The URL can be used to link to this page

TIA 03-28-05 001Green Village Subdivision Yelm, Washington City of Yelm Project Number: 244-1781-015 08 O1 Traffic Impact Study March 28, 2005 Prepared for: SCA Consulting Group 4200 - 6`" Ave, Suite 301 lacey, WA 98509-3485 Received Prepared by: APR 0 1 2005 Transportation Engineering Northwest TmntpOltaUOp Engineedng/Operatlom ~ Impatt $mdies • Desi~ Services ~ Tramportafion Planning/FOrecasting 16625 Redmond Way, Sui[e M, PMB 327 a Redmond, WA 98052 ~ Once/Mobile (206) 396-8286 ~ Fax (425) 398-5779 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Trarfic Impac[ Smdy Table of Contents FINDINGS &CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... ..................................................1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... ..................................................2 Project Description ................................................................................. ..................................................2 Traffic Study Approach ........................................................................... ..................................................2 Primary Data and Information Sources ................................................... ..................................................3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................ ...................................................6 Study Area ............................................................................................. ...................................................6 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ ...................................................6 Existing Intersection LOS ...................................................................... ...................................................8 Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ................................................ .................................................11 Public Transportation Services .............................................................. .................................................11 Planned Transportation Improvements .................................................. .................................................11 DETERMINATION OF IMPACT .........:........................................................ .................................................13 Trip Generation ...................................................................................... .................................................13 Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................... .................................................13 Traffic Volume Impact ............................................................................ .................................................16 Intersection LOS Analysis ..................................................................... .................................................16 Site Access Analysis ............................................................................. .................................................19 Non-Motorized Impacts .......................................................................... .................................................20 Public Transportation Impacts ............................................................... .................................................20 MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................... .................................................21 Traffic Impact Fee .................................................................................. .................................................21 Non-Motodzed Improvements ............................................................... .................................................21 Appendix A -Traffic Counts Appendix B -Intersection LOS Analysis Results Appendix C -Future Traffic Volume Estimates Transportation Engineering NortbWen j March 28, 2005 Green Village SubdiNSion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Smdy List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Project Vicinity .............................:.............................................................. ...................................4 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................... ...................................5 Figure 3. Existing Channelization and Traffic Control ................................................ ...................................7 Figure 4. Existing 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ ...................................9 Figure 5. Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................... .................................14 Figure 6. PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment .................................................................. .................................15 Figure 7. 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ .................................17 Figure 8. 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................... .................................18 Table 1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ...........................................................8 Table 2. Green Village Subdivision Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary ..............................................10 Table 3. Green Village Subdivision (52 Lots) -Trip Generation Comparisonr .........................................13 Table 4. Green Village Subdivision 2006 PM Peak Hour LOS Summary .................................................19 Transvorndon Engineering NurtnWerr jj March 28, 2005 teen Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA FINDINGS 8i CONCLUSIONS Tnffic Impact Smdy Project Proposal. The proposed development would consist of up to 52 lots of single- family homes. 'fhe site is located north of Yelm Avenue (SR-510) between Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. Access. Vehicle access to the proposed site would be provided via a new local access road through the parcel with access on both ends to Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. Trip Generation. Project buildout is estimated to generate approximately 500 daily trips, with 39 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, and 53 during the PM peak hour. Study Area Operations. All signalized intersections and movements at unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour with or without the project. This assumes the center turn lane at the Mountain View Road SE intersection on Yelm Avenue that is being constructed by the Schoo] District in 2005. Non-Motorized Impacts. Frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalks) would he provided nn the property frontages of Bumett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. Mitigation. The following is identified to mitigate the traffic impacts. 1. Traffic Impact Fee. The Green Village Subdivision development would be subject to a $39,950 traffic impact fee ($750 per PM peak hour trip X 53 trips), which is based on the 52 single-family residential loll. 2. Non-Motorized Improvcmante. Standard frontage improvements, including curb/gutter/sidewalk would be provided on the internal local plat road and all property frontages along existing Ciry streets including Bumett Road SE and Mountain Vicw Road SE. Tramporouon Engineering NorasWesr j March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision-Yelm, WA Traff¢ Impact Study INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis has been prepared for the proposed Green Village Subdivision. The analysis is based upon the City of Yelm's Traffic Scoping Response letter dated February 7, 2005 and Pazametrix's Site Traffic Distribution Memorandum dated March 3, 2005. Projeu Description Location. The proposed development would consist of up to 52 lots of either single-family or detached elderly housing. For the purposes of this analysis, a worst-case scenario of 52 lots of single-family housing was used in determining trip generation. The project site is located north of Yelm Avenue (SR-510) between Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. See Figure l Vicinity Map. Access. Vehiculaz access to the proposed site would be provided via a new local access road through the parcel with access on both ends to Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SP. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. For the purpose of this traffic impact study, 2006 was selected as the build-out year based upon anticipated completion and full occupancy of the proposed development Traffic Study Approach The report documents the evaluation of traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures for the proposed development. To evaluate the traffic impacts of the Green Village Subdivision, the following tasks were undertaken: • Described and assessed existing transportation conditions in the area; • Discussed planned transportation improvements; • Documented future without-project traffic forecasts and assumptions; • Estimated trip generatron and documented distribution of project traffic; • Evaluated intersection LOS at 3 study intersections for weekday PM peak hour conditions; • Assessed impacts to public transportation services and non-motorized transportation facilities; • Analyzed site driveway impacts; and • Tdentified mitigation measures and transportation mitigation fees. Trampornrion Engineering NordiWest 2 March 2a, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Primary Data and Information Sources Tra01c Impact Smdy • Year 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes; source: All Traffic Data Services, Inc. • Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board (TRI3), Year 2000 Edition. • City of Yelm Developmem Guidelines- July 19, 2000. • City of Yelm 2004-2009 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, adopted July 2004. • Institute of Transportation Engineers QTE) Trip Generation Manual, Th Edition, 2004. • City of Yelm Municipal Code 15.40 - Concurrency Management. Tnmportation Engineering NortliWes[ 3 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivkion - Yelm, WA Tralrrc Impact Smdy Figure I. Project Vicinity it 88th Ave -- ~ ~ a O°~Prairie V'ttta Loop I E' -~ I I ~~ Project Site I i II 3 .: i v, , A ~~ ~ ---- - d 0 0 ~I Y 1 ' ~ 9. rej I ~c¢ ~r4 z ~ o~~l. ~ , .kry _ ~' eim ' Berry Valley Rd ` 510" ~~n ~~ '9 ~ ~ ~~. .~'b%' ..~ ~~ ~) ~e ~ . j"~ ~5u ~~e h~aK'~' ry'~ y \~ o Longmire S[ ~ Q ~``"'~ i ~ H o \, ~LA~ P/3 `,~ .:. ~;, 507 S` `'I ~" i r .R. ~. 5507,. s~~ ~, 8 ,~~ (Na a scald n^ Transportation Green Village 1~91J Engineering Figure 1 Subdivision Northwest, ttc Project Vicinity Yelm, wA r,amc Imaan sr~a, Transportation Engineering North Wes[ q March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Study Figurc 2. Proposed Site Plan rs ii --- , -P I ~IyP hh i_ v W ~~u eli~j ' ~. , .I f -=~ - J - i i, ~/ i - ~ ~O _ i~.~- i i iv - >~t 1.: I ^J I I~ i - i ~I/ i;"i ~ ~ ,' ~, • -+ - -. i~~ ;~ '~ r - *', i __. ~ O ~I ~~ ~~~ x if Nat m Sok ~' r-J n^ Transportation Green Village l;9CJ Engineering Figure 2 Subdivision Northwest, LLC Proposed Site Plan Yelm, WA mxk ~mox+smei Transportation Engineering Northwest 5 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdividon - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Study EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Based upon the trip generation and trip distribution of project traffic, the following 3 intersections aze anticipated to require PM peak hour analysis based on the City's 20-trip threshold, and were thus analyzed under existing conditions (locations with existing channelization and traffic control aze shown in Figure 3): L SR 510 / Yelm Avenue / Rumett Road SE 2. SR 510 / Yelm Avenne /Mountain View Road SE 3. SR 510 / Yelm Avenue /tat Sheet The following paragraphs describe existing roadways that would be used as major routes to/from the site. Roadway chamctedstics aze described in terms of facility type, number of lanes, and postal speed limits. Yelm Avenue (SR 510) is classified as a Major Arterral with a posted speed limit of 25 mph to 35 mph within [he city limits. The roadway has one (rave] lane in each direction. A center tam lane exists on Yelm Avenue east of Clark Road. Burnett Road SE is a two-lane local access road with 20 feet of pavement for travel lanes and 4- to 8-foot grave] shoulders. North of the proposed development site, curbs, sidewalks and parking aze provided on the east side of the street. The total pavement width is 29 feet along this section. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Mountain View Road SE is a two-lane local access road with 19 feet of pavement, 2- to 6-foot gravel shoulders, and a 25 mph posted speed. 1st Street SE (SR 509) is a two-lane roadway with 11-foot travel lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and 4- to 6-foot paved shoulders along various parts of the street. The City classifies this road as a Major Arterial, and WSDOT's classification is a rural minor arterial. The speed limit in the vicinity of Yelm Avenue and the general business district of Yelm is 25 mph. Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 illustrates 2005 PM peak hour haffic volumes at the three study intersections. Based on discussions with the City of Yelm, a 4 percent annual growth rate was used to account for traffic growth in the area. Therefore, those traffic volumes not counted in the year 2005 were factored by 4 percent peaz yeaz to arrive at estimated 2005 traffic volume conditions. Transvortation Engineering Northwest 6 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact SWdy Figure 3. Existing Channclization and Traffic Control '; 88th Ave__ ~ I ~ 9i. I 1 'Prairie Vista hoop ~~, ~ __-- a ~ m _.I____-~_ / I Project Site ~ 9~ i 3 ~ i > i N, C 9 _.-__- ___ .o YI ~~ ~~ 5I0 SR 510/Yelm Ave/ ~ N Bumert Road ''~P/~ SR SIO/YNm Ave/ qOe i ~ ~ ~ ~~< ~ 5 ~ \~I \/ y y~ SR 510/Ytlm Ave/ / F a3 t ! /~ w ~ Y~ 1 ~ _.,. ~~~ ~ ~~y ~~ 1510 ~~ `` T ~ S" w~ e m'~e ~4' Sc ,aTM`" / ~/P i~ ~ x+~ . dQ„ w~P c ~ ''.~ ~` ~ o~ Longmire Sr ~ r ~ ~ ~~ _- ~ ]. ~,l .,pST. ~ -NOiq ~. ~~ A e ~ ~~ a S0~ S~ Le nd f507 ~I~ x Traffic Signal ~~~~ f I 8 s` ~ (N W to Swlel i Stop Slgn Fi re 3 Green Village Transportation ~ Subdivision Engineering Existing Channejization and Yeim, WA Northwest, ue Traffic Control Ynllk ImRM smeY Tramporration Englceering NathWest ] March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivivon-Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Smdy All Traffic Data Services, Inc. conducted weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes in January 2005 at the Yelm Avenue (SR-510) / Burnett Road SE intersection and in Mazch 2005 at the Yelm Avenue (SR-510) /Mountain View Road SE intersection. Weekday PM peak hour traffic volume data was collected in September 2003 at the intersection of Yelm Avenue (SR-510) / lst Street. Appendix A provides the detailed traffic volume sheets for each study intersection. Existing Intersection LOS Weekday PM peak hour level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the tluee study intersections. The existing channelization and traffic control at the three study intersections was illustrated in Figure 3. Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of haffic flow and degree of congestion at an intersection or roadway segment. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. Level of service is generally described by a letter scale from A to P. LOS A represents free-flow conditions, i.e_ motorists experience little or no delays, and LOS F represents forced-flow conditions. Table 1 summarizes the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intcrscetions. The methods used to calculate the levols of service aze described in the highway Capacity Manua[ (Special Repon 209, Transportation Reseazch Boazd, 2000). "Che LOS reported for signalized intersections is based on the overall average control delay (sec/veh) at the intersection. The LOS at stop- controlled intersections is based on the average control delay (sec/veh) and is rcportcd for each movement The City oC Yelm maintains a LOS ll standard. Table 1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections -Signalized Intersection Unsienalized Intersection Level of Service Dela Ran a sec Dela Ran a sec A <10 <10 B >70 to 20 >10 to 15 C >20 to 35 >15 to 25 D >35 to 55 >25 [0 35 E >55 to AO >35 to 50 F >so >so Sourec: "Highway Cepauty Manuel" , Spedal Repon 209,'Crensponation l2eaear~0oar42000 Transporraaon Engineering N«mWe<t g March 28, 2005 Green Village SubdNision - Yelm, WA TraPoc Impact Smdy Figure 4. Existing 2005 PM Peak Hour Trafllc Volumes ' 88th Ave I ~ ~__.- -_____.-~ I a I I Prairie Vista Loop ~r--~ I ~ ~ Project Site ~~ ~ i >~ I .. ~, ~I ~i 3; di 0 tS70 f >! VI ~ ni I SR 510/YNm Ave/ ' ~' ti ~' yP~ I~ 5R 510/VNm Ave/ ~ ~ w~~~, ~, .~<~"~ ~ ~~~ °ya o., ~ ~~ ,ryr~y ~ h sir SR 510/YNm AVe/ ~ A~ yt~~ ~ 202 i _____-- man ~'~ ~~/s f510~ ~ i o ~~, ~ ~, o~ ~ ~~ LP ~ ~;~_ ~I LP i ~ , o~ _Longroire St1 ~/~~ PPi~ ~ ~Oe ~_ .:, ~ Y""_''o ~~.; ~ i S0 ;. 4 e _ ~~ _ ~~ :5a~. ~~. ~~ (NM to Swle) Transportation Figure 4 Green Village Engineering Existing 2005 PM Peak Subdivision Nortbwest, uc Hour Traffic Volumes Yelm, WA n,m, impx[s•~m Trap:pprGrlpp EpeiNee~pg NorthWes[ q March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Telm, WA TrafOc Impact Smdy Intersection LOS were calculated using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board using the software program of Svnchro 6 for signalized intersections and Hiehwuv Capacity for unsignalized intersections. Existing weekday PM peak hour LOS analysis results for the three study intersections are summarized in Table 2. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 2. Green Village Subdivision Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Study Intersection LOSt Dela}~ /C' Sienalized a: 3. Yelm Avenue / l" Street SE D 42.0 0.84 Unsienalized lstoo controlled movements): 1. Yelm Avenue /Bumett Road: EB Left-Tum from Yelm Ave A 8.5 0.11 Toms from Bumett tsBy C 20.0 0.10 2. Yelm Ave /Mountain View Rd: EB Left-Tum from Yelm Ave A g.6 0.02 WB Left-)'urn from Yelm Ave A 9.8 0.08 Toms from Mountain View (NB) 8 37.0 0.61 Toms from Mountain View (SB) E 80.G 025 L LOS based nn methodologies established in [he 2000 (figPoray Coyaciy Manual. 2 nelay=average wowl delay per vehicle. 3. V/C=Volumew Capacity ratio. 4. All si als were azsumed to he full actuateJ; s IiLS were o timimd. As shown in Table 2, Gom Mountain Vicw Road SE onto Yelm Avenue the northbound side-street toms operate at LOS E and the southbound side-street turns operate a[ LOS P during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Side- street toms from Burnell Ruad SC onto Yelm Avenue ourrently operate at LOS A or LOS C during the PM peak hour. According to a standard Synchro LOS model, the Yelm Avenue/ht Street intersection is currently operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. However, it should be noted that the City has indicated this intersection currently operates at LOS P during the PM peak hour. Extensive queues and delays, particularly along Yelm Avenue, have been observed throughout the afternoon peak period between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. Starting at the high school and extending through town, multiple City intersections and private driveways exist along Yelm Avenue, and generate fuming traffic that disrupts flow along the mainline. This interference slows traffic and caused additional mainline delay and a failing operation at the intersection of Yelm Avenue and la` Street. Transportation Engineering NarthWert 10 March 28, 2005 Green VilUge Subdivhion -Yelm, WA TraRc Impact Study Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities Adjacent to the property site, 4- to 8-foot paved shoulders exist on both sides of Bumett Road SE and 2- to 6-foot gravel shoulders are provided on both sides of Mountain View Road SE. North of the proposed development site, sidewalks are provided on the east side of the street on Bumett Road SE. Public Transportation Services The nearest transit stops are located on Yelm Avenue at its intersection with Bumett Road SE (approximately 600 feet from the project site) and Mountain View Road SE (about 1,700 feet from the project site) serving Intercity Transit Route #94. This transit route provides service between Yelm and Olympia with stops every hour from about 5:45 a.m. until 8:15 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday service every 2 hours between about 8:25 a.m. to 6:55 p.m. Transit Route #93 provides service every 45 minutes within the City of Yelm on Saturdays only from 8:30 a.m. until 6:45 p.m. The nearest stop for Route #93 is located on Yelm Avenue a[ Cullens Street (approximately'/,-mile from the project site). Planned Transportation Improvements There aze several planned transportation improvement projects identified in the project vicinity for the six-year period between 2004 and 2009. The planned improvements were identified in the City of Yelm's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). The projects that would improve intersections and/or roadways within the study area are identified below, although few are expected to be complete by 2006. Y-3 Corridor (SR-510 to SR-507) -called Yclm Loop Segment 1. This project is part of a larger WSDOT road improvement to provide a direct link from SR-510 north (neat Mud Run) to SR-507 (near Cattlemans). The City's portion of this project involves engineering design assistance and right-of-way acquisition Funding for constmcfion has not yet been identified by the Washington State Legislature, and no timeline for eonstmction has been established. The project is currently in the design phase. Y-2 Corridor (Five Corners Connector) -called Yelm Loop Segment 2. This corridor is planned to follow Segment 1 with a new east-west arterial road connection on the south side of the City between ht Street and Yelm Avenue. This project is in the initial planning phase by WSDOT, and the City is involved to provide engineering design assistance and right-of--way acquisition. Transpormtion Engineering Northwest I I March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivhion - Yelm, WA Traffic Imlrtd Study Yelm Avenue / Killion Road Intersection. A new signalized intersection would be provided on Yelm Avenue at Killion Road to provide improved access on Killion Road north, and a new connection to the south. This project is part of the lazger Y-3 Corridor Plan to have a new roadway extend from Yelm Avenue at Killion Road [o the southwest to provide access to a residential development. Mosman Street / 1" Street (SR 50'1) Intersection Realignment. This City project would re-align both Mosman approaches to 1 s` Street to create a single intersection. Work on [his intersection improvement also includes repairing shoulders, paving, drainage, partial walks, and lighting. This project is planned to be complete in 2006. Yelm Avenue West Improvements (Solberg St to 1" Street). This project includes widening Yelm Avenue to meet the City's Urban Arterial standards. These standards would include two 11-foot travel lanes, 8-foot sidewalks on both sides, a 10-foot median planting strip, and a 35 mph posted speed limit. A timeline for funding or conslmetion has not yet been identified. Solberg Stroet /Mosman Street Improvements (SR-510 to SR-507). This project would widen Mosman and Solberg Streets to City Neighborhood Collector design standazds. A timeline for funding or construction has not ye[ been identified. School District Improvements on Yclm Ave. The school district will be widening Yelm Ave from just east of Burnett Road SE to west of Moumain View Road SE to provide a center two-way left-turn lane. This center tum lane would be included at the intersection of Mountain Vicw Road SE. The project is scheduled to be constructed in 2005, and is assumed to be in place prior to the 2006 school year opening. Transaorration Engineering Northwest 12 March 28, 2(105 Green Village Subdivuion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Study DETERMINATION OF IMPACT Trip Generation The trip generation for the proposed development, shown in Table 3, was based on fitted curve equations documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trin Generation Manual, 7t" Edition. Trip generation for both single family (LUC 210) and detached senior adult housing (LUC 251) were considered. Based upon the trip generation results summarized below, the single family residential land use was used in determining trip generation of the proposed development since it would represent aworst-case scenario. Thus, during a typical weekday, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 500 daily trips, 39 AM peak hour trips, and 53 PM peak hour trips. Table 3. Green ~Ilage Subdivision (52 Lotsi- Trip Generation Comparisons AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Land Use ~ LUC 'Total In Ou[ Total In Ou[ Trips Detached Senior Housing 251 16 4 12 31 20 11 310 Single Family Residential 210 39 IO 29 53 33 20 500 1. Tnp rates basal nn titled curve equations in rI'G Trip Generazion Manual,'! F?ditioq 2W3. 2 Senior Adalt Housivg-Detached=ITC LU No.2S1 and Single Family RCSidcotial=rrE IAJ NO.210. Trip Distribution and Assignment Using standard engineering practices and guidelines, new vehicle hips generated by the proposed Green Village subdivision were distributed and assigned to the surrounding street systcna based on the City's traffic model. As shown in Figure 5, project trip distribution was assumed to follow these patterns from the proposed site: • 45 percent to the northwest via Yelm Avenue (SR 510). • 55 percent to the southeast via SR S07 on Yelm Avenue and 1 t' Street. • 10 percem each local off of Yelm Avenue (SK 510). The assignment of project-generated trips during the PM peak hour is shown in Figure 6 based on these distribution patterns. Transporradon Engineering Northwest I3 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA TrafFlc Impact Study Figure 5. Project Trip Distribution ' 88th Ave ~,~ I __ _ ~~Prairie Vista Loop ii E ~ i _~~- f Project Site v i s•. ' _. __ c ~ ~I ~ 'o L510~ Y ° _~ o ~ u~ ~ ~ zl ~i y tY ' ~I, ~q`P I u ___~ ~/ ~A I ~ ~ j ~~ ,CO I ~ ~ ~ c~'~ aro '''.pd I ~ yo ~ 4 Berry Val - ~ ley Rd 3510 S~ / J I l ~ ~ S, ~, I ~ /~ ~~ ~ ~D.9~ ,, . , ~ ~' ~ni ~ ~ ~ Sv~ ~4 _ a Lonl7nire 5[ % \ ~~ ~ \ %~ /\~ ae ,•. \ ... S~ ~¢ ~ ~ e ~ P ~~ I~~tos~~ei n^ Transportation J Figure 5 Green Village Subdivision 19i~ Engineering Northwest, ttc Project Trip Distribution Yelm, WA Tn(K ImOatt kuay Transportation Engineering Northwest i 4 Marrh 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivhion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Swdy Figure 6. PM Peak hour Trip Assignment i .88th Ave I ~ ~~ _~ I °O Prairie Vista Loop '~ I ~ -_~ ~ i I -r-- ~._~ I I I Project Site ~ ', ~~ ~ xil __ ___ -I ~~ ~ _ sto f r "~ ~~ ~_ SR 510/YNm AVe/ ~ ' yP/~ ~ SR 510/YAm Ave/ IR i Nr, ~ ~ ~ ~'. ~~ R r \. ~ i 5/ L ~ a h SR 510/TNm Aw/ ¢~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 11I0 ~~~ ~~ ~ye ~ ~~~4 -___~__ __.,, i.~.., ~P d y ~ Y (e / y. 6 b~P ~5~ P o~ Lon®nire Sr q[ ~ Y~ ~ 2L, ~> 4 .~:. ~ i' Pt 507 r ~- ra c- vi 'S07, J ~~ ~~ ~~ (Nato swkl n^ Transportation Green Village Ug~:J Engineering figure 6 Subdivision Northwest, I.I.c PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Yelm, wA ,mRR ~mm~, smnr TransporhGon Engweering N«thWest J 5 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivhion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Swdy Traffic Volume Impact Future traffic volumes with and without the development were estimated for PM peak hour conditions in the year 2006. Future traffic volumes at the study intersections were developed based on existing peak hour traffic counts increased to account for background growth. Based on discussions with the City of Yelm, a 4 peroent annual growth rate was used to account for traffic growth in the azea. In addition to the background growth rate, the pipeline project for known as Yelm Terra Plat (97 single-family residential homes) was added to existing conditions to determine 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. The weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes for year 2006 are shown on Figure 7. Adding the PM peak hour project trips (shown in Figure 6) to the future wi[hout- projeet traffic volumes (Figure 7), results in future traffic volumes with the project, as shown in Figure 8. Future traffic volume estimates in the year 2006 are provided in Appendix C. Intersection LOS Analysis Level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted for weekday YM peak hour conditions with and without the development in year 2006 at the three study intersections. Futme improvements listed in the City's Six Year TIP were not assumed in the 2006 analysis. The weekday PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis results for [hc three study intersections are summarized in Table 4. The table is set-up to illustrate the LOS results for future conditions without and with the proposed development. The table also separates the LOS resnlts for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized LOS Results. As shown in 'fable 4 and noted earlier in the Existing Conditions section of this report, the City has indicated the intersection of lit Street SE/Yelm Avenue cnrreutly operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour due primarily to interference of multiple side-street intersections and driveways along Yelm Avenue. The traffic analysis using traditional traffic model software indicates that this intersection would operate at LOS D with and without the project. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets aze provided in Appendix A. Trawporta4on Engineering Northwest 16 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Smdy Pigmc 7. 2006 Without Project PM Peak I Lour Traffic Volumes ! 88th Ave I , I--- - -__ I i j I ! I ~IPrairie Vista Loop ~ ~ E ~.__ i m Project Site ~~ I > x~ ~ dl s510`i YI r tJ'; ~I ~.e I ~ rn°~ SR 510/Yelm AW roc yP/~ S0. 510/YNm Ave/ ~ v ~~DP ~ " R~~z i ~ ~ ~~~~°~ °~o~y ~ ~ ~ ~.. s% ~ r. '. 5. a°c y hz saz • S0. Sle/Yelm Ave/ ~'~ ~ ~ ~a ~Yq ~~C~/~ ~ ~yv, ~1I(/1• Yn'~ b ~ ~ ~ Oy 4 • b / } / •._ ~i \b \ ~ 1 $ I o \ ~ ¢ `Y - _ r ,~ ,, _..5 1 D'~~ r ?~ ~ ~~~ ~ i y ~_ o'~ Longmire St ~ ~ ~~ i - __ Q. //- p /~ ~ qe .e iy507~ ~ / ~ / e _.~ 50~. (NM b Swle) n^ Transportation Figure 7 Green Village IP,:J Engineering 2006 Without Project Subdivision Northwest, uc pM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Yelm, wA Traflk Impact SWOY Tramporndon Engineering Northwest 17 March 28, 2005 Green Village Subdivkion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Smdy Transportation Engineering NosthWest ] g March 28, 2005 Figure 8. 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Green Village Subdivision - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Smdy Table 4. Green V illage Subdivision 2006 I'M Pea k Hour LOS Summary Without-Project WitlrProjec[ Smdy Interseotioa LOST Dela)~ V/C' LOS Delay V/C 3. 1 °' Street SE / Yelm Ave a D 49. I 0.90 D 50.5 0.90 Unsignalized: 1. Yelm Avenue / Burnett Road: EB Left-Turn from Yelm Ave A 8.6 0.02 A 8.6 0.03 Twns from Burnett (SB) C 21.3 0.11 C 22.2 O.I7 2. Yelm Ave / Mowtain View Rd: EB Left-Tam from Velm Ave A 8.6 0.01 A 8.7 0.01 WB Left-Turn from Yelm Ave B (0.3 0.09 B 10.3 0.09 Turns from Mountain View (NB) D 25.3 0.46 D 25.6 0.46 Turns from Mowtain View (SB) D 29.8 0.13 D 34.6 0.22 i. LOS analyses arc based on methodologies establisheJ in Ne 1000 Nighway Capacity Manual. z. oelay =average conwl aelar per eenide. s. v/c=vmnmemcapaciry mbv. 4. Signal was assumed to be rally aemateQ split wem optimized under each swnario. As shown in Table 4, all stop-controlled movements at the two study intersections on Yelm Avenue are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour with or without the project. A center tam lane is assumed to be constructed in 2005 at the Mountain View Road SE intersection, which is work being completed by the school district. Site Access Analysis Vehicle access to/from the proposed site would be provided via a new local access road through the entire parcel with access on both ends to Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. The proposed internal roadway would provide adequate two-way circulation and fire and emergency vehicle access to both Burnett Road SL' and Mountain Vicw Road SE. The proposed internal roadway length exceeds the City's 660 foot block spacing requirement. In order hI minimize the appearance of a long roadway without internal intersections, the horizontal alignment of the roadway would meander through the development. The project development is also proposing to modify the City's Local Access Residettliad roadway section to provide for pazking only on one side of the roadway with a 7.Y raised median between the lanes. The on- street pazking is proposed [o switch sides of the roadway at the middle of the development. The propose median islands along with the meandering roadway is also suggested to help provide for some measure of tratT3c calming. Transporndon Enginming Northwest 1q March 28, zoos Green Village Subdivition - Yelm, WA Non-Motorized Impacts Traffic Impact Smdy Sidewalks are proposed on one side of all the new local access road within the proposed development to accommodate pedesVians and separate them from motorists in the travel lanes. Frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalks) would be provided on all property frontages of f3umett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. Public Transportation Impacts Existing transit services aze provided on Yelm Avenue with stops at Burnett Road SE (approximately 600 feet from the project site) and Mountain View Road SE (about 1,700 fee[ from the project site), which are within reasonable walking distance to the project site. Therefore, no public ttansporlation service improvements aze anticipated as part o£this development. Trampatafion Engineering Northwest 20 March 26, 2005 Green Village Subdiv6ion - Yelm, WA Traffic Impact Swdy MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are identified to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Green Village Subdivision development. Traffic Impact Fee The City of Yelm requires payment of a traffic impact fee based on the number of PM peak hour trips generated by new development The City has adopted a Transportation Facilities Charge (TFC) of $750.00 per PM peak hour trip to pay for projects on [he City's six-year TIP. The Green Village Subdivision development, with 52 single-family residential lots, would be subject to a $39,750 traffic impact fee based upon 53 PM peak hour trips. Non-Motorized Improvements Standazd frontage improvements, including curb/gutter/sidewalk would be provided on the internal local plat road and all property frontages along existing City streets including Burnett Road SE and Mountain View Road SE. Transporntion En¢ineering NortnWest 21 March 28, 2005 Appendix A Traffic Counts All Traffic Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 File Name :Burnett&SR510 Site Code :00000000 Start Date :1/12/2005 Page No : 1 Soulhbountl ~ Wesibountl N6rthbountl Eas~bountl __ - _ , _. lTl Rq ~ ApP ]`PP. Thrl R9 PPP. TIrt Rig pyP. E d Intlu ~ InL Slafl Tme Lell a hl RM TaWI L fl u ~ M 1 RM1I TMaI Lefl u M RM Toial Lefl HV T WI u M TWaI ToUI Tola1 - Peeve -ia io 1a io - to 1o ro lo ----TU~ 10 1a la _ 1a 10 10 1a v3WPM o 0 0 6 o b m 3 lz 13d o 0 o a -6 0 121 o s m I6 zdsl z63 N 15 PM 6 0 d 0 10 0 II6 3 ]1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10d 0 6 1R5 < 2W z00 0330 PM 3 0 ] 0 5 0 100 1 0 IG9 0 0 0 0 0 p 162 0 6 16! 1] P]0 ]85 N iS PM d 0 O 1 1 0 111 3 5 111 0 0 0 0 0 2 19] _0 12 199 10 _]_1]_ 335 ToYI 13 0 6 1 19 j 0 d68 10 3< - di0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Wd -- 0 32 fag 6] i1W 11]3 W WPM 3 6 9 0 5 0 113 ) 1 131 0 0 0 0 0 3 td8 0 1 152 5 2I0 003 W SpM 3 0 < ) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Id8 0 ] 150 0 261 ZIO WbPM 3 0 5 0 0 0 11] 5 1 @3 0 0 0 0 0 3 180 0 fi I]I bl 3W WdS PM 1__ 0 0 0 1~ 0 133 5 ] 13) __0_ 0 0 0 0 9 19] 0 5 2W 3 _33d 316 mu( la la 56. 4 - ]d iiai 0 6 0 1 0 h 0 0 0 I6 W3 0 z3 8]0 33 OSWPM ] 0 0 0 ] 0 f0 ) 3 ] 0515 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 119 d d 123 0 0 0 0_ _ _ _ 05 <S PM_-lI- 0 O 0 31 0 dO~"_1. 0 ]6~ 0 0 -4-0 -01 1 1W 0 id ]~-I9 ~ ~1 1] 0 0 ]d8 1195 1216 01enC TOIaI 3] 0 21 1 6 0 135 d6 51 13]J 0 0 0 0 29 205 0 66 Ndd 123 3415 3598 PPpm6% 638 00 363 00 965 35 00 00 00 1< 906 00 I~ oN% 11 OO e6 1]'., 80 36.1 1d 3 a 60 00 O6 560 60 5661 3d 96.8 All Traffc Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 BURNETT SR 510 BURNETT _ SIaM1~Lett~ Southbound ~ Rgm i T MI Lell', Wes~bountl Tliru Rgm ~ ~ oml Lell~ NaM1 bounc Thrv LRigM11 kH Fmm 03 CO PMl 0595 PM-Peak l INi _ InttrtxLOn OILS PM Vdume ] 16 0 <4B 21 I89 0 0 Peunl Sfi] 00 09B 00 95.5 OS 0 00 p,0 1 o a 1 a 1as s 19 0 0 Peek Fxla Wph lnt M 0:W Wy6 PM 3<503 PM ] Vdume 0 0 0 @ 5 19 0 0 0 PeakFMm p.5]I 09f3 File Name :Burnett&SR510 Site Code :00000000 Start Date :1/12/2005 Page No : 2 Lefl Thm Ri8h1 3I Tol& 1_ _TOtal~ 1e PO s ]B6 191 z.g 9BO a o ip6 33e 0951 0 Of_L59M 19] 0 ]~ 0951 j Oul In Tod ]1 1B 0 17.._._0 RIg111 Tllrv L¢fl {~ 1 ~ ~o NoM ~-n ~ L ~ vlzrzao5aiasob aM G ~~ i ~- a L € ~ a '/I&RC055:b[O PM 2& im r p,. 1 Jrc 1 I~UnshMeE _ ~~ ' y J .. I LIE L, ~ IF i LeR ili Right L~ 0 0 O O r i I _ dI Oul In Tod All Traffic Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 File Name : MountainVew8lYelm Site Code :00000000 Start Date :3/8/2005 Page No : 1 Soudtbountl Westbound Nodhbountl Eastbauntl _ Slat time Lefl 1Trv RiBfl HV ~'; Lefl ;Thrv a9~ HVi t~Oi Leff llw Rig 1 HV ~ To a~ LeR i Thrv R~fl ~ HV OLOO PY 1 0 0 0 4 W 15 PM 0 I 1 z W.30 PM 3 0 I 8 d d 0.5 PM 1 0 3 - Total 9 0 5 1 H 93.90 PM 3 4 1 9 d p5Y5 pM 3 0 9 9 3 w:3o PM 3 4 z a os:4TOM 2 9 4 6 _ e n 9 ] o r Gnlq iaUl 39 9 12 I 32 Pp{M% 09 00 3)5 Tolal% 9: 04 1 1 5 idb 5 2 tE ] 9 9 0 16 z 166 1 ] PI 12s 3 3 149 2 0 R I A 0 20] J ] 311 1> 134 3 1d 15i 5 0 38 2 41 4 196 5 B 305 IB 113 4 0 6 0 29 6 2 212 8 4 22] 50 - 098 - 15 . 33 353 20- 0 B5 9 1 8 ]93 13 z6 61d 2 6 1461 0 3] 3 5 1i4 14 II) 5 145'. 3] z 1 6 2 6 109 10] ] 1 II4 j 3 ~ 10 0 14 ~ 3 24] J 3 35z z8 1d5 2 3 P6 1 _ 0 . _- V 0 - 10 - 1 190 - ] 5 180 - ss Sn a 15 5811. u 1 m o 1W e ]e~ u z1 P3d 115 iW3 80 Je 1154 d5 1 1W 9 2 16 19d 20 <] 1610 100 BL4 26 ~ 212 OS tB3 10 9Z3 P 3B 8]5 10 3B.3 15 80 55 Os 522 09 536 8 92] 3]5 12 35] 3]9 2d dw ne 1d 393 3 58 H9] is% 341 3R 335 3]0 1d 395 399 e 39a 49s 35 1519 1565 95 3016 3111 31 f~ 9 All Traffic Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 File Name : MountainView&Yelm Site Code :00000000 Start Date :3/8/2005 Page No : 2 SlatlTmx ' J LM Tflm ~ Rlgpl ~ i Tgq ~~ Lefl Tflm Right ~p Tdal I Lefl Thm R~gM L~~ ~" To1al LeX 1Tm RBfl1 ---- _. ~- Inl Total Total Hcur Fmm OG -.UO PM to G5:45 PM _ -Peak 1 q 1 __ _ _ _ _ _ Inlenectim w 15 PM C N 5] SM 1z 5131 P 0 1W 1] Z 9 ]93 3 81)i 1531 Pe1un1 9.1 00 I 9.8 86.8 E.1 . P1J 00 ]8] 1.1 9].I 18 06:30 VOlunie 3 0 1 6 1] IL ] 1N 1 5 0 39 d1 '~~ < 198 5 R65i iM Pee0. Fecld , l 0.80 Hipfl lnL 06'.30 PM d:39 FM I PM w a WNS PM vmumo 3 0 1 6 v Ix 3 u6 s o x 61 z zzz 3 zn r Paax Faso. 9e]s: 0930; on6 peml an in rda i [_gt C ta. '~J ~ i g e 1 ~ _ Rgn irvq peg ' s _ ~P r~ o. ~o v~ to `O ~ NaN r sag op PM SIN O ~~ p 1 lle_sNfl N_ __ J i ~u ,'iy ,~ ~ I Lefl lNU Right ~R~ ~ ~ n ~ 1a) 19g ` an In Ye1a Appendix B Intersection LOS Analysis Results 2005 Existing HC52000: Onsignalized Inte rsecC ions Release 9.id STOP CONTAOI. SUMMARY Analyst: JGT Agency/CO.: TENW Date Performed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: SR 51.0/Yelm Ave/BU rn ett Ad Jurisdiction: City of Ye lm Units: N. ~. Customary Analysis Year: 2005 Existing Project ID: Burnett Commem ial Park EasC/West St[eeb SR 510/Ye lm Ave North/South Street: Burnett Road Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrsl: 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad]us[me nts Major Strcct: Approach Eastbound West bound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 36 "188 488 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 788 9~9 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 - -- - -- Median Typc/S m rage ^ndi vi ded / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Conf igvra[ion LT TR Ops tre am Signal? No No M nor Stror t: Approach Northbound Southbomd Mo vemenL 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T a I L T a Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly E'low Rate, HFR 9 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Fercent Grade (8) 0 0 Flared App m ach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 0 Con £igurati on 4R Do lay, Ounua Length, and Level of Service Approach f.ti WH Northbound Southbound Movement 1 9 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 36 8 C (m7 (vph) 1052 248 v/c 0.03 0.03 958 queue length 0.11 0.10 ConT rol Delay 0.5 20.0 LOS A C Approach Dclay 20.0 Approach Los C ^C52000: Ons ignalized Intersections Release 4.1d Analyst STOP CONTROL, SUMMARY Agency/CO.< TENW Ua to Pe xformed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: Yelm Ave at Monntain View Ju ri stlict ion: City of Yelm Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: 2005 Existing Project ID: #2992 - Green Village Subdivision East/West Street: SR 510/Yelm Ave North/South Street: Mountain View Road Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Atljustmen ts Major Street Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 9 5 6 L T R L T N Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1. 00 1.00 L 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 989 20 68 536 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type /$CO rage Un divided / RT Cha nnelized? Lanes 0 1 U 0 1 0 Configu ra tion LTR LTR Opstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 9 S 9 I 10 11 12 i. T R ~ L 1' R Volume 20 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Nate, HER 20 Percent Heavy Veh icles 4 Percent Grade (8) Flared Approach: Exists? /Storage Lanes 0 Configu ra [ion Approach Movement Lane Config 0 194 12 0 9 1.00 L. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 199 12 0 9 9 4 3 3 3 0 0 No / No 1 0 0 1 0 LTR 1,TN .lay, Queue Length, and Level of Service E'.F3 WR Northbountl Southbound 1 9 I~ 0 9 I 10 11 12 LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 16 68 164 16 C(m) (vph) 1016 816 2]0 63 v/c 0.02 0.08 0.61 0.25 95& queue length 0.05 0. 2~! 3.69 0.R9 Control Delay 8.6 9.8 37.0 80.6 LOS A A E E APProach Delay 39.0 80.6 Approach LOS E F 1st at Yelm 2005 Existing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Yelm Ave (5R-510) & 1st St SE 3/28/2005 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane configurations 1 1 1 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 1 b 0 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane width 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 12 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Elt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 5atd. Flow (p rot) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1832 1736 1636 1728 1596 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1832 1736 1636 1728 1596 volume (vph) 112 544 44 208 512 24 154 103 237 62 72 111 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flaw (vph) 118 573 46 221 545 26 175 117 269 67 78 121 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 573 46 221 571 0 175 386 0 67 199 0 Neavy vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 29.3 29.3 11.7 35.0 10.4 22.9 3.0 15.5 Eftettive Green, g (s) 7.0 30.3 30.3 12.7 36.0 11.4 23.9 4.0 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.41 0.13 0.28 0.05 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 S.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 3 0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 650 534 256 759 228 450 80 303 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.31 c0.13 0.31 c0.10 c0.24 0.04 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.88 0.09 0.86 0.75 0.77 0.86 0.84 0.66 Uniform Delay, dl 39.3 26.6 19.0 36.3 21.7 36.5 Page 1 1st at yelm 2005 Existing 29.9 41.1 32.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.5 13.3 0.1 24 .6 4.Z 14.3 14.9 50.1 5.1 Delay (s) 69.6 39.9 19.1 60 .9 25.9 50.8 44.8 91.2 37.6 Level of SerViCe E D B E C D D F D Approach Delay (s) 43.4 35.6 46.6 51.1 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average COnVOI Delay 42 .4 HCM Lev el of SerViCe D HCM Vol Ume to CdpdClty rdtl0 0. 84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86 .9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Green Village Subdivision 3/11/2005 2005 Exist ing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 0 Page 2 2006 Without-Project HC62000: ^nsignal ized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL Analyst Agenry/CO.: TENW Date Performed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: SR 510/Yn1m Ave/BUrnett Rd Surisdiction: City of Yelm Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2006 Without Project Project ID: Burnett Commercial Park East/West Btree t: SR 510/Yelm Ave North/South 3tr eet: Burnett Road Inte rsectlon Orien to tlon: GW Study per iod (h rs)_ 025 Vehicle Volumes and Adj ustments __ _ Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 S 6 L T H 1. T R volume 19 820 9]1 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 863 518 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 U Configuration VC TR Upstream Signal? No No M' r St rc t Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 0 9 I 10 11 12 L T R L T R Peak Hour F'a cto r, PHf 0.5"1 0.5"1 Hontly Flow Rate, HFR 15 12 eercent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (a) 0 0 Flared Approach: Ex15ts?/Sto ra 9e / No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR De1a y, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WH Northbound Southbound Movement 1 9 I I 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Confiq 1,T LR v (vph) 1/ 29 C(m) (vph) 1023 298 v/c 0.02 0.11 958 queue length 0.05 0.36 Control Delay 8.6 21..3 LOS A C Approach Delay 21.3 Approach LOS C HC52000: ^ns ignalized Inte rsectio ns Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SDMM Analyst Agency/CO.: TENW Date Performed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: Ye lm Ave at Mountain View Jurisdiction: City of Ye lm Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: 2006 Without Project Project ID: $2942 - Green Village Subdivision East/West Street: SR 510/Yelm Ave North/South Street: Mountain View Road Intersection Orientation: BW Study period (h rs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach F.a stbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 19 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 9 899 19 61 530 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0. 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 888 20 69 557 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type/Storage TWI,9'I. / 9 RT Channeli zed? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Opst ream Signal? No No Minor SLreetL Approach Northbou nd Southbou nd Movement "] 8 9 I 10 11 12 L i R L T R Volume 35 0 106 16 0 6 Peak Hour F'a cto r, PH N' 0.95 0.95 0.95 0. 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 111 16 0 6 Pe menL heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 3 3 3 Percent Grade (tl 0 0 Flared Approach: taxis is ?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len gth, and Level of S ervice App xo ach BB WB No rthbound Sou thbountl Movement 1 4 1 7 fl 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Confiq L L LTR LTR v (vphJ 9 69 ]47 22 C(m) (vph) 99-] 796 321 16"1 v/c 0.01 0.09 0.96 0.13 958 queue length 0.03 0.28 2.29 0.94 Control Delay 8.6 1.0.3 25.3 29.8 Los A B B n Approach Delay 25.3 29.8 Approach LOS D 0 1st at velm 2006 Baseline HcM signalized intersection capacity Analysis 3: Yelm Ave (SR-510) & 1st St SE 3/28/2005 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBft NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane configurations 1 1 1 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane width 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 12 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 said. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1828 1736 1634 1728 1598 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1828 1736 1634 1728 1598 Volume (vph) 116 566 46 219 532 34 160 107 256 67 77 115 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 596 48 233 566 36 182 122 291 73 84 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cane Group Flow (vph) ~22 596 48 233 602 0 182 413 0 73 209 0 Heavy vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 29.1 29.1 12.1 35.1 9.1 23.1 3.1 17.1 effective Green, g (s) 7.1 30.1 30.1 13.1 36.1 10.1 24.1 4.1 18.1 actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.41 0.12 0.28 0.05 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 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) 144 642 527 263 755 201 451 81 331 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.32 c0.13 0.33 c0.10 c0.25 0.04 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.93 0.09 0.89 0.80 0.91 0.92 0.90 0.63 uniform Uelay, dl 39.6 27.6 19.4 36.4 22.4 38.2 Page 1 1st at yelm 2006 Baseline 30.7 41.4 31.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 34.4 19 .7 0.1 27 .8 5.9 38.0 23.1 67.6 3.9 Delay (s) 74.0 47 .3 19.5 64 ,3 28.3 76.2 53.7 109.0 35.5 Level of service E D e E c E D F D Approach Delay (s) 49 .8 38.3 60.6 54.5 ApprodCh LOS D D E D Intersection summary HCM Average Control Delay 49 .1 HCm Level of Service D HCM Volume t0 CdpdCl ty rdtl0 0. 90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87 .4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Criti Cal Lane Group Green Village Subdivision 3/11/2005 2006 Basel ine PM Peak Synchro 6 Re port Transportation Engineering Northwest Pa ge 0 Page 2 2006 With-Project HCS2000: Onsi gnalized Intersectiens Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/CO.: TENW Date Performed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: SR 510/Yelm Ave/BU rnett Rd Su risdiction: City of Yelm Units: ^. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2006 With Project Preject ID: Ru [nett Commercial Park East/West Street: SR 510/Ye1m Ave North/South Street: Burnett Road Intersection orientation: Ew Stud y pe riod )hrs ): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustm ents Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westboun d Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume ~ 30 822 49ft 29 Peak-Hove Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 865 519 26 Pe mevL Heavy vehictes 3 -- -- -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR ^pstre am Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbou nd Movement 9 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R ~ L T R Vclume 10 16 Peak Hoar Factor, PHF 0. 59 O. S'I Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1~1 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (k) 0 U Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR De 1a y, pueue Length, and Level. of S ervice Approach EB WB Northbound Sou thbound Movement 1 9 I -~ 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lave Con fig LT I I I,R v (vph) 31 93 C)m) (vph) ]019 2S2 v/c 0.03 0.t9 95& queue length 0.09 0.60 Control Delay 8.6 22.2 LOS A C Approach Delay 22.2 App mach LOS C HC52000: Onsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co.c TENW Date Pero rmed: 3/11/2005 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Intersection: Ye1m Ave a[ Mountain View Jurisdiction: City of Yelm Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year; 2006 With Project Project ID: #2992 - Green Village Subdivision East/West Street: SR 510/Ye1m Ave North/South Street: Mountain View Ro ed Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (h rs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 I. T R ~ L T R volume 11 845 19 6t 532 30 Peak-Hour N'a ctoq PHE 0. 95 0.95 0.95 0. 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 889 20 69 560 31 Pe sent Heavy Vehicles 3 - -- 3 -- -- Median Type/Storage 'CW I;PL / 9 RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Con£i gnration L TR I. TR Opst[e am Signal? No No Minor SLreetL Approach No rthbound Southbountl Movement 7 8 9 I 10 It 12 L T R L T R - volume 35 0 106 26 0 __. _... 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0. 95 0.95 0.95 0. 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Nlow Rate, EFR 36 0 lll 27 0 9 Percent Heavy vehicles 9 9 4 3 3 3 Pesent Grade ($) 0 0 Rlaced Approach: Exists?/Stor age No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR L'PR De 1a y, queue Length, and Level of Scrvi.ce Approach Movement Lane Conf ig - -- EB 1 L WB 4 I L Northbound ? 0 9 LTR Sou[hbound ~ 10 11 12 LTR v (vphl 11 69 19"1 39 C(m) (vph) 980 ]45 319 15S v/c 0.01 0.09 0.96 022 958 queue length 0.03 0.28 2.31 0.80 Control Delay 8.7 ]0.3 25.6 39.6 Eos A e n o App mach Delay 25.6 39.6 Approach LOS D p 1st at velm 2006 Project HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: velm Ave (SR-610) & 1St St SE 3/28/2006 MOVement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane configurations 1 1 1 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane width 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 12 Toial Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Ldne Uii 1. FdC20r 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 0.89 1.00 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Batd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1828 1736 1634 1728 1698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1531 1752 1828 1736 1634 1728 1698 volume (vph) 116 674 48 219 645 34 163 107 256 67 77 115 Peak-hour factor, PRF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad7~. Flow (vph) 122 604 51 233 580 36 185 122 291 73 84 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flaw (vph) 122 604 51 233 616 0 186 413 0 73 209 0 Heavy vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% L°6 1% 1% Turn Type PI'Ot Perm Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 29.2 29.2 12.1 35.3 9.1 23.2 3.1 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 30.2 30.2 13.1 36.3 10.1 24.2 4.1 18.2 Actuated g/c Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.41 0.12 0.28 O.OS 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 s.0 s.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 s.0 5.0 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) 141 642 528 262 767 200 461 81 332 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.32 c0.13 0.34 ro.11 ~o,2s o.oa o. li v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.94 0.10 0.89 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.63 uniform Delay, dl 39.8 27.8 19.5 36.6 22.7 38.4 Page 1 1st at velm 2006 Project 30.7 41.5 31.6 Progression Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 incremental Delay, d2 38 .8 22 .0 0.1 28 .4 6.7 42.7 23.1 67.6 3.7 Delay (s) 78 .6 49 .9 19.5 64 .9 29.4 81.1 53.8 109.1 35.3 Level of Service E D e E C F D F D Approach Delay (s) 52 .4 39.1 62.2 54.4 Approach LDS D D E D intersection summary NcM Average control Delay 50 .5 NCM Level of service D HCM volume to capacity ratio 0. 90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87 .6 sum of lost time (s) 12 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilizat ion 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Green village Subdivision 3/11/2005 2006 with Project PM Peak 5ynchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 0 Page 2 Appendix C Future Traffic Volume Estimates F 3RD S^2 Qe :o m°^ _ Wrc:~ mR m„ ~KU' ~K w"s u~ x E ~° a ~Erv~ O cYY~ ~ fan a' a s ~ g[ i 8 m .9 "~'m ~ I S 6 A„~ i ff f ~: ~ u ~ R ~ F 3 ~a"° ~ =;~ m R 6 . C ~ c~ o S e' ~ ~ ~ o ~ a i s s o S " „ s € ~ g € 's ~ 4 ~w S .o § ~ .s .:s .A xo~xo~ ~ g 5 ~ ~ 's ~ . e s ~ ~ - ~ a ~ ~ ~3 ~ s o ~ ~ € as a a 5 °. a _ n~ _ y t ~ e K ~ ee_ ~ _ _ 5~°d_ ` a o s a o 0 ~ ~n ~ e a f o o o ff ~ R . S m e e B ~ e1 f. 8 ~Po ~ o 4 $ ~ r i o 6 ~ 0 0 a ~ o S . $ ~ A_ % 0 0 { rveo F } ~ a _„ ~ na p E ~ ono ' s ~ °s ~ ~s' ~ e x ` ~ o ~ 6 e ~~ m. 3~ n ~ .,. Be a. ~~ -g aa a. ~a 4 8 Rs~R 8 ~4 a a _ was= R d ~~ $ ~ Rs~ R 3 a~ ae