Env Cklst Expand
' YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Capital Improvements within the City of Yelm
i
1
EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
S~
f
C~
^
1
YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
April 2004
YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Capital Improvements within the City of Yelm
EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
April 2004
EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
FOR
YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF YELM
r
r
~
' Prepared by:
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc.
Erickson McGovern
Heffron Transportation, Inc.
BRC Acoustics, Inc.
E3RA, Inc.
Pacific Rim Soil 8 Water, Inc.
April 5, 2004
i
~~
1
t
1
r
t
r
q
1
i
1
CHECKLIST FORM
t
r
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose o/Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Acf (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all govemmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is
to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide
whether an EIS is required.
Instructions /or Applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of
your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly,
with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In
most cases, you should be able to answer the questions form your own observations or project
plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question
does not apply to your proposal, write "do not knovJ' or "does not apply". Complete answers to
the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental
agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that would help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use o/checklist /or nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposal, even though questions may be answered "does
not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT
ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words
"project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer", and
"affected geographic area", respectively.
Yelm Community Echoo/s E+pantlad Envlronmentel Ghack/tat
Glfy o/ Yelm Cap/tat Faclatles Improvements
r
1
i
1
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, i/applicable:
Yelm Community Schools Capital Facilities Improvements within the City
of Yelm. Proposed capital facilities improvements within the City of Yelm
Include: Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition, New Junior Hiah
School, and Fort Stevens E/ementarv Sehoo/ Addition.
2. Name of applicant:
Yelm Community Schools
P.O. Box 476
Yelm, WA 98697
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant
Yelm Community Schools
P.O. Box 476
Yelm, WA 98597
Contact
Erling Birkland
Yelm Community Schools
(360458-1900
4. Date checklist prepared:
April 6, 2004
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Yelm Community Schools
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, i(applicableJ:
Yelm Mieh School Modernization and Addition
Construction of additions and modernization to Yelm High School are
proposed to start in June 2004 and lte completed by September 2006.
New Junior Niah School
Construction of the new Junior High School is proposed to start as early
as March 2004 and be completed by September 2006. Actual start time
may be delayed if there is a delay in matching funds horn the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI~.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s Espendod Env/ronmanfal Checklist
City or Yelm Caplfal Faellifles Improvements
Z
Fort Stevens Elementary Schoo/ Addition
Construction of additions to Fort Stevens Elementary School are proposed
to start in May 2006 and be completed by September 2006.
Do you have any plans for /uture additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal?
This Environmental Checklist evaluates facilities proposed as part of a
School Bond Issue related to the Yelm Community Schools District No. 2
Capital Facilities Plan of May 2003. The actions evaluated in this Checklist
Include all construction of new or expanded facilities within the City of
Yelm discussed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Proposed capital facilities
Improvements within the City of Yelm include: Ye/m Hiah School
Modernization and Addition, New Junior Hiah School, and Fort Stevens
Elementary Schoo/ Addition.
The Capital Facilities Plan Includes additional improvements to school
facilities in the District located outside of the City of Yelm, including,
proposed renovations at McKenna Elementary School. The Capital
Facilities Plan forecasts that work on these renovations will start in June
2004.
Those capital improvements located outside of the City of Yelm are not
discussed in detail in this Expanded Environmental Checklist However,
where existing and proposed District facilities or operations outside of the
City of Yelm relate to conditions within the City of Yelm, those facilities or
operations are discussed (i.e. District busing operations outside of the City
of Yelm as they relate to conditions within the City of Yelm~.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
would be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
An environment checklist was prepared and a DNS issued in June 2003 for
parking lot improvements at Yelm Middle School.
The following reports were prepared for the Ye/m High School
Modernization and Addition and for the New Junior High School, in support
of this Expanded Environmental Checklist:
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition
Appendix A - Geotechnical Engineering Report; E3RA, Inc.; July
2003.
Appendix B -Sound Level Measurements for Ye/m Hlgh School;
BRC Acoustics; July 2003.
Appendix C -Traffic Impact Analysis, HeHron Transportation,
December 2003.
Yelm Community Schools Eipantlatl Envlionmanfal Gheeh//sf
Glty or Yalm Caplfal Faellffl¢s /mprovam¢nfs
r'
+l'
• Appendix C1 -Traffic gna/ysis /or Revised Site Circulation Plan,
March 2004.
New Junior Nioh School
• Appendix D -Sound Level Measurements /or Ye/m Junior High
School; BRC Acoustics; July 2003.
• Appendix E; Wetland Reconnaissance; Pacific Rim Soil 8 Water,
Inc.; July 2003.
Fort Sfevens E/ementarv School Addition
No technical reports prepared for the Fort Stevens Elementary School
Addition.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemmenta/ approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain:
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that would be needed /or your
proposal, if known:
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
State: Superintendent of Public Institution Approval
State Board of Health Noise Level Approval
L 81 Electrical Permit
WSDOT State Highway Improvement Approval
Regional: Thurston County Department of Health plan
review.
ORCCA Demolition Permit
City of Yelm: Site Plan Approval
Building Permit
Sewer Permit
Mechanical Permit
Civil Plan Approval
New Junior Hinh School
State: Superintendent of Public Institution Approval
State Board of Health Noise Level Approval
L 8 I Electrical Permit
Thurston County: Department of Health plan review.
Yelm Commun/ty ScAOOIs
G/fy of Yalm Caplfal Fee///t/es Improvements
Expantlod Envlionmenta/ CAeekllat
0
City of Yelm: Site Plan Approval
Building Permit
Sewer Permit
Mechanical Permit
Civil Plan Approval
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
City of Yelm: Site Plan Approval
Building Permit
11. Give brie% complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size o/ the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify [his
/orm to include additional specific information on project description.)
A capital facilities bond was approved by the voters within the boundaries
of the Yelm Community Schools District in February 2003. Severei of the
proposed school facilities are located within the City of Yelm, including
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition, New Junior High School,
and Fort Stevens Elementary School (refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Mapj.
The proposed improvements are major components of the Velm
Community Schools strategy to improve educational opportunities and
transportation systems within the district and the city of Yelm. For
example, upon completion of the New Junior High School project, the
district would be divided into two parts, with students in each part in
closer proximity to a junior high school. The New Junior High School
would also allow the district to shift student populations among Yelm High
School, Yelm Middle School (which would be converted to a Junior High)
and the New Junior High School to address existing crowding conditions.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
The proposed modemization and additions to Yeim High School would
entail the reconfiguration of site development to provide additional student
facilities and a centralized campus atmosphere. The proposal would entail
the demolition of two existing buildings, construction of one new building,
additions to an existing building, relocation of existing portable structures,
relocation and reconfiguration of the main parking lot (including driveway
reconfiguration) and bus loadtnglunloading area, and development of a
central courtyard. In total, building area on the campus would increase
from the existing 114,294 sq.ft. to approximately 154,265 sq.it. under the
proposal.
Ye/m Gommanlty Schools Expandetl Envlronmanta/ Cheek//st
Gity o/ Yelm Capital Facllitles Improvements
i
Specifically, two existing buildings (existing Buildings 100 and 200 -
names/uses) totaling approximately 53,000 sq.ft would be demolished to
allow for construction of new building space, relocation of the main
parking lot, and relocation of existing portable structures. New building
space would consist of a new 75,894 sq,it building (new Building 100/200),
located in the area currently containing the main parking lot, and
approximately 17,140 sq.ff. square feet of additions to the existing
Gymnasium Building. The proposal would also include relocation of the
parking area to the southeast portion of the site, relocation of existing
portables to the west in closer proximity to the center of campus, and
development of a new central courtyard; the central courtyard would
provide for improved student passage between classes, outdoor gathering
places, and a safer campus environment. Refer to Figure 2 for the Ye/m
High School Modernization and Addition site plan
Based on discussions with the City of Yelm and WSDOT regarding access
improvements, Yelm Community Schools has developed a new site layout
that would relieve congestion at the driveways to SR 510 and eliminate the
need for a traffic signal at the southeast driveway to SR 510. Under the
new site layout, the high school campus would be accessed by three
driveways, two from SR 510 and one from 93"' Street A two-way driveway
(entrance and exit) from SR 510 to the main parking lot would be provided
at the southeastern corner of the campus. An exit only driveway to SR 510
would be provided at the northeastern corner of the campus to serve the
bus loadlunload area. The entrance to the bus load unload area would be
provided from a new driveway at 93r° Street (refer to Figure 2 and Appendix
C1 for detail).
New Junior Nlah School
Construction of an approximately 85,000 square foot junior high school,
with capacity for 750 students, on 19.94 acres of property adjacent to the
existing Mill Pond Intermediate School (total site Including Mill Pond
Intermediate School grounds is 29.99 acres). The junior high would be
anticipated to include one school building, two sports fields, a track, an
asphalt play area, bus, staff and visitor parking areas, stortnwater
detention facilities and natural open space. Of the 19.94acre Junior high
property, 1.86 acres would be covered in building structure; 2.98 acres
would be in paved parking, roadways and fire loop; 0.8 acres would be in
paved fraek and related areas; 0.17 acres would be in paved dugouts and
related areas; 2.0 acres would be in landscaping; 2.5 acres would be in
natural open space; 7.27 acres would be in grass playfields; and 1.76 acres
would be In a stormwater facilities shared with the existing Intermediate
School. Vehicular access to the new Junior High School would be via an
existing roadway from SR 507. Refer to Figure 3 for the New Junior High
School site plan.
Yelm Community aehoo/s
Wty or Yalm Capital Fecllitlas Improvements
E+pantletl Envlronmantal Checklist
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Conversion of an existing 3,780aquare-foot covered play shed into a
lunch/multipurpose room and construction of a new, detached covered
play shed on the existing school grounds. The multipurpose room would
be used as a common eating area, for reinyday recess, and for P.E. Refer
to Figure 4 for the Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition site plan.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient in/ormation /or a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, i/ any,
and section, township, and range, i/ known. if a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required
to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
All three properties are located in the City of Yelm.
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
Yelm High School is located at 7315 Yelm Avenue W. The legal description
of the site is: 24-77-7E N2 NW LY SWLY of SSH 5•I less E20F less N430F of
NENW LE.
New Junior Nioh Sehoo/
The proposed new Junior High School would be located immediately south
of and on the same parcel as Mill Pond Intermediate School. Mill Pond
Elementary School is located at 909 Mill Pond Road. No address has been
assigned to the site of the proposed Junior High, however its access will
be from SR 507. The legal description of the site is: 25-17-tE PT NE4 NKA
TR B BLA-8744 2407/527.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Fort Stevens Elementary School is located at 76525 100"' Way SE. The
legal description of the site is: McKenna Irrig TRS PT L 3, 4 & 5 B 36 Less
5.64 AC L3 Less PT T. '
Y¢Im Gommunlry Schools Eipanded Environmental Checklist
City ¢r Y¢Im Cepllal Faellltlea Improv¢m¢nts
i~ r r ! i ~ ~/ >r ~ ~ ~ rr ~ r ~ ~ i/~i I~ ~
~ ~ I... §'i, ~.~ e I ~ ~~ ' ,~ L ~~ i~ ~?~~ i '.r
-j 77 I r '+~ ~ r ...
,II~ k ~i ~ t. i I 1 x{:
T
_~ ~ ! ~~ ~ ~~ ~ A ,~- ~ ~ i ~ (3 ~ ~f 111,x} 5~j1 I ~~ 1 i~
I it -~ ~...... ~ i~ ~~. ~ ~ 1~ {,~ , '~~ , a ~~- - ~~~~ ~.
_ J 1 X11 ~-. l
~L I .>~. ~ - 1~ ~ ~
~' ~ 4 Tl~ CIF ~,' 1 ` ~ '1 \ p
~ I^ 1 ~ I T
YEL HIGH I ~_ i YE IDDL~
1~ -ti~ ~ ~~ I r~~~ r, <~~r ~~H~OI, '~`~ `~~
s
S HOOL ~; ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~' x,~ ,~
j ~- p- _~~ I I-Ig>R;',~w,~ ~{~,!`~~~~~J~~~j i ~~`FORT~STEVdFIJS~
1- I ' ~~i ~ '~ ~vi.+~~'~ ~~ f~+v;- Ek~MEN RY
~ I ~. 7~
~ _ ~ MILL POt{JD ~ r ~ ~ ~ Y~\~~` ~.,~ i h '~.~, ~ ~.. ~
ELEMENTARY - ~, i
~_~~.___... ~i..-._ ..... .. .3-.~ ., Y
_ ~ ~\~ ~ ~ i
NEW JUNIOR ~ p41^~ }~~'` ~' ; t~ ~I ~ i
HIGH SCHOOt< _ ~ 5 ~. ~ -~ '~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ,
__ r- - i I-yd,.. l_ ~~ i ~ ~~~,~ I _ -.~...~ (j-~ i~ 1~r1.~ ~ +~ D art,-.-~ I---•-•-
t L I~ 1 ~ ~ ~. ~ i .~ ._, ~ f 1
~ I
Source: Encksan McGOVem
~,~BLUMEN Fig~~e ~
.CONSULTING Yelm Community Schools
.GROUP, INC Vicinity Map
its ~ ~ rr i~ i ire rs ~ s ~ ® ~t ~ r ~e ar re~ii- +~
~~-~I-~--6rth~~ QH7+~ I ~ ~ ~~~t
~~ •~~ I I I ~ 6~lil 116 ' '~ '~
~•.~
•~{~
61~I I-6 6IH-il6 ~~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ;~
v ~~ y - ~ ~.. _~
_° 6 i F E 6 ~ 6~1~1116 ; ~ r ~~ ~~ . __ `~ ._
~~ ~ ~ ~ c ._
~~ ~ as ~~ ~~_ ;~
~_ \3 ~."" qz; ._
~..,
r.....~ ,. ~, . ,K~,r. .._... . _.
~w
_... m
~._ ~ .
~~ . ~ _ _
~, j
®,: ..
~_
.~ L.._.._:._:._.._..___..___._..____
Source: Erickson McGovern
Figure 2
Yelm Community Schools
Yelm High School Modernization 8 Addition
r ` r ,~ r • r • • r • r r ra r wi. ~.+ rs
r-
~,
0~
5
f
~
,;
~
f ~~ ~_~_ _
~.
._ w --
.~.
~
--
~s
w.~ ~-
y
•
~:
3
3
_.
H _<._
~,. e.,. I
m
n
~
-
~ I f RI
,.
.
a
... ..
U ..... ..
. f.~u...
..._.~
~~ l .
~~
_ G ~3
M. _
I
_-a_ _ _ _.. SITE PLANT -~ ~
Source: Erickson McGOVem ~~ t
a~~q ~~.. SY~''s~~ Figure3
~~1r~.~, ~~.y Yelm Community Schools
't+~ul_i'. iPdC; New Junior High School
1
1
i
1
1
Qif
C
r
-- ---~-- - - EROVEROSE ___ -- -- --~
~_i ~ r~ Sri T ii ~ i i~~~
. ~I
i
_ i
i I I~~'~l~i ~I~ ~
~ ~I~~
___, ~ ExiSTiNe PARKING i
~ ~ - - - __.~_ i ~i
~~~~ ~ ~ i
~~ ~ ~
~:
w ~ :~
;!~
`- ~ ExisTiNexNOOL ~exisrme i
~ (OVEREO
' 0
PLAYEHED TO EE
~ ~ IOONVERTED TO -
V1 ° 'MJLTI-PJRPOSE ~
iEPAGE
NEW COVERED
PLAYSHED ~
I
PLAY EGVIPMENT ~
I
F
K
O
Source: Encksan McGOVem
ap~BLUMEN Figure a
.@66.GROUPTINC Yelm Community Schools ort tevens E ementary
School Addition
1
r
1
I
f
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flit rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
All three sites (Yelm High School, New Junior High and Fort Stevens
Elementary) are generally Flat.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
The site is developed with school uses and is generally flat, sloping
slightly to the south.
New Junior Hioh Sehool
The undeveloped site is generally flat, sloping slightly to the south.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Site topography is generally flat, sloping slightly to the south.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Yelm Hioh Sehool Modernization and Addition
The area of the site proposed for development is Flat and contain no
measurable slope area.
New Junior Hioh Sehool
Site topography slopes slightly to the south. Overall site relief is
approximately 20 feet, with the lowest portion in the center of the western
portion (proposed junior high portion) of the site. The highest portion of
the site is near Mill Road in the area already developed with Mill Pond
Intermediate School.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The area of the site proposed for development is flat and contain no
measurable slope area.
c. What general types o/ soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any prime farmland.
Yelm Community Sehoois Elpantletl Environmental Cheekllsf
C/ty o/Yelm Capital Faelllfies Improvements
73
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
The site is currently developed with school uses. Geologic evaluation of
the site (Appendix A) showed crushed rock overlying dense, damp, balck
silty, sandy gravel with abundant cobbles. Underlying this, at a depth of 8
feet, is dense, damp light brown sandy gravel with some trace silt
abundant cobbles, and scattered small boulders in some areas of the site.
Other areas of the site contain sod and topsoil overlying dense sandy
gravel with abundant cobbles, and a lens of gravelly sand at a depth of 4
feet in some areas and 6 feet in others. The upper black, slifly gravel
consists of glacial outwash, with volcanic ash from nearby Mount Rainier.
This silt is mostly mineral in content. The underlying light-brown gravel is
glacial outwash. The site is not prime farmland.
New Junior Hiah School
The site is currently undeveloped. Geologic evaluation of the site showed ~
sod and top soil overlying medium dense, silty, gravelly sand with
abundant cobbles. Thesite is not prime farmland.
Fort Stevens Elementary Sehoo/ Addition
The site is currently developed with school uses. Site soils conditions are
anticipated to consist of sod and topsoil over gravely sand. The site is not
prime farmland.
Are there suAace indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate -~
vicinity? l(so, describe.
No unstable soil conditions on any of the three sites or in the immediate
vicinity of the three sites are known.
e. Deschbe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of (ill.
Yelm Hiah Sehoo/ Modernization and Addition
A relatively small amount of cut and structural fill (approximately 24,000
cubic yards) would be required to ensure proper footings for the proposed
new building and building additions, which woultl be constructed with
slab-on-grade floors, and for construction of the relocated parking area
and central plaza. Fill materials would include clean sand, gravel, pea
gravel, washed rock, crushed rock, well~reded mixtures of sand and
grevel, and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand and gravel. Recycled
asphalt, concrete and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent
materials, could also potentially be used for structural fill.
Yelm Community Schoo/s Expanded Environmental Checkesr
C/ty or Ye/m CepftN FecN/t/es Improvements
73
New Junior Hiah School
Because final design of the New Junior High School has not been
completed, grading quantities have not been de£ned. However, based on
site topographic conditions, it is anticipated that construction of the new
Junior high school would require approximately 34,000 cubic yards of
grading; the amount of cut and fill on the site would be anticipated to
balance. Fill material would include clean sand, gravel, pea..gravel, washed
rock, crushed rock, well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel, and
miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand and gravel.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The proposed improvements to Fort Stevens Elementary School would
1 require little or no grading.
f. Could erosion occur as a result o/clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Yelm Hiah Schoo/ Modernization and Addition
All proposed improvements would occur on developed portion of the site
and no clearing of natural vegetation would be required for the proposed
modernization and addition to the high school. All construction work
would be consistent with applicable City of Yelm requirements and would
not be anticipated to result in significant erosion impacts.
New Junior Hiah School
1 Construction of the new junior high school would require the clearing of
approximately 77.5 acres of vegetated area on the 20acre site. During
clearing and construction, all work would be consistent with applicable
City of Yelm requirements and significant erosion impacts would not be
anticipated.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv School Addition
The new play shed would be located on existing grass area and no clearing
would be required for the proposed addition to Fort Stevens Elementary
School. All eonstructlon work would be consistent with applicable Ciry of
Yelm requirements and would not be anticipated to result in significant
erosion impacts.
Y¢Im Commun/ty Schools
Clty o{ Ye/m Capital Faellifles Improvements
14
Expantletl Envlronmentai Checklist
g. About what percent o/ the site would be covered with impervious surtaces aRer '
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
After construetion,impervious surface coverage would be approximately
30 percent of the site, compared to the current impervious surtace
coverage of approximately 25 percent of the site.
New Junior Hiah School
Aker construction, impervious surtace coverage would be approximately
31 percent of the junior high site. For the entire property, which includes
both the existing Intermediate School and the junior high site, impervious
surtace coverage would be approximately 34 percent.
Forf Stevens Elementary School Addition
Impervious surface coverage would not change, with approximately 25
percent of the site in impervious area.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, i/ 'e
any le
Yelm Hiah Sehoo/ Modernization and Addition
• To prevent an accumulation of dust andlor mud during construction
activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be
washed before they leave construction sites and streets could be
swept as necessary.
New Junior Hiah School
• Prior to construction, the District would identify the specific limits
of clearing and grading in the field.
• All major clearing and grading activities would be performed during
the dry season to reduce the potential for erosion.
• In conjunction with construction approval, the contractor, including
site clearing and timber harvesting, would be required to install, as
necessary, erosion control measures such as construction
entrance, filter fabric fence and catch basin protection.
• All cleared area would be hydroseeded at the end of the clearing
phase. '
Yelm CommuNry Schools Eipandetl Enr4onmenfal Checklist ~I
Wty of YNm Gp/fal Faelllnes Improvam¢nts
15
• Excavated earth would be disposed of at authorized sites or reused
on-site (however, proposed cut and fill quantities would generally
balance).
• To prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud during construction
' activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be
washed before they leave construction sites and streets could be
swept as necessary.
Fort Stevens Elementary Sehoo/ Addition
• 7o prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud during construction
activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be
washed before they leave construction sites and streets could be
' swept as necessary.
1 2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i. e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
i(known.
Yelm Mioh School Modernization and Addition
Construction of the proposed modernization and addition to the high
school would result in a temporary increase in air pollution, including
emissions from equipment and dust from construction activities. With
adherence to applicable construction regulations, significant air quality
1 impacts from construction would not be anticipated.
Operation of the proposed additions and modernization would not
generate additional vehicle traffic and associated vehicle emissions. The
proposed driveway reconfiguration would result in increased vehicle delay
entering SR 510 from the high school which would increase vehicle idling
time with associated vehicle emissions. However, Traffic from the high
school would not be expected to cause significant increases in CO levels
and significant air quality impacts are not anticipated.
' With completion of the proposed junior high, vehicle traffic associated with
the high school and associated vehicle emissions would be reduced by
about 25 percent (refer to section 14, Transportation, for detail on traffic
generation and driveway conditions).
Yelm Gomman/ty Schools Eipanded Envlronmenfal Cheek//sf
Clty or Yelm eapltal Facll/fles Improvements
1 18
New Junior Niah School
The proposed junior high school would result in a temporary increase in
air pollution. Logging, clearing and construction activity would be located
in proximity to the site boundary and a minimum of approximately 100 feet
from the nearest off-site residence. With adherence to applicable
construction regulations, no significant air quality impacts from
construction are anticipated.
Operation of the junior high school would generate approximately 286
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour (time with highest number of school
related trips) that would be distributed on the local street network. Project
generated peak-hour traffic would include about 180 trips during the
school PM peak hour (generally 2:15 to 3:15 pm) and about 100 trips during
the commuter PM peak hour (generally 4:30 to 5:30 pm), generating a
relatively minor amount of additional carbon monoxide (CO) when
compared to the CO contribution of existing vehicles. Traffic from the
proposed junior high school would not be expected to cause significant
increases in CO levels and significant air quality impacts are not
anticipated.
Fort Stevens Elementary Sehoo/ Addition
Construction of the proposed addition to Fort Stevens Elementary would
result in a temporary increase in air pollution, including emissions from
equipment and dust from construction activities. With adherence to
applicable construction regulations, significant air quality impacts from
construction would not be anticipated.
b. Are there any offsite sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe?
Yelm Nigh School Modernization and Addition
Vehicular traffic on SR 510.and vehicles on the campus are the primary
sources of emissions in the area. Vehicular traffic on 93'" Avenue SE also
produces some emissions.
New Junior Nioh School
Vehicular traffic on SR 507 and vehicles associated with Mill Pond
Intermediate School are the primary sources of emissions in the area.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv School Addition
Elementary school activities and vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways are
the primary sources of emissions in the area.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s Expanded Envlronmenfa/ l:hechl/sf
City o/Y¢Im Capital Faellfffes Improvem¢nfs
77
~rc
^
1
Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, i(any:
Air quality in the City of Yelm is regulated by three agencies: the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington State Department
of Ecology (DOE), and the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA).
Each agency has established regulations that govern the concentration of
pollutants and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources.
Proposed measures resulting from school development and additions
would be In accordance with relevant adopted regulations.
3. Water
a. Surface
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
1/ yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
There are no water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the Yelm High
School. Thompson Creek is located approximately 375 feet from the Yelm
High School site.
New Junior Hiah School
There are no water bodies on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. A
wetland survey using the criteria defined in the Manual For Identifying and
Delineating Wetlands adopted by the State Department of Ecology (RCW
90.58.360) found no wetlands on the site (refer to Appendix E). Thompson
creek is located about 2/3 of a mile west of the site.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
There are no water bodies on or in the immediate vicinity of Fort Stevens
Elementary School. Yelm Creek is located approximately 500 feet from the
Fort Stevens Elementary school site.
2) Would the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
(eet) of the described waters. If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Proposed development at the Yelm High School ,New Junior High School
and Fort Stevens Elementary Schoot sites would not require any work
over, in or adjacent to surface waters.
Yelm Community Schools
City o/ Yalm Capital Facilities Improvements
18
Expandetl Environmental Checklist
3) Estimate the amount o/fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source o((ill material.
No filling or dredging would occur in surface water bodies or wetlands as
part of the proposal at any of the three project sites.
4) Would the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities i/known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions would be required at any of the
three project sites.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year Boodplain? If so, note location on
the site plan.
None of the proposed additions or new construction at any of the three
sites (Yelm High School, New Junior High School, or Fort Stevens
Elementary School) lies within a 700•year flood plain. The southwestern
portion of the Fort Stevens Elementary School site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of Yelm Creek; proposed addition to Fort Stevens Elementary
School lies outside of the floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface
waters? I/so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
The proposed development associated with Yelm High Sehool, New Junior
High School, and Fort Stevens Elementary Sehool would not result in any
discharges of waste materials to surtaee waters at any of the three sites.
b. Ground
1) Would ground water be withdrawn, or would water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities i(
known.
Groundwater would not be withdrawn as a result of the proposed
improvements at any of the three sites (Yelm High School, New Junior
High School, or Fort Stevens Elementary School).
Water would not be discharged to groundwater as a result of proposed
improvements at Fort Stevens Elementary School. The stormwater control
systems for Yelm High School and the New Junior High School would
include infiltration ponds, similar to the infiltration systems currently
utilized at Yelm High School and MIII Pond Intermediate School.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s Expanded Environmental Chachl/st
City oI Yelm Cap/ta/ Faellfties Improvements
19
1
2) Describe waste material that would be discharged into the ground /rom
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
Proposed development at any of the three sites (Yelm High School, New
Junior High School, or Fort Stevens Elementary School) would not
discharge any waste materials to groundwater.
Water Runoff (including storm water)
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where would this
water flow? Would this water Flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Yelm Niah School Modernization and Addition
The proposal would create new impervious surfaces that would result in
increased surface water runoff. Stormwater runoff from the proposal
would be controlled by three new separate Stormwater control systems
(bus pullout, relocated parking lot, and parking area adjacent to the
Gymnasium Building). Each system would contain a vortechnics treatment
device and an underground infiltration gallery. The proposed Stormwater
system would be reviewed by the City of Yelm regarding consistency with
the Yelm Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual (per YCC) and
DOE'S 7992 Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin
used by the City of Yelm.
1 New Junior Niah School
' The new Junior High School proposal would create new impervious
surfaces in roof areas, parking lots, driveways, walkways and athletics
facilities that would result in surface water runoff from the new Junior High
School. Although a Stormwater control system for the proposed New
Junior High School has not been designed at this time, it is anticipated that
atonnwater from the site would be controlled by a system consisting of
water quality treatment swales and infiltration ponds. This stormwater
system would be similar to the system at adjacent Mill Pond Intermediate
School.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Proposed additions to the elementary school would not substantially
increase the amount of impervious surfaces and Stormwater runoff from
the site. Any additional Stormwater runoff would be controlled by the
existing stonnwater control system established for the site.
Yelm Community Schools
City or Yelm Cap/fat Faellifles /mprovemenl5
Expanded Env/ronmental Cheekllsf
10
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
The proposed modernization and addition would not result in the potential
for waste materials to enter ground or surface water.
New Junior Nioh School
The proposed New Junior High School would increase the potential for
waste materials associated with vehicle runoff containing oil, grease and
other typical auto by-products. With implementation of stonnwater
treatment requirements provided in the Yelm Drainage Design and Erosion
Control Manual, no significant water quality impacts would be anticipated
(refer to response to question c.1 above).
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The proposed addition would not result in increased potential for waste
materials to enter ground or surface water.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
• Stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces would be
controlled by three new separate stormwater control systems (bus
pullout, relocated parking lot, and parking area adjacent to the
Gymnasium Building). Each system would contain a vortechnics
treatment device and an underground infiltration gallery.
New Junior Hiah School
• Storrnwater runoff from the proposal would be controlled by a
stormwater system consisting of catch basins, underground pipes,
wet ponds, biofiltration swales and infiltration ponds. The proposed
stormwater system was designed consistent with the Yelm Drainage
Design and Erosion Control Manual (per YCC).
Fort Stevens Elementary Schoo/Addition
• Stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces would be routed
to the existing stonnwater control system on the site.
Yelm Community Schoo/s
City oI Y¢Im Capital Facilities Improvements
Eipantletl Envlronm¢ntal Checklist
21
1
4. Plants
r
i
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other-cottonwood junior high site)
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulirush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount o/vegetation would be removed or altered?
Yelm Ni4h School Modernization and Addition
Approximately 5,000 sq.ft. of grass area in the southeast portion of the site
would be removed for relocation of the parking lot. Existing parking lot
landscaping would be removed to allow construction of the new building.
Small landscaped areas on the north and south sides of the Gymnasium
Building would be removed to make room for the addition to this building.
No other vegetation on the high school site would be removed.
New Junior Hioh Sehoo/
The site contains grass and woodland. Development of the new Junior
High School would require the clearing of approximately 17.5 acres of
vegetated area on the 20-acre site.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv Schoo! Addition
A small amount of grass area would be removed for construction of the
play shed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near any of
the three sites.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any.'
Yelm Cpmmunlty Schools Espanded Envlronmentai Checklist
City or Yelm Capital Fae//ftlos Improvements
32
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
• Extensive landscaping would be provided to enhance the aesthetic
character of the campus. Proposed new landscaping would
include: landscape planter strips and/or planter areas within the
relocated parking area; landscape area along the perimeter of the
relocated parking area; landscape areas along the perimeter of the
new building and within the central plaza; and, new and enhanced
landscaping along the campus perimeter.
New Junior Nioh Sehoo/
• Approximately 13.63 acres (approximately 68 percent of the site)
would be in vegetated area, including approximately 2.50 acres of
natural area, 2.10 acres of landscaped area, approximately 7.27
acres in grass field area, and approximately 1.76 acres in
stormwater retention area.
Fort Stevens Elementarv School Addition
No new landscaping would be provided
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site.'
birds: songbirds
mammals: squirrels
fish: None
amphibians and reptiles: None
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near any of
the three sites.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? I(so, explain.
Other than the Pacific Flyway, the three sites are not a part of any known
migration route.
New Junior Ninh School
The New Junior High School site is likely utilized by small mammals to
move between habitats in the area.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s
Glty or Yelm Gapltal Fecllities Improvements
E+panaed Environmental Cheekl/st
33
d if
t
h
ildlif
P
d
. measures
o preserve or en
ance w
e,
any:
ropose
No wildlife habitat would be altered with proposetl development at Yelm
High School and Fort Stevens Elementary School, and no measures to
preserve or enhance wildlife is required for these proposed improvements.
i
Hi
h S
N
J
h
l
un
or
c
ew
g
oo
As part of the new Junior High, approximately 2.5 acres of natural area and
2.7 acres of landscaped area would be provided to partially offset the loss
of habitat. There would also be 7.27 acres of grass playfields and 1.76
acres for stormwater retention.
1 6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it would be
used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
The proposed new junior high school and additions to Yelm High School
and Fort Stevens Elementary School would expend energy (electricity and
natural gas) for construction, lighting, ventilation, heating and associated
activities.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
1
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition
' The proposed additions to Yelm High School coultl increase the amount of
shade on the High School campus; however, it would not significantly
affect the potential use of solar energy at the school. The additions would
not affect shade or light conditions at adjacent properties and would
therefore not affect the potential use of solar energy at these properties.
New Junior High School
The proposed new Junior High School would be sited to minimize the
potential for shading on adjacent properties and would not significantly
affect the potential use of solar energy on adjacent properties.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The proposed addition to Fort Stevens Elementary School would not
' increase shading on any adjacent properties and would not affect the
potential use of solar energy.
Yelm Community Schools
City or Y¢Im Capital Facilities Improvements
Expantletl Environmental Check/ISt
24
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, i/
any:
Construction and operation of the proposed new Junior High School and
additions to Yelm High School and Fort Stevens Elementary School would
conform to applicable provisions of the State of Washington Energy Code.
Energy conservation measures would include use of high efficiency
lighting and mechanical systems.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
It is not anticipated that development of the new Junior High School and
additions to Yelm High School and Fort Stevens Elementary School would
be associated with any environmental health hazards. Chemicals and
other materials typical of educational use and grounds maintenance would
be utilized.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No special emergency services would be required for the Yelm High
School Modernization, New Junior High School and Fort Stevens
Elementary School projects. Emergency service demands, including
demand for police and fire service, would be typical of school use.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, i(any:
All relevant federal, state and local regulations governing the storage,
maintenance, use and disposal of chemicals would be followed by the
three projects (Yelm High School Modernization, New Junior High School
and Fort Stevens Elementary School Additionj.
b. Noise
1) What types o/noise exist in the area which may affect your project ((or example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
For new school additions and modernizations, the State of Washington
Board of Health has established external and internal sound limits. The
external sound limits are 55dBA with hourly Lmax of 75 dBA. The internal
sound limit is 45 dBA.
Y¢Im f:¢mmunlty Seaoo/s Espantletl Environmental Check//sr
Clty of Yelm Caplta/ Faellifles Improvements
25
1
Noise sources in the vicinity of Yelm High School include traffic on SR 510
and local roads, traffic associated with operation of school buses serving
the schools, and school activity. Measured Leq sound levels are between
56 and 60 dBA (A-weighted decibels) and measured Lmax sound levels are
between 68 and 76 dBA. These measured sound levels exceed the hourly
Leq of 55dBA and hourly Lmax of 75 dBA. Some sound reduction
measures (likely related to windows and exterior vents) will likely be
necessary to meet the 45 dBA interior noise limit required by the State of
Washington Board of Health for approval of new additions to school sites.
Refer to Appendix B for additional detail on noise conditions affecting
Yelm High School.
New Junior Hiah School
For new school projects, the State of Washington Board of Health has
established external and internal sound limits. The external sound limits
are 55dBA with hourly Lmax of 75 dBA. The internal sound limit is 45 dBA.
Noise sources in the vicinity of the proposed Junior High School site
1 include traffic on SR 507 and local roads, traffic associated with operation
of school buses serving the schools, and school activity. Noise levels at
the site meet the Washington State requirements for site approval with no
sound reduction measures necessary. There is currently noise from
construction activities at a new housing development adjacent to the site,
however, construction of the housing development would be completed
before the school is completed and this construction noise would not
affect operation of the proposed Junior High School. Refer to Appendix D
for additional detail on noise conditions affecting the proposed new Junior
1 High School.
Fort Stevens Etementarv School Addition
Noise sources in the vicinity of Fort Stevens Elementary School include
traffic on local roads, traffic associated with operation of school buses
' serving the schools, and school activity.
2) What types and levels o/ noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traNic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
Construction of the proposed modernization and addition would generate
short-tens noise during the approximately f6-month construction period.
Measures to limit construction noise are listed in response to question b 3)
below.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s
City o/ Yelm Capital Faellltles Improvemanfs
Expantletl Environmental Checklist
Z6
New Junior High School
Construction of the proposed junior high school would generate short-
tenn noise during the anticipated 18-month construction period. Measures
to limit construction noise are listed in response to question b 3) below.
Noise from operation of the high school would be generated by vehicular
traffic, school activities (class bells, voices, etc), and recreational activities
(sporting activities, etc). Noise generated during operation of the junior
high school would be typical of junior high school facilities and would not
be anticipated to result in significant noise impacts.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv School Addition
Construction of the proposed modernization and addition would generate
short-term noise during the approximately 16-month construction period.
Measures to limit construction noise are listed in response to question b 3)
below.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any'
Construction noise is exempt from the State noise limits during
daytime hours and no mitigation is legally required. However, the
following mitigation measures to minimize noise during
construction are identified for proposed improvements at the three
sites.
-Construction noise would be minimized with properly sized and
maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures,
and turning off equipment when not in use. Stationary
construction equipment would be located away from sensitive
receiving properties where possible. Where this is infeasible, or
where noise impacts would still be likely to occur, portable noise
barriers would be placed around the equipment with the opening
directed away from the sensitive receiving property. These
measures are especially effective for engines used in pumps,
compressore, welding machines, etc., that operate continuously
and contribute to high, steady background noise levels.
-Although as safety warning devices back-up alarms are exempt
from the state noise ordinance, these devices emit some of the
most annoying sounds from a construction site. Where
feasible, equipment operators would drive forward rather than
backward to minimize this noise. Noise from material handling
can also be minimized by requiring operators to lift rather than
drag materials wherever feasible.
Yelm Gommunlty Schools Eipantled Environmental Cheekl/st
Glty or Yelm Gapltal Facl/Itles Improvements
37
1
-Substituting hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such
as jack hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers would also
reduce construction noise.
- An important element in reducing construction noise impacts
restricting noisy work to daytime hours, to the extent possible,
when nearby residents are not trying to relax or sleep. Such a
restriction is desirable because background noise would be
more likely to mask construction noise during the day, and
because most people are more sensitive to noises when they
expect quiet and when they are trying to sleep.
' Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
• Plans for the proposed additions to Yelm High School would be
reviewed by an acoustical engineer to ensure that any new or
renovated exterior wall, window and roof assemblies will provide
I adequate sound reduction to meet the 45 dBA interior noise limit
(WAC 246366-110j.
' Refer to Appentlix B and D for additional detail on noise conditions.
1 8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
' Yelm Hiah Sehoo/ Modernization and Addition
' The Yelm High School site is currently in use as a school, with associated
parking areas, ball fields, tennis courts, and greenhouses. Adjacent to the
site on the west is undeveloped land and a residence on a large lot. To the
t south are single family houses and vacant land. 7o the east is the Moose
Club clubhouse which is also used for bingo. To the northeast, across SR
510, are a veterinary hospital, and single family houses. To the north are a
' mobile home, auto service businesses, and a used car sales business.
Also in the vicinity, across SR 510, are amini-mart, miniature golf, another
used car sales business, apartments and duplex residences.
r New Junior Hiah School
The new junior high school site is currently undeveloped. To the
immediate east is Mill Pond Intermediate School. To the southwest and
southeast are single family houses. 7o the west is a parcel in agricultural
use. It is screened from the site by a hilly, treed area. To the north is a
new subdivision of single family houses, which is currently under
construction. This subdivision includes a tract of land in open space,
Yelm Gommunlry Sehoo/s
Clty oI Yalm Cap/tal Faelllfles Improvements
Expantletl Env/ronmenfal Checklist
1 Z8
adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. SR 507 is located further to the
north.
Fort Stevens Elementary Schoo/ Addition
The Fort Stevens Elementary School site is currently in use as a school,
with associated parking and playground areas. The southwestern portion
of the site is vacant; Yelm Creek is adjacent to the southwest of this
portion of the site. The site is surrounded by single family houses to the
north; a mobile home park to the east; and undeveloped land to the south
and west. The parcel to the southwest, across Yelm Creek, is in
commercial use according to assessor's data, however it appears vacant.
b. Has the site been used for agdculture? If so, describe
A portion of the Yelm High School site is developed with greenhouses and
a barn for educational use. There is no other agricultural use on any of the
sites.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Yelm Niwh School Modernize[ion and Addition
The Yelm High School site includes three buildings containing classrooms
and offices, a gymnasium building, eight portable classroom buildings, an
auto shop building, a small storage building, four greenhouses, a barn,
three parking areas, a track and football field, two baseball fields and six
tennis courts.
New Junior Niwh School
The 19.99aere Junior High School portion of the property does not contain
any buildings or structures. The overall 29.99-acre site includes the
existing Mill Pond Intermediate School on the eastern portion of the site,
which comprises one school building, athletic fields and parking areas.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv Schoo/ Addition
Fort Stevens Elementary School: The Fort Stevens Elementary School site
includes the existing elementary school and associated parking and
playground areas.
d. Would any structures be demolished? I/so, what.
No structures would be demolished under proposed development at the
New junior High School or Fort Stevens Elementary School. However, the
existing play shed at Fort Stevens Elementary School would 6e altered to
accommodate additions.
Yelm Community Schools Eipantletl Environmental Checklist
Clfy or Yelm Capital Fael/Iffas Improvements
29
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
Two existing buildings (buildings 100 and 200) would be demolished to
allow for construction of new building space, relocated parking area and a
central plaza.
e. What is the current zoning classification o(the site?
i The current zoning of the Yelm High School, new Junior High School, and
Fort Stevens Elementary School sites is Open Spacellnstitutional District
(os>.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation o/the site?
In the City of Yelm, comprehensive plan designations are the same as
zoning designations. The current comprehensive plan designation of the
Yelm High School, new Junior High School, and Fort Stevens Elementary
School sites is Open Spacellnstitutional District (OS).
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
The three sites (Yelm High School, New Junior High School and Fort
Stevens Elementary School) are not located within the Shoreline Master
Program jurisdictional area.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
If so, specify
There are no areas classified as environmentally sensitive on any of the
three project sites.
' i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
The proposed projects would not include any residences and therefore
would include no residential population.
Yelm Niah School Modernization and Addition
Yelm High School currently has 116 full time employees and capacity for
932 students, and an enrollment of 1,501 for the 2003-04 school year. The
Velm High School addition would add capacity for 333 additional students,
although the enrollment would not change as a result of the proposed
modernization and addition. However, the number of students and full
time employees at Yelm High School would decrease once the proposed
new Junior High is completed and the grades housed at Yelm High School
are reconfigured from the current 9"' through 12'" to the proposed 10'"
through 12'".
Y¢Im Community Sehoo/s
tYty o/ Yelm Gapltal Faeflltfes Improv¢ments
70
E>rpantl¢d Environmental Gheek//st
New Junior Hivh School
The new Junior High School (grades 7, 8 and 9j would include capacity for
64 full time employees and 700 students. As indicated above, construction
of the proposed Junior High School would allow the District to reconfigure
the grades housed at Yelm High School from the current 9`" through 12"' to
10'" through 12'".
Fort Stevens E/ementarv Scboo/ Addition
Fort Stevens Elementary School currently has 45 full time employees and
capacity for 443 students. The Fort Stevens Elementary School addition
would add no capacity for additional students or employees.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
No residents, students or employees would be displaced by any of the
three projects.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None required.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The proposed projects would be compatible with existing Comprehensive
Plan designations and zoning, and with surrounding land uses, including
the existing school adjacent to the new Junior High School site; the
residential uses near all three sites, and the small commercial uses near
the Yelm High School site.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, i(any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be provided by any of the three projects.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be eliminated by any of the three projects.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, i/any:
None required.
Yelm Community Sckoo/s Erpantl¢tl Envlronmenfal Ckeek/ls!
City of Yelm Capital Fecllltles Improvements
3f
[J
1
' 10. Aesthetics
a. What is fhe tallest height o/ any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
' what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
I The maximum height of the proposed additions to Yelm High School would
be 53-feet for the new building, exceeding the 40-foot height limit in the OS
zone; a height variance has been granted by the Ciry of Yeim.
The principal exterior building material would include masonry, composite
siding (such as Hardiboard) to match the appearance of the existing wood
siding; metal siding would also be provided at the high parapet walls at the
roofline. Roofs would be pitched with composition asphalt shingles.
' Overall, the proposed design concept is to provide an updated school look
that complements the design of the existing buildings at Yelm High
School.
' New Junior Nitrh Sehool
The building heights, design concept, and building materials for the New
Junior High School have not been determined at this time. However, it is
anticipated that building height would be consistent with the OS zone 40-
' foot height limit. The design of the New Junior High School would be
consistent with typical school design and would be compatible with
surrounding uses.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
' The proposed play shed conversion would not Increase structure height.
The new play shed height (30 feet) would be consistent with the height of
the existing play shed and would not exceed the 40 foot height limit of the
' OS zone.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The proposed improvements at Yelm High Sehool and Fort Stevens
Elementary School would not block or alter any views at these currently
' developed sites.
i
' Yalm Community Schools Erpantletl Environmental Gheck//st
pry o/ Yalm Capital Fecllltles /mpmvements
~ 3~
New Junior Hiah Sehoo/
Development of the proposed Junior High School would change the
aesthetic character of the alts from vegetated open space to school
buildings and associated facilities.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, i/any:
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
• New planter landscaping would be provided adjacent to the building
additions to soften building edges.
New Junior Mioh School
• The proposed high school design would be larger in scale than
adjacent uses but compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Landscaping would be provided throughout the campus and along the
site perimeter to soften views and building edges and provide a
transition to surrounding uses.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
New planter landscaping would be provided adjacent to the building
additions to soften building edges.
17. Light and Glare
a. What type o/light or glare would the proposal produce? Whaf time of day would
it mainly occur?
Yelm Ninh School Modernization and Addition
The proposed building additions would result in new building and security
lighting. All building lighting would be configured to minimize the
potential for light directly reaching off-site properties, and significant Tight
or glare impacts would not be anticipated.
Light from traffic and parking lot lighting would be relocated to the
southeast portion of the campus. Parking lot lighting would utilize "full
cutoff luminaries" to direct light on to the parking areas, not up or beyond
the site.
New Junior Niah School
Parking lot lighting, building lighting, athletic field lighting, security
lighting and vehicular traffic related to the proposed junior high school
Y¢Im Community Eehoo/s
C/ty o/ Ya/m Caplfal Facilities /mprovomenfs
Eapandetl Env/ronmenfal Checklist
JJ
1
would increase lighting levels on the site. Direct impacts related to new
lighting would be minimized by directing light down on to the area to be lit,
1 not in a sideways manner that can result in light directly reaching off-site
properties. The potential for Ifght from vehicles using the parking tot
reaching the residential area to the immediate north and west would be
' minimized through the provision of perimeter landscaping andlor fencing.
It is also anticipated that parking lot lighting would utilize "full cutoff
luminaries" to direct light on to the parking areas, not up or beyond the
site. It is not anticipated that athletic fields on the site would be
illuminated.
. ~ Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
At Fort Stevens Elementary School, increased lighting would be minimal
and would result from building lighting and security lighting related to the
proposed multipurpose room addition,
' b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or inteAere with
[he views?
' Light associated with the proposed projects would not be anticipated to be
a safety hazard or intertere with views,
c. What existing ofl--site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
The primary source of existing off-site sources of light and glare include
traffic on SR 5t0. Existing sources of light and glare would not affect the
proposal.
' New Junior Mirth School
' Existing off-site sources at the new Junior High School site include Mill
Pond Intermediate School, traffic on local roads, and single family homes.
' Existing sources of light and glare would not affect the proposal.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Existing off-site sources at Fort Stevens Elementary School include single
family homes. Existing sources of light and glare would not affect the
proposal.
Yelm Community Sehoo/s
city o/Yelm Capital Facilifi¢s Improvements
Expanded Environm¢nfal Checklist
J4
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, i/any:
The following lighting measure relates to all three projects:
• Building lighting would be directed down on to the area to be lit, not in
a sideways manner.
The following lighting measure relates to the New Junior High School and
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition projects:
• Parking lot lighting would utilize "full cutoff luminaries" to direct light
on to the parking areas, not up or beyond the site.
The following lighting measure relates to the New Junior High School
project:
• Perimeter landscaping and/or fencing would minimize the potential for
light from vehicles using the parking lot reaching the residential area to
the immediate north and west.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
The primary recreational facilities in the Immediate vicinity of the proposed
projects are related to existing schools. Other recreational facilities
include Cochrane Memorial Park near the new Junior High School site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe:
No recreational uses would be displaced at the new Junior High School
siteor at Yelm High School.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
At Forl Stevens Elementary School an outdoor covered play shed would be
enclosed to create indoor recreational area that could also be used for
other purposes. Anew covered play shed would be constructed on the
existing school grounds. There would be no net loss of recreational
space.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, i/any:
No recreational uses would be displaced at Yelm High School and no
mitigation is required.
Yelm Commun/ty Schools Eipantletl Environmental Cheeklist
fifty o/ Yelm Capital Facflifles Improvements
73
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
New Junior Hiah School
The proposed Junior High School would include new recreational facilities
that would be available to students during school hours and to the general
public during non-school hours. It is anticipated that recreational facilities
would include: track, grass playfields, and landscaped and natural open
space.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv School Addition
A new covered play shed would be constructed to replace the play shed
converted to lunch/multipurpose room use.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects lisled on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? 1/ so, generally
describe.
There are no known historic or cultural places or objects on the Yelm High
School, New Junior High School or Fort Stevens Elementary School sites.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeooogicat,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
The site does not contain any known landmarks or evidence of historic,
archeological, scientific, or cultural importance.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None required.
14. Transportation
a. Identi/y public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
Yelm High School is currently accessed by Yeim Avenue West jSR 510).
Under the proposal, access driveways to Yelm High School would be
reconfigured as part of the addition and modernization. Based on
discussions with the City of Yelm and WSDOT regarding access
improvements, Yelm Community Schools has developed a new site layout
that woultl relieve congestion at the driveways to SR 570 and eliminate the
need for a traffic signal at the southeast driveway to SR 510. Under the
Y¢Im Communlfy Schools
C/ty o! Yelm Caplfal Facllifles Improv¢manfs
36
Erpantled Environmental Checklist
new site layout, the high school campus would be accessed by three
driveways, two from SR 510 and one from 93"' Street. A two-way driveway
(entrance and exit) from SR 510 to the main parking lot would be provided
at the southeastern corner of the campus. An exit only driveway to SR 510
would be provided at the northeastern corner of the campus to serve the
bus load/unload area. The entrance to the bus load/unload area would be
provided from a new driveway at 93f° Street (refer to Appendix C and
Appendix C1 for additional detail).
New Junior Hich School
The new Junior High School would have access from SR 507 through the
existing Hawks Landing development. Secondary access would be from
the existing 107`" Loop SE, which is accessed from Mill Road SE.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Fort Stevens Elementary School is accessed by 100"' Way SE, and no
changes to access would be made as part of the proposed addition.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? I/not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
The primary form of non-automobile transportation serving the sites is
school buses. School buses serve children who live more than a mile from
their school. Currently, Yelm High School is served by the same school
bus routes serving the district's only existing junior high. Other routes
serve Fort Stevens Elementary School and Mill Pond Intermediate School
adjacent to the proposed junior high site.
How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
fhe project eliminate?
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
With the proposed modernization and addition to Yelm High School, the
campus would contain 342 student parking spaces, 114 faculty parking
spaces, 22 handicapped parking spaces, 45 event only spaces, and parking
for 27 buses. The proposed parking plan would result In an increase of
794 car parking spaces over existing conditions, and a decrease of 2 bus
parking spaces.
New Junior Nioh School
The new Junior High School would have approximately 92 parking spaces
for cars (including 4 handicapped parking spaces) and 12 parking spaces
for buses.
Yelm Gommun/fy Schools Expandetl Ene(ronmenfal Cheehllsf
etfy oI Yelm Cepifal Facll/fles Improvements
]7
Fort Stevens Elementary Schoo/ Addition
' The Fort Stevens Elementary School addition would not alter or eliminate
any parking spaces.
' d. Would the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition
Additions and modernization to Yelm High School would include the
following improvements: extended two-way-left-lane on SR 510 east of the
southern SR 510 driveway; extended two-way-left-turn lane on SR 510 west
1 of the northern SR 510 driveway; bus only access driveway from 93'"
Avenue SE; and, improvements as necessary to meet City of Yelm
Development Guidelines.
' New Junior High School
' The proposed new Junior High School would include the following
roadway improvements: installation of a left turn lane on SR 507 at the site
access, with 100 feet of storage plus a taper to WSDOT standards;
' construction of a right-turn taper on SR 507 at the site access; and,
improvements as necessary to meet City of Yelm road standards.
Fort Stevens E/ementarv School Addition
The addition toFort Stevens Elementary School would not require any new
roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets.
e. Would the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? 1/so, generally describe.
The proposed projects would not use or occur in the immediate vicinity of
water, rail or air transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The New Junior High School would allow the district to shift student
populations among Yelm High School, Yelm Middle School (which would
be converted to a Junior High) and the New Junior High School to address
existing crowding conditions. The following table summarizes traffic
' generation with and without the proposed Junior High School (although no
capital improvements to Yelm Middle School are proposed, this school is
Included in the table because student levels at this school would change
1
Yelm Gommunlry Schools
Gify or Yalm Cap/fal Faclllfles Improv¢ments
Espantlatl Envlronmontal Checklist
' Ja
with the New Junior High School). Refer to Appendix C for the Traffic
Report.
Trip Generation In 2006 - Without~and With New Junior Hiah Sehnnl
AM Peak Hour Schoel PM Peak Commuter PM Peak
Stutlenls In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
WNhout New Junior High
High School 1696 546 279 180 158 151 509 102 152 254
Yelm Mltldle School 811 113 160 373 120 115 235 61 69 130
New Junior High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1507 759 394 1153 27B d6fi 744 163 211 384
With New Junior High
High School 1163 407 774 561 117 262 379 T6 113 189
Yelm Middle School 622 163 123 186 92 88 180 47 53 700
New Junior High School 622 163 123 286 91 88 180 d7 53 100
Total 2507 733 42D 1157 307 407 739 770 219 389
Nel Change
High School J33 -179 -60 -199 J1 -B9 -130 •26 -39 -fi5
Yelm Middle School -189 -50 -37 -87 -28 -17 •55 -14 -16 -30
New Junior Nigh School 622 163 113 266 92 88 180 d7 53 100
Total 0 -I6 26 0 23 -18 -5 7 -2 5
Source: He75'on Transportation, 1003.
Ye/m Hiah School Modernization and Addition
The proposed addition to Yelm High School would not generate additional
vehicle trips. As indicated in the table above, with development of the New
Junior High School, traffic volumes from the high school would decrease.
Please refer to Appendix C and Appendix C1 for detail.
New Junior Hiah Schoo/
The proposed New Junior High School would generate approximately 566
vehicle trips per day; however, the use of the new junior high for students
who would otherwise be at Yelm High School would reduce trips generated
at Yelm High School by approximately 394 trips per day. The proposed
junior high would also reduce trips to the existing Yelm Middle School, by
approximately 772 trips per day.
Peak volumes for the new junior high school would occur during the AM
peak hour (generally 6:45 to 7:45 AM), during the school PM peak hour
(generally 2:15 to 3:15 PM), and during the commuter PM peak hour
(generally 4:30 to 5:30 PM). The highest volume generated by the junior
high, and the greatest reductions to volumes generated by Yelm High
School and the existing junior high, would occur during the AM peak hour.
A detailed discussion on overall trip generation and trips during the AM
Y¢Im Community ScDOOIs Espand¢tl Envlronm¢ntal C~eekllst
Clty o/ Yefm Capllal Faef/iffes Improv¢menrs
39
9
1
1
1
peak hour, PM peak hour and school peak hours is provided in Appendix
C.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The proposed addition to Fort Stevens Elementary School would not
generate any new vehicle trips.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Yelm Nioh School Modernization and Addition
Additions to Yelm High School would include the following improvements:
• Extend lwo-way-left-turn-lane on SR 510 east of southeast driveway. Based on
WSDOT guidelines for left turn lanes (Design Manual, Figure 910-10a), the left
turn lane should have 250 feet of storage. This would accommodate the
highest volume of inbound traffic during the AM peak hour.
• Extend lwo-way-left-turn lane on SR 510 west of the northwest driveway. This
lane is needed to provide a refuge for a lwo-step left turn. About 100-feet of
storage space would be sufficient to accommodate this need. Alternatively,
the Yelm Community Schools could pay a proportionate share towards
WSDOT's project to improve the SR 510193rd Avenue intersection if that
project's left turn lane can be extended east to serve the northwestern school
driveway.
• Construct bus-only access driveway from 93rd Avenue SE. This driveway
could be constructed to minimum standards for aone-way fire lane.
• Frontage improvements consistent with City of Yelm Development
Guidelines.
New Junior Hiah School
The proposed new Junior High School would include the following
roadway improvements:
• The following improvements planned by others will provide adequate
access to the school site from SR 507:
-Installation of a left turn lane on SR 507 at the site access, with 100
feet of storage plus a taper to WSDOT standards; and,
-Construction of a right-turn taper on SR 507 at the site access.
• Frontage improvements consistent with City of Yelm Development
Guidelines.
Y¢Im Gommvnlty Schools
C/ty o/ Y4/m Lapltal Feclllaes Improvomants
40
Erpentlotl Environmental Gheek//st
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need (or public services (tor example:
(re protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? I( so, generally
describe.
The proposed Yelm High School and Fort Stevens Elementary School
projects are proposed to meet existing and projected demand for primary
and secondary education in the area and would not result in an increased
demand for public services.
The new Junior High School is proposed to meet existing and projected
demand for education in the area. However, because it is a new school,
the New Junior High School would Increase the demand on other public
services, including police and fire services. Demand for public services
would be typical of junior high use.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, i/any.
None required.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities cument/y available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, reuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Sanitary sewer, domestic water, electricity, telephone and natural gas Ilnes
are provided within the rightof-way of the existing on-site road systems.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed /or the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity, which might be needed.
Yelm Niuh School Modernization and Addition
Sewer would be provided by connection to the City of Yelm STEP sewer
system: the existing septic systems on the site would be abandoned.
Water would continue to be provided by the Clty of Yelm water system.
Existing provision of electricity, telephone and refuse service the Yelm
High School would contlnue.
New Junior Nigh School
Sewer would be provided by connecton to the City of Yelm STEP sewer
system. Water would be provided by the CIty of Yelm water system. The
points of connection to the City of Yelm sewer and water systems would
Yelm Community dehoola Eipantlatl Environmental Cheeklist
city o/ Yelm Capltel Fecllltles Improvements
41
1
1
1
1
1
~'
I ,
be identified during the design and permit process for the New Junior High
School. Extensions of the existing electricity, telephone and refuse servlee
from Mill Pond Intermediate School would be anticipated.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
The proposed improvements would be served by extension of the existing
on-site systems. Connection to the City sewer system would occur if the
eapaclty of the existing septic system is exceeded.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that the lead argency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:/ ~~--~ 1~K~.~/
Erling Birkland, Yelm Community Schools
Date Submitted: April 5. 2004
' , Yelm Commun/ty Schools
~ e/ty or Y¢Im Cep(tal Faellltl¢s /mpiovemonta
'\
1
Erpantletl Envlronm¢ntel Ch¢ckllst
4Z
1
1
1
1
1
I ,
MITIGATION SUMMARY
EARTH
AIR
Yelm Nfah School Modernization and Addition
• To prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud during construction
activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be washed
before they leave construction apes and streets could be swept as
necessary.
New Junior Niah School
• Prior to construction, the District would identify the specific limits of
clearing and grading in the field.
• All major clearing and grading activities would be performed during the dry
season to reduce the potential for erosion.
• In conjunction with construction approval, the contractor, including site
clearing and timber harvesting, would be required to install, as necessary,
erosion control measures such as construction entrance, filter fabric fence
and catch basin protection.
• All cleared area would be hydroseeded at the end of the clearing phase.
• Excavated earth would be disposed of at authorized sites or reused on-site
(however, proposed cut and fill quantities would generally balance).
• To prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud during construction
activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be washed
before they leave construction sites and streets could be swept as
necessary.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
• To prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud during construction
activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks would be washed
before they leave construction sites and streets could be swept as
necessary.
• Air quality in the City of Yelm is regulated by three agencies: the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington State Department
Yelm Community Eehools
City o/ Y•Im Capital Faellltlea Improvem•nta
43
Expended Env/ronmanta/ Chaekdst
of Ecology (DOE), and the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA).
Each agency has established regulations that govern the concentration of
pollutants and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources.
Proposed measures resulting from school development and additions
would be in accordance with relevant adopted regulations.
WATER
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
Stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces would be controlled by
three new separate stormwater control systems (bus pullout, relocated
parking lot, and parking area adjacent to the Gymnasium Building). Each
system would contain a vortechnics treatment device and an underground
infiltration gallery.
New Junior Hiah School
Stormwater runoff from the proposal would be controlled by a stormwater
system consisting of catch basins, underground pipes, wet ponds,
biofiltration swales and infiltration ponds. The proposed stonnwater
system was designed consistent with the Pierce County Stormwater
Management Manual and the City of Bonney Lake Public Works Design
Standards.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
Stormwater runoff from new Impervious surfaces would be routed to the
existing stormwater control system on the site.
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Yelm Hioh Sehoo/ Modernization and Addition
Extensive landscaping would be provided to enhance the aesthetic
character of the campus. Proposed new landscaping would include:
landscape planter strips and/or planter areas within the relocated parking
area; landscape area along the perimeter of the relocated parking area;
landscape areas along the perimeter of the new building and within the
central plaza; and, new and enhanced landscaping along the campus
perimeter.
Yelm Communlry Ee~ools
Clty o/ Yalm Gap/tal FaefllNea /mprovemanfs
Eipantled Env/ronmantal heck//sr
44
I
New Junior Hiah School
' • Approximately 13.63 acres (approximately 68 percent of the site) would be
in vegetated area, including approximately 2.50 acres of natural area, 2.10
acres of landscaped area, approximately 7.27 acres in grass field area, and
' approximately 1.76 acres in stonnwater retention area.
ENERGY
• Construction and operation of the proposed new Junior High School and
1 additions to Yelm High School and Fort Stevens Elementary School would
conform to applicable provisions of the State of Washington Energy Code.
Energy conservation measures would include use of high efficiency
lighting and mechanical systems.
1 NOISE
• Construction noise is exempt form the SUte noise limits during daytime
hours and no mitigation is legally required. However, the following
mitigation measures to minimize noise during construction are identified
for proposed improvements at the three sites.
-Construction noise would be minimized with properly sized and
maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures, and
turning off equipment when not in use. Stationary construction
equipment would be located away from sensitive receiving properties
where possible. Where this is infeasible, or where noise impacts would
' still be likely to occur, portable noise barriers would be placed around
floe equipment with the opening directed away from the sensitive
receiving property. These measures are especially effective for engines
' used in pumps, compressors, welding machines, etc., that operate
continuously and contribute to high, steady background noise levels.
-Although as safety warning devices back-up alarms are exempt fram
the state noise ordinance, these devices emit some of the most
annoying sounds from a construction site. Where feasible, equipment
' operators would drive forward rather than backward to minimize this
noise. Noise from material handling can also be minimized by
requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible.
-Substituting hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack
hammers, rock drills and pavement breakers would also reduce
construction noise.
- An important element in reducing construction noise impacts
restricting noisy work to daytime hours, to the extent possible, when
\ Yelm Commanity Schools Expanded Environmental CAeck/lst
qty o/ Y¢Im Capital Faelllties Improv¢ments
I, 45
nearhy residents are not trying to relax or sleep. Such a restriction is
desirable because background noise would be more likely to mask
construction noise during the day, and because most people are more
sensitive to noises when they expect quiet and when they are trying to
sleep.
Yelm Niah Schoo/ Modernization and Addition
• Plans for the proposed additions to Yelm High School would be reviewed
by an acoustical engineer to ensure that any new or renovated exterior
wall, window and roof assemblies will provide adequate sound reduction
to meet the 45 dBA interior noise limit (WAC 24636fi-110j.
LAND USE/AESTHETICS
Yelm Hiah School Modernization and Addition
• New planter landscaping would be provided adjacent to the building additions
to soften building edges.
New Junior Hioh School
• The proposed high school design would be larger in scale than adjacent uses
but compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping would be
provided throughout the campus and along the site perimeter to soften views
and building edges and provide a transition to surrounding uses.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
• New planter landscaping would be provided adjacent to the building additions
to soften building edges.
LIGHT AHD GLARE
The following lighting measure relates to all three projects:
Building lighting would be directed down on to the area to be lit, not in
a sideways manner.
The following lighting measure relates to the New Junior High School and
Yelm High School Modernization and Addition projects:
• Parking lot lighting would utilize "full cutoff luminaries" to direct light
on to the parking areas, not up or beyond the site.
Yelm Community Schools F~rpantletl Envlronm¢nfal Checklist
City o/Yelm Capftel Faclafles Improvements
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
The following lighting measure relates to the New Junior High School
project:
• Perimeter landscaping and/or fencing would minimize the potential for
light from vehicles using the parking lot reaching the residential area to
the immediate north and west.
RECREATION
New Junior Niah School
The proposed Junior High Schooi would include new recreational facilities
that would be available to students during school hours and to the general
public during non-school hours. It is anticipated that recreational facilities
would include: track, grass playfields, and landscaped and natural open
space.
Fort Stevens Elementary School Addition
A new covered play shed would be constructed to replace the play shed
converted to lunch/multipurpose room use.
TRANSPORTATION
Yelm Ni4h School Modernization and Addition
Additions to Yelm High School would include the following improvements:
• Extend two-way-left-turn-lane on SR 510 east of southeast driveway. Based on
WSDOT guidelines for left turn lanes (Design Manual, Figure 910.10a), the left
tum lane should have 250 feet of storage. This would accommodate the
highest volume of inbound traffic during the AM peak hour.
• Extend two-way-left-turn lane on SR 510 west of the northwest driveway. This
lane is needed to provide a refuge for atwo-step left turn. About 100-feet of
storage space would be sufficient to accommodate this need. Alternatively,
the Yelm Community Schools could pay a proportionate share towards
WSDOT's project to improve the SR 510/93rd Avenue intersection if that
project's left turn lane can be extended east to serve the northwestern school
driveway.
• Construct busonly access driveway from 93rd Avenue SE. This driveway
could be constructed to minimum standards for aone-way fire lane.
• Frontage improvements consistent with City of Yelm Development
Guidelines.
Yelm C¢mmunlty Sca¢ols
City oI Yelm Capital Faeilitl¢s Improvements
47
Eapentletl Environmental Lheek/fst
New Junior Hiah School
The proposed new Junior High School would include the following
roadway improvements:
• The following improvements planned by others will provide adequate
access to the school site from SR 507:
-Installation of a left turn lane on SR 507 at the site access, with 100
feet of storage plus a taper to WSDOT standards; and,
-Construction of a right-turn taper on SR 507 at the site access.
'• Frontage improvements consistent with City of Yelm Development
Guidelines.
Y¢Im Community Sehoo/s
Clfy o/ Yelm Gaplfal Facilities Improvements
Erpantl¢tl Envlronmenfal eheekllaf
09
1
1
APPENDICES
t Appendix A - Geotechnical Engineering Report
Appendix B -Sound Level Measurements for Yetm High School
Appendix C -Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix C1 -Traffic Analysis for Revised High School Circulation
Plan
Appendix D -Sound Level Measurements for New Junior High
School
Appendix E -Wetland Reconnaissance for New Junior High School
1
1
1
' Appendix A - Geotechnical Engineering Report
~'
~'
i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
YELM HIGH SCHOOL IMPROVMENTS
1315 YELM AVENUE EAST
YELM, WASHINGTON
Submitted to:
Yelm School District
PO Box 476
Yelm, Washington 98597
Submitted by:
E3RA, Inc.
PO Box 44890
Tacoma, WA 98444
July 22, 2003
e
c
r
r
i~
a'
1
1
~~
GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING REPORT
YELM HIGH SCHOOLIMPROVMENTS
1315 YELM AVENUE EAST
YELM, WASHINGTON
Submitted to:
Yelm School District
PO Box 476
Yelm, Washington 98597
Submitted by:
E3RA, Inc.
PO Box 44890
Tacoma, WA 98444
July 22, 2003
T03091
~'
E3RA
~w^
^
r
~'
,~.
•~~
r.
lulu 22, 2003
Yelm School District
P.O. Box 476
Yelnr. ~Nashington
ATTN: Erling Birkland
SnbjecC Revised Geatechnical Engineering Report
Yelm High School Improvements
13 U Yelm Avenue Well
Yelm, Washington
Deaz Erling
PO Box 44890
Tacoma WA 98444
25&537-9400
253537-9401 fax
E3RA is pleased to submit this report describing the results of ow geotechnical engineering evaluation for the
above-referenced project. The purpose of ow evaluation is to provide geotechnical design parameters and
recoaunendations for the construction of new additions to the school mid a new bus loading zone.
As outlined in ow proposal letter, ow scope of work comprised site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations,
geotechnical research, and geotechnical engineering analysis. This report has been prepared forthe exclusive use
oC the Yelm School District and there consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice.
1.0 SITE AND PROJECP DESCRIPTION
All of the proposed improvements will ocew on the campus of Yehn High School, located on the west side of the
City oC Yelm, as shown on ow enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). The improvements will consist of new
additions to the north and south sides of the existing Gpnnasium Buildbrg, a large addition to the south side of
Building B, and a new student bus loading -none east of Building A. The new zddiUons will be 1 W 1 `/, story
simemres with slab-on-grade floors.
2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS
We explored surface and subswface conditions at the project site on Jul}' 2, 2003. Our exploration program
comprised the following elements:
A surface reconnaissance of the site;
Five test pits (designated TP-I through TPS). advanoed across the site; and
A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literatwe.
' E3RA, Inc.
7/22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
Table 1 summarizes the approximate functional locations and termination depths of our subsurface
explorations, and Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. The following text sections describe
[he procedures used far excavation of test pits.
r
~~
TABLET
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS
Terminafion
Depth
Eaploretian Functional Location (feet)
TP-1 South of Gymnasium g
TP-2 North of Gymnasium g
TP-3 Southeast of Building B g
'1'P-4 Southwest of Building B 7/i
'fP-5 West of Building A, in proposed Loading Lone g
Elevation datum: No[ available
The specific number and locations of our explorations were sclectod in relation to the existing site features,
under[he constraints ofsurface access, underground utiliTy conflicts, and budget considerations. Weestimated
the relative location ofeach exploration. Consequently, the data listed vt Table 1 and [he locations depicted on
Figure 2 should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our
measuring methods.
It should be realized that the explorations performed and utilized for this evaluation reveal subsurface
conditions only a[ discrete locations across [he project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary.
Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional
explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at
that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the
actual site conditions.
2_3 Tes[Pit Procedures
Our explomtory test pits were excavated by an owner-operator under contract to E3RA. Ageologist from our
firm observed the test pit excavations and logged the subsurface conditions.
The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate [he vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each [es[ pit,
based on ourfield classifica[ions. Where asoil contactwas observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs
~t indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in-situ soils by
I means of the excavation characteristics and the stability of [he lest pi[ sidewalk. Our logs also indicate the
approximate depths of any sidewakl caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The following sections oftext present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding,
surface, soil, groundwater, seismic, and liquefaction conditions.
7/22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
E3RA, Inc.
3.1 Surface Conditions
Graveled parking covers [he area south of the gymnasium, while a paved basketball court and a small, grass
landscape area abuts [he gymnazium on the north. Grass lawns and paved, concrete walkways lie in [he
proposed area ofdevclopment south of Building B, and lawn grass and agravel roadway occupy the proposed
Bus Loading Zone located west of Building A. All areas described above are level.
No seeps, springs, sheam beds, or other indications of surface flow or subsurface waters wen; observed onsi[e.
3.2 Soil Conditiuos
Our on-site explomtions revealed fairly uniform near-surface soil conditions.
[n test pit TP-I, located in the south of the existing Gymnasium in a parking area, we observed 4 inches of
crushed rock overlying 16 inches ofdense. damq black silty, sandy gravel with abundant cobbles. Underlying
the black silty, sandy gravel, we observed, to the termination of our test pit at a depth of 8 feet, dense, damp,
light brown sandy gravel with some/trace silt abundant cobbles, and scattered small boulders. North of the
Gymnasium, in test pi[ TP-2, located in a grassy landscape area, we observed 3 inches of sod and topsoil
overlying about 1 '/ feet ofdense fill comprised of sandy, cobbly gravel similarto the soils observed below 2
feet in TP-l. Underlying this fill, we observed 3 feet ofblack, silty, sandy gravel overlying light brown sandy
gravel; both soil layers are similarto those described in TP-1.
Souih ofbuilding B, in test pits TP-3 and TP-4, we did not see the upper black silty, sandy gravel layer. There,
we observed 6 inches of sod and topsoil overlying, to the bottom of our explomtions, dense sandy gravel with
abundant cobbles. A lens of gravelly sand was noted at a depth 6 ft in TP-3 and 4'/ feet in TP-4.
West of Building A, in [he vicinity of the proposed bus loading zone, we observed about 4 inches of sod and
topsoil overlying approximately I'/ fee[ of dense, black silty sandy gravel, which, m mm overlies dense, sandy
grovel similar to that observed in other test pits.
The upper black, silty gravel observed in several of our test pit explorations consists of glacial ouhvazh upon
which volcanic ash from nearby Mount Rainier has fallen. Although some organic content is present in this
mixture, mostly due to root content ofthe vegetation growing at one time on [he surface, the black silt within
the gravel is mostly mineral in content. The underlying light-brown gravel is glacial outwazh that has been
shielded from this ash fall.
The enclosed exploration logs provide a detailed description of the soil shata encountered in our subsurface
explomtions.
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
At [he time of our reconnaissance (July 2, 2003), we did not observe groundwater in any of our subsurface
explomtions, nor did we observe surface manifestations of groundwater, such az seeps or springs, anywhere
onsite. Wedo not expecttha[significant quantities of groundwater will be encountered in excavations forthe
proposed development.
At all times ofthe year groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to precipitation patterns, off-site
construction activities, and site utilization.
7222003 E3RA, Inc.
T03o91/Yelm HS Improvements
3_4 Seismic Conditions
Based on our analysis of subsurface exploration logs and our review of published geologic maps, we interpret the
~, on-site soil conditions [o correspond with a seismic soil profile type Sp, as defined by Table I6-J of [he 1997
Uniform Rui[ding Cnde. Current (1996) Notional .Seismic Hazard Maps prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey indicate [ha[ a peak bedrock site acceleration coefficient of about 0.2G is appropriate for an earthquake
having a 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to a velum mlerval of 475 veers.
According to Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Un form Building Code, [he site Ges within seismic risk mne 3.
,^ 3S Liauefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a sudden increase in pore water pressure and a sudden loss of soil sheaz strength caused by shear
strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose sands with a fines (silt and
clay) content less than about 25 percent are most susceptible to liquefaction. Although other soil types are
generally wnsidered to have a low susceptibiliri~, liquefaction may still occur during a strong earthquake. Our on-
site subsurface explorations did not reveal saturated (or potentially saturated), loose. sitw~ sand lavers or lenses.
4.U CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development plans call for the construction of school improvements. We offer the following general eeotechnical
conclusions and recommendations concemmg This project.
• Feasibility: Based on our field explorations, reseamh, and analyses, the proposed development
appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint; provided that the recommendations in this
report are followed.
~~
Foundation Options: We recommend com~entional spread footings that bear on subgades
' consisting oforganic-free; medium dense or denser native soils. Because ofthe cobbly nature of
subsurface soils,adtin leveling layer otsand or crushed rock
laced over f
d
i
b
d
p
oun
at
on su
gra
es
might facihtate tooting farm constmctton. Recommendations for spread footings are provided m
,i Section 4.
• Floor Options: Werecommendaconcrete slab-on-grade for the structures buih ottsite. Agaht
1 because of the cobbly nature of subsurface soils; a thin leveling taper of sand or crushed rock
placed over floor subgrades mi
ht facilitat
t
i
g
e cons
mct
on. Rewmmendations for slab-on-grade
doors are included in Section 4.
Pavement Sections: Werecommendapavewent section ot4 inches ofparement overt inches
of crushed rock in the proposed Bus Loading Zone. Recommendations Cor asphalt pavements
~t arc provided in Section 4.
^^ Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we
recommend that the project structural engineer use the following seismicparameters for design
of buildings, retaining walls, and other site stntcmres, as appropriate.
Design Parameter Value
Acceleration Ccefficicn[ (USGS) U 26
Risk Zone (UBC) 3
Soil Profile T}pe So
5
7/22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
E3RA, Inc.
Suberade Protection: Due to the moisture-sensitive nature of the black, silty gravel fowtd
near [he surface on much of [he site, the contractor should install appropriate temporary
dminage systems to keep water out of the construction areas, and should minimizE traffic over
any subgrades prepared within these soils.
The following text sections ofthis report present our specific geo[echnical conclusions and recommendations
concerning site preparation, spread footings, slab-on-grade floors, drainage, asphalt pavement, and structural
fill. The WSDOT Standard Specifications and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications
M41-10, Standard Specificationsjor Road, Bridge, and Municipal Corcttruction, and M21-Ol, Standard Plans
for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, respectively.
4.1 Sita Preoaretion
Preparation ofthe project s¢e should involve erosion control, temporary drainage, clearing, stripping, cutting,
filling, excavations, and subgrade compaction.
Erosion Control: Before new construction begins, an appropriate erosion control system should 6e installed.
This system should collect and filter all surface mn offthrough either silt fencing or a series of properly placed
and secured straw bales. We anticipate asystem ofberms and drainage ditches around construction areaz will
provide an adequate collection system. If silt fencing is selected as a filter, this fencing fabric should meet the
requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33.2 Table 3. In addition, silt fencing should embed a
minimum of 6 inches below existing grade. If straw baling is used az a filter, bales should be secured to the
ground so that they will not shift under the weight of retained water. Regardless of the silt filter selected, an
erosion control system requires occasional observation and maintenance. Specifically, holes in [he filter and
areas where the filter haz shifted above ground surface should be replaced or repaired as soon as they are
identified.
Temoorarv Drainaee: We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or
near-surface water within the construction zones before stripping begins. Because dte selection of an
appropriate dminage system will depend on the water quantiTy, season, weather conditions, construction
sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding dminage systems are best made in the field at the
time of construction. Based on our current understanding of the construction plans, surface and subsurface
conditions, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed around the work areaz will adequately intercept
surface water runoff.
Clearing and Striooine: After surface and near-surface water sources have been controlled, the constmetion
areas should be cleared and stripped of all sod, topsoil, concrete, and asphalt Our explorations indicate [hm
topsoil is generally one half foot thick or less, but variations in thickness could exist on the site. Also, i[ should
be realized that if the stripping operation proceeds during wet weather, a generally greater stripping depth
might be necessary to remove disturbed moisture-sensitive soils; therefore, stripping is best performed during a
period of dry weather.
Site Excavations: Based on our explorations, we expect that site excavations nn the site will encounter dense
gravel with abundant cobbles. This soil can be adequately excavated with conventional earth working
equipment.
Dewaterine: Our explorations did not encounter groundwater within their termination depths, nor do we expect
that groundwater will be present in the planned excavations. However, if groundwater is encountered, we
anticipate that an internal system of ditches, sumpholes, and pumps will be adequate to temporarily dewater
excavations.
E3RA, Inc.
7/22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
Tempo arv Cut Slopes: All temporary soil slopes associated with site cutting or excavations should be
adequately inclined to prevents!oughing and collapse. Temporary cutslopes in the dense gavels onsite should
be no steeper than 1 %xHa V, and should conform to WISHA regulations.
1 Subarade Compaction: Exposed subgades for footings and floors should be compacted to a firm, unyielding
state before new concrete or fill soils are placed. Any localized zones of looser ganular soils observed within
a subgade should be compacted to a density commensurate with [he surrounding soils. In contrast, any
organic, soft, or pumping soils observed within a subgtade should be overexcavated and replaced with a
~, suitable strucmral fill material.
Site Filline: Our conclusions regarding the reuse of on-site soils and our comments regarding wet-weather
filling are presented subsequently. Regardless of soil type, all fill should be placed and compacted according
to our recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Specifically, building pad fill
soil should be compacted to a uniform density of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM:D-1557).
On-Site Soils: We offer the following evaluation ofthese on-site soils in relation to potential use as structural
fill:
;~ Surficial Organic Soils: The thin sad and topsoil mantling much ofthe site are nor suitable
for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to dteir high organic content.
~t Consequently, these materials can be used only For noo-stmetural purposes, such as ut
landscaping areas.
• Upve Bl ek Si1N Gravelly Glacial Ounvash with Vol ~anic Ash: The upper black silty
~~ gmvel layer is sensitive to moisture content variations due to its silt content. This soil can he
reused during dry conditions, but wi(I become increasingly difficult to reuse as conditions
• become wetter. Particles ]arger than 3 inches should be removed before reuse.
Lower Licht Brown Sandv Grove[Iv: The light brown glacial outwazhfoundbelowthe black
silty gravel layer a[ shallow depths on Ute site is relatively insensitive to moisture content
1~ variations and can be used under mast weather conditions, provided that particles larger than
3 inches are removed before reuse. .
1 Permanent Slopes: All permanentcut slopes and fill slopes should be adequately inclinedto reduce long-term
raveling, sloughing, and erosion. We generally recommend [hat no permanent slopes be steeper than 2H:1 V.
For all soil types, the use of flatter slopes (such as 2'/Ha V) would further reduce long-term erosion and
1 facilimte revegetation.
Slone Protection: We recommend that a permanent berm, Swale, or curb be constructed along the top edge of
all permanent slopes to intercept surface flow. Also,ahardy vegetative goundcover should be established as
soon as feasible, to further protect the slopes from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, permanent slopes could
be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat.
~E 43 Spread Footipes
s In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed structures ifthe
subgrades are properly prepared.
Footine Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bases of all exterior footings should bear at
least 18 inches below adjacent outside gades, whereas the bases of interior footings need bear only 12 inches
below the surrounding slab surface level. To reduce post-construction settlements, continuous (wall) and
7
7/22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
isolated{column) footings should beat least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively.
E3RA, Inc.
Bearine Suberades: Footings should bear on medium dense or denser, undisturbed native soils which have
been stripped ofsuficial organic soils, or on properly compacted stmctural fill which bears on prepared native
soils. In general, before footing concrete is placed, any localized zones of loose soils exposed across the footing
subgrades should 6e compacted to a firm, unyielding condition, and any localized zones of soft, organic, or
debris-laden soils should be overexeavated and replaced with suitable structural fill.. Because ofthe eobbly
namre of subsurface soils, a thin leveling layer ofsand or crashed rock placed and compacted over foundation
subgrades Wright facilitate footing form construction.
Suberade Observation: All footing subgrades should consist offirm, unyielding, native soils or shuctural fill
- materials compacted to a densiTy of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM:D-] 557). Footings should never be
,.. cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing
water.
' Bearine Pressures: In our opinion, for static loading, footings that bear on properly prepared subgrades can be
designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value is
conservative and maybe increased for specific footings under the direction of E3RA. Aone-third increase m
allowable soil bearing capaciTy may be used for short-term loads created by seismic or wind related activities.
Footine Settlements: Assuming that strucmral fill soils aze compacted to a medium dense or denser state, we
estimate that total post-consruction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared
subgrades will not exceed I inch. Differential settlements for comparably loaded elements may approach one-
half ofihe actual total settlement over horizontal distances of approximately 50 fee[.
Footin¢ Backfilh To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we recommend that all footing
excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footings acrd stemwalls after the concrete has cured. Either
imported structural fill or non-organic on-site soils can be used for this purpose, contingent on suitable
moisture content at the time of placement. Regardless of soil type, all footing backfill soil should be
compacted to a density of at IeasY 90 percent (based on ASTM:D-1557).
Lateral Resistance: Footings that have been properly backfilled as recommended above wilt resist lateral
movements by means of passive earth pressure and base friction. We recommend using an allowable passive
earth pressure of 250 pet in [he glacial outwash onsi[e and an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.35.
~~~ 4.3 Slab-On-Grade Floors
In our opinion, soil-supported slab-on-grade floors can 6e used m the proposed snucmres if the subgrades aze
properly prepared. Weefferthe following comments and recommendations concerning slab-on-grade floors.
Floor Subbase: Stmcmral fill subbases do not appear to be needed under soil-supported slab-on-grade floors at
the site, but, because of the eobbly namre of subsurface soils, a thin leveling layer of sand or crashed rock
placed and compacted over floor subgmdes might facilitate construction. If a subbase is needed, all subbase
fill should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM:D-1557).
Caoillarv Break and Vaoor Barzier: To retard the upward wicking of groundwater beneath [he floor slab, we
recommend that a capillary break be placed overthe subgrade. Ideally, Phis capillary break would consist of a
4-inch-thick layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, such as "Gravel Backfill for
Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), but clean angular gravel can be used if it adequately
prevents capillary wicking. In addition, a layer of plastic sheeting (such as Crossmff, Visqueen, or Moistop)
should be placed over the capillary break to serve as a vapor barrier. During subsequent casting of the concrete
slab, the contractor should exercise care to avoid puncturing this vapor barzier.
E3RA, Inc.
7/22/2003
' T03091/Velm HS Improvements
4.4 Drainaee Systems
In our opinion, the proposed structure should be provided with permanent drainage systems to reduce the risk
of future moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and
-. construction purposes.
Perimeter Drains: We recommend [hat buildings be encircled with a perime[crdrain system to collect seepage
water. This drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or
washed rock, extending a[ least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped
with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surtounding soils. Ideally, the drain invert would be
installed no more than 8 inches above the base of the perimeter footings.
Subfloor Drains: Bazed on [he groundwater conditions observed in our site explorations, we do not infer a
need for subfloor drains.
Discharee Considerations: Ifpossible, all perimeter drains should discharge to asewer system orother suifable
location by gravity flow. Check valves should be installed along any drainpipes that discharge to a sewer
system, [o prevent sewage backflow into the drain system.
Seeoaee Quantities: We tentatively expect that there will be little or no groundwater seepage onsite.
Runoff Water: Roof-runoff and surface-runoff water should no( discharge into the perimeter drain system.
Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tigh[line pipes and be routed away from the building [o a
storm drain or other appropriate location.
Gmdine and Caooine: Final site grades should slope downward away from [he buildings so that runoffwater
will Flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the building. Ideally, the area
surround ing the but Iding would be capped with concrete, asphalt, orlow-permeability (silty) soils to minimize
1 or preclude surface-water infiltration.
4_5 Asphalt Pavement
I~ Since asphalt pavements will be used far the Bus Loading Zone, and because some paved pazking that will not
receive heavy bus traffic might be built adjacent to the loading zone, we offer the following comments and
recommendations for pavement design and construction of both light and heary traffic areas.
Subemde Prenara[ion: Structural fill subbases do not appear [n he needed under pavemen[sections, due to [he
dense nature of the native soils that underlie the site. All soil subgrades, after proper compaction, should be
proof-rolled with a loaded dump [ruck or heavy compactor. Any localized zones of yielding subgmde
disclosed during this proof-rolling operation should be over ezcavated [o a maximum depth of 12 inches and
replaced with a suitable structural fill material. All structural fill should be compacted according [o our
recommendations given in the Srructura! Fifl section. Specifically, the upper 2 feet of soils underlying
pavement section should be compacted to at leazt 95 percent (based on ASTM D-1557), and all soils below 2
feet should be compacted [o at least 90 percent.
:~ Pavement Materials: For the base course, we recommend using imported crushed rock.
i
Conventional Asphalt Sections: A conventional pavement section typically comprises an asphalt concrete
pavement over a crushed rock base course. Using the estimated design values stated above, we recommend
~~ using the following conventional pavement sections:
9
i
7/22/2003
T03091/Velm HS Improvements
Miuimum Thickness
E3RA, Inc.
Pavement Course Parking Areas Bus Loading Zone
Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 inches 4 inches
Crashed Rock Base 4 inches 6 inches
Compaction and Observation: Ali subbase and base course material should be compacted to at leaz[95 percent
of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), and all asphalt concrete should be compacted
to at least 92 percent of the Rice value (ASTM D-2041). We recommend [hat an 83RA representative be
retained to observe the compaction of each course before any overlying layer is placed. For the pavement
course, compaction is best observed by means of frequent density testing. For the base course, methodology
observations and hand-probing are mare appropriate than density testing.
Pavement Life and Maintenance: No asphaltic pavement is maintenance-free. The above described pavement
sections present our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design
life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. Furthermore, a 20-year pavement life
typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 10 years. Thicker asphalt and/ar thicker base and
subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cos[ more initially; thinner courses
would be more susceptible [o "alligator" cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be
considered a compromise between a high initial cost and law maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and
higher maintenance costs.
4.6 Structural Fill
The term "structural fill" refers to any placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors,
sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning
structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs.
Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, gravel, pea gravel, washed rock, crushed rock,
well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit-rwi'), and miscellaneous
mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing
the parent materials, are also potentially useful az structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for stmctuml
fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual panicles greater than about 6 inches in
diameter.
Fill Placement: Clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be
placed m horizontal lifts no[ exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly
compacted with a mechanical compactor.
Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Procmr [es[ (ASTM:D-1557) az a standard, we recommend that
stmetural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities:
Fill Application Minimum
Compacfion
Footing subgrade and bearing pad 95 percent
Foundation backfill 90 percent
Slab-on-grade floor subgrade and subbase 95 percent
Suberade Observation and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all strucmml fill should be
placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Si(e Preparation section of [his report.
The condition ofall subgrades should be verified geotechnical personnel before filling or consnvction begins.
10
j E3RA, Inc.
7/22/2003
T03091/Velm HS Improvements
Also, fill soil compaction should be documented by means of in-place density tests performed during fill
- placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses.
Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their
groin-size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction
1 passing the U S No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content.
Soils containing more thmr about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm,
- unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum.
For fill placement during wet-weather site work, we recommend using "clean" fill, which refers to Soils [hat
', have a fines content of 5 percent or less (hy weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve.
5.0 RECOMMENDED ADDTTIONAL SERVICES
Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site
preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced
geo[echnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequentlg we
recommend that E3RA fie retained to provide the following post-report services:
• Review all construction plans and specifications to verify [hat our design criteria presented in
this report have keen properly integrated into the design;
• Prepare a letter summarizing aI] review comments (if required by the City of Yetm);
• Check all completed subgmdes for footings and slab-on-grade floors before concrete is
poured, in order to verify (heir bearing capacity; and
• Prepare apost-construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections, and test
results (if required by the Ctty of Yelm).
.~
11
7/22/2003
T03091/Velm HS Improvements
6.0 CLOSURE
E3RA, Inc.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report aze based, in part, on the explorations that we
performed for this study; therefore, if variations in [he subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we
may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of
[he project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures,
monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the
construction process. E3RA is available to provide geotechnical monitoring of soils throughout construction.
We appreciate the opportunity m be ofservice on this project. lfyou have any questions regarding [his report
or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
E3RA, Inc.
Ul
Fred E. Rennebaum, P.G.
Senior Geologist
FEIUIBI3
Enclosures: Figure I - Location Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan
Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-5
lames E F3righam, P.E.
Principal Engineer
12
i
l
,~
~'
~/
7!22/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
TEST PIT LOGS
Deo[h (feet)
0.0 - 0.5
0.5 - L5
1.5 - 8.0
0.0 - 0.0
0.0 - LS
I.5 - 4.5
45-8.0
Material Description
Test Pit TP-1
Location: South of Gymnasium, in graveled parking lot
Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown
4 inches Crushed Rock.
Dense, damp, black, silty, sandy GRAVEL with abundant cobbles (Glacial
Outwash with Volcanic Ash) (GP).
Dense, damq light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/[race silt and abundant
cobbles (Glacial Outwash).(GP).
Test pi[ terminated at approximately 8 feet
No caving observed
No groundwater encountered
Test Pit TP-2
Location: North of Gymnasium, in grassy area
Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown
3 inches Sod and Topsoil..
Dense, damp, light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/trace silt and abundant
cobbles (Fill) (GP).
Dense, damp, black, silty, sandy GRAVEL with abundant cobbles (Glacial
Outwash with Volcanic Ash) (GP).
Dense, damp, light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/[race silt and abundant
cobbles (Glacial Outwash).(GP).
Test pit terminated at approximately 68 feet
No caving observed
No groundwater encountered
13
E3RA, Inc.
E3RA, Inc.
7122/2003
T03091/Yelm HS Improvements
Depth (feet)
0.0 - 0.5
O.i - 8.0
0.0 - 0.5
0.5 -7.5
0.0 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.5
1.5 - 8.0
Test Pit TP-3
TEST PIT LOGS
Material Description
Location: Southeast of Building B
Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown
6 inches Sod and Topsoil
Dense, damp, light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/trace silt and abundant
cobbles; lens of gravelly sand at 6 feet (Glacial Outwash).(GP).
Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet
No caving observed
No groundwater encountered
Test Pit TP-4
Location: Southwest of Building B
Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown
6 inches Sod and Topsoil
Dense, damp, light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/trace silt and abundant
cobbles: lens of gravelly sand at 5 feet (Glacial Outwash).(GP).
Test pit terminated at approximately 7Y: feet
No caving observed
No groundwater encountered
Test Pit TP-5
Location: Wes[ of Building A, in proposed landing mne
Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown
4 inches Sod and Topsoil.
Dense, damp, black, silty, sandy GRAVEL with abundant cobbles (Glacial
Outwash with Volcanic Ash) (GP).
Dense, damp, light brown, sandy GRAVEL with some/trace silt and abundant
cobbles; (Glacial Outwash).(GP).
'test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet
No caving observed
No groundwater encountered
Date Excavated: 7/2/03
Logged by: FER
14
-1l J .. ig` I I _ ._ I
•\` PIERCE C
,,,1gg1 ~ ~'b„ ,~ , I~t THURSTON CO ~~"
"•
~~ _~=_ ~~
r ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ '
. I' ~
.I' ~~~- / i
~ ~ .
rl • BM .
_ aaa . ~ s c~ ~ '
' ~ ~ 1 _
q ~ 1 '\
1 ~~. 1 ~ ¢ AM1{ i I- Ba TCN
~~~ p ~ O ~1
I ~~ ~! ~ I I
R
P r' I 'J ~ ~ ~ I ---' I ~ I
L, ' flAiNBUN ' flOAD 1 ,.
r __
. ar~Feia SITE . U ,
1 :~ ~ .. t {
,:
~ _
.Il....
i I . ~ ~ < ,.
•' I , ~ ®ak~~l F~BIe
`,
\~ q~
_- YeLn .~.
,~1ow ~ ~ ~. h
1 V ~. 4 !p
~.~i ~
.. Goll Cou se / ~~% Park ". ~~~~~~
`; ~ ~' r~ -
~,_
1 N o Z,o~~
MAPS~00 k.
E3RA YELM HS IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE
PO BOX 44890 TOPOGRAPHIC AND LOCATION PLAN 1
Tacoma, Washington 98444 YELM, WASHINGTON 1
YELM HI CH SCHOOL
SI TE PLAN
EI GURE 2
200 0 200 400
SCALE: 1" = 200'
FIGURE 2
NOTE.
BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE BASED ON
MAPPING PROVIDED TO E3RA AND OBSERVATIONS
MADE IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHOWN 6 E7RA rzsr Pli LOtAndvS
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FIELD SURVEY BY
E3RA OR ITS CONTRACTORS.
E3RA. Inc.
P.O. BOX 44890
TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98444
1
Appendix B -Sound Level Measurements for Yelm High
School
~e
^
1
~'
BRC
a c o u s t i c s
July 25, 2003
Mr. Eding Birkland
Director of FaciG[ies
Yelm Community Schools
P.O. Box 476
Yelm, Washington 98597
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC.
Regarding: Sound Level MeasuremenLc
Yelm High School
Dear Erling:
This letter presents the results of noise measurements conducted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 at
the site of the existing Yelm High School facility.
The Yelm High School facility is located at 1315 Yelm Avenue Westin Yelm, Washington The
main noise source affecting the High School is roadway traffic on SR 510.
Sound levels were monitored continuously between 8 a.m. and 3 p. m. on July 17, 2003 a[ [he
face of the existing school facility in a location with direct exposure to traffic noise from SR 510.
The long-term noise monitoring was conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer 2238 Environmental
Noise Monitor, which conforms to the ANSI Standard S 1.4 for Type I instruments.
Sound levels are reported in A-weighted decibels (dBA), which is a standard frequency
weighting system based on the sensitivity of human hearing at various frequencies, creating
particularly the greater sensitivity at mid and high frequencies. The following noise sound
Envlronmenfs
descriptors are used:
AlChilBCtu/aI ACOV51ig5
Leq Equivalent sound level, Leq, is the most commonly Environmenraracous5cs
used descriptor for measuring fluctuating sound. The
Mechanical Noise Conhol
Leq is the level of a constant sound [ha[, over the
duration of the measurement interval, contains the same soave system and
Avtlie-Vi5ud10e5ign
amount of sound energy as the measured fluctuating
sound. Vibration Analysis
1)41 First Ave S. Suite 401
Seattle WA 96130
Tel. T96/2T(1-8910
Or 888/848-0524
Fax Y86/21843690
Brc@broacouslics.com
www.bcacoustics.com
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC.
Yelm High Schaal
Page 2
Lmax Maximum sound level; Lmax, is the highest instantaneous sound
level reached during the measurement interval.
The State of Washington Board of Health regulations for approval of new school, new addition
and remodeled school sites are contained in WAC 246-366-030, Sire Approval, Paragraph 3. For
a school site to be approved without additional requirements for sound reduction, the ambient
sound levels may not exceed an hourly Leq of 55 dBA and hourly Lmax of 75 dBA during the
duration of the school day.
The measured hourly Leq and Lmax are shown in the attached figure.
Measured Leq noise levels for the entire measurement period are just above the Washington
Board of Health maximums, measuring between 56 and 60 dBA during the entire measurement
period. The measured Lmax levels vary significantly. The Lmax level measured during the ]0
AM hour is due to summer school activity inclose proximity to the monitor. The Lmax level
measured during the I PM hour was controlled by an ambulance siren passing the site during the
measurement period. All other Lmax levels measured between 68 and 76 dBA. Based on the
measured levels, some amount of sound reduction will be required in the construction plans for
this school.
It is recommended that the constmction plans be reviewed by an acoustical consultant to ensure
that any new or renovated exterior wall, window and roof assemblies will provide adequate
sound reduction to meet the 45 dBA interior noise limit (WAC 246-366-I 10). Given that [he
measured exterior sound levels are only slightly above the State of Washington Board of Health
limitations, the additional sound reduction measures will likely be minimal.
Please feel free [o call if you have any questions regarding [he information presented in [his
repott.
Sincerely yours,
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE, [NC.
Joel D. Writer
Acoustical Consultant
i t r ~o rn a~ rr r r r ~^ ~rlr r r~ r ^n r r rl
EXISTING SOUND LEVELS
Meas. Location: New Yelm Junior High School
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2003
too
so
80
70
m
a
m
~ 60
a
c
0
m rjp
40
30
20
i
Bam l09am gam to t0am 10am 1o 11am 1lam to l2pm 12pm to ipm tpm to 2pm 2pm to 3pm
Hourly Measurement Time
-+Leq tMaz
BRUCK HICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. FIGURE 1 Consultants in Sound and Vibration
1
1
1
'1
Appendix C -Traffic Impact Analysis
~~
M
1
Note: Subsequent to review of the Traffic Impact Analysis by the City of Yelm
1 and WSDOT, the proposed driveway confguration for the High School was
revised to address comments received by these agencies. However, the traffiq
analysis presented in this report remains applicable to the proposed school
'1 improvements. Appendix C1 presents detail on the revised driveway
configuration for the High School.
1
1
1
1
1
r
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Yelm Community Schools
HIGH SCHOOL REMODEL &
NEW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
heffron
Prepared by:
6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle. WA 98115
ph: (206) 523-3939 • fax: (206) 523-4949
DECEMBER 16, 2003
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. ...........................................1
l.l. Proposed School Projects ..........:..................................................... ...........................................I
2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ..........................................................
2.1. Roadway Network .......................................................................... ...........................................6
...........................................6
2.2. Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. ...........................................7
2.3. Traffic Opera[ions ...........................................................................
2.4. Traffic Safety Conditions ................................................................ .........................................10
.........................................17
2.5. School Bus Transportation .............................................................. .........................................IS
2.6. Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................ .........................................19
3. PROJECT IMPACTS ............................................................................ .........................................20
3.1. Roadway Network .......................................................................... .........................................20
3.2. Trip Genera[ion ...............................................................................
3.3. TratYic Operations ........................................................................... .........................................20
.........................................29
3.4. Site Access and Frontage Improvements ........................................ .........................................30
3.5. Traffic Safety Impacts .....................................................................
3.6. School Bus Transportation .............................................................. .........................................32
.........................................32
3.7. Pedestrian lmpacts .......................................................................... .........................................33
4. MITIGATION ....................................................................................... .........................................33
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... ................3
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan for High School ........................................................................ ................4
Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan for Junior High School ............................................................. ................5
Figure 4. Hourly Traffic Volumes on SR 507 South of Mill Road ........................................ .._............8
Figure 5. Traffic Volumes on SR 510 - 15-minute volumes .................................................. ................9
Figure 6. Traffic Volumes on Yelm High School Driveways - I S-minute volumes .............. ................9
Figure 7. Existing (2003) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................... ..............1 I
Figure 8. Existing (2003) School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................... .. ..............12
Figure 9. Existing (2003) Commute PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................... ..............13
Figure 10. Yeaz 2006-Without-Projects AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... _ ............_ 14
Figure l 1. Year 2006-Wi[hou[-Projects School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............_ .... ..............16
Figure 12. Year 2006-Without-Projects Commute PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............. ..............16
Figure 13. Net Change in School-related Trips - AM Peak Hour .......................................... ..............23
Figure 14. Ne[ Change in School-related Trips -School PM Peak Hour ............................... ..............24
Figure I5. Net Change in School-related Trips -Commuter PM Peak Hour ............25
Figure 16. 2006 W i[h-Project Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour .......................................... ..............26
Figure 17. 2006 Wi[h-Project Traffic Volumes -School PM Peak Hour .........................._.. ..............27
Figure I8. 2006 With-Project Traffic Volumes-Commuter PM Peak Hour ........................ ..........._.28
TABLES
Table 1. Student Population Forecasts ................................................................................... .................2
Table 2. Planned Transportation Improvements ........................................._......................... ..._............7
Table 3. Level of Service Summary Existing (2003) and 2006-Without-Projects ............... ...............17
Table 4. Accident Summary ................................................................................................... ...............18
Table 5. Trip Generation in 2006- Wilhou[ and With New Junior High School ................. ...............21
Table 6. Distribution of Trips ............................................................................................... ...............22
Table 7. Level of Service Summary -Year 2006 Conditions ............................................... ...............29
Table 8. Level of Service at Proposed High School Main Driveway- Year 2006 ............... ...............31
Tra)Tc Impact Analysis
Yelm Cammuniry Schoo/s: Nigh Schoa(Remode! and New Junior Nigh School
1. INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates the transportation impacts associated with the expansion and improvements to
three Yelm schools as outlined in the Yelm Community Schools Capita] Facilities Plan (May 2003),
The plan proposes [o cons[me[ a newjunior high school adjacent to Mill Point Intermediate School,
and to expand and remodel [he existing Yelm High School. Once the new junior high school is com-
1 ple[e, Yelm Community Schools plans to shift student populations among three schools, all of which
are located neaz downtown Yelm. Ninth-grade students from the existing high school would be
shifted [o junior high, and me population oCjunior high sudents in the school district would be split
1 between [he ezis[ing Yelm Middle School (which would be converted to ajunior high) and [he new
junior high. Because these projects are inter-related, and would involve the shifting of smdent popu-
lations from one site to another, all of the projects were considered as part of this overall traffic
impact analysis.
1.1. Proposed School Projects
. Figure 1 shows [he location of the existing and proposed schools in Yelm that are evaluated as part of
this report. The three actions evaluated in this Traffic Impact Analysis are:
• New addition and remodel of the existing Yelm High School. This project would
increase the capacity of the high school from the currently permitted 1,227 students to
1,325 students. The Yelm High School project is scheduled to begin cons[mchon in lone
2004. The site plan Cor the proposed high school addition is shown on Figure 2.
• New junior high school adjacent to the Mill Pond Intermediate School. This school
would be accessed from SR 507 south of downtown Yelm. This school is being designed
to accommodate 750 students. The junior high project is scheduled [o be completed in
' Fa112006. The site plan for the proposed junior high school is shown on Figure 3.
• Shifting of students among three schools. Ninth-grade students from the existing high
school would be shifted tojunior high, and [he population ofjunior high students in the
school district would be split between the existing Yelm Middle School (which would be
converted to a junior high) and the new junior high. These population shifts would likely
occur when me newjunior high school is open.
Student population forecasts have been prepared by Yelm Community Schools, and were presented in
its Capita[ Facilities Plan. These smdent forecasts have then been adjusted N show Ne number of
sudents in each school. If the newjunior high school is not constructed, sNden[ populations in [he
existing Yelm High School and existing Yelm Middle School would continue to grow, and the school
district would be forced to provide portables or other measures to accotnmodaN the excess students.
With the new junior high school, smdent loads a[ each school would be within the capacity of the
schools. Table 1 summarizes [he smdent forecasts for each of the schools with and without [he new
junior high school.
heffron - I - oeaamherle, zoo3
Traffic Impac( Analysis
Yelm Commaniry Schools: High School Remodeland New Junior High School
Table 1. Student Population Forecasts
Year Without New School Projects
High Middle
School School
High
School Wlh New School Projects
Middle
School
New Junior
Hi h School
2003-2004 1501 823 1501 823 0
2004-2005 1529 850 1529 850 0
2005-2006 1622 853 1697 853 0
2006-2007 1697 811 1263 622 622
2007-2008 1728. 779 1294 606 606
2008 - 2009 1716 815 1325 601 601
Source: Yelm Community Schook, June 2003.
}Tl'f f T'OIl - 2 - December l6, 1003
~.r~~
~~
F'90fe, 1 a c f iron
YELM SCHOOLS Site vicinity Map
0 u
~o s< o~n o -~ ~ - ~ I
I - -~ I
~~ - ~ ~ ~I
~oQ
~ ~ ~ ~, I
~ _a_°.°°°~°°_ r ~ ~` ~ ~c~y ~ .. i
! ~ r i
I f '" "' i~
11111 _ ~
4 J ~ I
l \~/_
I~> ... ~^y ~_ ~ I
I~ O ~ ~ h j
-t .j, ~' ~ ~ 1T_Y ~I
_ _
' I.
i
I
v_ p '
O `.
I
«~~~~ ~ I
w~
~~7~ in
~ I I
._ _. 1 '- i
.._. w .. .. l i ~
_._._ i
_ i i
~ ... I
n
p .... I I
j i
L _....r_tc_.:._:. _.._ _ _ _ _.J
_._ _. ____ _ _ ___.____ _.. ___ _ _ ~OVfF LLSf[fW.
Figure 2
YELM SCHOOLS ~1C'.~~{ 1'011
Proposed Site Plan for High School
seer rrn ~ I~ ees fn r aed ® fee ~ i ~ r® e. ern rr ~ sps ~
N
------- -_F.,- --,
--~
A
o _ ~~ ~
1 ~ , __. , ~. ~_._ \
_ ~,,_
_ ~ 1 ~ ~i
~~ F. -- ----. _. --~--_4--- --- ~~
-_
!~
irte, ?!ANy I,
YELM SCHOOLS
Figure 3
~1C~ l~l'Oll
Proposed Site Plan for Junior High School
r
Tra,/Jic Impact Analysis
Ye/m Cammuniry Schools: High Schoa(Remodel and New Junior Nigh School
® 2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
°f This section of the report discusses the existing and furore-without-project conditions in the vicinity
of the school sites. The study area extends from the northwest, at the entrance to [he high school on
SR 510, to the south at Mill Road/SR 507, and to the eastjust east of the SR 510/SR 507 intersection.
Four intersections within this study area were evaluated:
• SR 510/SR 507, signalized
• High School En[rance/SR 510, unsignalized,
• High School Exit/SR 510, unsignalized,
• Mill Road/SR 507, unsignalized
2.1. Roadway Network
SR 510 (Yelm Avenue) is a state highway that provides access between Yelm and Interstate 5
through the City of Lacey. It intersects SR 507 a[ N ls[ Street in [he center of [own. It has one lane in
each direction with auxiliary left and right turn lanes a[ key intersections. Except for the of SR
510/SR 507 intersection, all cross streets in the site vicinity are controlled by stop signs on [he secon-
dory roads. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street near the downtown area of Yelm. The
sidewalk on the. north side of the street extends to the high school. However, there are small commer-
cial areas which aze accessed with open driveways where [he sidewalk is no[ available. In the vicinity
of [he site, the highway's speed limit is 35 mph. Near [he school boundaries there aze speed res[ric-
hons [0 20 mph during school arrival and dismissal times.
SR 507 connects Yelm to Interstate 5 neaz Centralia. Northeast of town, SR 507 connects to SR 7 in
Spanaway. Adjacent to the new junior high school site, it is a two lane roadway with paved shoulders.
The speed limit between Yelm Avenue and Mill Road is 25 mph; south of Mill Road, the speed limit
increases to 55 mph.
Mill Road is a two lane roadway. It has no shoulders or sidewalks. The speed limit is 25 mph, with a
school speed limit of 20 mph neaz the existing Mill Pond Intermediate School.
The City of Yelm's 1004-2009 Su Year Transportation 7mprovemenl Program (City of Yelm,
adopted August 13, 2003) identifies roadway, intersection, and sidewalk/walkway improvements that
would occur within the project study azea. Table 2 summarizes these projects. None of the proposed
improvement would affect any of the study area intersections.
)_1Cff2'OIl '6- December [6, 1003
Tsa~c Impact Analysis
Ye1m Community Schoo/s: High Schoo! Remodel and New Junior High School
Table 2. Planned Transportation Improvements
Project Construction
Pdo ~ M Pro ect Name Prried Descd lion Year
2 Roadwa Resurfacin C wide roadwa resurfacin with chi seal 2004
6 - Mosman SUeef/SR 507 Realignment Re-align roadway, repair shoulders, pave, draininage, 2005
From SR 507 to Railroad Street adial walkwa and li htin
7 Mosman SVeet Impmvements Wlden Roadway to neighborhood collector standards 2005
From SR 507 to 2nd Street
8 Solberg StreetlMosman St Improvements Widen roadway to neighborhood mlleaor standards Atter 2007
From SR 507 to SR 510
9 2nd SVeet Improvements Improve roadway to commercial collector standards After 2007
From Yelm Avenue to Mosman Avenue
10 Yelm Avenue West Improvements Wden roadway to urban adedal standards After 2007
From Solbe Street to First Street
11 Mill Road Re-align roadway, pave, improve drainage, add Afler 2007
From SR 507 to 109th Street sidewalks and r htin
15 Yelm Avenue Wl83rd Avenue Widen roadway, safety improvements, re-alignment Afler 2007
intersection
16 Yelm Avenue WlKillion Road intersection Wden roadwa ,safe im rovements, re-ali nment Afler 2007
Source' City of Velm Six Yeer iransponaf,m lmPmremeN ProOram, Fran 2001 (o Xqa. Atlopel August f3, 2003
2.2. Tragic Volumes
New traffic counts were collected for all four study area intersections. Three time periods were
counted: the AM peak period (6:30 to 8:30 A.M.) when school traffic overlaps with commuter trafTic;
and an extended PM peak period (l :30 to 5:30 P.M.) to captuce the peak hour associated with school
Vaffic, as well as the peak hour associated with commuter VatTic. All counts were performed by
Traffiwunt, Inc. The dates of each intersection count are listed below:
SR 5l0/SR 507 - Apri130, 2003
High School Driveways/SR 510 -May 29, 2003
Mill Aoad/SR 507 -September 17, 2003.
In addition, a machine traffic count was performed on SR 507 south of Mill Road on June I Q 2003
(when school was still in session). Figure 4 shows how hourly traffic volumes on SR 507 fluctuate by
how of [he day. The graph shows a distinct peak in the hour between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. This core-
sponds with the commuter PM peak period. During [his time period, northbound and southbound
traffic volumes on SA 507 aze relatively similar. The AM peak hour volume, which occurs between
7:00 and 8:00 A.M., is approximatelytwo-thirds ofthe PM peak hour volume. The volumes increase
steadily between mid-morning and the PM peak hour, then decline rapidly.
hCf f1-071 - 7 - December /6, 1003
1
1
Traffic Impact Analysis
Yefm Community Schools: High Schoaf Remodel and New Junior High Schoa(
Figure 4. Hourly Traffic Volumes on SR 507 South of Mill Road
~g
The counts taken a[ the Yelm High School driveways were also compiled to show how through traffic
volumes on SR S I O and volumes at the school driveways Flatmate. Figure S shows the ha1Flc vol-
umes on SR 510; and Figure 6 shows the tmffic volumes enterng and exiting the school driveways.
These counts are presented in 1 S-minute periods.
These charts clearly show [he peak school tmffic periods. In the morning, tmf<c volumes entering [he
school peak between 7:00 and 7:30 A.M. In the afternoon, traffic volumes leaving the school peak
between 2:1 S and 2:45 P.M. The afternoon peak volumes for the high school are lower than the
morning, which is expected because of students and staff who stay after school for activities.
Through traffic volumes on SRS 10 adjacent to the site peak from 6:45 [0 7:45 A.M. and from 4:30 to
5:30 P.M. Malysis of these volumes determined that [he school haffic does not affect the peak hours
on SR 510, because the commuter volumes are so much higher than the school-generated traffic
volumes. During the afiemoon hour when school traffic is highest (2:15 to 3:15 P.M.), the through
traffic volumes on SR 510 are 78% of the commuter peak hour volumes.
~l l.'1ft011 -8- December 16.1003
__ _~~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8$ B 8 g 8 8 8 6 8 6 B~ 8
Source: Trelhcoun[ Irk., Jurre Sand f0, 2003.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Yerm Communiy Schools: HigM1 School kemadel and New Junior High Schoo/
Figure 5. Traffic Volumes on SR 510 - 15-minute volumes
xw
g Sao
d
,~
,oo
m
Figure 6. Traffic Volumes on Yelm High School Driveways - 15-minute volumes
zso
xao
a ~w
E2
roo
w
Source fwboth figures: TmfhcouM, Manuel fuming movement counts pedonned May 29 830, 1003.
}1 C ~ f 1'UIl ' 9 - December /6, 1003
~~~
a
~~~~$ i 3~ d~ d d d d d d d d d d 8 d d d
R 8- R 8- R 8 R 7 B R R$ R 7 8
• •
m n 'F m N N N ii • n
N
ssa~m~r. e.nm mm. aymr
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ if iF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
R J S =' R~ 8 '-" R i 8 R J 8 9 R J 8 n R 9 8
m m m m N r, ~ m
,srmur v.,ae Rim. aw~N
1
~ Traffic Impact Anatysia
Yelm Cammuniry Schools: Nigh School Remodel and NewJuninr High &hoo!
All of the intersection counts were compiled to determine [he peak hour volumes for three distinct
periods. These are:
• AM peak hour (6:45 [0 7:45 A.M.), which is the hour when morning commute traffic
coincides with morning school traffic.
• School PM peak hour (2:15 to 3:15 P.M.), which is when aIIemoon school traffic
is highest.
• Commuter PM peak hour (4:30 [0 5:30 P.M.), which is when afternoon commute traffic
1 is highest.
The extshng (year 2003) intersection volumes for each of these time periods are shown on Figures 7
through 9.
Future traffic analysis was performed for year 2006 conditions. Traffic volumes for the year 2006
were forecast using a growth rate of 4% per year. This growth rate was derived from historic traffic
volume growth trends presented in the Washington Slate Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Annual Traffic Report (2002). The growth rate in historic volumes is also consistent with [he growth
rates projected by the CiTy of Yelm in its Y2/Y3 Corridor Study (Revised Environmenml Assessment,
City of Yelm, WSDOT, and the Federa] Highway Administration, Febmary 2000.) Future traffic
volumes without the proposed projects are shown on Figures 10 through 12.
2.3. Traffic Operations
r
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating wnditions. Six
letter designations, "A" through "F," are used [o define [he level of service. LOS A is the best and
represents good Imffic operations with Little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is [he worst and indicates
poor traffic operations with long delays Level of service is defined in temts of delay. For signalized
intersections, delay is dependent on a number otvariables, including [he number of lanes, signal cycle
length, and green-time allocated to each movement at the intersection. For unsignalized intersections,
' delay is based on the number of gaps in the major sheet traffic in which a vehicle entering or leaving
[he side street can pass. A complete description of level of service criteria for signalized and unsig-
nalized intersections is included in Appendix A.
Levels of service for the study area intersections were determined using procedures in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manua! and TrafTicware's Synchro 5.0 traffic analysis software. Table 3 summa-
rizes the existing (2003) levels of service and the forecast 2006-without-project levels of service. I[
shows that the intersection of SR 510/SR 507 curtently operates a[ LOS D during all three analysis
time periods. By the year 2006 without any of the proposed school projects, operations would
degrade [o LOS E during the School PM peak hour and Commute PM peak hour. The table also
shows [hat the high school exit driveway to SR 510 curtently operates at LOS F during al] three time
periods. Operations will continue [o degrade by the year 2006 due to growth in both school trips as
well as traffic on SR 510.
)"ll'1fTOR -10- December 16, 1003
N
0 00
SR 510
~ q 0
l r~
8 18 10 L q
0 406 ~
~ 4 ~ 923
217 ~~ '
88~ ~ ~}
216 y 7 ~.
x
33
156
h
°
a
a
'
~c
305 \ 568
93rd Avenue a °
~'
Middle
School _
Entrance
216 243 oe
High ~~P er~
Schoo] Exit 189 ° ~72 42
330 788 ~~ 61 42 ~~29 ~~ 9
252 ~ /~ 478
36 ~~ v 71 '
138 ~~
391
558 10 ll0
SR 507 '
~ 185
189 / 16 ~ ^
22 47 +1 i
f • aa~
a
3l9 ~ 43 ?
° 313 q °a°,
S~~ ~ 6 ~
S``~
' These were derived fiom Trig Genermion '
Onstiwm ofTansponation Engineers, bah Edi~ioq 199])
Figure 1 ~ P ^
YELM SCHOOLS 12C, f I till fe
Existing (2D03)
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
4
w
// o
SR 510 ~ ti
s/'1 ° `2
561 Iq
1 ~ 66 ~ 1/0 ~ 9
555 ~ L 541
~~
I5~ II ~1
544 y
74 238
~ 5
0
0.'
3
R c
\ ~
93rd Avenue 571 542 °
~, ~ Middle
School
81
117
Entrance ~ ~ ~
/ 122 /180 0`'
School Exit317 r xP,°°~ X80 60
~~ 170 ~ 40
660 700 105 ~ ~ 15
510 ~I ~ 505
45 ~ ~5 175
~ 115/lr
7,0
\ 695 50 160
y SR 507
324
~/ 56
/336 66 54 y Aa
I~ I ~ rs ~a
+ I ~'G
275 ~' 42 s,P
o,~ 0 265 ~ 12 °aa
4S a 10
S =
'These were dceived fiom T,ip Generation
(Institme ofTransponation Engineers, 6th Edition, 199])
Figure 8
YELM SCHOOLS ~ i~~~i`011
Existing (2003)
School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
4
N
~ /~ ~ o
SR 510 ~ 1 0 ~
4 r 554
43 10 I6
~
1
1
~ ti
~ 570
821 ~~
18~ 5~} 5
816 y
17
0 81
a
0
K
v
R c
93rd Avenue 840 554 ~° Middle
\ _
• School
61
117
Entrance ~ ~ 7r
/ 12/2 '
High 98 2/40 ,z~°¢ 109 69
School Ezll Ir ~P
770 ~ 817 [~~~ 236 ~~62
122 ~ ~ 28
596 ~i r 549
52 \~ ~ 7711 226 ,
916 R I~ 159 / /'~
\ \ 803 8 258
SR 507 ,
1 389
40l ~/ 43
/ 62 68 +1 Ad
r J, j ~ ~, a
56 ~~s
45~^ 396 ~ 377 ~ 12 ~Oa°.
S = 19
r
• Thcsc were denied fiom A'O Cene.arion
Qnsiimre ofTmnspone~ion Engineers, 6rh Edition, 199])
Figure 9
YELM SCHOOLS Existing (2003) i1c'1~<'Z"012
Commuter PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
®~
e
1
S
1
t
N
/0
SR 510 ~/ 1 / s~~5 20 1~
0 L ~ 447 ~ II 1
238 ~ (~ ~ 1030
ti 0
99~
242 y }
42 /
c 0 192
0
cK
3
R c
\ ~
93rd Avenue 337645 °
~ Middle
School
546
160
Envance ~ ~ 7~
213/ 277 0°
School Exit 234 R ~ P°e~~ 19/i 47
388 \ 876 ~~ 81 ~~C ~ 33
51 ~ 10
294 ~ ~ 534
43 ~~ ~ 80
RR 151 ~~
45]\ \
y G24~ 20 124
SR 507
~ 211
216 28 53 / I8 ~
i '~~a
~- ~~ ~ ys~
~5P^ 360 ~ 350 ~ 5 °°'v
S _ ]0
Figure 10
YELM SCHOOLS `1C11P~'1
Year 2006 Without Projects
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
N
o
/ L
SR 510 ~ / 0 ti 2
1~ 4 679 16
1 ~ 129 ,~ I I ~ 10
~ 4 X713
624~~
29~ 12 ~
612 y
81
a 6 264
0
a
3
R e
\ ~
93rd Avenue 654 ~ 679 ~°
Mtddle
School
15R
~~ 115
Entrance
720
High 351 ~ P~eo°e _ 103 67
School Exit ~ ~'
743\~ 831 ~` 189 ~~ 5
~ I1R ~ ~ 15
S74 ~+l ~ 590
SI~ ~ 197
RRR 138 ~~
799\ \802 S6 ]80
SR 507
r 364
377 74 I ~~ 63
/ ~ 61 ~ ~ Ad
r ~a
aR j"s
317 a 306 13 ~Oa°,
45~^ ~ 11 ~
S =
Figure 11
YELM SCHOOLS j' ~f ~,1 ~»j
Year 2006 Without Projects
School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
1
[J
!~
1
1
t
N
~ °
/ 0 L
2
SR 510 ~
~ ~
1
(~
I 630
~ 84 I1
~ 18 ~9
42
~ 4 ~ 677
3
I8~ 6 ~,
918 y
0 26 124
0
0
K
v
~~ `c
°
93rd Avenue 942 ~ 630 ~ Middle
School
102
69
EnVance I
/
1 1 />t
High
School 15
2
Exit 61 278ce
~
P~ ~ 130
78
R
882 \ 948 ~
~~s 273 ~
~//70
145 L ~ 31
633
673 ~,A ~
~
254
~
~
~
~
~
\ 185 J
~y
/
1033 \
916
y 97
290
SR 507
x
443
/456
r 69 77 /
y 48
~ dam
a
'y
• ~ i
450 ~ ~
I3
429 ~?
°v°.
45~^ ~ ~
21
S _
Figure 12
~~ `~~ll U11
YELM SCHOOLS ~
Year 2006 Without Projects
Commuter PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Tra~clmpact Analysis
Yefm Communiry Schoo/s: Nigh Schoo! Remodel and New Junior Nigh Schoo!
The City of Yelm has adopted a LOS D standard for peak tratTc periods on Yelm Avenue and all
commercial and industrial areas in town. As shown above, intersections along Yelm Avenue would
fall below this standard. To address the roadway deficiencies, the City of Yelm is planning to con-
sWCt a by-pass of SR 507 and SR 510 around the heart of the City. This by-pass is identified as the
Y2/Y3 corridor. Construction for [he Y3 segment is planned for 2005 to 2008, and constmction of the
Y2 segment i5 planned for 2010 [0 2015. With the addition of the by-pass, all signalized intersections
along SR 510 were projected to operate a[ LOS C or better in [he year 2020. (Source: Y2/Y3 Corridor
Revised Environmental Assessment, City of Yelm, WSDOT, and the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Febmary 2000.)
Table 3. Lave! of Service Summary Existing (2003) and 2006-Without-Projects
2003 Existing 2006 Without Projects
Intersections LDSa Dela ° LOS Dela
AM Peak Hour
SR 5101SR 507INE 1st Street D 38.0 D 53.3
SR 5101High Schaal Exit Driveway= F 77.3 F 166.3
SR 5071Mi11 Road ° B 11.0 B 11.6
School PM Peak Hour
SR 51015R 5071NE 1st Street D 41.7 E 63.8
SR 510/High School Exit Ddveway ° f 54.5 F 147.6
SR 507/Mill Road ° B 12.4 B 12.4
Commuter PM Peak Hour
SR 510/SR 507INE 1st Street D 52.3 E 69.6
SR S101High School Exit Driveway ~ E 48.2 F 111.7
SR 507/Mill Road ° B 13.7 C 15.7
a LOS=Level of Service
6 Delay=Average secronds of tlelayper vehicle.
c Levek otservice reported hr the worst movement M the intersection, which rs the left taro exiting the dmreway. Levelotservice for
the left taro into the hgh school sde of ds norfhem dmeway wouM oe better(han tha LOS o/the exiing movement.
d Levels olseNice 2ported Porfhe worst movement at the intersectioq which is the NB approach exisGrrg Mill Road.
2.4. Traffic Safety Conditions
Accident data were obtained Crom the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for
the period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002 (the three yeazs of most recent data).
Table 4 summarizes the accident data. The locations aze identified by both street name and milepost.
Accidents that occurred at school driveways or study area intersections are identified separately,
otherwise the inlortnation is summarized along roadway sections as iden[ifed by the mileposts. Since
[here are many access pointsalong SR 507 and SR 510 in the study area, the number of accidents [hat
aze intersection related are also indicated. Accident types the occurted with [he greatest frequency arc
identified by category. There were also accidents involving hitting objects/non-domestic animals,
sideswipe accidents and/or pulling out from a parking space that included in [he "other" category.
These types of accidents were infrequent.
heffron - 17 - necemaer (e, coos
' 71' ~c Impact A~/ysis
Yelm Community Schaofs: High School Remodel and New Junior High School
Most locations along SR 510 experienced a low occurrence of accidents. This includes the high
school exit driveway where only one accident has occurred in the past three years. The exception is
the section between [he high school driveway and SR 507 (milepost 14.74 [0 15.66). There were an
average of 32.3 accidents per year in [his nearly one-mile section of highway. The accident rate for
this section was calculated in accidents per million-vehicle-miles of travel (acc/mvm), which allows
[his section of highway [o be compazed [o others around [he state. The accident rate for this section is
approximately 6.3 acc/mvm. The average accident rn[e for state highways in WSDOT's Olympic
Region is about 2.0 acc/mvm (source: WSDOT, 1996 Washington State Highway Accident Report).
The high number of driveways along [his section of SR 510 together with the congestion approaching
the SR 570/SR 507 intersection likely contributes to the higher-than-average accident rate. A higher
number of accidents also occurred at the SR 510/SR 507 intersection, which is expected since this
intersection also has a high traffic volume and is signalized.
Table 4. Accident Summary -January t, 2000 through December 31, 2002
,~
,~
Type of Aaident (Totals for Three Years) Aaidents by Year
m
w
a
w
~
w m
~
IntersectionlRoadway
~-o, >
J ~
'°
~ ~-
~
°'
;, Y
t
O
R
°
~
°o
-¢
o
~
¢
a m r
¢
SR 510193rd Avenue 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1.7
(MP 14.49)
SR 510 Roadway 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1.7
(MP 14.50 to MP 14.72)
SR 5101High School Exit 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1.0
(MP 14.73)
SR 510 Roadway 54 13 64 2 11 1 6 30 34 33 32.3
(MP 14.74 to MP 15.66)
SR 5101SR 507 30 1 19 0 3 0 7 B 11 11 10
MP 15.67
Sauce: WSDOT, Augusf 2003
2.5. School Bus Transportation
Yelm Schools provides combined bus service to the existing high school and middle school. ARer
students are picked-up from residential locations in the morning, 23 buses drop students oft a[ [he
middle school, then all 23 buses drive to the high school and drop off the remaining students. This
' process is repeated in [he afternoon with all 23 buses picking up students at the middle school [hen
driving [o [he high school to pick up students before retummg them [o [heir neighborhoods.
1 Beginning in Fa112004, Yelm Schools will begin a shuttle program to [rnnsfer students to the high
school. With this plan, 23 buses will continue [o amve a[ [he middle school, but the high school
smdenfs would then transfer to a waiting shuttle bus. When that bus is full, if would depart and take
hpffrtln -18- December l6, 2003
Tr ~clmpacr Malysir
yelm Community Schools: High Schao! Remade! and New Junior High Schaal
[he students to the high school. With [his plan, it is expected that the number of buses driving to the
high school would decrease from 23 to 8.
Schao] district records determined [ha[ 275 ninth-gade students rode [he bus during the 200212003
school year. This represents 67% of the total ninth grade population (412 smdents). The remaining
students walk, ride with other smden[s a[ [he high school, or are dropped-oft/picked-up by a parent.
2.6. Pedestrian Facilities
In the vicinity of the schools, the pedestrian facilities vary. Along Mill Road from SR 507 to 109th
Avenue SE there are limited good walkways. Most of this roadway is two nartow lanes with no
shoulder. There aze internitten[ sidewalks near developments such az adjacent to the Intermediate
School and adjacent to the Memorial Park. However, students were observed walking southbound on the
east side of the road during after school hours. There aze a few intermittent sidewalks on SR 507 from
SR 510 tojus[ south of Mill Road. Where sidewalks do not exist, thcre is a 4-foot paved shoulder.
On SR 507 N (Yelm Avenue east of N 1st Avenue), the roadway and pedestrian facilities are in good
condition. These facilities include sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway. Near [he
center of [own (old Yelm), approximately four blocks east and west of the intersection of SR 507/SR
5I0 [here are sidewalks and on-sheet parking on both sides of the street. T'he sidewalk on the east
side of the street continues [o the high school with [he exception in the vicinity of a few small busi-
nesses. A[ these locations [here are open driveways with no sidewalk and minimal curb.
fleffron - 19 - December lb, zoos
1
Tm~clmpact Artalyais
Yelm Communiry SchooG: High Sefioo! Remodel and New Junior Nigh Schao!
3. PROJECT IMPACTS
This section of the report describes [he conditions that would exist with the proposed Yelm High
School addition and remodel and the newjunior high school. As previously discussed in the
Proposed School Projects section of this report, sNden[ populations are ezpec[ed to shift with the
constmetion of the newjunior high school. Thus, the impact analysis addresses not only the net
' increase in traffic a[ the proposed junior high school, but also net reductions in traffic at the existing
Yelm Middle School and Yelm High School. The cumulative trip generation and traffic operational
impacts are described below.
3.1. Roadway Network
The proposed improvements planned as part of Yelm Community School Capital Facilities Plan do
no[ include any changes to the existing off-site roadway neM~ork. As will be described subsequently
' in [he Site Access section, new site driveways would be constructed to serve [he newjunior high
school, and the existing site driveways a[ Yelm High School would be changed.
3.2. Trip Generation
Trip generation was based on the change in smdent population at each of the three affected schools:
Yelm High School, the existing Yelm Middle School, and the proposed new junior high school. Trip
generation for each site was de[ertnined from rates and equations in Trip Generation (Instim[e of
Transportation Engineers [ITE], 6th Edition, 1997) for a high school (Land Use Code 530) and a
' middle schooVjunior high school (Land Use Code 522). Trip rates in this publication estimate total
[rip generation (or new developments based on a variety of dependent variables including number of
smdents, number of staff, and size of the school building.
For comparison, [he [rip generation rate for the existing high school was determined. This calcuta[ion
was based on [he student population a[ [he time of the traffic counts conducted for [his project. The
calculated rates were nearly identical to [he rates presented in Trip Generation for a high school.
For this analysis, [he rates and equations that rely on the number of students as the dependant variable
' were used. These are appropriate because the increase in students more directly relates to increases in
site traffic, and because some of the changes proposed for the high school campus do not increase the
student capacity (e.g., auditorium addition). I[ should be noted [hat [he rates and equations for schools
in Trip Generation reflect all trips generated at [he site including students, staff, faculty, deliveries,
and extra-curriculaz activities.
' As previously discussed, three distinct peak hours were evaluated: AM peak hour, School PM peak hour,
and Commute PM peak hour. Trip generation values were determined for the year 2006, which is the
scheduled opening year of [he new junior high school. This is also the year when the student population
of the new junior high school is expected to be the highest (see Table 1). Although population of [he
high school is expected to be higher in later years, sensitivity analysis de[ertnined that the difference in
total trip generation is only one [o two trips during each peak hour period evaluated. Also, for all furore
conditions, the number oC students a[ the high school is expected to be less than its torten[ student
population. For all of these reasons, all analysis was performed for year 2006 conditions. Table 5
summarizes the estimated peak hour [rip generation for each of the three peak hours.
' ]"IlfffOri -20- December l6, 1003
~~~
Tr ~c Impact Analysis
Yelm Community SeRoals: High School Remodel and New Junior High SeRoa(
Table 5. Trip Generation in 2006 -Without and With New Junior High School
AM Peak Hour School PM Peak CommNer PM Peak
SNdents In Out Total In Out Total In Qut Tolai
Nlthout New Junior High
High Schaal 1696 546 2:W 780 156 351 509 102 152 254
Yelm Middle School 811 213 160 373 120 115 235 61 69 130
New Junior High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2507 759 394 1153 278 466 744 163 221 384
Wdh New Junior High
High School 1263 407 174 581 117 262 379 76 113 189
Yelm Middle School fi22 163 t23 286 92 BB 180 47 53 100
New Junior High School 622 163 123 286 92 88 180 47 53 100
Total 2507 733 420 1153 301 407 739 170 219 389
Net Change
High School d33 -139 ~0 -199 -01 A9 -130 -Z6 -39 fi5
Yelm Middle School -189 -50 -37 A7 -28 -27 -55 -14 -16 -30
New Junior High School 622 163 123 286 92 88 160 47 53 100
Total 0 -2fi 26 0 23 -28 -5 7 -2 5
Source: Tnp generation basetl on 2fes in ITE's Tnp Generation, 6th Etltlion.
3.2.1. Trip Distribution and Assignment
An overall trip distribution pattern for the high school site was developed using existing traffic counts
a[ [he site driveways (which show [he direction of arriving and departing traffic), traffic volumes a[
nearby intersections, and the boundaries of the school district. The existing high school serves [he
entire district.
When the newjunior high school opens and the existing middle school is converted to ajunior high
school, the district will be divided into two parts with students in each part attending one of thejunior
high schools. Although not officially adopted, school district staff expect that [he dividing line
between thejunior high attendance areas would be roughly at Vancil Road. Smden[s who live west of
Vancil Road would attend the converted middle school, while students who live east of Vancil Road
would attend the new junior high school.
Teachers and staff a[ [he schools could live outside of the school district boundaries. Trips associated
with staff were distributed to the roadway network based on [he regional population.
The [rip distribution pattern for high school students (or parent [rips), junior high school pazents [rips,
and staff/[eacher trips aze summarized in Table 6.
heffron - zl - December 76.7003
~,~m®
1
Z}offic Jmpaa Analysis
Yelm Cammaniry Schoolr HigM1 Scfioal Remodel and New Junior High School
Table ti. UI5[nbution of I nps
Location High School
StudenUParent Td s New Junior High
StudentlParent Td s
StaRlTeachers
SR 510 West of Hgh School 18% nla 30%
SR S[0 East of High School 11% n/a 0%
Ntst Avenue 14% Na 0%
SR 507 NorN 45% 65°k 45%
SR 507 SoNh 12°h 35 % 25°h
Na-AtterMance bouMary lorfhe newjuniorhigh school would not generate Mps hom this ama
1 The new change in trips were assigned to dre roadway network according to [he distribution patterns.
The net change in [rips for each of the three time periods aze shown on Figures 13 through I5.
1
1
1
1
heffron
_..z.~v...z~.....+.~a
zz -
December l6. 1003
t~
N
SR 510 ~ l 0 ti b 0
4 0
p ~0 ~ 0 `0
~ ~ ~ -~+9
0 y p ~-128
z +9 y 7
c 11\ 305/
m i
0
C
v
c
°
93rd Avenue -2\ +6 °
y ~ Middle
School
0
-37
Entrance -139 Ir/ 7/
Buses Only /
High -60 ,/ P,°~~ -6 0
School 4 /
-92 ~ 3 ~` +1 ~ 0
~. +l ~ °
-33 -64 ~,i ~ -105
~ +72 29 ~ • +101
/+1080 / /~1 R ~/fir
y h `+g2 r +12 +I2\ \4 ~ 60 +76
~ +41 y
60 5~1
SR 507
New
Junior Hi ~+76
+g +163 ~ / 3
+123 y 'Bay i
r ~ y ~ a
`l ~'%
5 A +22~ 0 ~ ~Oa°,
4S~^ s° 0 ~
S =
Figure 13
YELM SCHOOLS ~1Li f~t't}.1
Year 2006 Project Trips Net Change
AM Peak Hour TrafFc Volumes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
SR 510
93rd Avenue +2
1/ \
EnGance -4
Buses Only ~
High -89
School
Figure 14 _
YELM SCHOOLS `~ ~~' ~ ~~ 11
Year 2006 Project Trips Nei Change
School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
t)
N
o
SR 510 .~ 1 0 L+~ 0
~ o
o ~o ,~ o L 0
o y 0 r -2a
+3 y ~ 1 y
0 2 ~ 3 0/ -3/6
0
C
v
c
93rd Avenue +1~+1 °
~ Middle
School
0
~6
Entrance -26 7r
Buses Only
- -14 +1 0~'
School -39 ~ ~~or~ +l p
-49 \ \ -36 t,s~ +1 ~I `0 \
y +I ~ 0
-I9 -31 ~f1 ~ -26
t~ +31 +10 19 ~ • +29
I1 ~r
y ~ ~ 35 r +2~ +1 ~ +3 ~ / 3~
i• +18
_1316
SR 507
New ii
]wior Hi ~+i2
_1 +47 \ 2
+53 y Baia
y ~ ~ ~~?
+3 ~ +z2~ o -1 °d
4S~^ a 0 ~ a
S
E
Figure 15 ~,
YELM SCHOOLS ~1Efil'C)11
Year 2006 Project Trips Net Change
Commuter PM Peak Hour TrafFc Volumes
N
o ~ L
SR SIO ~ 1 ,0 ~ 0
(~ ~ 651 20 0 L
0 25 ,, j 11 ~ 1
~ j1 ~ 617
335y ~
4 ~ p ~ 294
25] y ~ ~1
a 84 ~ 39 0 / 135
0
3
c
93rd Avenue 335 ~ 651 ~°' Mrddle
~ School
29
123
Enhance 378 /
Buses Only / 7~ 1~
High ~ / 163 265 c~c 185
School 174 ~ Pic Jr 47
~ 156 / ~~ 33
242 ~ 701 ~ 82 52 ~ ~ ~10
183 230 ~ ~ 429
108. 242 14\~ g 181
~ ` ,~ ~ ~ a 87/fir
~ 4 t 82 307 463 \ 620 20 200
300 ~ ~a
55
SR 507
Ncw
Junior Hi8 286
224 163 R\ r IS
,/ \y ` 123 ~ ~a
~a
`1 42 ASS
355 ~ 372T 5 ~Oa
4S~^ s° 10 ~ v
S =
Figure 16 -
~i~'1SI~/]1
YELM SCHOOLS Year 2006 With Projects
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
~I
N '
0
SR 510 N 01 0 678 I6 0 1
~' ~ 11 L to
653 ~ ~ 25 ~ 4 ~ 615 '
0 ~ 12~ ~ 67
617y ~ 1
a 26~ 746/ 182 I
0
cG
v ,
c I
'o
93rd Avenue 65~ 67 ~, Middlc
25 School
,~ $$ i
Bntrance 92 ~ 7~
Buses Only ~
92 218 e, I
' High 262 ~/ P,e~~ ~ 6 67
School ~c ~ /
639 \ \ 766 ~ls 183 rl 45
y 112 ~ ~ 15
~ 339 514 y 254 3
61 /334 /J~ R 13
~y ~ ~ g r 407 793 \ \ 812 ~ I l ~ j /~
295 ~ 30 ~ 234 1
31
SR 507
New
Junior Hi Y 387
/369 92~ ~ 88 +1 59 e 1
r ~I r- acv
/ ~ I f's
326 A 342 ~ 13 46 ~oaa
Sp1 ~ ~
S4 = I1
~ '
Figure 17 '
YELM SCHOOLS '71`~~?"t}17
Year 2006 With Projects
School PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes '
1
1
N
SR 510
1
1
~_
1
~~
y~
^
93rd Avenue 943
Figure 18 y
YELM SCHOOLS I~C~ii ~~~
Year 2006 With Projects
Commuter PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Analys8
Yelrn Communiy Schools: High School Remodel and New Junior High School
3.3. Traffic Operations
Level of service analysis was performed for the study area intersections for the 2006-with-project
conditions. These are summarized in Table 7. This analysis shows that [he redistribution of student
[rips through the intersection of SR 510/SR 507 would slightly improve opemtions a[ [his location
during the AM and School PM peak hours. Delay a[ this intersection would increase slightly during
the Commute PMpeak hour, but operations would remain at a LOS E condition. As previously
discussed in the Background Conditions section of this report, [he Y2/Y3 Bypass of downtown is
expected [o dramatically improve operations at this intersection in the long term.
The level of service analysis also determined [ha[ operations would degrade at [he SR 510/high school
exit driveway. Although total traffic volumes at [he school would be lower once the newjunior high
school opens, the high school access driveways aze proposed [o be reconfigured. Entering and exiting
movements now occur at separate driveways, in [he future, all non-bus traffic would enter [he site via [he
eastern driveway, which is the same driveway that all traffic exiting the site would use. Combining the
entering and exiting movements a[ one location would degrade operations. Further analysis related io the
access configuration and potential improvements in presented in [he Site Access section below.
Table 7. Level of Service Summary-Year 2006 Conditions
2006 Without Protects 2006 Wth Protects
Intersections LOS= Dela ° LOS Dela
AM Peak Hour
SR 510ISR 5071NE 1st Street D 53.3 D 42.8
SR 510IHigh School Exit Driveway= F 166.3 F >200.0
SR 5071Mi11 Road ° B 11.6 B 11.9
School PM Peak Hour
SR 5101SR 507INE 1st Street E 63.8 E 55.8
SR 510IHigh School Exit Driveway ° F 147.6 F 179.2
SR 507/Mill Road ° B 12.4 B 14.1
Commuter PM Peak Hour
SR 5101SR 5071NE 1st Street E 69.6 E 72.7
SR 5101High School Exit Driveway = F 111.7 F 126.4
SR 5071Mi11 Road ° C 15.7 C 16.3
a LOS=Level of Service
b Delay=Ave2ge sea MS O(delayper vehiGe.
c Levels of service reported (orfhe worst movement atfhe iMeBection, which u Rre kR rum exiling the drt/eway. Level o(service /or
Mfe IeR turn into the high school sde of Rs nodhem driveway would 6e better than Rra LOS o/the exidrg movemerd.
d Levels o/servke reported (w the worst movement of the intersection, which is the NB apDmach exisfirrg Mill Road.
The haftic opera[ionsanalysis was performed for year 2006 conditions. In [his year, [he student loads
at the schools will still 6e less than capacity. However, as il{ustrated by this analysis, conditions at the
key intersection of SR 510/SR 507 would improve with construction of the mew junior high school.
This school would intercept trips ariving from the south and east and divert them [o the new school
site. If this school is not constructed, these trips would continue to pass through the SR 510/SR 507
hLf f 1-nn - 29 - December 16, 1003
Traffic Impact Analyse
Yelm Community Schools: Nigh Schonl Remodel and New Junior High School
intersection to reach either the existing middle school or [he high school. As Ne population of sm-
1 dents increases in the district, [he improvement realized by intercepting these trips also increases.
Further analysis was performed to show how [he site driveways at both the high school and new
junior high school site would operate when the student loads reach maximum capacity. This is pre-
sented in [he next section (Sire Access).
3.4. Site Access and Frontage Improvements
The site access driveways at both [he high school and new junior high school site were evaluated to
determine the appropriate trafTic control and lane configuration. In addition, this section describes the
frontage improvements [hat may be required along each site. For both sites, a capacity condition for
1 the proposed school configurations was evaluated. Capacity for the high school is targeted to be 1,325
students, while capacity for the newjunior high school would be 750 sNdents.
Yelm High School
The traffic operations analysis determined that ]eft tutus from the high school site currently operate at
LOS F during all three analysis peak hours: AM peak hour, School PM peak hour, and [he Commute
PM peak hour. As previously discussed, reconfiguration of [he high school's access driveways would
degrade operations, even through [he total traffic volumes a[ the school would be lower once the new
' junior high school opens. The reconfiguration would combine entering and exiting movements a[ one
main driveway (entering and exiting movements now occur at sepazate driveways). Thus, the left-tutu
movement exiting the driveway would need to yield [o both through traffic on SR 510 as well as [he .
entering left Nm movement.
Signal warrants were evaluated for the high school driveway for existing and fuNre-with-project
' conditions. Guidelines presented for three of [he eight traffic signal wananfs included in the Manual on
Uniform TroJ7ic Control Devices (MUTCD) [ATSSA, ITE, AASHTQ 2001) were tested as part of [his
evaluation. They are summarized below: _
• Warrant l: Eight Hour Vehicular Volume - Pan A of this warrant is applied in situations
where a large volume of intersecting trafLc is the principal reason to consider installing a
traffic signal. Part B of [his warrant is applied in siuations where [he traffic volume on the
major sheet is so heary that [he traffic on the minor intersecting street suffers excessive
delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.
• Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume -This warrant is intended [o apply in conditions
where the volume of intersecting traf£c is the principal reason to consider installing a traf-
Rc signal.
• Wartan[ 3: Peak Hour-This warrant is intended for use in locations where [raf}ic condi-
tions are such [hat for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street traffic
suffers undue delay when entering or crossing [he major street.
There are two other warrants that could apply in this location, but data were not available to evaluate
them. These are Wartant 4: Pedestrian Volume and Wartant 5: School Crossing, which both require
measurement of Imffic gaps on SR 510 and actual pedestrian crossing counts. These warrants are
generally tested if volumes alone would not warrant a traffic signal.
hCf'frOn -30- ~ December 16, 1003
Traffic Impact Ana(ysir
Yelm Community Schoo/s: High School Remade! and New Junior Higb Scboot
The six hours of counts performed at the site driveway in June 2003 were [he basis for this analysis.
These counts included two hours during the moming peak period, and four hours during [he afternoon
peak period. Based on these counts, it appears that the school driveway would not meet Warrant 1,
but would meet Warrants 2 and 3. Only one warrant must be me[ tojus[ify a traffic signal.
If a signal is installed at [he proposed main driveway (enter and exit driveway), [he level of service
would improve dramatically for all conditions. It was assumed for [his analysis that the signal would
also need to serve Mountain View Road, which is a public street extending north from the school on
the opposite side of SR 510. The level of service without and with [he signal is summarized in Table
8. As shown, with a signal, the driveway intersection would operate at LOS B for all conditions.
In addition [o the operational benefits, a traffic signal would also improve traffic safety by reducing
[he potential forright-angle accidents. A signal would also provide a pedestrian crossing of SR 510 at
the school's main access. For all of these reasons, a traffic signal is recommended at the high school's
eastern driveway when [he driveways aze reconfigured. New develop projects located north of SR
510 and accessed from Mountain View Road may benefit from this signal. Those [hat do should be
required [o contribute to [he costs of the signal.
Table 8. Level of Service at Proposed High School Main Driveway- Year 2006
Without Traffic Sional a Wth Traffic Signal
Intersections LDS° Dela = LOS Dela
AM Peak Hour F >200.0 B 17.1
School PM Peak Hour F 179.2 B 19.1
School Commuter Peak Hour F 126.4 B 14.8
a Levels ofservice reported lorthe worst movement at the intersection, whkh is the IeR turn exiling the driveway
b LOS=Level alServrce
c Delay=Average secorMS Oldelayper vehicle.
In addition to a traffic signal, a left [um Zane would need to be added to SR 5 ]0 at the easternmost
driveway (the existing left mm lane serves only [he westemmost driveway). The length of this lane
was determined based on [he queue length of traffic entering the site. The longest queues would occur
during [he moming peak hour, when the highest volume of traffic is entering the site. Queuing analy-
sis determined that an average queue length of about 100 fee[, and a 95th-percentile (near the maxi-
mum) queue would be about 190 feet. A left mm lane with 190 fee[ of storage plus a taper per
WSDOT standards. If the intersection does include Mountain View Road, [hen a short turn pocket
should be provided for dre eastbound left turn movement. This could transition [o the left mm lane at
the high school's westemmost driveway where buses would enter the site.
New Junior High School
The newjunior high school would have access from SR 507 through the existing Hawks Landing
development. Level of service was performed for this access driveway. II was determined that it
would operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour (when school traffic and commuter traffic coin-
cide), and at LOS B during both the School PM peak hour and [he Commute PM peak hour. These
are acceptable levels of service.
jTCf f f 017. - 31 - December 16, 1003
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tra~c/mpacl Analysis
Yefm Community Schools: High School Remodel and New Junior Nigh School
The need for auxiliary left and right tam lanes a[ the junior high access was also reviewed. According [o
the WSDOT Design Manual, left tam lanes can lessen delay and accident potential involving left-mming
vehicles. WSDOT's left-mmstorage guidelines are presented in Figure 910-9a of the Design Manual.
These guidelines relate to speed, total volume on the highway, and [he percentage of traffic taming left.
Based on the volume oCtraffic expected a[ [hejunior high school driveway, alert-[urn lane on SR 507
should be considered for all three peak time periods (AM peak hour, School PM peak hour, and the
Commute PM peak hour). The length of this lane is based on [he volume of left-fuming traffic and total
traffic volume on [he highway. For all three time periods, a storage length of 100 feet is recommended.
WSDOT's guidelines for a right tam pocket or taper are shown on Figure 910-12. The need is based
on the total approach volume and the volume ofright-taming traffic. Volumes during the AM peak
hour would be high enough [o warrant a right tam taper, however, volumes during [he PM peak hours
would not warrant additional treatments beyond aright-tam radius.
Based on the above analysis, [hejunior high school access would be an unsignalized intersection
(stop sign on the side street). SA 507 should be widened at the access road to provide a southbound
left tam lane with 100 feet of stomge and a northbound right-[um taper.
3.5. Traffic Safety Impacts
As documented in [his report, [he proposed projects are expected [o re-distribute traffic from two
existing schools to the newjunior high school. As such, the projects are no[ expected to substantially
increase Vaffic volumes in the site vicinity. Since many accidents are related to the volume of traffic
and level of congestion, i[ is unlikely that [he combined projects would adversely affect tratTc safety
in the vicinity.
The newjunior high school would add traffic to an existing access on SR 507, which could increase
the potential for accidents at [his location. To reduce this potential, a left tam lane and a righbmm
taper are recommended at thejunior high access on SR 507.
In addition, a traffic signal is recommended at [he high school site driveway. This signal would
improve traffic safety a[ this driveway by reducing [he possibility of right-angle type accidents. In
addition, a traffic signal will provide for pedestrian crossing of SR 510.
3.6. School Bus Transportation
Slight changes in the school district's bus routing may occur with the newjunior high school. Bus
routes now serve both the middle school and high school. As described in [he Background Conditions
section of [his report, high school smden[s will be shuttled [o the middle school where they will
transfer from their neighborhood bus route. When the newjunior high is completed, [he overall
district will be split into two areas with students in each area attending one oC[he district'sjunior
highs. Bus routes that serve the eastern area (for the newjunior high) will likely be redirected to pick
up at the junior high. Thus, the number of buses at the converted middle school would decrease by
about half, and these buses would go to the newjunior high school instead. Shuttle trips between [he
high school and middle school would also be redirected with those destined to the eastern area of the
school district being shuttle to the new junior high site. Overall, the number of buses serving [he
district is not likely to change.
jllffl'O11 - 32 - Dervnber I6, 2003
~J~m®
TraJfc lmpaci Analyst
Yelm Cammuniry Schools: High Schaal Remade! and New Junior High Schao(
3.7. Pedestrian Impacts
Students who live within one mile of [he new junior high school would not receive bus transportation
unless [he roadways located within one mile on which students would need to walk do not meet
Office Superindenden[ of Public Instmction (OSPI) guidelines. These students would either walk or
be driven to school. The new junior high, because of it location east and south of [he existing middle
school, would enlazge the capture area for walking students. Thus, i[ is likely that more of the
district's students will live within walking distance to a school once the new junior high is completed
than [he curten[ condition.
The high school site has frontage along Yelm Avenue. Frontage improvements along [his street would
be constmeted in accordance with [he City of Yelm's Development Guidelines. These improvements
are likelyto include a curb, 6-fool Swale, and a 6-foot sidewalk. In addition, the proposed signal at the
high school driveway would provide for pedestrian crossings of SR 507. The school district is no[
proposing other of£--site pedestrian improvements
4. MITIGATION
The traffic analysis detertnined that [he proposed high school and junior high school projects would
not adversely affect traffic operations at off-site intersections. Therefore, no off-site transportation
mitigation is proposed.
The projects would affect traffic conditions at [he site access driveways. Mitigation for the site access
locations is summarized below. Finally, walking routes for thejunior high school will need [o be
identified once [he attendance area for [his school is adopted by the school board.
High School
• Install traffic signal a[ the eastern site driveway on SR 510 (this is the proposed primary
driveway).
• ConsWC[ Lett mm lane on SR S I O at the eastern site driveway. This lane should have
190 fee[ of storage plus a taper to WSDOT standards.
• Construct frontage improvements along Yelm Avenue in accordance with the City of
Yelm's Development Guidelines.
Junior High School
• Install left turn lane on SR 507 at the site access. This lane should have 100 feet of
storage plus a taper to W SDOT standazds.
• Construct right mm taper.
YIePfF0I1 - 33 - December /b, 2003
1
1
1
~ APPENDIX A
~ LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of
service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating condi-
tions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent
and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in
the Highway Capacity Manual2000.
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of
driver discomfort, fmstration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-
service criteria are stated in teens of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex
measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle
length, green ratio, and avolume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table
A-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from Chapter 76-Signalized
/ntersections, Methodology in [he Highway Capacity Manua12000.
Table A-1. Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
A Less than 10.1 Secontls Free Aow
B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable Aow (slight delays)
C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays) ,
D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds Approaching unstable (low (tolerable delay~ccasionally wait
through more than one signal cycle before proceeding.
E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable Aow (approaching intolerable delay)
F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (lammed)
Source: pensporlafion Research BoaN, Hatfwav CaoaciN Manua120001000.
For unsignalized intersections with two-way, stop-sign control (TWSC), level of service is based on
[he average delay per vehicle for each taming movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-
controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for
each minor movement. Delay is related to [he availability of gaps in the main sheet's traffic flow, and
[he ability o(a driver to enter or pass through [hose gaps. The procedure is outlined in Chapter 17-
Unsignalized /nterseetions, Applications-TIf'SC /nlerseetians of the Highway Capacity Manual
1000 (Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2000). Table A-2 shows the level o(serviee criteria Cor
unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
Table A-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
hrrffl-nn
Level of Service Average Delay
sewnds er vehiGe
A Less than 10.1
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F Greater than 50.0
Source: TrarWafafion ResearcM1 BoeN, Hioawav CaoacHV Manual Np0. 2000.
December 16, 1003
_, APPENDIX B
~ LOS CALCULATION SHEETS
1
i
1
1
1
December 16, 1003
-~.nf {`rnn
'
f~ r/1 Get 6T1 nJ E~
HCM Signalized Intersection Ca pacity Analysis
5: SR 510 & First Avenue 1v17/2o03
Movement.. ~,: SEL::; SFtJ ,:,SEI~~ ,..,N,S~(~~I!lh!T...I~1~.;:~N,~-1.~. a3LlFT~~'~.t=-`:~
Lane Configurations `~ ~ tr S A 1 H 1 A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 t 11 11 1 i 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prof) 1496 1574 1295 1321 1386 1481 1324 1496 1355
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1574 1295 1321 1386 1481 1324 1496 1355
Volume (vph) 42 252 36 71 478 9 136 18 75 29 42 130
Peak-hourfactor, 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
Adj. Flow (vph) 44 265 38 75 503 9 143 19 79 31 44 137
Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 265 38 75 512 0 143 98 0 31 161 0
ConFl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 7°/ 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%
Parking (#Ihr) 0 0 0
~, Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 24.3 24.3 5.3 27.7 6.9 13.3 1.8 8.2
Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 24.3 24.3 5.3 27.7 6.9 13.3 1.8 8.2
Actuated gIC Ratio 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.46 0.11 0.22 0.03 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 47 630 518 115 632 166 290 44 183
vls Ratio Prot 0.03 0.17 c0.06 c0.37 c0.10 0.07 0.02 c0.13
vls Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.42 0.07 0.65 0.81 0.85 0.34 0.70 0.99
Uniform Delay, tli 29.3 13.1 11.2 26.8 14.2 26.4 20.0 29.2 26.2
1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 106.2 0.5 0.1 12.5 7.8 31.6 0.7 40.4 62.7
Delay (s) 135.5 13.6 11.3 39.3 22.0 58.0 20.7 69.6 68.9
Level of Service F B B D C E C E F
Approach Delay (s) 28.8 24.2 42.8 86.1
Approach LOS C C D F
Intersectibri Summary., ., ~' ~
~~ " ~
~ • .•:. ;.- ~ ~~ ~~'~ vw , - p:' ~ -4
HCM Average Control D elay 38.0 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 68.5% ICU Level of Se rvice B
c Critical Lane Group
AM Peak -Existing (2003) Yelm Schools
,~ HI?3ffFROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 1v7712003
Movement ,:; , ..: _ .. :NBL NB,T,._aJ;1BR .SBL ::.SBT 52~.. _iSEL w~ET~:>ESE~~Jy,JL-.~~';~~$
Lane Configurations "f i. «H .A Q.
Sign ConVOI Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 33 0 156 10 0 18 1 216 0 0 923 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 42 0 197 13 0 23 1 273 0 0 1168 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
px, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1470 1449 273 1644 1447 1171 1173 273
vCi, stage 7 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1470 1449 273 1644 1447 1171 1173 273
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.5
iC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 53 100 73 78 700 90 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 89 123 735 58 131 235 588 1284
Direction,-Lane# NB_;,ia_,N62 ,SB1 _-SE i _NW1 __ ~ 3 ,r..:,-
VolumeTOtal 42 197 35 275 7773
Volume Left 42 0 13 1 0
Volume Right 0 197 23 0 5
cSH 89 735 113 588 1284
Volume to Capacity 0.47 0.27 0.31 0.00 0.00
Queue Length (ft) 50 27 31 0 0
Control Delay (s) 77.3 71.7 51.1 0.7 0.0
Lane LOS F B ~ F A
Approach Delay (s) 23.1 57.1 0.1 0.0
Approach LOS C F
I`ntersi;chon:Summarv
. :
, ,, `*:; .~ _ ~; -~ - ' "~„ ~
~'-.
. .
. . ,
.. ~.... +:~
Average Delay 4.3
Intersection Capacity Util ization 80.7 % ICU Level of Service D
AM Peak -Existing (2003) Yelm Schools
811~FROSMAL-FF51
r
i
~~
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road 8 SR 507 1vn/2oo3
h ~ P ~* • ~ 1 r ~ l l L
MoJemenC :~.;. .."...
~NBL;
N8T ~~NBR
SBb;
. SBT
,.SBEt:.._eNEL
,.NE>;
a44ER --
S1Kf~.;; SkY7-:,~
Lane Configurations Q. H Q
Sign Control Slop Stop Free Frae
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0°/a
Volume (veh/h) 4 0 43 0 0 0 0 313 6 16 185 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92
Hourly Flow rate (veh/h) 4 0 47 0 0 0 0 344 7 18 203 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum Flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 586 586 347 633 589 203 203 351
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 586 586 347 633 589 203 203 351
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) .
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 100 93 100 100 100 100 99
CM capacity (veh/h) 411 416 687 361 415 837 1368 1197
Directiori;.Lane#.-. ,Nf3i1_:: ,NE 1;,$W (Y. _ _ _ ~. ~., .4,..`.
Volume Total 52 351 221
Volume Left 4 0 18
Volume Right 47 7 0
c8H 650 1700 1197
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.21 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 6 0 1
Control Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 0.8
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 0.8
Approach LOS B
In(ersection'Summary, - , °,,; „_.,z, _ _
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Util ization 28.5 % ICU Level of Service A
AM Peak -Existing (2003) Yelm Schools
i UV1i~FROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 1v1n2oo3
~I 1 N ~ j d `~ L ~ r < ~
Movemenb. '~_ -. _
:,;NBL.
NBT
NBR.
.,SBL
,. aSBT.
, SBR.
:SEL
..SETc. ---
-. SER._.NWL- Nst>GT>zc-,[~'~SR
Lane Configurations 4. ~ 1 1•
$ign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0°/ 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 88 406 568 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vehlh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 106 489 684 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
UpsVeam signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conFlicting volume 1977 1977 314 1977 2030 684 684 367
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 con(vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1977 1977 314 1977 2030 684 684 367
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6 2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
lF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 59
cM capacity (veh/h) 32 37 731 32 34 452 900 1166
Direction; Larie # . .S61-~ SE,1,~.NWr1;, ,NW 21 ..:. ~ . _ b_ ~~;: r.. --+ ' '"-~~.
Volume Total 0 367 489 684
Volume Left 0 0 489 0
Volume Right 0 106 0 0
cSH 1700 900 1186 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.40
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 51 0
ConVOI Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 4.2
Approach LOS A
IntersectiomSummary ..
..~
' __.
._ ..- '
.
,' _
.';,.'.~..
~
~,:.::
d. _
`'';
5
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B
AM Peak -Existing (2003) Yelm Schools
81~FROSMAL-FF51
kM - 200 (q "~~o Pav.~7:
6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
^! 5: SR 510 & First Avenue 12/1 7/2oo3
.n L ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ P rr ~ ~l w
Movement :.-:+ ~ ~ SEL. SE7 1:~,.-SER.,:3NWL .-NWT NWR. ..:NEL NET,, NER., 'SWL [ SWT:vjSjNJ
Lane Configurations 1 ~ i' 1 A 1 A i t.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 7.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prof) 1496 1574 1295 1327 1385 1461 1325 1496 1353
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1574 1295 1321 1385 1481 1325 1496 1353
Volume (vph) 51 294 43 80 534 10 151 20 84 33 47 141
Peak-hour factor, 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
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 309 45 84 562 11 159 21 88 35 49 148
Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 309 45 84 573 0 159 109 0 35 187 0
Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ~ 10 70 10
Heary Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5°/ 7°/ 7% 7°/ 6% 6% 6% 5°/ 5% 5
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 -
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
2.8
27.8 6
27.8
8.0
33.0
11.6
16.2
3.5
8.1
Effective Green, g (s) 2.8 27.8 27.8 8.0 33.0 11.6 16.2 3.5 8.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.11 0.46 0.16 0.23 0.05 0.11
Clearance 7rme (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 59 612 504 148 639 240 300 73 153
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.20 0.06 c0.41 c0.11 0.08 0.02 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.50 0.09 0.57 0.90 0.66 0.36 0.48 1.29
Uniform Delay, d1 34.2 16.6 13.8 30,1 17.7 28.1 23.3 33.1 31.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 86.4 0.7 0.1 4,9 15.2 6.7 0.8 4.9 169.6
Delay (s) 120.6 17.3 13.9 35.0 32.9 34.8 24.7 38.0 201.3
Level of Service
F
B
B
D
C
C
C
D
F i
Approach Delay (s) 30.6 33.1 30.4 176.7
Approach LOS C C C F
Intersectiori Summary .-~ ~ ~
~ .-. ,..r •-:,.
_
_ _ - '
HCM Average Control Delay 53.3 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 '
`~ Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 '
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 73.9 % ICU Level of Service C
c Critical Lane Group
r
1
AM Peak - 2006 Without Projects Yelm Schools
Heffron Transportation, Inc. -JAB/MCH ~
1 I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 t2/n/2oo3
~ 1 f'~ ~ • `~ `~ > > r ~
Movement 'r. ~'- ':.NBC.. fIJBT . NBR_ :$BC SBT.. .:SBR . ,.SEL SET: -.<SER NWL* ;NWT, ifJ,VY42
Lane Confgurations `i A Q. d. T.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 42 0 192 11 0 20 0 242 0 0 1030 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Hourly flow rate (vehPo) 53 0 243 14 0 25 0 306 0 0 1304 1
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1636 7611 306 1854 1611 1304 7305 306
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1636 1671 306 1854 1671 1304 1305 306
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
[F (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 19 100 65 62 100 87 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 65 97 704 37 104 196 524 1249
Direction, Lane'#. ~ ~ . NB ]:- NB 2 SB-1 , SE 7-' . NW.1 , _ _•~ ` - ~.":' ~ ''-_
Volume Total 53 243 39 306 7305
Volume Left 53 0 14 0 0
Volume Right 0 243 25 0 1
cSH 65 704 78 524 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.81 0.35 0.50 0.00 0.77
Queue Leng[h (ft) 94 39 53 0 0
Control Delay (s) 166.3 12.8 91.3 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS ~F B F
Approach Delay (s) 40.3 91.3 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS E F
Intersection Summary t:,; ~' ~- .. - -• ... :: ;;:; _. ,~..'~ _ . ~-:'.
Average Delay 8.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 90.4 % ICU Level of Se rvice E
AM Peak - 2006 Without Projects Yelm Schools
Heffron Transportation, Inc. -JAB/MCH
r
i
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 12/17/2003
^1 t ~ ~ • ~ 1 Jr ~ l ~ L
Movement r .;.;'-... .NBL; :,NBT. -.::NBR.. .~SBC ' SBT ;SBR-. _`,tJEL :NET . =NER~ -.~SWL z„SVICL.: SSN[t
Lane Configurations .A A Q
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0°/ 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 5 0 48 0 0 0 0 350 10 18 211 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h} 5 0 53 0 0 0 0 385 11 20 232 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ff)
Walking Speed (ff/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
UpsVeam signal (ff)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 662 662 390 714 667 232 232 396
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 662 662 390 714 667 232. 232 396
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 100 92 100 100 100 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 365 376 650 314 373 807 1336 1152
Direction; Lane`# ~ NBai:€ : NE ~1~ SSW 1. ~ _ ~;-. ~ ~ ~ - - '~ "'~ ~'
Volume Total 58 396 252
Volume Left 5 0 20
Volume Right 53 11 0
cSH 605 1700 1152
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.23 0.02
Queue Length (ff) 8 0 1
Control Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.8
Lane LOS B A -
Approach Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.8
Approach LOS B
Intersection Sumrriary ,.
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Util ization 31.1 % ICU Level of Service A
AM Peak - 2006 Without Projects Yelm Schools
Heffron Transportation, Inc. -JAB/MCH
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 iy17/2003
~ 1 f~ ~ 1 RJ `s L ~ r <
Movement .°-.,.',', :.. ~NBL. ~NBTr .:.NBR ,_:SBL SBT SBR ~ .SEL ,SET,, _~SER: ~ NWL- ..NWZ.,.:.N~VB
Lane Confgurations ~ .7. R T.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 238 99 25 645 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Houdy Flow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 287 119 30 777 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ff)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1422 1422 346 1422 1482 777 777 406
vCi, stage 1 con(vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1422 1422 346 1422 1482 777 777 406
lC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
iC, 2 stage (s)
[F (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 86 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 100 115 701 100 105 400 830 1147
Direction, Larie# ~ ;SBit .SE,.1. _NWtt tJW:3 -- _ `: '~ ~ ~°'_'~
Volume Total 0 525 30 777
Volume Left 0 119 30 0
Volume Right 0 119 0 0
cSH 1700 830 1147 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.46
Queue Length (ft) 0 i3 2 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.8 8.2 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.8 0.3
Approach LOS A
Inteiseclioh'Summary ,:,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -'+. "'-
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 76.5 % ICU Level of Service C
AM Peak - 2006 Without Projects _ Yelm Schools
Heffron Transportation, Inc. -JAB/MCH
pcr-t - ZoocQ ,"i( pao,~Erg3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: SR 510 8 First Avenue 1v17/2o03
-~ > a ,^ ~ r ~ > .,, L ,~ ,~
Movement ,,;~SEL .' ; SET., i$ER. ..NINL_ :;NWT_ NWR' ~~':NEL ' „ NET < ~IER. .SyYL-,,..SYJ=T{s i$1
Lane Configurations R } i• 1 A 1 T. 1 A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
' Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 ~ 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prof) 1444 1520 1246 1275 1336 1430 1263 1444 1328
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1444 1520 1246 1275 1336 1430 1263 1444 1328
' Volume (vph) 52 230 14 181 429 10 87 20 110 33 47 135
- Peak-hour factor, 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
Adj. Flow (vph) 55 242 15 191 452 11 92 21 116 35 49 142
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 242 15 191 463 0 92 137 0 35 191 0
Cont7. Peds. (#/hr) 10 1D 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (°/) 5% 5°/ 5°/ 7% 7% 7°/ 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 59'0
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8
' Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.9
17.8 6
17.8
9.8
25]
4.2
10.6
1.8
8.2
Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 17.8 17.8 9.8 25.7 4.2 10.6 1.8 8.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.46 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 49 483 396 223 613 107 239 46 194
vls Ratio Prot 0.04 0.16 c0.15 c0.35 c0.06 0.11 0.02 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.12 0.50 0.04 0.86 0.76 0.86 0.57 0.76 0.98
Uniform Delay, d1 27.0 15.5 13.2 22.4 12.5 25.6 20.6 26.9 23.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, tl2 166.5 0.8 0.0 26.1 5.3 45.5 3.3 52.3 59.7
Delay (s) 193.6 16.3 13.2 48.5 17.8 7f.1 23.9 79.2 83.5
Level of Service F B B D B E C E F
Approach Delay (s) 47.4 26.8 42.9 82.9
Approach LOS D C D F
IOtZfSCChOrI $urtln72 ~' "'~
~ '- i
- _; - ~' ~{
ry,~.. . . . r- ,. _. .. . .
. . ~ . r...
HCM Average Control Delay 42.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 S um of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Util ization 62.9 % ICU Leve l of Serv ice B
c Critical Lane Group
1
AM Peak - 2006 With Projects Yelm Schools
' tlti~FROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 1v1712o03
h 1 ~ t' 1 ~ 1 lr ii j 1 L
Movement ~'~:: rNBL_ . NBT. .-NBR r.SBL .. :.SBT .SBR:,: _<NEL NEL. ,.NER SWL: , SWT. z;,S181R
Lane Configurations 4• A 4'
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 5 0 42 0 0 0 0 362 10 15 286 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 5 0 46 0 0 0 0 398 11 i6 314 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (tt)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 751 751 403 797 756 314 314 409
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 751 751 403 797 756 314 314 409
iC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 100 93 100 100 100 100 99
cM capacity (vehlh) 319 335 639 280 332 726 1246 1139
Direction, Cane'# ~ NB;1: , NE L ~SWa1 "_" i.."` ~ __ - -::. _. '=~ .a.:~:.""-
Volume Total 52 409 331
Volume Left 5 0 i6
Volume Right 46 11 0
cSH 577 1700 1139
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.24 0.01
Queue Lenglh (ft) 7 0 1
Control Delay (s) 11.9 0.0 0.5
Lane LOS 8 A
Approach Delay (s) 11.9 0.0 0.5
Approach LOS B
Infer'sectiom.Summary - -
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 32.8% I CU Level of Se rvice A
AM Peak- 2006 With Projects Yelm Schools
tlVt>38FROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510
12/17/2003
'f 1 h ~ ! ~ `~ ~ ~ r R ~
' Movement =~':
Lane Confgurations ,NBL>.NBT ;NBR
S p ,tSBL ,_SBT SBR SEL SET-_fSER, -,NWL4
[I~IWT'.g~{N1R
Sign Control Sto ~ ~ 4 ~'
Grade 0~ Stop Free Free
' Volume veh/h 0% 0°~ 0%
Peak Hour Fa for 0.79 0.79 0
79 0
79 0
79 0 7
Hourly flow rate (veh/
h) 49 .
0 171 .
1 . .79 0.79 0.79 0.
9 0.79 0.79 0.79
Pedestrians 4 0 25 0 378 106 372 761 1
' Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speetl (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (H)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1922 1897 371 2068 1950 782 762
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 424
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1922 1897 371 2068 1950 782 782
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4
1 424
' tC, 2 stage (s) . 4.1
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3
3 2
2
p0 queue tree % 0 100 74 36 100 .
94 .
100 2 2
cM capacity (veh/h) 33 43 647 22 43 394 827 67
Directions Lane #
N8::1 :, .
.NB 2, °.SB 1 ,
SE 1
NW
i.
NW 2-
~ 1730
- ~_~ •~-
~
VolumeTotal 49 171 39 424 .
-
372 782 _,..-~^ 'i "~'~-~-'
~
Volume Left 49 0 14 0 372 0
Volume Right 0 171 25 106 0 1
cSH
Volume to Capacity 33
1
51 647 56
0
2 827 1130 1700
'
Queue Length (h) .
137 .
6 0.70
2 0.00 0.33 0.46
Control Delay (s)
528.4 6 73
12.6 159.5 0
0.0 36
9.7 0
0
0
' Lane LOS
Approach Dela
(s) F
128 B F A .
y .2 159.5 0.0 3
1
Approach LOS F F .
-°_,-
Intersection Summa ~
"`- ~
"~ _ -~° ~
° -
- ~~
Average Delay 20.7 - -
Intersechon Capacity Util ization 85.0 % ICU Level o f Servic e
D
~4M Peak - 2006 With Projects
FROSMAL-FF51 Yelm Schools
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwv & SR 510
12/17/2003
Ma'x9meot~.:.,,:~~ ;:;.SQL'. -.~I~T.;u:NeE3... SQL-:::SQL ~5~~;:;r.S~~..,._SET.-:.SF~t-::N.kllln,.s61.1~..
Lane Configurations S R ~ 4• 1 A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost Ume (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1517 1358 1616 1706 1694 1783
Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1169 1358 1405 1706 1694 1783
Volume (vph) 39 0 135 11 0 20 0 251 84 294 617 1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 0 171 14 0 25 0 318 106 372 781 1
Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 171 0 0 39 0 0 424 0 372 782 0
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 15.0 14.1 33.1
Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 15.0 14.1 33.1
Actuatetl g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.29 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 217 224 523 . 488 1207
vls Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.25 c0.22 0.44
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.79 0.17 0.81 0.76 0.65
Uniform Delay, dt 18.0 19.8 17.8 15.6 15.9 4.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 17.1 0.4 9.3 6.9 1.2
Delay (s) 18.8 36.8 18.1 24.9 22.8 5.8
Level of Service B D B C C A
Approach Delay (s) ~ 32.8 18.1 24.9 11.3
Approach LOS C B C B
tiitersectiodSummacy ._ - ,~ ~~~_
HCM Average ConVOI Delay 17.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service D
c Critical Lane Group
AM Peak - 2006 With Projects Yelm Schools
UI~FROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy 8 SR 510 72/17/2003
1
r
i
L
7f ~ (" ~ l Rl `~ ~ ~ T R
Movement , .NBLz -. NBTm:.NBR :SBL,. S:SBT SBF2,, ;:SEC ~-SET:, ,;SER NWC.j~NW7 t NWR
Lane Configurations Q. .I. 1 A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0°/
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 335 4 25 651 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Houdy Flow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 404 5 30 784 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum Bare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 656
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1251 1251 406 1251 1253 784 784 408
vC1, stage 1 con( vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1251 1251 406 1251 1253 784 784 408
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
iC, 2 stage (s)
lF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97
cM capacity (vehRi) 148 170 649 148 169 396 825 1145
Direction, Lane#:~.' . ,.SB 1_.1-$E,1 ~ ;NW<,t: -NW 2,. .-. ~~ ::,. '_ ~_~- -:; :~~
Volume Total 0 408 30 784
Volume Lefl 0 0 30 0
Volume Right 0 5 0 0
cSH 1700 825 1145 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.46
Queue Length (fl) 0 0 2 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection~Summary '` .., ~:,. ... ~?:* .:. ' : r = _.•
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 44.6 % ICU Level of Service A
AM Peak - 2006 With Projects Yelm Schools
tl{~FROSMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Junior Hiah Driveway & SR 507
~- ~ r -. L <
1 vrnzoo3
Movement ...~ `~': ~. s NWL.'.NWRJ~NET 3~NER ..:SWL BWT,-,.. ~. '~~' - ~`~
-r:a ::. ,i.:..
Lane Configurations M t. Q
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 41 82 108 183 300 55
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 45 89 117 199 326 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (N)
Walking Speetl (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
UpsVeam signal (fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 929 217 316
vCi, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 929 217 316
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
lF (s) 3.5 3.3 ~ 2.2
p0 queue free °/ 80 89 74
cM cepaciry (veh/h) 219 823 1244
Direehon; Cane# .=a NWii: NE 1'`,eSW;t -.. ~~~~ ~° ` " '•''
Volume Total 134 316 386
Volume Left 45 0 326
Volume Right 89 199 0
cSH 429 1700 1244
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.19 0.26
Queue Length (H) 33 0 26
Control Delay (s) 17.1 0.0 7.9
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 0.0 7.9
Approach LOS C
IriteFsection'Siimmary. i;''r'.
~~ - -
Average Delay 6~4
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 57.5% ICU Level of Service A
AM Peak - 2006 With Projects Yelm Schools
81~FROSMAL-FF51
PM ~tis~n~4
HCM Signalized Intersection Ca pacity Analysis
5: SR 510 & First Avenue 1v1 7/zoo3
.,' e ~ .- < ~ 7 r ~. ~ ,r ,~
Movement ~t:. .... .SEL, .SET_';SER,_~NWL; ?:NWT ,„NWR.` .NEL ,,,;NET_-7 ~N~R SYVL' SWT, ~;$!AlR
Lane Configurations ~ } t ~ p ~ A S A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
' Lane Widlh 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
' Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prof) 1496 1574 1278 1321 1383 - 1481 1382 1496 1478
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1574 1278 1321 1383 1481 1382 1496 1478
' Volume (vph) 105 510 45 175 505 15 115 50 73 40 60 28
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 D.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 114 554 49 194 549 16 125 54 79 43 65 30
Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 554 49 194 565 0 125 133 0 43 95 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5 % 5 % 7 % 7 % 7% 6% 6% 6% 5 % 5 % 5%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
7.1
31.1 6
31.1
14.6
38.6
8.2
15.6
3.9
11.3
Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 31.1 31.1 14.6 38.6 8.2 15.6 3.9 11.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.46 0.10 0.19 0.05 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 131 603 489 238 657 150 266 72 206
v!s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.35 c0.15 c0.41 c0.08 c0.10 0.03 0.06
vls Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.92 0.10 0.82 0.86 0.83 0.50 0.60 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 23.8 16.1 32.0 18.9 35.8 29.3 37.9 32.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 42.3 19.0 0.1 16.9 10.9 30.9 1.5 12.6 1.6
Delay (s) 78.9 42.9 16.2 50.9 29.8 66.8 30.8 50.5 33.8
Level of Service E D B D C E C D C
Approach Delay (s) 46.8 35.2 48.2 39.0
Approach LOS D D D D
' Intersection°Summary,: ~ °
~ ` -' ~
~ ~ -~~ ~ ' ~ ~~
HCM Average Control Delay 41.7 H CM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 61.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 68.7 % ICU Level of Servi ce B
c Critical Lane Group
School PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
BR~iT.RID6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 12/17/2003
1 t r~ 1 ~ ~~> r R
Sign ConVOI Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 74 5 238 10 0 14 11 544 0 0 541 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Houdy flow rate (veFJh) 79 5 253 11 0 15 12 579 0 0 576 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width ((t)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1197 1187 579 1438 1182 580 565 579
vCt, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1197 1787 579 1438 1182 580 585 579
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free °/ 47 97 48 80 100 97 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 147 176 491 52 187 514 980 990
DirechonjCane# „ N8~1 ~,NB2~ ~SBr7 ,~SE.1; <NW, 1. --
Volume Total 79 259 26 590 585
Volume Left 79 0 11 12 0
Volume Right 0 253 15 0 10
cSH 147 474 109 980 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.53 0.55 0.23 0.01 0.34
Queue Length (ft) 66 80 21 1 0
Control Delay (s) 54.5 21.3 47.7 0.3 0.0
Lane LOS F C E A
Approach Delay (s) 29.1 47.7 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS D E
Average Delay 7.3
Intersection CaoaciN Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service
School PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
W~IE~tCIDSMAL-FF51
1
HCM Unsignalized I nterse ction Capacity Ana lysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 12/n/2oo3
h i t' w 1 d 1 r z t < r,
' Movement .;i'-:. : NBL'. NBT':'.;NBR '.SBL' :;SBT „SBR; :~iNEI,. NEI;~-NER,aS!N~,SWS_,Fip!k2
Lane Configurations °F A Q
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 12 0 42 0 0 0 0 265 10 56 324 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92
Houriy flow rate (vehm) 13 0 47 0 0 0 0 294 11 62 360 0
' Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Oare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 784 784 300 831 790 360 360 306
' vC1, Stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
t vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s) 784
7.2 784
6.5 300
6.3 831
7.1 790
6.5 360
6.2 360
4,1 306
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
' p0 queue free % 95 100 94 i00 i00 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 294 309 730 260 306 684 1199 1244
Diiechon, Lane-#-
.,NB~L~.
NE~1~.~SW;],
.y."
-~-
~
_-~
.. ,,
;:
1 Volume Total 60 306 422
Volume Left 13 0 62
Volume Right 47 it 0
cSH 549 1700 1244
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.18 0.05
Queue Length (N) 9 0 4
Control Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 1.6
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 1.6
Approach LOS B
IrilEr5e000f1.$Urrlinary .. ,
Average Delay 1.8
' Intersection Capacity Uti lization 52.2% ICU Level of Se rvice A
School PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
UV~IG1®6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 1v17/zoo3
Mo4emenb ~ :;.'. ;', ,NBC;' :NBT <:NBF2 ~'SBL . _:SBT ,SBR .u SEL .:SEZ; _:~SER,. NWL N.K~hT„xM1NR
Lane Confgurations 4. Q. q A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0 % 0% 0% 0%
Volume (velUh) D 0 0 0 0 1 1 555 15 66 542 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.67 0.87
Houdy bow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 638 17 76 623 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) .
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) -
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1425 1426 647 1425 1433 624 625 655
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1425 1426 647 1425 1433 624 625 655
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
iC, 2 stage (s)
[F (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 107 125 475 107 123 487 947 927
Direction; bane #. ,SB 1.. SE 7„ NWB-1, NW 2~ .i: ~.r. " ! ~~. _ r_„ t.ri:;
Volume Total 1 656 76 625
Volume Left 0 1 76 0
Volume Right 1 17 0 2
cSH 487 947 927 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.37
Queue Length (tt) 0 0 7 0
Control Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 9.2 0.0
Larie LOS -B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 1.0
Approach LOS B
lntersectionSummary . . ~r~' ~`~ ~ ` ~'~ ` "
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 80.9 % ICU Level of Se rvice D
School PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
811~iT.{L®6MAL-F F51
1
P-'t - 2t70C.o '"'~c7 P7~+JEZa'
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
' 5' SR 510 & First Avenue 12/1 7/2003
Movement ', ;: -~ ~~ SEL: ;rSET; ~.SER ,NWL.- .NWT. NWR. I:NEL ~ NET :-NER .,-SWLr SWi„~51(i(R
Lane Configurations S } P `~ R 4 A 1 f.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
' Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 it 11 it
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frl 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94
FIt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
' Satd. Flow (prof) 1496 1574 1276 1321 1384 1481 1381 1496 1449
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1574 1276 1321 1384 1481 1381 1496 1449
Volume (vph) 116 574 51 197 590 15 138 56 82 45 67 47
Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 128 624 55 219 641 16 150 61 89 49 73 51
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 624 55 219 657 0 150 150 0 49 124 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 70 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7% 6°/ 6% 6% 5% 5% 59'°
Parking (#Ihr) 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 33.3 33.3 75.8 41.1 9.0 77.2 4.1 72.3
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 33.3 33.3 15.8 41.1 9.0 17.2 4.1 12.3
Actuated gIC Ratio 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.18 0.48 0.10 0.20 0.05 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 739 607 492 242 658 154 275 71 206
1 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.40 c0.17 c0.47 c0.10 c0.11 0.03 0.09
vls Ratio Perm 0.04
vlc Ratio 0.92 1.03 0.11 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.55 0.69 0.60
^ Uniform Delay, dt 38.9 26.6 77.1 34.6 22.6 38.6 31.1 40.5 34.8
e Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 52.9 43.9 0.1 33.4 34.4 64.2 2.2 25.1 4.9
Delay (s) 91.8 70.4 17.2 68.0 57.1 102.8 33.3 65.6 39.8
' Level of Service F E B E E F C E D
Approach Delay (s) 70.2 59.8 68.1 47.0
Approach LOS E E E D
' )nfersectionSummary -
~ ~ _ ~ ~ -,. ..: "
HCM Average Control Delay 63.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.4 S um of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Util ization 82.1 % ICU Level of Se rvice D
c Critical Lane Group
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
UH~~6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 ~ 12/17/2003
Lane Confgurations 1 t. .R Q T.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0°/
Volume (veh/h) 81 0 264 11 0 16 12 612 0 0 713 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 86 0 281 12 0 17 13 651 0 0 759 11
Pedestrians
lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1457 1446 651 1721 1440 764 769 651
vC1, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1457 1446 651 1721 1440 764 769 651
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free °/ 9 100 37 55 100 96 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 95 122 446 26 131 404 836 931
Direction, Lane #'~. -N8~,1 ~ NB 2' ?,SB:1 SE;~1 ~: NW1 - ";v z _-
Volume Total 86 281 29 664 769
Volume Left 86 0 12 ~ 13 0
Volume Right 0 281 17 0 11
cSH 95 446 58 836 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.91 0.63 0.50 0.02 0.45
Queue Length (h) 129 106 48 1 0
Control Delay (s) 147.6 25.8 117.6 0.4 0.0
Lane LOS F D F A
Approach Delay (s) 54.4 117.6 0.4 0.0
Approach LOS F F
Intersectioii5ummary '
_
Average Delay 12.9
Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 67.6 % ICU Level of Service B
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
N6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacity Ana lysis
^ 8: Mill Road & SR 507 1v17/2o03
i h 1 ~ L" • ~ 1 > ii l ~ b
_
Mdvement_~'~ ~.
.NBt ,
~NBT
-:.NBR
SBL,.
-tSBT
SBR.
,-NEL
,_NET~-_ - --
NER.,;.,SWLa.,. SV~LE S,WH
Lane Confgurations ~ A Q
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
' Gratle 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 13 0 48 0 0 0 0 306 11 63 211 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 14 0 53 0 0 0 0 340 12 70 234 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (h)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Metlian type None None
Metlian storage veh)
Upstream signal (h)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 721 721 346 774 727 234 234 352
' vCt, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 721 721 346 774 727 234 234 352
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
' p0 queue free °/ 96 100 92 100 100 100 100 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 323 333 688 278 330 805 1333 1196
Direction, Larie #: . .NBa , NE.h .:SW:,1. - _ ~, -
Volume Tofal 68 352 304
Volume Left 14 0 70
Volume Right 53 12 0
cSH 554 1700 1196
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.21 0.06
Queue Length (h) 10 0 5
Control Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 2.3
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 0.0 2.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary . - F e , -.
Average Delay 2.1
Intorsection Capacity Uti lization 48.9°/ ICU Levelbf Service A
a
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
lRIDBMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: EntDvev&SR510
12/17/2003
Movement : " ' ,NBG NBT. ~ aJBR. SBL ~ SBT,. SBR-.- ~,SEL „SET-:, SER.cNWt.- NW3;, ;JJY.f(R
Lane Configurations Q+ ~ 1 t.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 624 28 25 631 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 717 32 29 725 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Bare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1518 1521 733 1520 1536 726 728 749
vC1, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1518 1521 733 1520 1536 726 728 749
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
iC, 2 stage (s)
iF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free °/ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 96 116 424 95 113 426 867 855
Diiectiori, Lane# SB--1. SE;1~~ -,NW,.1 :NW2 _ - _
Volume Total 0 751 29 728
Volume Left 0 1 29 0
Volume Right 0 32 0 2
cSH 1700 867 855 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.43
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 3 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0 4
Approach LOS A
Inteisection Summary - -
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 43.8% I CU Level of Service A
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
8116MAL-FF51
1 P*1--~.~ ~< P~~
' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: SR 510 & First Avenue 12/17/2003
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'SEL :SET: SER 'NWL NWi <NWR-.~.NEL
Lane Configurations 9 f ~ 'f A S A `f H
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frl 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prof) 1496 1574 1276 1321 1383 1481 1363 1496 1456
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1574 1276 1321 1383 1481 1363 1496 1456
Volume (vph) 112 514 13 254 543 15 117 56 107 45 67 50
Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 122 559 14 282 590 i6 127 61 116 49 73 54
Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 559 14 282 606 0 127 177 0 49 127 0
ConFl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 7 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 31.1 31.1 19.0 42.1 8.0 16.2 4.1 12.3
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 37.1 31.1 19.0 42.1 8.0 16.2 4.1 12.3
Actuated g/C Rafio 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.49 0.09 0.79 0.05 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 139 567 459 290 674 137 256 71 207
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.36 c0.21 0.44 c0.09 c0.13 0.03 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.99 0.03 0.97 0.90 0.93 0.69 0.69 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 27.4 17.9 33.4 20.2 38.9 32.8 40.5 34.8
Progression Facfor 1.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 41.8 33.9 0.0 45.0 14.8 54.6 7.8 25.7 5.3
Delay (s) 80.5 61.3 17.9 78.5 35.0 93.5 40.6 65.6 40.1
Level of Service F E B E D F D E D
Approach Delay (s) 63.8 48.8 62.7 47.2
Approach LOS E D E D
Intersection Summary ~~-~- ~~~
~- ,:
~ ~. ~-- -
HCM Average Control Delay 55.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.4 Su m of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 81.0 % IC U Level of Se rvice D
c Critical Lane Group
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
8V6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 12n7/2oo3
-~ t ~' ~* 1 ~ 1 r z t < ti
Movement ,~~' ~ . , ,.NBL :NBT NBR SBL SBT „SBR. NEL . NET'.:, NER. rS,WL SNT-,=,~L4!R
Lane Confgurations 4• A Q
Sign Conirol Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0°/
Volume (veh/h) 13 0 45 0 0 0 0 342 11 59 387 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92
Hourly Flow rate (veh/h) 14 0 50 0 0 0 0 380 12 66 430 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (Fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 947 947 386 997 953 430 430 392
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 947 947 386 997 953 430 430 392
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 100 92 100 100 100 100 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 227 246 653 197 244 625 1129 1155
Direction; Lane#. ~. _
.NB.A .~
NE~1 :
_SW.1,: _
'r..
.
_ :>::
~ ~
'i.:i!
'~~ _,, .
'.`
Volume Total 64 392 496
Volume Left 14 0 66
Volume Right 50 12 0
cSH 459 1700 1155
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.23 0.06
Oueue Lengih (ft) 12 0 5
Control Delay (s) 14.1 0.0 1.6
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 14.1 0.0 1.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 60.9 % ICU Level of Service B
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
N{6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capaci ty Ana lysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 51 0 iz/n/2oo3
Movement C~~"':. :.'.NBL. .NBT: .::cNBR ~SBL, ..SBT SBR: ~,'SEL SET:F:: ..SER.,,NWL: N~A?r1aY,VR
Lane Configurations 0 H «g S A S A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 74 0 182 11 1 16 12 617 25 66 615 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
1 Houriy flow rate (veh/h) 79 0 194 12 1 17 13 656 27 70 654 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
' Walking Speed (it/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1507 1501 670 1676 1509 660 665 683
vCt, stage i conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1507 1501 670 1676 1509 660 665 683
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 5 100 56 70 99 96 99 92
cM capacity (vehlh) 82 104 435 39 110 463 915 905
' Diiec6on, Lane'#: 'NB'->7~ NB2 ,S6~:1 SE,1. SE2 NW,'I~ .NVi(2 `;~: _ .-..z;. ., ,,,~, 1;:.
' Volume Total 79 194 30 13 683 70 665
Volume Left 79 0 12 13 0 70 0
Volume Right 0 194 17 0 27 0 11
cSH 82 435 86 915 1700 905 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.95 0.44 0.35 0.01 0.40 0.08 0.39
Queue Length (ft) 130 56 33 1 0 6 0
Control Delay (s) 175.9 19.7 67.4 9.0 0.0 9.3 0.0
Lane LOS F C F A A
Approach Delay (s) 64.9 67.4 0.2 0.9
Approach LOS F F
Irifersechon5ummary - „.„.~~-, ;,
Average Delay 11.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0 % ICU Level of Se rvice B
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
' tli1~rISF®6MAL-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 1vn/zoo3
~ 1 h ~ • `~ `~ L ~ r~ <
Movement °;;:. ,' . rNBh NBTt ~,NBR '~SBL.~~SBT SBR ~ :<`tSEC,~~SET: SER. NWL; ;NWi~.t<11N,L2
Lane Confgurations `{ H ~ 1 7. 1 b
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1901) 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width it 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1517 1358 1630 1678 1756 1694 1779
Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.86 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1178 1358 1422 1678 1756 1694 1779
Volume (vph) 74 0 182 11 1 16 12 617 25 66 615 10
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 0 194 12 1 17 13 656 27 70 654 11
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 194 0 0 30 0 13 683 0 70 665 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3°/ 3% 3%
Tum Type Perm Perm Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 ~ 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.6 22.6 1.9 23.9
Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.6 22.6 1.9 23.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.50 0.04 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 271 284 22 870 71 932
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.01 c0.39 c0.04 0.37
vls Ratio Perm 0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.72 0.11 0.59 0.79 0.99 0.71
Uniform Delay, di ~ 15.7 17.0 .14.9 22.4 9.5 21.8 8.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 8.7 0.2 36.0 4.7 101.2 2.6
Delay (s) 16.5 25.7 15.1 58.4 14.2 123.1 10.9
Level of Service B C B E B F B
Approach Delay (s) 23.1 15.1 15.0 21.5
Approach LOS C B B C
Intersection Summary .. ...
~~ ~~
~~
:. ::, _:
.
~.
~. .. ...,.
~ ...-
~a r:
~~.<-~-:,
HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capaci ty ratio 0.78
Aciualed Cycle Length ( s) 45.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0 % ICU Level of Se rvice B
c Critical Lane Group
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
811~6MAL-FF51
1
1
1
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 1vm2oo3
~ 1 f" ~, j ") a L ~ r < <
Movement `.~c .;..,,..- NBL .NBT :NBR --SBL . SBT :SBR '.SEL ~~SET~:. : SER NWL,. NWi ..t~LWR
Lane Configurations .i. .t• 1 T.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 654 0 25 630 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.67
Houdy flow rate (veh/h} 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 752 0 29 724 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (H) 656
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1536 1538 752 1537 1537 725 726 752
vCt, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1536 1538 752 1537 1537 725 726 752
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 10D 100 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 93 113 414 93 112 427 868 853
Direction; Lane# . ,SB'1-, SE 1~ ~NW:1 ~ :NW.2 ~ = rr=l.
Volume Total 0 753 29 726
Volume Left 0 1 29 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 2
cSH 1700 868 853 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.43
Queue Length (H) 0 0 3 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4
Approach LOS A
lo[e'rsection~Summary ~ - :, - i-`' ~ -
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Util ization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
8i16MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Junior High Driveway & SR 507 1vt7/zoo3
Movement ,NWL . .NWR -NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations Y A q
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0 % 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 30 58 295 31 61 339
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Houdy Flow rate (veh/h) 33 63 321 34 66 368
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 839 338 354
vCi, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 839 338 354
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue tree % 90 91 g4
cM capacity (veh/h) 318 705 1204
Direction, Lane # ~ NW 1 NE 1 SW.1
Volume Total 96 354 435
Volume Left 33 0 66
Volume Right 63 34 0
cSH 498 1700 1204
Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.21 0.06
Queue Length (ft) 18 0 4
Control Delay (s) 13.9 0.0 1.7
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 13.9 0.0 1.7
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 57.7% IC U Level of Service A
School PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects Yelm Schools
811i~6MAL-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analys is
5: SR 510 8 First Avenue 12/17/2603
' MQVemegt. <:.,-: -SEL ,. ;SET ,s$ER' NWL ;:NW.T- _C41B/L2,_ ..;NEL zNE,_ ~1NER ,.Sklt;„ ~5}pFT.T; 2
Lane Confgurations R 4 P S A 1 A 1 A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
' Lane Widfh 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Tofal Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98
' Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
' Satd. Flow (prot) 1540 1621 1314 1372 1431 1525 1412 1525 1479
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1540 1621 1314 1372 1431 1525 1412 1525 1479
Volume (vph) 122 596 52 226 549 28 159 86 145 62 69 48
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Adj. Flow (vph) 123 602 53 228 555 28 161 87 146 63 70 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 602 53 228 563 0 161 233 0 63 118 0
' ConFl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 % 2% 2 % 3°/ 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3% 3 % 3%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 32.1 32.1 15.8 39.9 10.0 16.8 4.7 11.5
Effective Green, g (s) B.0 32.1 32.1 15.8 39.9 10.0 16.8 4.7 11.5
Actuated gIC Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.47 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.13
,~ Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 144 609 494 254 669 179 278 84 199
' vls Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.37
0.04 c0.17 0.41 c0.11 c0.i7 0.04 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.99 0.11 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.84 0.75 0.59
Unitortn Delay, di 38.1 26.5 77.3 34.0 20.4 37.2 33.0 39.8 34.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 35.9 33.2 0.1 30.7 12.0 39.5 19.3 30.8 4.7
Delay (s) 74.1 59.6 17.4 64.7 32.4 76.8 52.3 70.6 39.4
Level of Service E E B E C E D E D
' Approach Delay (s) 59.1 41.5 62.3 50.3
Approach LOS E D E D
inteFsectionSUn
ha -, ~ r "
ry .
u . ,: _..:.:_ .
HCM Average Control Delay 52.3 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capaci ty ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.4 S um of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.2 % ICU Leve l of Service D
c Critical Lane Group
1
Commuter PM Peak Ho ur -Exis ting Y elm Sch ools
81~'rFA/'~SMAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dv/y & SR 510 12/T7/2003
~i ~ f` ~ 1 vJ `' L ~ r R ~
Movement+-IT. _._::~:NBLx•NBT.:~NBR~,.SBL...~SBT.. SBft-_.SEL,,;;SET.. SERI-;NWL „.NWT,'~;~1~1,43
Lane Configurations ~ D 4. Q d.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0 % 0 % 0°/, 0
Volume (veh/h) 17 0 81 16 0 10 5 816 0 0 570 16
Peak Hour Faclor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 17 0 83 i6 0 10 5 633 0 0 562 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conFlicting volume 1443 1441 833 1515 1433 590 598 833
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vot 1443 1441 833 1515 1433 590 598 833
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 83 100 76 78 100 98 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 100 124 350 75 133 508 969 796
Direction; Lane~# ,
-NB;1 ..
NB,2;
:S81 .
SE .1;NW,1 .
..::~...
.~
'~ :-
'~
'"~
. ~ _ .
,
Volume Total 17 83 27 838 598
Volume Left 17 0 16 5 0
Volume Right 0 83 10 0 16
cSH 100 350 111 969 796
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.00
Queue Length (it) 15 23 22 0 0
Control Delay (s) 48.2 18.5 47.4 0.1 0.0
Lane LOS ~ E C E A
Approach Delay (s) 23.6 47.4 0.1 0.0
Approach LOS C E
Iriterseciiori Summary -
~ - - _ -
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 59.7°/ ICU Level of Serv ice A
Commuter PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
BV~rA~6MAL-FF51
1
1
i
1
_1
1
i
1
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 12/1712003
h 1 it ~* ~ ~ 1 1r ~ l ~ L
Movement ~' ~;, _ .,,,,,NBL~_.,NBT'a:NBR.I,SBL_;SBT KSBR,. -_NEL NET..: czNER, SWL: SW7~=.'SY.VF3
Lane Confgurations R A Q
Sign ConUol Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0°/
Volume (veh/h) 12 0 56 0 0 0 0 377 21 43 369 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 13 0 60 0 0 0 0 405 23 46 418 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ff/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conFlicting volume 927 927 417 988 939 418 418 428
vCi, stage i coot vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 927 927 417 988 939 418 418 428
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 95 100 90 100 100 100 100 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 237 257 628 198 253 635 1141 1121
Direction, Lane.#`~ „N6;1 `.-z .NEt1°.SW.1 ~ ~~__~ ~
s --~ `_
Volume Total 73 428 465
Volume Left 13 0 46
Volume Right 60 23 0
cSH 486 1700 1121
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.25 0.04
Queue Length (ft) 13 0 3
Control Delay (s) 13.7 0.0 1.2
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 13.7 0.0 1.2
Approach LOS B
Intersechori~Summary - _
Average Delay 1.6
Intersection Capacity Utili zation Err% ICU Level of Service H
Commuter PM Peak Hour -Existing
BV~iT~R®6MAL-FF51
Yelm Schools
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 1vn/2oo3
Lane Configurations 4. 4. °i A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0°/ 0°/
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 821 18 43 554 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 944 21 49 637 0
PedesVians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median Npe None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1692 1692 954 1692 1702 637 637 964
vC1, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1692 1692 954 1692 1702 637 637 964
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue tree % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 70 87 316 70 86 479 937 710
DirechomrLarie# ~. SB'a~• SE 1.;NW1 NW4-_ ., '-_ _ '~ '- `'~~
Volume Total D 966 49 637
Volume Leh D 1 49 0
Volume Right 0 21 0 0
cSH 1700 937 710 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.37
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 6 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0
Lane LOS A A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.8
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection CaoaciN Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service A
Commuter PM Peak Hour -Existing Yelm Schools
UV~i1Cf®6MAL-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Ca pacity Analysis
' 5: SR 510 R First Avenue 1v17/zoo3
.n L ~ s~ R r ~ > rr L 1 R..
' Movement .`s:..>- -, .:iSELr. SET.,d;;SEF3 .NWC
, NWT NWR ~'-NEL = NET ~NER ~~SWL SW
'
. . . T ~SWR
Lane Configurations ~i } p ~ p S T. .~ ~
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
11 1900
it 1900 1900
11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
' Satd. Flow (prol) 1540 1621 1301 1372 1431 1525 1403 1525 1466
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1540 1621 1301 1372 1431 1525 1403 1525 1466
' Volume (vph) 145 673 64 254 633 31 185 97 163 70 78 58
Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Atlj. Flow (vph) 146 680 65 257 639 31 187 98 165 71 79 59
' Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 680 65 257 670 0 187 263 0 71 138 ~ 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 % 2 % 2 % 3% 3% 3°/ 3 % 3 % 3°/ 3 % 3% 3%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1
6
' Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
12
0
50
1 q
50
1
22
0
60
1
15
0
22
3
. . . . . . . 6.0 13.3
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 50.1 50.1 22.0 60.1 15.0 22.3 6.0. 13.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.19 0.52 0.13 0.19 0
05 0
11
' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .
4.0 .
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 698 560 259 739 197 269 79 168
' v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.42 c0.19 0.47 c0.12 c0.19 0.05 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.97 0.12 0.99 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 51.7 32.5 19.9 47.1 25.6 50.3 46.8 54.9 50.4
' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 47.5 27.5 0.1 53.5 14.7 49.1 48.2 67.3 26.4
Delay (s) 99.2 60.0 20.0 100.7 40.3 99.4 95.0 122.2 76.8
Level of Service F E B F D F F F E
Approach Delay (s) 63.5 57.0 96.8 92.2
Approach LOS E E F F
' IhtersedibhSummary _ ;..;. ':_'-~ ~ -~- ';
~
HCM Average Control Delay 69.6 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 16.4 Su m of los t time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8 % ICU Level of Service E
c Critical Lane Group
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Sch ools
8~1Cf~6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 i2/17/zoo3
Movement. NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWL ~NWi NWR
Lane Configurations 1 1. «1. q }.
Sign Control Stop Stop Free free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 28 0 124 11 0 18 6 918 0 0 677 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 30 0 132 12 0 19 6 977 0 0 720 10
Pedestdans
Lane Width ((t)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conFlicting volume 1734 1719 977 1846 1714 725 730 977
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1734 1719 977 1646 1714 725 730 977
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
iC, 2 stage (s)
lF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 51 100 54 62 100 95 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 61 63 288 31 89 425 865 702
Direction, Lane # N6.1 -NB@ SB 1 SE 1 NW 1 -
Volume Total 30 132 31 983 730
Volume Left 30 0 12 6 0
Volume Right 0 132 19 0 10
cSH 61 288 73 865 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.46 0.42 0.01 0.43
Oueue Length (h) 48 57 42 1 0
Control Delay (s) 111.7 27.7 86.8 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS F D F A
Approach Delay (s) 43.2 86.8 0.2 0.0
Approach LOS E F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4 % ICU Level of Service
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
86MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacity Ana lysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 12/17/2003
h 1 ~ ~' 1 ~ 1 1 ii l d ti
' Movement ~.:zc: ~, ' ,NBL'; '.NBT ?~tJBR.> 'SBL- ,--~.SBT PSBR, =NEL >:.NET• v.NERI .=SVYC't iSWit:aSkf
Lane Configurations 1 A Q
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
' Volume (veh/h) 13 0 64 0 0 0 0 429 21 48 443 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 14 0 71 0 0 0 0 477 23 53 492 0
1 Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (f1/s)
' Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (k)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1087 1087 488 1158 1099 492 492 500
' vC1, stage i coot vol
vC2, stage 2 coot vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1087 1087 488 1158 1099 492 492 500
' tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 92 100 88 100 100 100 100 95
' cM capacity (veh/h) 183 205 571 146 202 577 1071 1054
Direction,~Larie # NB 1', NE 1., ,SW1 ~ °~
' Volume Total 86 500 546
Volume Left 14 0 53
Volume Right 71 23 0
cSH 420 1700 1054
Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.29 0.05
Oueue Lenglh (ft) 19 0 4
Control Delay (s) 15.7 0.0 1.4 .
' Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 15.7 0.0 1.4
PP
7ritersect orr Summa
ry. - C'- ;".- .. .-:. .... _ .r __,.
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Uti lization Err°/ ICU Level of Service H
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
8f6MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ent Dvy & SR 510 1v17/zoo3
Movement . '~! . ; .:. ; aJBL NBT, 5',NBR . SBL.. .. ,SBT 'SBR: .,,~SEL :SET. SER.: _fJWL NWZ-: ~lY!!R
Lane Confgurations Q. .b 1 A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0°/ 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 941 1 7 630 2
Peak Hour'Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1082 1 8 724 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) .
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1825 1827 1082 1826 1826 725 726 1083
vCt, stage 1 conf vol -
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1825 1827 1082 1826 1826 725 726 1083
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
IC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 59 77 267 59 76 427 868 640
Diiectibn;`Lane# : .-56':1. ~ SE L'.NW,1 NW-2r - .,1 . ';; ..
Volume Total 0 1084 8 726
Volume Left 0 1 8 0
Volume Right 0 1 0 2
cSH 1700 B68 640 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.43
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0
Lane LOS 'A A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection CaoaciN Utilization 61.4 % ICU Level of Service
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 without Projects Yelm Schools
HYt6MAL-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Ca pacity Analysis
' 5: SR 510 & First Avenue 1v17/2o03
' Movement . .., ,. :ISEC'. SETT _-:iSEf2 _:NWL; : NWi ROHR :~::NEL NET~~_~l,DEFY.SNIk~-.SVt~T',,;;o. S.~Ffd
Lane Configurations 1 f P 4 A 1 A 4 A
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
' Lane Widfh 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99
Flpb, pact/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.94
' Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prof) 0.95
1540 1.00
1621 1.00
1301 0.95
1372 1.00
1430 0.95
1525 1.00
1395 0.95
1525 1.00
1480
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1540 1621 1301 1372 1430 1525 1395 1525 1480
' Volume (vph) 147 642 46 283 607 31 174 97 181 70 78 58
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 648 46 286 613 31 176 98 163 71 79 59
Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 648 46 286 644 0 176 281 0 71 138 0
Confl. Pads. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Henry Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3 % 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3 % 3% 3% 3%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0
' Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2~ 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
t Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 48.1 48.1 25.0 61.1 14.0 22.0 6.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 48.1 48.1 25.0 61.1 14.0 22.0 6.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.21 0.52 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 158 666 534 293 746 182 262 78 177
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.40 c0.21 0.45 c0.12 c0.20 0.05 0.09
t v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.97 0.09 0.98 0.86 0.97 1.07 0.91 0.78
Uniform Delay, d1 52.2 33.9 21.1 45.8 24.4 51.3 47.5 55.3 50.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, tl2 52.6 28.0 0.1 45.6 10.1 56.5 76.2 72.0 19.2
Delay (s) 104.8 61.9 21.1 91.3 34.5 107.8 123.7 127.3 69.3
1 Level of Service F E C F C F F F E
Approach Delay (s) 67.2 52.0 117.6 89.0
Approach LOS E D F F
' IntersectiodSummary.. _ . ,-. .. „ - . .z' -
r
l _ _
HCM Average Control Delay 72.7 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.1 S um of lost time (s) 12.0
1 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 92.1°/ ICU Level of Serv ice E
c Cdtical Lane Group
1
1
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
M8FiF8tD®MdL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Mill Road & SR 507 1v17/zoo3
h t r y i ~ 1 ~ ~ r ,~ ~
Movement ' ~~:. ~;
.NBC
NBT.
.. <, tJBR
~,cSBL_.
~SBT -
SBR_SS:NEL __
~NE.T.,dr NER= SWL~, ,SWi,;_~SYJ(Q
Lane Configurations ~ A Q
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 13 0 63 0 0 0 0 451 21 46 455 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 14 0 70 0 0 0 0 501 23 51 506 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, wnflicting volume 1121 1121 513 1191 1132 506 506 524
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1121 7121 513 1191 1132 506 506 524
tC, single (s) 7.2 6.5 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
IQ 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue tree % 92 100 87 100 100 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 173 196 553 138 193 567 1059 1032
Dir'edion;:Lane t! ,>NB1, NE 1~?.SW.,1 " t .a. _:;>~s ..
Volume Total 84 524 557
Volume Left 14 0 51
Volume Right 70 23 0
cSH 403 1700 1032
Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.31 0.05
Queue Length (ft) 20 0 4
Control Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 1.4
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 1.4
Approach LOS C
IrifersectidnSiihimary." '~~" ~~ -~
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection CaoaciN Utilization 72.3 % ICU Level of Service C
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
MBFf~MAL-FF51
1
1
1
t
1
r
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 iv17/2o03
h ~ l Rl s L ~ r ~
Movement ,., .-NBL. .NBT ,:mNBR '~SBL_._;SBT S9R,.-:SEL ,_$E~'a~SEl3:,~j~~A(~;_,RI)t.~-eD1Nlr?
Lane Configurations ~ A A. S A 1 A
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 25 0 88 11 0 18 6 921 15 53 604 9
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Houdy flow rate (veh/h) 27 0 94 12 0 19 6 980 16 56 643 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (h)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum Bare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1775 1765 988 1846 1769 647 652 996
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1775 1765 988 1846 1769 647 652 996
tQ, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 ~ 2.2
p0 queue free % 50 100 67 67 100 96 99 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 53 71 283 36 76 471 925 691
DireiBOn, Lane:#._-.. zNBa. ^NB2 S&1 ^SE„1„ ~tSE2 ~LNl.dtkLJN 2=,_. _. ~t_ ,w.__.,c„ v_;':i
Volume Total 27 94 31 6 996 56 652
Volume Left 27 0 12 6 0 56 0
Volume Right 0 94 19 0 16 0 10
cSH 53 283 84 925 1700 691 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.50 0.33 0.37 0.01 0.59 0.08 0.38
Oueue Length (B) 47 35 36 1 0 7 0
Control Delay (s) 126.4 23.8 70.9 8.9 0.0 10.7 0.0
Lane LOS F C F A B
Approach Delay (s) 46.5 70.9 0.1 0.8
Approach LOS E F
Irifeisection $um'mary ~ _~ `-:~_ *_«,4,'~~~.
Average Delay 4.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service B
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
M8Ff8E!®MAL-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Exit Dwy & SR 510 iv1712003
~f 1 f` ~ j d `s > ~ r < ~
Movement
_:- 1V81' NBT ~tyBEi ~
SBL S@7 QE mT
SBA
~
SEI as~Ri; VC 1~~1~EIT
~..
. _
< . , : ,
,
~ ,„; ,. .
:
Lane Confgurations 1 t. .T. 1 A ~ A
Ideal Flow (vphpf) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1517 1358 1620 1678 1762 1694 1779
FIt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.67 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1177 1358 1431 1678 1762 1694 1779
Volume (vph) 25 0 88 11 0 18 6 921 15 53 604 9
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 27 0 94 12 0 19 6 980 16 56 643 10
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 94 0 0 31 0 6 996 0 56 653 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 15°/ 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.6 43.8 2.9 46.1
Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.6 43.8 2.9 46.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.66 0.04 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 159 168 15 1161 74 1233
vls Ratio Prot c0.07 0.00 c0.57 c0.03 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.59 0.18 0.40 0.86 0.76 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 26.5 27.8 26.5 32.8 8.9 31.5 4.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 5.8 0.5 16.6 6.5 35.0 0.4
Delay (s) 27.2 33.6 27.0 49.4 15.4 66.4 5.4
Level of Service C C C D B E A
Approach Delay (s) 32.2 27.0 15.6 10.2
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary. , d_ ~`~~~- ~
~ ~ ~ `' ,A~-..- '"'
~ y
~
HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capaci ty ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 66.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service B
c Critical Lane Group
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
M8fif8ED®MAL-FF51
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
t 11: Ent Dwy & SR 510 12!1712003
~f ~ f'~ 4 ~ Rl `~ y ~ ~ 1 ~
Movement "i ~~ ~ ~is.:NBL ~NBT-.lNBR -.,SBL ~:SBT 'tSBR. ;SEL .SE7= :.;SER :,NWL ~'NLY.i,,:.NrfVR
1 Lane Configurations .7. & d T.
1
i
_.'
1
1
1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0°/ 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 942 1 7 631 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Houdy flow rate (vehlh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1083 1 8 725 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 656
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1827 1829 1083 1828 1829 726 728 1084
vC1, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1827 1829 1083 1828 1829 726 728 1084
lC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 59 76 266 59 76 426 867 640
Diiectiori;+Lane# ~ ~,:
SB.1'
SE~1
_NW:1;'
.NW 2,.,
°- t:.
. ,.
~ ,... _.
., a:t, _..._
..._ , :~!_..
Volume Total 0 1085 8 728
Volume Left 0 1 8 0
Volume Right 0 1 0 2
cSH 1700 867 640 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.43
Oueue Length (ft) 0 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS A
IntersedtioriSurnmary ~ - i•:
~ - "A;' "'~
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Util ization 61.5 % ICU Level of Service B
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
MBhFI~MAL-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: Junior High Driveway & SR 507 72nn2oo3
Movement!` ~.-~.. NN/C NWR ,
r:NET :_NER SWL ;SWT
~;~~ ~~=~~ -~r'
Lane Confgurations M .
t. :
-
,
4
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 78 53 437 16 31 437
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly Flow rate (vehlh) 20 58 475 17 34 475
Pedestrians
Lane Width (H)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 7026 484 492
vC1, stage 1 coot vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1026 484 492
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 92 90 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 252 583 1071
...~. NW~L NE.1. :SW.1 - -:' r . ar
Volume Total 77 492 509
Volume Left 20 0 34
Volume Right 58 77 0
cSH 437 7700 1071
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.29 0.03
Queue Length (h) 16 0 2
Control Delay (s) 15.0 0.0 0.9
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 15.0 0.0 0.9
Approach LOS 8
Intersection Summary - ,-~%
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Uti lization 67.5 % ICU Level of Service B
Commuter PM Peak Hour - 2006 with Projects
M8FF8GD®b1AL-FF51
Appendix C1 -Traffic Analysis for Revised High School
Circulation Plan
1
1
MEMORANDUM
i
t
~'
1
a
Date: March 16, 2004
heffron
To: Erling {Rocky) Birkland, Yelm Schools
John Erickson, Erickson McGovern Architects
From: Marni C. Heffron, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Subject: Yelm High School
Traffic Analysis for Revised Site Circulation Plan
Following the recent meeting with [he City ofYeim and N~S!)OT regarding access improvements, Yelm
Schools has developed a new site layout that would relieve congestion at [he southeastem site driveway on SR
510 and eliminate the need for a traffic signal at that location. The plan is shown on Figure I. Key elements of
this revised plan are: ~
• Moving the bus load unload area m [he north side of the school buildings. Entrance Co the bus area
would occur from 93rd Street via a new on-site access driveway located either east or west of the
proposed soccer field. Egress from the bus area would be through the nonhwes[em site driveway.
• Providing a parent drop-off/pick-up area in front of the school where [he bus loading area was
located in previous plans. This would be a on~way loop with the enfrance off the soutlteastem
driveway and exit [o [he nonhwestem driveway.
• Providing access and egress to the school parking lot via the southeastem driveway as previously
proposed.
This revised site plan offers several operational benefits over [he previously proposed plan:
I. It provides two egress locations from the school site. Traffic operations for the prior plans would
have been poor because the vast majority ofschool traffic would have entered and exited the site
al the southeastern driveway.
2. Two egress locations woald eliminate the need to provide a traffic signal a[ the southeastem
Driveway as previously proposed (see analysis that follows regarding intersection operetions).
3. If queues do occur at the parking lo[ egress driveway, vehicles could divert to the other driveway
vie the pick-up/drop-off loop. [f this were a bus area as previously proposed, no access to the other
driveway would be possible.
4. buses would not need m cross traffic at the driveways -an inherent Flaw ofthe previous plan
nor would buses competo with all other school traffic exiting [he parking lot in the afternoon.
5. The bus area would be able m accommodate angled bus staging (instead ofparallel staging with
multiple rows of buses as previously proposed). Angled staging in a single row would eliminate
need for students [o crass in front of buses to reach another bus.
1
i
1
Yelm High School
Tral7c Analysis for Revised Site Access
March 16, 2004
Page 2 oF2
Figure 1. Conceptual Site Plan with Revised Circulation
B 9~ 3 ~ B 8 ,~ aaer -
9 l3 3 ~ B ~ moo e
B 3 9~ Sa ~! ~ --
l3 ~' &r!j LJ ~ ~i~~ ~
> }
~ ~ ~ ._
~:~~ A A I =. i~ ~ t __. _.
3R\3 -JI ~._.
_, d
~ ,~l - ~ /, _- lit
®f
_ _ 1E
~ ~,
.'t
N
~.
1 .-.
_.-_
~ ~_ _- _._
I _ _ -- N.~,Re..
. ~,
Traffic Operations Analysis
Traffic operations analysis (level of service) was performed far the revised configuration assuming year 2006-
wi[h-project conditions. Driveway volumes were divided into buses, drop-off/pick-up, and parking lot access.
Volumes for each element are shown on [he attached figures for the AM peak hour, school PM peak hour, and
commuter PM peak hour, respectively.
The level of service far each Driveway was then calculated using the methodology in the Hrghtvay Capaci0~
Mamml, and Synchro 5.0 software. It was assumed that [he nvo-way-left-mm-lane (TWLTL) on SR 510 would
be extended so [ha[ i[ begins east of southeastern driveway and ends about 100-fee[ west of the northwestern
driveway. This would provide stacking for inbound traffic at the southeast driveway and a refuge far atwo-step
left [um at [he northwestern driveway. The re ults of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
r
Yelm High School heffr®n
Trnffic Analysis for Revised Site Access
March I6, 2004 '
Page 3 of3
i aoie -i. ~evei or service at SK 510/High School Unveways -With Revised Site Plan `
Intersections AM Peak Hour
LOS° Dela School PM Peak Hour
LOS Dela Commuter PM Peak Hour
LOS Dela
SR 51015outheast Driveway
Leh turn from Driveway E 48.6 D 32.8 D 29.3
Right turn from Driveway B 11.6 C 24.1 D 26,0
Left turn to Drivewa B 10.5 B 10.4 B 12,6
SR S101NOrthwest Driveway
Left turn from Driveway C 15.fi C 18.0 C 19.7
Right turn from Driveway 8 12.8 C 20.6 C 24.A
Lefl turn to Drivewa No Entrance No Entrance No Entrance
a Levels olservica assume reduction in hgh school lrayic associated with moving 9th Anders out o/the school tojuniar high schools.
b L05=Levelo/Service '
c Oelay=Average semntls of tlelayper vehicle.
As shown above, most movements would operate at LOS D or better for all key time periods. The exception
would be the left mrn traffic exiting the southeast driveway during [he AM peak hour, which would operate at
LOS P.. Very few vehicles would exit this driveway during the AM peak hour (since most drop-offs would loop
through to the northwest driveway), and [he queues are expected to bo no more than one vehicle. The poor level
of service is primarily related to the tlu'ough volume ou SR 510 and [he high volume of traffic entering the site
durine the AM peak hour that would take priority over exiting left lum movements. Left rums from the
northwest driveway would operate at LOS C or better during all time periods because there would be nu
conflicting inbound rums at this driveway.
Summary
Based on the above analysis, Yelm Schools should pursue the revised site circulation plan. I[ would improve
traffic operations, and likely safety, a[ the site driveway intersections with SR 510. [[ would also reduce internal
crossing conflicts between buses and other vehicles that were inherent in [he previously proposed site plan.
Several transportation improvements would 6e needed [o accommodate the revised site plan These include:
• Extend two-way-left-rum-lane on SR 510 east of southeast driveway. Based on WSDO'f
guidelines for left turn lanes (Design Manual, Figure 910-I Oa), [he left turn lane should have
250 feet of storage. This would accommodate the highest volume of inbound traffic during ilre
AM peak how.
• ExCendrwo-way-left-mm lane on SR 510 west ofthe northwest driveway. 'T'his lane is needed
to provide a refuge £or a two-step left turn. About 100-fee[ of storage space would be
sufficient [o accommodate [his need. Altema[ively, the Yelm Community Schools could pay a
proportionate share towards WSDOT's project to improve the SR 510/93rd Avenue
intersection ifdtat project's left mm lane can be extended east [o serve the northwestern
school driveway.
• Constmct bus-only across driveway @om 93rd Avenue SF,. "this driveway wind be
constructed to minimum standards for zone-way fire lone.
Attachments
DATE: 3 BV: .. _
SUBJECT:
r'
,~~ Cntv~l
=~z:~ ~
~ ~ ~_~~
T~9 JS
I~
o'er
x?
t--(o39
7= ~i0
ASS ~ ~ h
.Z p9
~y~-,
hR- ~+~ `fsiS
o,y ~ ~ ~ ~
,s ~ 4°S
6544 N.E. 61st Street
Seaale. WA 98115
Phone' 20b~523-3939
Fax: 20fi-5Z3-6949
ZD
V , ~'
.>, ~u ~4z
\
~y
~9iz
r' zoq
~ ~
~~ --
`
.~.~~
~n.-.~v
~~
~
t
~ ~~-
~112nt ~ _ ~ ~ti i~
'~ PRP.XreJb _o~
~..: o
i~ _ ''y
~ ,_/~rs
a->53 - ~ ~ [c9L
:' h i
~r5
_~
G5?~ Yo- I^i 6 i 810
i3\ a
u .~ ~~ ~-697 ~ (ncLa
~ ¢- ao
~_~ y .~
a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
iU ~ .s
Iran sFonaticn Punning E Engineering Consu ping Servm os
~~----
~,
r
l~'~ .~;
aV 1
_ _
. ~ ~, P
~~ _
~~ n N
' a ~ ~ a i
A tj i
~ ~
i ~ ~
i " - ~
<+
- _ / ~•,£.
~ ~ ~ ~/~ °~ i~ ~~ - ~C P f P ~ / 5
C r '
i ~ fy
i~ ~
~~
o~' o - ~ ~~i; ~~`: ~ ~~ LJ'J
r ~ ^
c ~ o ¢ r. :.
r c ~ f gip, y P
~.~ ~ s?
- -
p / J ~~ ~ J 0 0 7
S A .S\C i/. J J ~ J J V - J i
i
^ ~ J J' ,W ~ =S-J-
~ ~_
L ' -0 J\
~" - "J f e
p ~d ~ ~ ~ /r - - c' ~.
S
,~ ' C '
N. y 3~_ _~ ~ _IC. / 4
1 J I _ ~ L
,v - -- _
J
~ r
n I-"
~~ ~`_-
~.~
/u^v
i :,
x
x
q r
~ "
z
~yc ~ C
V9 _
~.
~ `
C ~ 4<
a ?~ -
<
3
~
~
~
;
~
!
~
i ~ ~ f ~W
~ J J J J b y 7 I
Y
/ J J J 4 J
/ ~~~ . 1 .,. J J. C _. , 7
~ 4 J
J.. ~_.,
~,-- -r-
I
\ i c y
.Vi r:
~ C
•; ~ ~ __ ~ c
\ J J
~~ _ ~J~ S I
. ~, __. ;~ ~_, re i
V ~ I I I ~I
J u~ I ~ ,.
~. ~ I
_ _ _,~
I_f
I
i
1
1: Southeast Driveway & SR 510
' AM Peak -With Revised Site Circulation
~ 1 N ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ R ~
' Movement. er »~•', e.'NBL~NBT~~.';1fJBR~+`SBL"~^~.SBT""(SeR "^°SEL nkaSET:z~dSER~NWL'3c^+NWT'r'NNlR
Lane Confgurahons 1 U d. ~{ p ~ p
Sign Conholz ~ ~r r ,., Stops
Grade 0% ;:`Stop ~ p•~y..•
0/ ' " Eiee ,.
0% ~ •-.Free r, ~,
0/
Volume (veh/h) .,., 5 0'- 10 11:., 0 20 - 0 X376-.. •; 80•+, 269 „;',fi42 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Hourly eow rate (veh/h) „?,',6 ,, 0 X13 .,14~", ~.,: ,Oy;„u,~i25 ...~,. 0 y`476 " K101 34b i.;.;u813 - 1
' Pedestnans
Lane Widfhi(ft) ' .. 7^ i . ~
~ t r
" r :.~~
Walking Speed (Ns) `
Percent Blockage ~ •
+ :
,
Right turn flare (veh)
._
Mediantype , ti `~-fit TWLTL ',
~
r
-7WLTL •
,~~
--
~~ ~ t
;,
;ie M ,v'S4
Median storage veh) 2 ~ 2 . ,. ,
' Upstream~slgnal (R) s+_}'• , ±
~ .-, Pfi ~ .
pX, platoon unblocked ~ t `
vC conPoCtirig volume ::20,46 ;202D ;1527 1983..
;2072 813 ''-'814 „~• _~'~ k`'-57T^ ~` .'n~~
vCi stage 1 conf vol 527 527 .
1494 1494
' vC2 stage 2'conf vol ,, .1519 „1495, - 489 ;577 _
vCu, unblocked val 2046 2022 527 1983 2072 813 814 577
t0, s'ingle:(s)"y~ ~ ,F7~1 65 82 71 i'65 82 - 41 ~ 41 4r ?
tC, 2 stage (s) 6 1 5 5 6 1 5 5
tF (s) ,;. ~ 35 40'. `?33 ~ 35,- 40 33 .48;22 .,, s,,, ;R ~ >'22' -~ °ns„ ~6m
p0 queue free % 93 100 98 85 100 93 100 66
' cM capacily,(veh/h) ..;~89 118 X9555 92 ;101 378 1,`;8_04 ~ •' : 991 ^C;:~'1 ,~$~, '~~
DReehen t nB #,~~i~F( ~NBv1o~N0 2 u58.1 aSF•'e~CF 9~'N\N.'13~rJIN 9a°^~'~S"v"~ W n
voiume'lotal'; -..6 `~13'•~ 39 0 '•C 577 341'. -',:814 '' -_
^ Volume Left 6 0 14 0 0 341 0
1 Volume Pogfit 0 ' 13;. ~ 25 , ~0 ~• 101 -0. 1 ,R^
cSH 89 555 180 1700 1700 991 1700 ~~~~
Volumeto Capacity e' 1{0.07 002"•9.22 '000 0'34 034 •,048
Queue Length (ft)
6
2 ~ 20
0
0
39 _
0 ~ ~~
Control Delaya(s) !48.6 116_,;,_30_.6
~ e00
• ~,;00, 105
~ "~"~00• ... _h,
Lano LOS E B
D ~ g - ~ '
Approach~Delay (s) 123:9 ,: °~a ,~.vT,308
~- ,'0.0. 3: T. - F
Approach LOS C D •,_ ,
ICUf L,"-evel of SaFvice ~ -, B ,
HEFFROSMAL-FF51 3/8/2004
11: Northwest Driveway & SR 510
AM Peak -With Revised Site Circulation
h ~ ~ ~ R
Movement U: 3. r am~~NBL~iNBR~fSETt`~SER'~NWL~INWT ~ ~
" ~ zv .~ ~ ~ "~j
Lane Gonfgurations 4 r A S ? ;
Sign Control .` .,)Stop : , ,. ', .F.ree
- ~~- =•Free -'.-~, .,...' •:, ~ ._~)
Grade 0% 0/ g/
Volume (veh/h)
34
~ ?; 125 331 0. ,- 0 667
;x; ; ~t
'
~'
~
,
Peak Hour Factor
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 .
0.83 0.83 „
c ,rY
.,
Hourly flow Fa[e (veh/h) r"';'41 ,15P' 399 0 ~,
- 0~ .804-rn~. ~
~' `'i~
d
'
;=~
!
Pedestrians . , . ,
:
i4,t,~,~,,,
;
;
, ~,~
Lane Widlh',(fi) y v ~
'
;^
,.,
Walking Speed (ft/s) .,,. ,,.
' .
s:
~"'
PercenCBbckage ;.. ,.. . .:r
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type" r•~,TWLTL .. rs ' h. ~.:?; .+:zz' V 5...; ,vy""wdi~~'S~d
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream!§ignal (ft) ;r~^;
~ :. :., , ~. , ..
~ .; a. z a
u ', : +,'.
a v W m'~ "~ '~
1~
pX, platoon unbbcked - ~ ~ ,
.
~ -
vC conflicting'volume ~+";1202 399',: ;;399
'+1 w c
; k
R°=
vCi, stage 1 conf vol 399 , ~ ~
, ~~ 1,
, ,r,y
i
vC2~stage,2:"cdnf,vol ; , 804 -
r
~
x!
~
vCu, unblocked vol 1202 399 399 r ' ~ ~ X ~ ~ r i ~~
tC single'(s);~" r' fi 5 6.4„• :-:4 1 l•=.a ~,;"; -
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.5 ,
~ '
tF (s'j.", ,''-.. _ ',-36 ,uid3-5 ~ : _ ~ 22:x..
X -
..
~
a~Y..; ~"5
p0 queue free % 89 75 100 .
, a
,
cM capacity: (veh/h) ~! x;382 i$614- , , ~,'~1154 • ~) ;;(~ _ , :r - ~ s
Volume~Total', ^'41". ,' 151 ". 399 _ :0-_""804 r =~'&
Volume Left 41 0 0 0 0
Volume Right
_ ,0 r151~]'iil,0 Or.•- ,0 ~; .~s c
~
s
cSH 382 614 1700 -.
1700 1700 ._ ~
,~„
y„_
~~
Volume toCepac~ty"„ ~~0:11 ~s0.25, g.23 0003?0
.47~;•;~- .~;
o ?r:"
Queue Length (H) 9 24 0 _
0 0 ,
Control Detay (s) ~,,, u156 128 ;00 e00,„", J
z00 ^,+' ,
++ ;~
Lane LOS C B ,•
,
" ,.
"
Apprdzch`,Oelay~(s) a x:13
4 `"
g+'«0 O f 06 ~t
Approach LOS _
,P
B .
1.8
~. X52:3/ 'Lr JGU,Level of Seivice ,~, ~ ";1j, A ,, ~' ,", a
3!8/2004
HEFFROSMAL-FF51
u
' 1: Southeast Driveway & SR 510 .
School PM Peak -With Revised Site Circulation
'f t r I, 1 ~ ,' > > .- '~ ~
Movement e " •~tJBL =NBTv~NBR .~. SeL`SBT~SBR!`?SEL ' SET~SER~NWL=~'NWT"S~fJWR
oniroli: ~ ~- St
op1 €`"' ai ,Stop 9,.. ~. Free ~{,Free r, +~
G ode 0 0/ ~ 0% 0/
Volume (veh/h) .~' 52 ~ 6 ~ 114 11 ~ ,;... 0 i6 .. '; 12 , 685 ,' 26 67 >.. 615 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 ,
0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0
79
Hourly fldw"_rate (veh/h) ~ ,~66 +8 ,144 14 ; ,. 0 `20 ~.. ~ 15 867 5=. 33 ",85 .
vy~'778 ,;.'.13
Pedestrians
Lane Width{ft) ,~ ~, _ s, kp
~ - f,
Walking Speed (ft/s) ~ ~ '
Percent Blockage _ ~'(S„ ~t_:,.,; ~,r ~: ^'-
Right turn flare (veh) . ,
Medan type". , ~ ,, ~4~TWLTL ,~;;(' ~": T;WLTL -
~ n c ,,w, ., ,
~
Median storage veh) 2 2 '"
' Upstreamsignal (ft) .,
~ + - '
pX, platoon unblocked ~ _
~
- ~ ~ ~
r'nh'.'
vC conflicting volume [1,882 a~1875 . `884 2000 ,1885 ~ 785.r+"y791 "900 `.^ u~
vC1 stage 1 conf vol 914 914 954 954
' vC2 stage 2 conf vol 4 '968
~ 961. ~, ' ~, 11046 • `930 ~ ~ ~ -,
vCu unhlocked vol
1882 1875 884 2000 188'5 785 791 900
' tC single (s)s` "7:1
iC 2 stage (s) 6.1 '65
5 5 r-62 71,'':65
6 1 5 5 62'°x,,41 ,. '41 r:-
tF (s)- ;3.5 40 ',";:33 35 =,:4033 .322
~ 22 ~ i
p0 queue free % 66 97 58 79 100 95 98 89
' cM capaciry.,(veh/h) x,;:194 223 :348 >w 67 x;198 393 ,x'.';820 °751 ,. ';:e
Direction;=Lane #~',~','NB`ii~'N62.'".°SB 1'?€,°SE€A~SF o~ nimf ~..-.rJmr v ..:.-a.*a
voume do[ac ; ,, .(66 152 '~~34 15,E"900 '~+85~ -'791
Volume Left 66 0 14 15 - 0 85 0
' Volume Right ,-0 144 •, 20 ~ 0,_. <,~33. ':.0'• 13 i
cSH 194 338 132 820 1700 751 1700
~
Volumeto Cz"pacity .0.34 x045 '0:26 002 +10,53 011 0.47
_'
Oueue Length (ft) 35 56 24 1 0 10 0
Control ~elay;(s) ~~, ~`~32 8 24 1 r, 41
:5 9 5 ;~0 0 10 4 ~ ~:0 0
,
Lane LOS D
C _
E
A 9 ~ _ ,r
;
'
Approach Delay (s) -,)26.7
.. - _ ;41'.5
.~. x;02, ~,, .-1.0";
« ?• .•'d. r _ '
-
'
'
'
Approach LOS
D . E " ~ ._ .
,.
i
4
+n`tersection Summary.,,,k. ~ ,~.. . =gr - f` ,., ,~y .. ~ ~^acTrf~?T~'~':F~~'"~""~`'"~1
Average Delay 4.0
Intersectidii.Capacity Utilrzation x,.726% ICU Level of Servi ce .,, =;C -: s~,. ~~,
HEFFROSMAL-FF51 3/8/2004
11: Northwest Driveway & SR 510
School PM Peak -With Revised Site Circulation
'~ P ~ ~ ~ ~
Movementa~t'°3~„ar'~",aNBL'~aRNBRSETrv'~''SERtJWL~`4NWSs;~ k, _, :~z
r .s: ~ ;~
Lane Configurations F
it
A
R } „ „
Sign Control r ~4Stop - . " free ';`~F;ree:.
,
'~ ~.
ti. f~:
Grade 0% 0% ~ 0% ..
Volunie
(veh/h) ;' .. " 22 r68' ~ 655 0 SpC 0 ' ^ 683?
~ ~ ;w
,
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 ,
0.83 0.83 0.83 f
Hourlyfiow,~a[e (veh/h);,:•., 27; ,82;', x,789 , ~;0"-". 0, 823 s% -xF
.~
>- .
,
Pedestrians ,
. .
.,,k
'
Lane Widtfi"(ft) ,. ~•..
~
..: -~
d~, `;_i ,.',~ a:r.
. ..
.t
, ,
x:
Walking Speed (Pos) . ,
.
_
Percent Blockage ~ _ ~
; ^x
°
° .,
, " .,t
":
Right turn Oare (veh) _ ~
r
:
. . ..: ~,y
, .,....
Mediari:.tyPe ,.~nTWCTL ,. '.' '^F. t t. ,',t~ ., .~
, si r ;.
Median storage veh) 2 . , .
.
Upstreaih'signal (ft) ..
}„ .1~.;$~ anr~.r - _
,. ;; ,
pX, platoon unblocked ,
- `' `"
vC conthdting volume 5,1612 789,E ": ,' X789 „ ,_'.y ~;~ I:' . ,
`"
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 789
vC2•'sta§e2 confvol,• 823
~ , .,,
~ ,. ~
i'c,~
vCu, unblocked vol
1612 789 ~~~ 7gg
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`~
tC sin le s .'. 66 ~?, 6.8_
9 'O .;":,4h -..'
.~ ::': .' +rj
"-"'""
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.6
tF. (s):; _, ;3 T,
~ „,3_8~ 22 .~. _ .,.. ~ .. _r-~.
'~~
p0 queue free %
91 74 100 .
cM capacity(vehlh)q ?~~,303 .`312 :,,,826 -
,
_. ,
_ i
Volume':TOtal. :. '27. '.'82. .;:,.789• "0;,:;823
Volume Left 27 0 0 0 0 - •
Volume Right' 0_ ,+ 82 ~~ 0 ,0' - 0 ° F',_ -" - _.. ~~~,n
cSH 303 312 1700 1700 1700
Volume t_o.Capaary, .;,0.09, >?0_26 ~~046 '#0;00-,048 T
d+`'
Queue Length (ft) 7 26 ,.
0 0 0 ~ •
Control Delay, (s)
~ ...:1.80;~206 „y,%00, s~0.0 ~.':„00 •~
. "~
.-5
Lane LOS C C
Approach, delay (s) X20 0 „„~r0 0 v ; 0,0, r ,„ ,
~ _
~ C~aQ
Approach LOS C
Inlerseciion Summary ,,°=.a, ~,~.;r,' „ r..~'wai~~ _ '~~, ~ ~~:*F~;~ ~"?~
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity , Utilization `x53;3/ ; °
ICl7
Level dfService ~ .~ „~ A ';rj'
„r
,
. ,
3/8/2004
HEFFROSMAL-FF51
1
1: Southeast Driveway 8 SR 510
Commuter PM P
k
W _
ea
-
ith Revised Site Circulation
_._~.
MavemenE»~'
1 1
'
NBL~NBT
*'T
r~ !.
N
i
1 ~
"
.'
>
"
> r
'
~ ~
:
.
.
a
eR
SBL" SBT .,SBRt
.rt SEL 'SEP_
-
SER.e«N1NL'~`
'NWT'.~"NVJR
Lane Confgurations 1 H 4, ~ ~, ft ,
b
Sign Control =Stop.. u
top Free x Free a ,'y
Grade 0% 8
0% 0% 0/
Volume (veh/h). - 10 ~ 0' 35 «18 r; 0 11- • 6 973; 1fi '
60 597
.9
Peak Hour Factor
' 0 79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0 79 0.79 0 79 0.79 ,
0.79 0
79 ,
0 79 0
7g
Houfly flow+
rate (veh/li)y .-13 .CFO^. 44 - 23 t5; Om~`,14; "'.8 11232; .
; 20,, 06, .
7581
'-`
1
1
' Pedestnans ,
,
,
Lane Width(ft) r ,
Walking Speed (ft/s) ~ ~ " ` ' ` ~~~ ~~~'' ~•
Percent Blockage ^. ,, _
Poght turn Flare (veh)
Median fYPe' . , :. .'e iTWLTL =: ', .~•iTWLTL~ '~ .;..
-" ,, : " . c:'s „ wy~ ar
l
Median storage veh) 2 2 .
.
'
Upstreamsignal (ft)„ u • 5
pX, platoon unblocked , ,
- ~
.~ ~i
s-,* , mw` afi
vC codflidting volume 1 2178 2176, ~~. 1242 • 2204. 2180 1761 ~~~767 '1252`:
~~
' vC1 stagel conf vol 1257 1257 913 913 ~
~-
vC2, stage2 conf 30l
' ~: 922 919 ~ 1291 . .:1267
~
~ •
•
vCu unblocked vol 2178 2176 1242 2204 2180
7fi1
~ -1767 ^ 1252 ~~ ~ .
~ ~~
tC, single"(s)
tC 2 stage (s) '7 1 8 5
6 1 5 5 ~ 6 2 x7 1
6 1 ,a~-,6 5 3a 6 2^.
5 5 41 ..
4.1:°^~
tF (s) t 1, * ,',"-,35 40~"-~, u33 35 '~40 °3.& 2.2 ^ 2
2•~
"
-
p0 queue free /
`
92 100
79 71
100 97
99 .
e6 i
cM capacity
(vehlh) r ,;161 9186 .._ +L75 ~ 78 .;143 405 838 552. '
DlrectlOn 9Larne #"
NR 1'I~NR 9 •~7eA ~l~ee.n _ oo r ,. ~ ~ ~~
- `
z
uunie io~ai.. .:'13' 44 "37 8~?7252 76- x''767
Volume Left 13 0 23 8 0 76 0
Volume Ri ht ' 0
9_ 44 - 14 0 20 0 11 e's
cSH 161 215 112 838 1700 552 , ,
1700 ~ ~~
Volume to Capacity =1;0,08 021 0.33 001 ,0174 '014 ,'045.
' Oueue Length (ft) 6 19 32 1 0 12 - ' 0
Control Delay (s) '^ 29 3 . 28 0: ' : 52 1 t 9 3 °k
;!~0 0
e.126-
-_ LL0.0.
Lane LOS D D ,
,
F A ." g ~ ,~
APProachDelaY (s) ;,,:- '26 7 - ~°.; 521 <01
~'1.ti' h.;,
Approach LOS D ..,,
F ~ ., . _
"1x-
Intersectio`n~Summary ,~*~°'~~;,,a'~ ~+~ ^„ .-.,.;.r
A e age Delay 2 p
Intersection Capacity Uhliiation ~ '( 83.6% ICU:Level of Service `.~ p •~•
1
1
HEFFROSMAL-FF51 3/8/2004
11: Northwest Driveway & SR 510
Commuter PM Peak -With Revised Site Circulation
'I h \ ~ r R
Movement'-_ ;~IJBL'7~NBR?eSET.~S(=R~NWL ~RWTr=.'" v'4`'~.re'Pr'~~ dn;r,i.~j
Lane Confgura4ons 4 P A q }
Sign Control + §r~.'Stop ~
~ ~ ;,Free ~+ , ~'t `-+Free ~, -
Grade
0% 0% 0% -
Volume'(Geh/h) ~- 15 ,~53 ~. 942° (0' n0 -618:, -. 1 ~~ ~r
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow{ate (vehlh)E~'. 18 '69. (,1, 135a a `O,i; 0 ~,~745 ~: ~ _ ,
Pedestrians
Lane W+dtfi'(ft) .,. . ~ ... :~, ., _ - is
Walking Speed (R/s)
Percent Blockage , . - _ sr;
`4
^rz s.'
R+ght tum flare (veh)
- -
,... .
.
,
'
Mediantype 'STWLTL _,,,.,. -
.,
~
;
Median storage veh) 2 . ,
,
~ ~ ' '
Upslreamsignal (ft) `~~': ~ N~ _ e .c.~y
pX, platoon unblocked
vC conflicting volumev+~1880~,`;1135 n,;
;1135 ;':,4!
.
'
~
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1135 ,~ -,
,
t;
vC2 stage;2 conf voh ^' X745
~ ~ -
~ r ,,.; per.. e ~,~,y.
vCu, unblocked vol 1880
1135 1135
tC. single`.(s)..,s .2.64 62 sr'1„s+'. ,4i~!4.1 - _ ~„r 7,~~a
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 '
IF.'(ej. , '` :4 ,. ;;~r,`3 5 1,3:3 ,. .. .~ 22 ~ ..
~ a `. ~°.
..ou',. a w, t v*:
-`,nor s~ ,_
p0 queue free % 93 74 100 .
,.
cM capacity;(vehlh),,,'^;;1262 i_ 249 ~;5.>tF +~ ~, ~`ri612 _, ;,
VolumeTotal '; ;~~ ~ , 18 , 64 -.;1135 ;" ~ 0_ . 745 ~ '`? ""~~ '~~ '~ +
(
,
Volume Left ,
18 0 0
0
0 ,;
;
VolOme~Rigbt 0 fi4 ~. 0 ' .~l?0 9 r r^
cSH
262 249 1700 .
1700
1700 _~ reaA
Volumeto;Capacity;~; '007 026x:1067 x'0:00 ~.u
,~, rr
044 w~
~j a .~,~
,jf+"
Queue Length (ft)
6 25 0
~ ~ 0 y
_
,
+
0 ,ti
,
rr
'
Control Odlay (s) ,; -,197 ~, 244Z„~,?00 ~ 00'"~g0.Q: ~.. ; ~
~
1<
~`
?
Lane LOS ,
C C ,. ;
:
~
.
P
Approach ,D,elay,(s) r=23 4 ~, ,1S' 0 0 ;:0;0 '. -, _ _ , x~1~
Approach LOS C
1.0
670;'4% tICU Level of Service ,Y ..~C~. ., „~.i
3/8/2004
HEFFROSMAL-FF51
~.
1
1
1
Appendix D -Sound Level Measurements for New Junior
High School
1
1
1
1
1
~~ B R ~ BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIE RE INC.
a c o u s t i c s
1
July 25, 2003
Mr. Erling Birkland
Director of Facilities
Yelm Community Schools
' P.O. Box 476
Yelm, Washington 98597
Regarding: Sound Level Measurements
' Yelm Junior High School
Dear Erling:
This letter presents the results o(noise measurements conducted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 at
' the site of [he proposed new Junior High School facility in Yelm, Washington.
The site of [he proposed new school is adjoining the existing Mill Pond Intermediate School and
' is located to the west, between the school and SR 507. The main noise source affecting the
proposed Junior High School building is roadway traffic on SR 507.
' Sound levels were monitored continuously between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on July 17, 2003 at a
location representative of the proposed new school facility. The long-term noise monit oring was
conducted using a Bmel and Kjaer 2238 Environmental Noise Monitor, which conforms to the
ANSI Standard 51
4 for T
e I instruments
.
yp
.
Creagng
Sound levels are reported in A-weighted decibels (dBA), which is a standard Soune
' frequency weighting system based on the sensitivity of human hearing at various Envlronmenrs
frequencies, particularly the greater sensitivity at mid and high frequencies. The arcmiecmral acousnes
' following noise descriptors are used: Envimnmenral acousnes
Leq Equivalent sound level, Leq, is the most commonly Mechanical Noise C0n1r01
used descriptor for measuring fluctuating sound. The qumo-Visual Design
Leq is the level of a constant sound that, over the
duration of the measurement interval, contains the same V,Orafion Anatysis
' amount of sound energy as the measured Fluctuating 1]d1 First AVe B., Suite 401
Seartle WA 98134
SODUd.
Tol. 406/2T04J9r0
Or 800/843-4524
' Fa+106Y1T0-8690
Brc@lbrcamusfics.com
www.hrcacouslks.mm
u
Yelm Junior High School
Page 2
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC.
Lmax Maximum sound level, Lmax, is the highest instantaneous sound '
level reached during the measurement interval.
The State of Washington Board of Health regulations for approval of new school sites are '
contained in WAC 246-366-030, Site Approval, Paragraph 3. For a proposed school site to be
approved without additional requirements for sound reduction, the ambient sound levels may not '
exceed an hourly Leq of 55 dBA and hourly Lmaz of 75 dBA during the duration of the school
day.
The measured hourly Leq and Lmaz are shown in the attached figure. '
There is a new housing development adjacent to the nonhwest property lines at which there were
a number of constmction activities happening throughout the day. This was the prominent noise
source during the measurements, but this activity will not occur after the school is built. Even ,
with the construction noise, the noise levels at the measured location meet the Washington State
requirements for site approval. The only exception is the Lmax measurement during the 8:00
hour, which measured at 86 dBA. This level is uncharacteristic of the site and the other levels ,
measured, and was most likely caused by an anomalous event from constmction activity or from
bird activity in close proximity to the noise monitor.
Based on the evaluation of noise levels at this site, no additional measures are required to meet
State of Washington Board of Health regulations.
Please feel free [o call if you have any questions regarding the information presented in [his
report.
Sincerely yours,
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC.
Joel D. Writer
Acoustical Consultant
EXISTING SOUND LEVELS
Meas. Location: Yelm High School
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2003
too
so
80
m 70
0
m
J 60
a
0
~ 50
40
30
20
eam m9am gam io t0am 10amm itam 1lam to l2pm 12pm to lpm lpm to 2pm 2pm io 3pm
Hourly Measurement Time
+Leq tMax
BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. FIGURE ~ Consultants in Sound and Vibration
1
1
Appendix E - Wetland Reconnaissance for New Junior High
School
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ,
1
1 K ~ =-~~.
~~ ~~s~
1 1220 EAST 4TM At
~ O[.Yt.StA, WA, 985(
Votca. (360}23b-t85
' FAx: 360 236-781
Yelm Community Schools
Erling Birkland
PO $ox 476
Yelm, WA 98597
July 15, 2003
Repoli File Number: M03-0043
Report Subject: Wetland Reconnaissance _ _ -
1 Location: The sift Ls located m 10605 SE Mill Road,
Yelm, Washington. It i3 m section 27, Township 17N, Range lE (Tax
Parcel Number: 21725140100).
' k
Dear Mr. Birkland,
' The purpose of this,letiwr report is to describe the findings of a wetland reconnaissance at the site
described above. An onsite wetlands investigation was performed oa Ju1y 2, 2003, by Charles
Hetrmauv., wetland scientist, The intent of the work was to identify and chameterize on-site
wetland wnditions. ~
To qualify as a regulated wetland, as area must meet criteria defined in the Manual For
Identifvin o and Delineative W-elands adopted by the State Department of Ecology and written
. into stale law pursuant to RCW 90.58.380 (i.e., the 1987 Army Corps of Englaeers Wetlands
Delinearion Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, and all subsaquwt Regulatory Guidance Letters),
ILnse criteria requ[re that an area must predominantly support wetland vegetation, must have
hydric lolls ,and must have wetland hydrology characteristics defined for the on site soli type
in this ease, evidence or observation of a long-0uration water table at 12 inches or less depth,
' CYvzently, the site is developed a¢d used for school grounds. This grounds has one main school
building. associated Parking areas, and PhsYBzounds, all located in the eastern portion of the site.
' The western portion ofthe site is undeveloped and dominated by mixed pasture grasses (which
aPP~r to be mowed periodically) with a few scattered trees. There is a s[ormwater facility
located in the central portion of the site that is densely vegetated with black cottonwood trees.
' No regulated wetlands were found on the entire site however, when evaluating the local surface
water elevations end the site elevations, there appears to be a possibility that groundwater maybe
page I
------ e~uU YJO V4J4 t. Upj/~
within a few feet of the surface in the lowest elevations on site (western portion), during the wet
portions of the year. This groundwater does not persist long enough to support hydrophytic
vegetation, or produce hydric soil conditions. Additional information oa the local groundwater is
provide below so that you are aware of the possibility of relatively shallow groundwater
conditions,
According to the topography obtained from the Thurston County GeoData system, overall site
relief is about 20 feet. On-site elevation ranges from a low of 348 feet located in the center of the
western portion of the property to a high of 36g feet along Mill Road is the eastern portion of the
site.
The neazest aantral bodies of water, according to the Thurston County GeoData system is Yelm
Dttoh --located about %, mile east with a surface etevadon of about 352 feet (t.e, 4 feet higher in
elevation that the lowest point ensile). Thompson Creek is located about 2/3 mile west ofthe
site with a surface elevation of about 328 feet.
The water table in this part of the county is complex and the surfaceelevations of the
surrounding creeks, may or may not reflect gmundwazer conditions on site. As staters above,
there appears to be a possibility that groundwater may be within a few feet of the surface in the
lowest elevations ensile. ~ Additional work related.to groundwater would be needed to determine
what depth the groundwater is ensile, buT this is not necessary for the determination that no
regulafed wetlands exist on site.
I hope this report provides enough information to proceed with project planning, please cal] if
you have any questions or require additional detail or clarification on any of these issues.
Thnan~k~Y~ou~,
l~ `tl^""
Pacific Rim Soll & Water, Inc.
Charles Herrmann
wetland scientist
page 2