNancil Road C 244 062 C 25.7 065 C 268 066
UnsiQnalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delay
Yelm AveNV Safeway Dwy/QFC Minor Dwy
NB approach from project site B 14.2 B 148 C 15.0
SB Approach from QFC minor driveway B 12.3 B 12.6 B 12.5
Left tum from Yelm Ave into site A 9.2 A 9.2 A 93
Left tum from Yelm Ave into QFC site A 88 A 89 A 88
Vancil RdlN Site Access Dwy
Left tum from project site A 85 A 8.5 A 8.6
Left tum from Vancil Road A 74 A 74 A 74
Source. Heffron Transportation, Inc, 2000
1 Level of service
2. Average seconds of delay per vehicfe
3. Volume-to-capacity ratio.
Queuing
CIty of Yelm staff requested a queuing analysis be performed to ensure that existing and future expected queues
would not impact the operations at the project's site access dnveways. EXIstmg, 200l-wIthout-project, and
Safeway Gas StatIon - City of Yelm
Traffic Impact AnalYSIS
February 29 2000
Page 6 of7
'h (Jl j' r; -V't"n -,
J JL ". . JL.Jt t) _tJL
t r:a' n.s. o"'r:t;'a ,t+.o'i.r:r-: I'n c.
200 I-with-project queues were evaluated using standard queuing theory The "red-time" formula was used to
calculate the average number of vehicles in queue for approach lanes based on the number of amvals expected
dunng "red tIme." Poisson's arrival distribution was used to convert the average queue to a peak 95th percentile
queue The average and peak queue lengths were estunated by assurrung each queued vehicle occupies a length
of 25 feet.
The two driveways nearest the signal that could be affected by intersectIOn queuing are the westernmost drive-
way on Yehn Avenue and the northernmost dnveway on Vancil Road. It should be noted that only right-turn
movements are allowed out of the project's western dnveway on Yehn Avenue (left-turn and through move-
ments are prohibited), which would not be affected by queuing at the intersection. However, left-turn and
through movements have been observed occurnng at this driveway; therefore, a queuing analysis was per-
formed. Westbound queues in the left-turn and through movement lanes could affect driver's ability to make
left turns and through movements in and out of the western driveway on Y elm Avenue. Based on existing and
projected left-turn traffic volumes, no queue IS expected in the left-turn lane at the Yehn AvenueNancil Road
intersection for existing or future conditions with or without the project. The average westbound queue in the
through lane on Yelm Avenue is currently 7 vehicles (175 feet) and the peak (95th percentile) queue IS 11
vehicles (275 feet) In 2001 without the project, the average westbound queue is expected to grow to 8 vehicles
(200 feet) and the peak (95th percentIle) queue would mcrease to 13 vehicles (325 feet) With the project, the
average and peak queues would remain at 8 and 13 vehicles, respectively The eXIsting westernmost Safeway
driveway is located approximately 300 feet east of the Yehn AvenueNancil Road mtersection. Therefore, the
expected average westbound queue in the through lane would not extend past the existing westernmost Safeway
dnveway; however, the 95th percentile queue would. It is likely that drivers would not attempt left-turn or
through movements from the western driveway on Y elm Avenue when queues extend past the driveway
During this condition, drivers would likely utilize the northern driveway on Vancil Road to access the traffic
signal at Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road or would use the easternmost driveway on Yelm Avenue.
The average northbound queue on Vancil Road is currently 3 velucles (75 feet) and the peak (95th percentile)
queue is 5 vehicles (125 feet) In 2001 without the project, the average and peak northbound queue is expected
to remain at 3 and 5 vehicles, respectively In 2001 With the project, the average queue is expected to grow to 4
vehicles (100 feet) and the peak (95th percentile) queue would increase to 7 vehicles (175 feet) The existIng
northernmost Safeway driveway is located approximately 275 feet south of the Yehn Avenue/Vancil Road
intersection, approximately 100 feet south of the peak expected queue in 2001 with the project. Therefore, no
operational impacts are expected at the existing northernmost Safeway dnveway on Vancil Road due to the
northbound queue.
Internal Pedestrian Circulation
The proposed fuelmg facihty will be located on the existing Safeway site immediately south of a retail pad that
has been approved but not constructed. Tnps to and from the proposed retaIl space are expected to utilize park-
ing surrounding the retail pad. Some customers who park near the retail pad may choose to walk south to Safe-
way These customers would walk by the proposed fueling facility and would utilize eXIsting sidewalks around
the peruneter of the Safeway site or the delmeated crosswalks within the site. The proposed fueling facilIty
would generate vehicular trIps that would travel across the pedestrian crosswalks Within the Safeway site It is
estimated that the fuelmg facility would generate approximately 30 vehicular trips over the pedestrIan crosswalk
between the retail pad and the proposed fuehng facility dunng the PM peak hour The proposed project IS also
expected to generate approximately 32 trips across the pedestrian crosswalk Just south of the fuehng faCIlIty
The additional trips (about one vehicle every two minutes on average) are not expected to adversely affect the
operation of the pedestrIan crosswalks wltlun the Safeway site. There appear to be sufficient pedestrian refuge
areas near the mterior crosswalks to allow pedestrians to WaIt when vehicles are driving across the pedestnan
crosswalks.
Safeway Gas StatIOn - City ofYelm
Traffic Impact AnalYSIS
February 29, 2000
Page 7 of7
lllt_~ f~'r ( ) 1vl
IJ_'L J,'L L..... '_ 1 .
Ii...-:. .____ _._lIlD i!'f:1i ..eD 111III11....
Mitigation
The proposed project would not degrade the overall level of service at the Yehn A venueN ancil Road intersec-
tion or the site access driveways. Therefore, no specIfic transportatIon improvements would be requITed to mIti-
gate the unpact of the proposed project. However, the City ofYelm has estabhshed a '''transportatIOn facilities
charge' as a condItion of development approval to pay for public facilIties needed to serve new growth and
development " The current adopted fee is $750 per PM peak hour trip. The City ofYelm allows a 50%
reduction in PM peak hour tnps to account for pass-by tnps. The remaming trips are used to calculate the trans-
portation faCIlIties charge. The trip generation section of this report determined that the proposed fueling facilIty
would generate 33 "non-pass-by" trips during the PM peak hour relatmg to a total transportation facIhtIes
charge of $24,750 No other transportation mitigation or fees would be required to accommodate the proposed
fueling faCIlity
LSV/lsv
Attachments
Yelm TIA Memo
~~~ ;i~ s i ~ 1 ~ ~~ s IJ)
:::;
~~ ~ .. ~ '"
~a~ ~l ~ ~ i ~ ~~ .
~ i ~i 1 .".
S!~ ~~ ~ ~ i ?;,
i 7<
ill il--.~ i -a ~ z
i ' ~ Cl
i i 8 !. I
~ 8 a 8 ... ...
~ IV t1>
~ ~ 0> ...
~ ~ ~
. ~ \':
.~ ~ ~ 'e
\ \ \ \
, ~:t
of'
~
<'
)>,
Z'
n,
r=:
;0'
0'
:P,
a,
~
,
,f
~I
@
~
~ t
/
~
~
-------;
i t
CA,t,v[I. DRIve: 0
V\
~>
-"T1 ~
m~~
....~~
<O~
~
PEAt. TFttNCH
1'50 nl't I,,"}
PE.RCOLJ.TIOH iROIt.K
{:HO If np( .Cl
Safeway Gas Station
Yelm, WA
Figure 1
Site Plan
heffron
transportation, inc.
.. i-I ~-,
i-' . 11 ,-1l-'"e ,~
.JLlt... .iLl J11
Ii.. '-=11."'___ .... &SI -=. ...lI........
APPENDIX
Level of Service
Calculation Worksheets
Safeway Gas Station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
Existing PM Peak Hour
02/18/00
13 47'14
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1 00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages.
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0 62 Vehicle Delay 24 4
Level of servide C+
-------------------------------------------------
Sq 74 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
**/** -------------------------------------------------
I + * * 1 1 ^ I
1 + * * 1 1 ++++1
/1\ 1<+ * *> 1 I <++++1
I I v I ^ ++++1 1
I I ^ 1**** v 1 I
North 1 <* * *>1 1****> I
1 1 * * * I 1**** I
I * * * 1 I v I
-------------------------------------------------
G/C=0.127
G= 11 4"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0.0%
G/C=0.120
G= 10 8"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=17.1%
G/C=0.088
G= 7 9"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=33 6%
G/C=0.488
G= 43 9"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=46 8%
C= 90 sec
-------------------------------------------------
G= 74 0 sec = 82.2% Y=16 0 sec = 17.8% Ped= 0 0 sec = 0 0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lane I Width/ I g/C 1 Service Rate I Adj I
Group 1 Lanes 1 Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I
I HCM I L 190% Maxi
v/c I Delay I S I Queue 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB Approach
38 9
D+
===============================================================================
22 1 187 I 53 10 261 I
26 I 214 1 128 10.559 I
36 2 I D+I 58 ftl
40 0 I*D+I 141 ftl
I RT
ILT+TH
I 12/1 10 140 10 127 1
1 12/1 10.163 10.127 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB Approach
40.3
D+
1 LT+TH+RT I 12/1 10 160 10 120 I
===============================================================================
4 1 174 I 103 10.539 I 40.3 I*D+I 115 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE Approach
18 1
B
===============================================================================
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10 138 10.488 I
1 12/1 10 360 10.488 1
1 12/1 10.123 10 088 I
676 I
806 I
1 I
750 I
882 I
133 I
47 10.063 I
540 10 612 I
13 10.086 1
12 2 1 B+I 31 ftl
18 liB 1 356 ftl
38.0 1 D+I 25 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB Approach
23 8
C+
===============================================================================
651 10.734 I
78 10 506 1
TH+RTI 12/1 10.412 10.488 I
LT I 12/1 10 146 10.088 I
811 1
1 I
887 I
136 I
21.6 I*C+I 424 ftl
41 9 I*D+I 91 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Gas Station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
Existing PM Peak Hour
02/18/00
13.47 30
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1 00] - Summary of Parameter Values
Intersection Parameters
METROAREA
SIMULATION PERIOD
LEVELOFSERVICE
NODELOCATION
Approach Parameters
APPLABELS
GRADES
PEDLEVELS
PARKINGSIDES
PARKVOLUMES
BUSVOLUMES
RIGHTTURNONREDS
Movement Parameters
NONCBD
15
C S
o 0
SB
0.0
o
NONE
20
o
o
WB
0.0
o
NONE
20
o
o
NB
o 0
o
NONE
20
o
o
EB
0.0
o
NONE
20
o
o
MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
VOLUMES 51 17 107 46 524 13 12 21 67 60 571 76
WIDTHS 12 0 12.0 o 0 12 0 12.0 12 0 0.0 12.0 o 0 o 0 12 0 12 0
LANES 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 o 00 o 00 o 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o 00 o 00 o 00
TRUCKPERCENTS 1.0 1 0 1.0 5.0 5 0 5 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3 0 3 0
PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.97 o 97 0.97 o 97 0.97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 0.97
ARRIVAL TYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
REQCLEARANCES 4 0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5 0 5 0
IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
FACTORS 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00
DELAYFACTORS 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00
NSTOPFACTORS 1 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1. 00 1. 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1. 00
GROUP TYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM
SATURATI ONFLOWS 1599 1804 0 1538 1810 1719 o 1594 0 o 1818 1752
Phasing Parameters
SEQUENCES 11 ALL
PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEAD LAGS NONE NONE
OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET o 00 1
CYCLES 90 90 30 PEDTIME o 0 0
GREENTIMES 11.43 10.78 7 90 43 89
YELLOWTIMES 4 00 4.00 4.00 4.00
CRITICALS 2 8 12 11
EXCESS 0
Safeway Gas station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
200l-Without-Project PM Peak Hour
02/17/00
13 22 16
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Surranary
Intersection Averages
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0 65 Vehicle Delay 25 7 Level of Service C+
-------------------------------------------------
Sq 74 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
**/** -------------------------------------------------
I + * * I I ^ 1
1 + * * 1 1 ++++1
/1\ 1<+ * *> I 1 <++++1
1 1 v I ^ ++++1 I
1 1 ^ 1**** v I 1
North I <* * *>1 1****> I
1 1 * * * I 1**** I
1 * * * 1 I v 1
-------------------------------------------------
G/C=0.125
G= 11.2"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0 0%
G/C=O 128
G= 11.5"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=16 9%
G/C=0.083
G= 7.4"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=34 1%
G/C=0.487
G= 43.9"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=46 8%
C= 90 sec
-------------------------------------------------
G= 74 0 sec = 82.2% Y=16 0 sec = 17 8% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0 0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane I Width/ I g/C I Service Rate 1 Adj I
Group 1 Lanes I Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 1 Volume I
I HCM I L 190% Maxi
v/c I Delay I S I Queue I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB Approach
40 0
D+
===============================================================================
16 1 183 1 57 10 286 I 36.6 I D+I 63 ftl
19 I 210 I 134 10.596 I 41 5 I*D+I 147 ftl
f RT
ILT+TH
1 12/1 10 141 10.125 I
I 12/1 10 165 10.125 I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB Approach
41.2
D+
ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 10 166 10 128 1
===============================================================================
24 I 188 I 119 10.583 I 41 2 I*D+I 131 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB Approach
18 6
B
===============================================================================
RT
TH
LT
1 12/1 10 140 10.487 1
1 12/1 10 371 10.487 I
1 12/1 10.124 10 083 I
676 1
806 I
1 1
750 1
882 1
123 1
52 10.069 I
562 10.637 I
15 10 106 1
12.3 I B+I 34 ftl
18 7 I B 1 371 ftl
38 5 1 D+I 25 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB Approach
25 6
C+
==================--============================================================
TH+RTI 12/1 10 431 10.487 1
LT I 12/1 10 146 10 083 1
805 I
1 I
686 10 779 1
77 10 531 I
23 6 I*C+I 448 ftl
43 3 I*D+I 90 ftl
881 1
126 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Gas station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
2001-Without-Project PM Peak Hour
02/17/00
13'22 41
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1 00] - Summary of Parameter Values
Intersection Parameters
METROAREA
SIMULATION PERIOD
LEVELOFSERVICE
NODELOCATION
NONCBD
15
C S
o 0
Approach Parameters
APPLABELS SB WE NB EB
GRADES o 0 0.0 o 0 0.0
PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0
PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE
PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20
BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0
RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0
Movement Parameters
MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
VOLUMES 55 20 110 50 545 15 10 20 85 90 575 75
WIDTHS 12 0 12 0 0.0 12 0 12 0 12 0 o 0 12 0 0.0 o 0 12 0 12 0
LANES 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
UTILIZATIONS o 00 o 00 o 00 o 00 o 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o 00 0.00 o 00
TRUCKPERCENTS 1 0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5 0 5 0 2.0 2.0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
PEAKHOURFACTORS o 97 o 97 o 97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 0.97
ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
REQCLEARANCES 4 0 4 0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
MINIMUMS 5.0 5 0 5 0 5.0 5.0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5.0 5 0
IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
FACTORS 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00
DELAYFACTORS 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00
NSTOPFACTORS 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00
GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM
SATURATI ONFLOWS 1599 1805 0 1538 1810 1719 o 1596 0 o 1807 1752
Phasing Parameters
SEQUENCES 11 ALL
PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE
OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET o 00 1
CYCLES 90 90 30 PEDTIME o 0 0
GREENTIMES 11. 22 11. 49 7 44 43.86
YELLOWTIMES 4 00 4 00 4.00 4 00
CRITICALS 2 8 12 11
EXCESS 0
Safeway Gas Station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
2001-With-Project PM Peak Hour
02/17/00
13 23 52
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC(Ver 1 00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages:
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.66 Vehicle Delay 26.8 Level of Service C+
Sq 74 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
**/** -------------------------------------------------
1 + * * I I ^ 1
I + * * I I ++++1
/1\ 1<+ * *> I I <++++1
I I v , ^ ++++1 1
I I ^ 1**** v I I
North 1 <* * *>1 1****> I
I I * * * I 1**** I
I * * * I I v I
-------------------------------------------------
G/C=0.121
G= 10.9"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF= 0 0%
G/C=O 138
G= 12.4"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=16.5%
G/C=O 080
G= 7.2"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=34 8%
G/C=O 483
G= 43.5"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=47 3%
C= 90 sec
-------------------------------------------------
G= 74.0 sec = 82 2% Y=16.0 sec = 17 8% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I
Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I
1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi
v/c I Delay 1 S I Queue I
SB Approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.0
D+
I RT
ILT+TH
I 12/1 10 141 10 121 1
I 12/1 10 165 10.121 I
======:========================================================================
7 1 176 I 57 10 295 1
9 I 202 I 134 10.615 I
36 9 I D+I 63 ftl
42 7 I*D+I 148 ftl
NB Approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.8
D+
I LT+TH+RT I 12/1 10 174 10 138 I
===============================================================================
50 I 206 I 137 10 620 I 41.8 I*D+I 149 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WB Approach
18 9
B
===============================================================================
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.140 10.483 1
1 12/1 10.368 10 483 I
I 12/1 10.124 10.080 I
668 I
796 I
1 /
743 I
874 I
119 I
52 10 070 I
556 10 636 I
15 /0 109 1
12.5 I B+I 35 ftl
18 9 I B I 370 ftl
38 8 1 D+I 25 ftl
EB Approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 1
C+
TH+RTI 12/1 10 439 10.483 I
LT I 12/1 10 146 10 080 I
===============================================================================
869 I
121 1
791 I
1 I
699 10.804 ,
77 10 550 I
25 2 I*C+I 460 ftl
44 4 I*D+I 90 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Gas Station - Yelm
Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
2001-With-Project PM Peak Hour
02/17/00
13 24 02
SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1 00] - Summary of Parameter Values
Intersection Parameters
METROAREA
SIMULATION PERIOD
LEVELOFSERVICE
NODELOCATION
NONCBD
15
C S
o 0
Approach Parameters
APPLABELS SB WB NB EB
GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 o 0
PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0
PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE
PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20
BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0
RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0
Movement Parameters
MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
VOLUMES 55 20 110 50 539 15 10 20 103 111 567 75
WIDTHS 12 0 12 0 0.0 12 0 12 0 12 0 0.0 12 0 o 0 o 0 12 0 12 0
LANES 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 o 00 o 00 0.00 0.00 o 00 0.00 0.00 o 00 o 00 o 00
TRUCKPERCENTS 1.0 1.0 1 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3.0 3 0
PEAKHOURFACTORS o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 o 97 0.97 0.97 o 97 0.97 o 97 o 97
ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
REQCLEARANCES 4 0 4 0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4 0
MINIMUMS 5 0 5.0 5 0 5 0 5.0 5.0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5.0
IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
FACTORS 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1 00
DELAYFACTORS 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1 00
NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1 00 1 00
GROUP TYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM
SATURATIONFLOWS 1599 1805 0 1538 1810 1719 o 1596 0 o 1800 1752
Phasing Parameters
SEQUENCES 11 ALL
PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEAD LAGS NONE NONE
OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET o 00 1
CYCLES 90 90 30 PEDTIME o 0 0
GREENTIMES 10.88 12 44 7 21 43.46
YELLOWTIMES 4 00 4 00 4 00 4 00
CRITICALS 2 8 12 11
EXCESS 0
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 lc
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Yelm Avenue/W Safeway Driveway
Count Date Existing Conditions
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation East-West Major St
Movements
Vehicle Volume Data
3
4
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
VoJ.ume
HFR
PHF
PHV
10
11
o 95
o 02
575
605
o 95
o 03
100
105
o 95
o 02
25
26
o 9S
o 02
570
600
o 95
o 05
15
16
o 95
o 02
5
5
o 95
o 02
10
11
o 95
o 02
60
63
o 95
o 02
o
o
o 95
o 02
o
o
o 95
o 02
11
12
10
11
o 95
o 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pedestrian Volume Data
Movements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow
Lane width
WaJ.k speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
TWLTL
5
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Northbound
Southbound
o
o
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
Y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channelized
Grade
N
N
N
Y
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
N
N
N
y
y
-----------------------------------------------------------------~----------
y
Channelized
Grade
N
N
N
Y
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
y
Channelized
Grade
N
L
Lane 3
T R
y
N
----------------------------------------------
N
y
N
N
o 00
N
N
N
L
Lane 3
T R
N
N
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
y
y
N
N
N
N
y
N
channelized
Grade
y
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Shared In volume, major th vehicles
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Eastbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
critical Gap Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
t c,base 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g o 2 0 2 0 1 o 2 0 2 0 1
G o 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3,lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
2 stage 0 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 0 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
2 stage 4 1 4 1 6 1 5 5 6 2 6 1 5 5 6 2
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
N
Westbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t f,base
t f,HV
P hv
t :f
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor St
9
---~----------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
605
497
1 00
497
o 87
600
501
1 00
501
o 98
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2 LT from Major St
4
--------------------------------------------
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
711
889
1 00
889
o 97
616
964
1 00
964
o 99
---------------------------------------------------------------
12
Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
Step 3 TH from Minor St
Part 1- First Stage
8
11
---------~------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
626
477
1 00
o 99
471
o 98
653
464
1 00
o 97
450
1 00
------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2- Second Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
668
456
1 00
o 97
443
732
427
1 00
o 99
422
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3- Single Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1295
162
1 00
o 96
156
1384
143
1 00
o 96
138
---------------------------------------
Result for 2 stage process
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a
o 98
1 14
393
o 97
o 98
1 21
364
1 00
y
C t
Probability of Queue free st
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
Step 4 LT from Minor St
Part 1- First Stage
7
10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
626
472
1 00
o 99
467
653
456
1 00
o 97
443
------------------------------~----------------------------------
Part 2- Second Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
661
452
1 00
o 95
429
716
421
1 00
o 84
356
Part 3- Single Stage
-----------~--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1287
141
1 00
o 96
o 97
o 95
134
1368
124
1 00
o 93
o 95
o 83
103
----------------------~---------------------------------------------------
Result for 2 stage process
a
y
C t
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
o 98
1 17
381
o 98
1 50
313
7
8
9
10
11
12
1-------------------11------------- I
I I I ------1
I II I
5
381
471
Movement
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
4
1
11
393
63
497
o
313
o
364
11
501
7
8
9
10
11
12
-------------------------------------------~----------------------------------
v (vph)
C m (vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
11
964
o 01
8 8
A
26
889
o 03
9 2
A
1-------------------11------------- I
I 1 I ------1
I II I
79
471
o 17
14 2
B
11
501
o 02
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14 2
B
12 3
B
12 3
B
HCS unsignalized Intersections Release 3 1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Yelm AvenuejW Safeway Driveway
Count Date 2001-Without-Project Condition
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation East-West Major St
Movements
Vehicle Volume Data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 10 581 104 32 595 15 5 10 84 0 0 10
HFR 11 612 109 34 626 16 5 11 88 0 0 11
PHF 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95
PHV 0 02 0 03 0 02 0 02 0 05 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
---~------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian Volume Data
Movements
Flow
Lane width
Walk speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
TWLTL
5
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Northbound
Southbound
o
o
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
Y
------------------------------------------------------
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Channelized
Grade
N
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
Y
Channelized
Grade
L
Lane 3
T R
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
o 00
L
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
T
R
L
T
R
L
Lane 3
T
R
Y
Channelized
Gr ade
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
y
N
N
y
N
N
y
Channelized
Grade
y
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major street Vehicles
Lane 3
T R
N
N
-------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shared In volume, major th vehicles
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Eastbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
-----------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
Critical Gap Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
t c,base 4 I 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
p hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g 0 2 0 2 0 1 o 2 o 2
G 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3,lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
2 stage 0 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 0 00 1 00 1 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5
2 stage 4 1 4 1 6 1 5 5 6 2 6 1 5 5
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11
11
6 2
1 0
o 02
o 1
o 00
o 0
o 00
o 00
6 2
6 2
Westbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
12
---------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
t f,base
t f,HV
P hv
t :f
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor st
9
-----~-----------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
612
493
1 00
493
o 82
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
626
484
1 00
484
o 98
12
Step 2 LT from Major st
4
------------------------------------------
1
-------------------------------~-------------~~------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
721
881
1 00
881
o 96
642
942
1 00
942
o 99
Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
step 3 TH from Minor St
Part 1- First Stage
8
11
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
633
474
1 00
o 99
468
o 98
694
444
1 00
o 96
427
1 00
Part 2- Second stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
709
437
1 00
o 96
420
742
422
1 00
o 99
418
----------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------
Part 3- Single Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1342
152
1 00
o 95
145
1436
133
1 00
o 95
127
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result for 2 stage process
a
o 98
1 22
378
o 97
o 98
1 17
350
1 00
y
C t
Probability of Queue free st
Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
Step 4 LT from Minor St
Part 1- First Stage
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
633
468
1 00
o 99
463
694
433
1 00
o 96
417
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2- Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
702
429
1 00
o 94
404
737
410
1 00
o 79
325
Part 3- Single Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1334
131
1 00
o 95
o 96
o 94
123
1431
112
1 00
o 92
o 94
o 77
87
-----------------------------~--------------------------------------
Result for 2 stage process
a
y
C t
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
7
o 98
1 26
363
8
9
o 98
1 61
279
10
11
12
1-------------------11------------- I
I II ------1
I II I
5
363
470
Movement
worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
4
v (vph)
C m(vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
11
942
o 01
1
34
881
o 04
8 9
A
9 2
A
11
378
7
88
493
8
9
o
279
o
350
11
484
12
1-------------------11------------- I
I I I ------1
I II I
104
470
o 22
14 8
B
14 8
B
10
11
11
484
o 02
12 6
B
12 6
B
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Yelm Avenue/W Safeway Driveway
Count Date 2001-With-Project condition
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation East-West Major St
Vehicle Volume Data
Movements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Volume 10 573 104 42 589 15 5 10 96 0 0 10
HFR 11 603 109 44 620 16 5 11 101 0 0 11
PHF 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95
PHV 0 02 0 03 0 02 0 02 0 05 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian volume Data
Movements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow
Lane width
Walk speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
TWLTL
5
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Northbound
Southbound
o
o
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
-------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------
Y N N N Y N N N Y
Channelized N
Grade 0 00
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y N N N Y N N N Y
Channelized N
Grade 0 00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Gr ade
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
y
y
N
N
N
y
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
y
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major street Vehicles
--~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shared ln volume, major th vehicles
shared ln volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Eastbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
westbound
o
o
1700
1700
1
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
critical Gap Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
12
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
t C,base 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1
G 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3,lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
2 stage 0 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 0 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
2 stage 4 1 4 1 6 1 5 5 6 2 6 1 5 5 6 2
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
12
t f,base
t f,HV
P hv
t :f
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
-------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor st
9
12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
603
499
1 00
499
o 80
620
488
1 00
488
o 98
--~--------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2 LT from Major St
4
1
-----------------------------------~------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st
713
887
1 00
887
o 95
636
948
1 00
948
o 99
---------------------------------------------------~-------
Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
Step 3 TH from Minor st
Part 1- First Stage
8
11
----------------------~---------------------------~--------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
624
478
1 00
o 99
472
o 98
708
438
1 00
o 95
416
1 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2- Second Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
724
430
1 00
o 95
409
734
426
1 00
o 99
421
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3- single Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1348
151
1 00
o 94
142
1442
132
1 00
o 94
124
Result for 2 stage process
---------------------------------------------------------------------
a
o 98
1 29
371
o 97
o 98
1 15
342
1 00
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance
Step 4 LT from Minor St
Part 1- First Stage
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
624
473
1 00
o 99
468
708
425
1 00
o 95
404
Part 2- Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
716
421
1 00
o 93
391
735
411
1 00
o 77
317
Part 3- Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1341
130
1 00
o 94
o 95
o 93
121
1443
110
1 00
o 91
o 93
o 74
82
Result for 2 stage process
a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
y
C t
o 98
1 33
356
o 98
1 69
262
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
8
9
10
11
12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
1-------------------11------------- I
1 1 I ------1
I II I
5
356
475
11
371
101
499
o
262
o
342
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Movement
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
4
1
7
8
9
-------------------------~--------------------------------------------
10
v (vph)
C m (vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
11
948
o 01
8 8
A
44
887
o 05
9 3
A
11
488
11
12
15 0
C
-------------------------------------------------------
1-------------------11------------- I
I I I ------1
I " I
117
475
o 25
15 0
C
11
488
o 02
12 5
B
12 5
B
---------------------------------~--
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Vancil Road/NSafeway Driveway
Count Date Existing Conditions
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation North-South Major St
Movements
Vehicle Volume Data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
10
------------------------- ----------------------------------------------~--------- -~------------
Volume 0 60 10 25 65 0 10 0 45 0 0 0
HFR 0 63 11 26 68 0 11 0 47 0 0 0
PHF 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95
PHV 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian Volume Data
Movements
-------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow
Lane width
Walk speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
None
o
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Eastbound
Westbound
o
o
L
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
T
R
L
T
R
L
Lane 3
T
R
N
Channelized
Grade
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
o 00
L
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
T
R
L
T
R
L
Lane 3
T
R
Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
N
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
N
Channelized
Grade
L
Lane 3
T R
Y
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
Lane 3
T
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
R
y
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
---------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major street Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shared In volume, major th vehicles
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Northbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
Critical Gap Calculations
Movemen t 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
t c,base 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g 0 2 0 2 0 1 o 2 0 2 0 1
G 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3,lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Southbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t f,base
t f,HV
P hv
t :f
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
2 2
o 9
o 02
2 2
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
4 0
o 9
o 02
4 0
3 3
o 9
o 02
3 3
3 5
o 9
o 02
3 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor St
9
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
1
1085
1 00
1085
o 96
1
1085
1 00
1085
1 00
Step 2 LT from Major st
4
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
74
1526
1 00
1526
o 98
68
1533
1 00
1533
1 00
Step 3 TH from Minor St
8
12
1
11
---------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
189
705
1 00
o 98
693
1 00
195
701
1 00
o 98
689
1 00
Step 4 LT from Minor St
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1
1023
1 00
o 98
o 99
o 99
1010
1
1023
1 00
o 98
o 99
o 94
966
----------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
8
9
10
11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
11
1010
1085
-------------11-------------
II
II
o
693
47
1085
o
689
o
1085
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Movement
1
4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
v (vph)
C m (vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
26 47
1533 1526 1085
0 02 0 04
7 4 8 5
A A
o
966
7
8
9
10
11
-------------11-------------
II
II
8 5
A
.
~
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Vancil Road/NSafeway Driveway
Count Date 2001-without-Pro Conditions
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation North-South Major St
Vehicle Volume Data
Movements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 0 53 10 29 96 0 10 0 52 0 0 0
HFR 0 56 11 31 101 0 11 0 55 0 0 0
PHF 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95
PHV 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
Pedestrian Volume Data
Movements
Flow
Lane width
Walk speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
None
o
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Eastbound
Westbound
o
o
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
Lane 3
T
R
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
, ,
. 0
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
---------~---~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
y
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shared In volume, major th vehicles
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Northbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
southbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
Critical Gap Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t c,base 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1
G 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3, It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
--------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
t f,base 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 3 3 5 4 0 3 3
t f,HV 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t f 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 3 3 5 4 0 3 3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor St
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
1
1085
1 00
1085
o 95
1
1085
1 00
1085
1 00
Step 2 LT from Major St
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
probability of Queue free St
66
1535
1 00
1535
o 98
101
1491
1 00
1491
1 00
Step 3 TH from Minor St
8
11
.
~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
223
676
1 00
o 98
662
1 00
228
671
1 00
o 98
658
1 00
Step 4 LT from Minor St
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
11
1008
1085
worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement
1
4
v (vph)
C m(vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
31 55
1491 1535 1085
0 02 0 05
7 4 8 5
A A
1
1023
1 00
o 98
o 98
o 98
1008
1
1023
1 00
o 98
o 98
o 94
957
12
o
1085
12
7
9
11
10
8
-------------11-------------
II
II
o
662
55
1085
o
658
o
957
7
8
9
10
11
-------------11-------------
II
II
8 5
A
a
()
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 lc
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst LSV
Intersection Vancil RoadjNSafeway Driveway
Count Date 2001-With-Pro Conditions
Time Period PM peak hour
Intersection Orientation North-South Major St
Vehicle Volume Data
Movements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 0 51 12 50 96 0 10 0 72 0 0 0
HFR 0 54 13 53 101 0 11 0 76 0 0 0
PHF 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95
PHV 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
pedestrian Volume Data
Movements
Flow
Lane width
Walk speed
% Blockage
Median Type
# of vehicles
None
o
Flared approach Movements
# of vehicles
# of vehicles
Eastbound
Westbound
o
o
Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T R
L
Lane 3
T R
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
b
" , , l>
Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
-------------------------------------------------------------------
y
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Channelized
Grade
N
o 00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shared In volume, major th vehicles
shared In volume, major rt vehicles
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles
Number of major street through lanes
Northbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
southbound
o
o
1700
1700
o
Length of study period, hrs
1 00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation
critical Gap Calculations
Movement 1 4
7
8
9
10
11
12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
t c,base 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
t c,hv 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t c,g 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1
G 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t 3,lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t c,T
1 stage 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
t C
1 stage 4 1 4 1 7 1 6 5 6 2 7 1 6 5 6 2
Follow Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
t f,base 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 3 3 5 4 0 3 3
t f,HV 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9
P hv 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 02
t :f 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 0 3 3 3 5 4 0 3 3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1 RT from Minor St
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
1
1085
1 00
1085
o 93
1
1085
1 00
1085
1 00
Step 2 LT from Major St
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
66
1535
1 00
1535
o 97
101
1491
1 00
1491
1 00
Step 3 TH from Minor St
8
11
,.
. t>
----------------------------~--------------------------------~----------
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St
266
639
1 00
o 97
617
1 00
273
634
1 00
o 97
612
1 00
--------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------
Step 4 LT from Minor st
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj L, Min T Adj Imp Factor
Cap Adj factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1
1023
1 00
o 97
o 97
o 97
997
1
1023
1 00
o 97
o 97
o 91
927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
----------------------~-------------------------------------------------
7
8
10
11
v (vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
11
997
1085
9
-------------11-------------
II
II
o
617
76
1085
o
612
o
927
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Movement
1
4
v (vph)
C m (vph)
vlc
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
53 76
1491 1535 1085
0 03 0 07
7 4 8 6
A A
7
9
11
12
o
1085
12
10
8
-------------11-------------
II
II
8 6
A