Loading...
Env Docs for EmailSEPA NO: 05-0767 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Proponent: City of Yelm Description of Proposal: Construct a new Public Safety Building of approximately 12,000 square feet, to include the police and court functions of municipal government. Location of the Proposal: The project site is located at 204 2nd Street SE, described as Assessor s Tax Parcel Number 64420500100. Section/Township/Range: Section 19, Township 1 North Range 2 East, W.M. Threshold Determination: The City of Yelm as lead agency for this action has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions/Mitigating Measures: SEE ATTACHED Lead agency: City of Yelm Responsible Official: Grant Beck, Community Development Director Date of Issue: December 1, 2006 Comment Deadline: December 15, 2006 Appeal Dea~#li e: ___ ~ December 22, 2006 ~~~ ,= rant Belk, community Development Director \ , This Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340 (2). Comments must be submitted to Grant Beck, Community Development Department, at City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Avenue West, P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597, by December 15, 2006, at 5:00 P.M. The City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior to December 22, 2006, at 5:00 P.M. You may appeal this determination to the Yelm Hearing Examiner, at above address, by submitting a written appeal no later than December 22, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Grant Beck, Community Development Director, to learn more about the procedures for SEPA appeals. This MDNS is not a permit and does not by itself constitute project approval. The applicant must comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Yelm prior to receiving construction permits which may include but are not limited to the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code (Title 17 YMC), Critical Areas Code (Chapter 14.08 YMC), Storm water Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual (DOE), International Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Title 14 YMC), Road Design Standards, Platting and Subdivision Code (Title 16 YMC), and the Shoreline Master Program. DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published: Nisqually Valley News, Friday, December 1, 2006 Posted in public areas: December 1, 2006 Copies to: All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list and adjacent property owners Dept. of Ecology w/checklist ATTACHMENT SEPA Case Number SPR-05-0767-YL Findings of Fact 1. This Mitigated Determination of Non Significance is based on the project as proposed and the impacts and potential mitigation measures reflected in the following environmental documents: / Environmental Checklist / Drainage and Erosion Control Report (October 25, 2006, Exceltech Consulting, Inc.) / Traffic Impact Analysis (October 27, 2006, Shea and Carr, Inc.) 2. The City of Yelm has adopted a concurrency management system as required by the Growth Management Act. Chapter 15.40 YMC (concurrency Management) is designed to ensure that the improvements required to support development are available at the time of development. A concurrency determination may be issued for a proposal as it relates to transportation issues when: the development provides on-site frontage improvements; the project makes off-site improvements as necessary to provide for the safe movement of traffic; and the project makes a contribution to projects identified the six year transportation improvement program in the form of a Transportation Facilities Charge. 3. The City of Yelm have established a minimum intersection level of service (LOS standard of D for all intersections in the City s commercial zones, with the exception of those intersections within the central business district where the standard is LOS F . All intersections in the City are currently operating in compliance with the adopted LOS standard. 4. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) submitted as part of the application indicates that the project will generate an average of 328 vehicle trips per day, with a PM peak of 34 vehicles per hour. The TIA indicates that this level of traffic would not lower the level of service beyond the adopted standard for any of the impacted intersections. It is expected that certain turning movements would increase significantly, although it is expected that connected streets would allow the project traffic to utilize intersections have allow adequate turning movements. 5. The project has proposed frontage improvements along 2nd and McKenzie Streets, as required by the Yelm Development Guidelines, but has also proposed full improvements on 2nd Street and full travel lane improvements, including curb and gutter and travel lanes, on McKenzie. The 2nd Street improvement is listed as a project on Yelm s Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. 6. Section 14.04.055 YMC indicates that the principal guide in measuring environmental impact is consistency with the land use designations of the comprehensive plan and the development regulations designed to implement the plan. 7. The subject property is the site of the City s potable well field and a 50,000 gallon water tank. Section 246-290-135 WAC establishes a sanitary control area around wellheads that provide water to a group A community water system of 100 feet in which there can be no potential sources of contamination. 8. The project has been designed to protect the sanitary control area (SCA) through the collected of all stormwater within the SCA and the treatment and infiltration of that stormwater outside the SCA. The STEP tank and all sewer mains will be located outside the SCA, as will all potential sources of groundwater contamination. Mitigation Measures The following improvements to the transportation system shall be constructed by the project: / 2nd Street between McKenzie and Washington Streets shall be improved to a modified neighborhood collector standard to match the existing street sections to the north and south of the subject block, including sidewalks on both sides, a planter strip or street trees in grates, concrete curb and gutter, on-street parking, and two travel lanes. / McKenzie Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets shall be improved to a modified neighborhood collector standard including sidewalks, street trees in grates, and angle on-street parking in front of the project site, curb and gutter the full length of the block, and two travel lanes the full length of the block. Traffic Facilities Charges shall be credited toward the off-site improvements constructed by the project. 2. No potential source of contamination shall be located within the 100 foot sanitary control area (SCA) pursuant to Section 246-290-135 WAC. All stormwater from impervious surfaces located within the SCA shall be collected and treated and infiltrated outside the SCA. All STEP tanks and sewer mains shall be located outside the SCA. Fee Date Received By File No. Instructions: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help identify impacts from your proposal, to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal if it can be done, and to help the City decide whether an EIS is required. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for any proposal with probable significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City will use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant and require preparation of an EIS. You must answer each question accurately, carefully and to the best of your knowledge. Answer the questions briefly, but give the best description you can. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need for experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid delays later. If the space provided is too small, feel free to attach additional sheets. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the city staff 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 will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. You may be asked to explain your answers or provide additional information for determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Nonproject Proposals Only: Complete both the checklist (even though many questions may be answered "does not apply") and 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. 105 Yelm Avenue West (360) 458-3835 PO Box 479 (360) 458-3144 FAX Yelm, WA 98597 www.ci.yelm.wa.us ' ~ ° ' Community Development Department Y E LM Tory ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if any: Yelm Public Safety Building 2. Name of applicant: City of Yelm Stephanie Ray, Project Manager CITY OF YELM CITY USE ONLY FEE: $150.00 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE RECD BY: FILE NO. 3. Address, phone number and email address of applicant and of any other contact person: P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-8414 stephanier@ci.yelm.wa. us 4. Date checklist prepared: July 12, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Yelm 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction early 2007 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Site Plan Review, City of Yelm Civil Plan Approval, City of Yelm Building Permit, City of Yelm 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of 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. Construct a new Public Safety Building of approximately 12,000 square feet to include the police and court functions of municipal government. City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 1 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if 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. You need not duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Lots 1 through 8, Block 5 of McKenzies Second Addition to Yelm, located at 204 2na Street SE and described as Assessor's tax parcel number 64420500100. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less than 3% c. What general types of 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. Spanaway Stony Sandy Loam and Spanaway Gravelly Sandy Loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 1,800 cubic yards for site excavation, grade and haul for slab on grade, footings and columns including backfill. Source of fill will be compacted soil and gravel. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion is highly unlikely due to soil types and the slope of the property. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction such as asphalt or buildings? 71 % of the site is impervious (including water tower facility area). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard erosion control techniques will be used during construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile exhaust, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 2 Automobile exhaust typical of a municipal building, limited exhaust from emergency generator testing and use during the loss of power, and odors from the barbeque pit. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 3. Water a. Surface Water 1) Is there any surface water body or wetland on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds)? If yes, describe type and provide names. State what stream or river it flows into? No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 300 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of 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 of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note elevation on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Groundwater: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Stormwater will be treated and infiltrated into the ground in accordance with City of Yelm stormwater requirements. 2) Describe the underlying aquifer with regard to quality and quantity, sensitivity, protection, recharge areas, etc. The entire City of Yelm is classified as a critical aquifer recharge area by the Yelm Critical Areas Code. The project site currently contains two production wells for the municipal water system. The approximate static water level of the aquifer at this location is around 30 feet. City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 3 3) Describe waste material that will be discharged into or onto the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (such as domestic sewage; industrial byproducts; agricultural chemicals). Stormwater runoff will be treated and infiltrated into the ground. Other potential groundwater contamination sources include accidental discharge of chemicals typical of an office environment and petroleum products. c. 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 will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater will be collected from all impervious surfaces, treated, and infiltrated into the groundwater. Runoff from building rooftops will be collected and infiltrated directly into the groundwater. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. In the event of a failure of the stormwater treatment system or accidental spillage in a landscaping area, waste materials could enter the groundwater. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Stormwater will be treated pursuant to the 1992 Stormwater Design Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, oak, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grasses pasture crops or grains wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grasses and shrubs will be cleared for construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping pursuant to the Yelm Zoning Code will be provided as appropriate for an urban environment. 5. Animals City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 4 a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, ducks, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, shellfish, other: b. List any priority, threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, gasoline, heating oil, wood, solar etc.) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, transportation, etc. Electricity will be used for and lighting with an emergency diesel generator for backup. Natural Gas will be used for heating and cooling and cooking on the barbeque. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 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, if any: The main entrance, including a clear story, are south-facing. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spills, of hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Typical mixed use urban noises City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 5 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise for up to a one year period limited from 7 AM to 10 PM. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site contains two municipal water wells, a water storage tower and vacant land. Property to the north is used as offices and headquarters of the local telephone company, property to the south is used as a construction building for the local telephone company, property to the west is residential and the site of the existing police station and City Park, and property to the east is residential. b. Has the site been used for mineral excavation, agriculture or forestry? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Two well houses, a 50,000 gallon water tower, and a small communications building. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Central Business District f. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Central Business District g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as a "natural resource", "critical" or "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The site is identified by the Yelm Critical Areas Code as a critical aquifer recharge area. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 45 to 50 Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 6 The building will meet the requirements for development as outlined in the Yelm Zoning Code, Yelm Design Guidelines, and the Yelm Development Guidelines. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 28' to top of 3:12 slope metal roof. The proposed principal exterior building materials are painted cement siding and panels. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The outside of the building will be illuminated 24 hours a day with typical parking lot and streetscape lighting fixtures. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Typical street lighting in an urban setting. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: A landscape buffer between the property and residential parcels to the east. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? City Park and the City skateboard park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 7 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts or provide recreation opportunities: Barbeque pit. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The water tower on the property was constructed in XXX and is of local significance. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None required. 14. Transportation a. Identify sidewalks, trails, public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served from SR 507 by Mosman Street and 2nd Street and from Yelm Avenue (SR 507) by 2nd Street. Sidewalks will be provided from Yelm Avenue to and across the project site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? By what means? If not, what plans exist for transit service? Intercity Transit serves the City of Yelm, but the closest transit route is one block north of the site on Yelm Avenue. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 46 on-site and on-street parking spaces would be provided, 10 would be eliminated from existing water tower facility. d. Will the proposal require any new sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, or improvements to existing sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Street improvements, including curb and gutter, bike lanes, sidewalks, and travel lanes, will be provided along 2nd Street, McKenzie Street, and Washington Street in front of the property. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 36 Peak PM trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 8 Frontage improvements pursuant to the Yelm Concurrency Management Code. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Police and Court services are a public service that will be enhanced in Yelm due to the proposal. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, ate , refuse service, elephone, sanitary sewe ,septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. A chorine contact line will have to be relocated and connection to existing services will be made. New service connections for water, sewer, natural gas, and electricity will be installed. New storm treatment and infiltration system for site to be installed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the City of Yelm is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: City of Yelm Environmental Checklist Page 9 City of Yelm Public Safefiy Building Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared For: City of Yelm P Q Box 479 Yel m, WA 98597 ` y~ ~} 3~ ~`~ .. ~E City of Yelm Public Safety Building Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for City of Yelm c/o ]ames Gibson, P.E. Development Services Engineer City of Yelm P O Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Prepared by Shea & Carr, Inc, 2424 Heritage Court SW Olympia, WA 98502 360.352.1465 www.sheacarr.com CERTIFICATION The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. Prepared by Can ace Cramer, Planner ~:~ ~~ ,~ Chec y George S ith, Transportation Planner Approved Perry A. Shea, P.E. F' ryr . i •r TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... ~. 1,1 Project Overview ........................................................................ ..1 1.2 Study Cantext ............................................................................ .. 1 2, PRO]ECT DESCRIPTION........s•s.•s•s ................••.....i............R,........ • 3 2.1 Development Proposal ...................................................... ........... ..3 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION •..i.•.i .............•...,...e...eyy.Y,......s.....e • Jr 3.1 Area Land Uses ........................................................................... ..5 3.2 Roadway Inventory ..................................................................... ..5 3.2.1 SE McKenzie Avenue ............................................................. ..5 3,2.2 SE Washington Avenue .......................................................... ..5 3,2.3 2'~~ Street SE ........................................................................ ..5 3.2.4 3r~ Street SE ......................................................................... ..5 3.2.5 SE Mosman Avenue ............................................................... ..5 3.2.6 E Yelm Avenue ..................................................................... ..6 3.3 Traffic Volume Data .................................................................... ..6 3.4 Public Transportation ................................................................... ..6 4. PRO]ECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................................ . S 4.1 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes .................................................... ..8 4.2 Site Traffic Distribution ................................................................ ..9 5, FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................. 11 5.1 Future Traffic Vaiumes ................................................................. 11 5.2 Pipeline Development Prajects ...................................................... 11 5.2.1 Background Traffic Growth ..................................................... 11 6. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................. 15 6.1 Intersection Level of Service ........................................................ 15 6.2 Signalized Intersections ................................................:.............. 16 6 2 1 15t Street/Yelm Avenue .......................................................... 16 6.3 Unsignalized Intersectians ............................................................ 17 6.3.1 3rd Street/Yelm Avenue ..........................:.............................. 17 6.3.2 SE 2nd Street/Yeim Avenue SE ............................................... 17 6.3.3 Mosman Avenue/S. First Street ............................................... 18 6.3.4 S. First Street/Washington Avenue .......................................... 18 6.3.5 S. Second Street/Washington Avenue ...................................... 18 6.4 Site Driveway Analysis ................................................................ 18 7. MITIGATION .............................................................................. 2D 7.1 Pay City of Yelm Transportation Mitigation Fee ............................... 20 7.2 Install Street Frontage Improvements ........................................... 20 8. CONCLUSIONS......f ........................R,..........N....NIN,NNY,..,.~...•.Y•s.e...• L1 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D List of Figures Turning Movement Counts Trip Generation Rate Review Traffic Volume Projection Worksheet Capacity Analysis Worksheets Figure ~. -Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Preliminary Site Plan Figure 3 -Existing 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 4 ~ Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Figure S -Pipeline Development Traffic Volumes Figure 5 -Projected 2008 Traffic Volumes Without Project Figure 7 -Projected 2008 Traffic Volumes With Project City of Yeim Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 'I . INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview The City of Yelm is proposing construction of the Yelm Public Safety Building {PSB} in the City of Yelm. The project will be located between McKenzie Avenue SB and Washington Avenue S~ adjacent to and southeast of 2"~ Street. The project includes construction of an approximately 11,800 square foot (sf) building that will house City police and court facilities. Figure I iilustrates the site vicinity and the transportation network serving the project area. 1.2 Study Context This report documents the results of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of existing and future traffic conditions. The study was prepared according to City of Yelm TIA guidelines as part of the required environmental review submittal for the proposed project. The following intersections in the study area were analyzed: 1. Masman Avenue/First Street Sl; 2. First Street/Yelm Avenue 3. Yelm Avenue, 2"d Street 4. Yelm Avenue/Third Street 5. Second Street/Washington Avenue The project is expected to be completed by 2008, which was used as the horizon year for this study. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 1 October, 2po5 i I ~J ~ ~ G; ~ ~h°~~~ ~ r f ~ ~~'~~ City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 ©evelopment Proposal The City of Yelm proposes construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB) to be located on the east side of 2nd Street between McKenzie Avenue SE and Washington Avenue SE. The building will house the City of Yelm Police Department and Municipa[ Court facilities. The proposed building will be approximately 11,80a square feet (sf) in size with approximately 2,118 sf dedicated to the Municipal Court, 5,220 sf for the police services and 4,47© sf of shared support area (including space for lobby, restroom and janitorial.} Access to the development will be provided by a ane-way entry driveway from 2na Street and atwo-way entry/exit on Washington Avenue SE. Parking will be provided in a dedicated lot off of Washington Avenue. Angle parking will also be provided along the south edge of the building on McKenzie Avenue. i"igure 2 represents the project site plan. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 3 October, 2006 ~~s~ ~j bs0 +-, s~ U (]] fi O a, ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ CO ~ N ~ ~ Y ~Q 4 ~ ~ ~ I.1J ~p O ~ 0 Z ~ L.l..l _ ~ LL U 3 ~ C¢ .~ ~ N ~ M Z E 4 `~ } ) Q o U ~ 3N 1S aNl Cf C .~ m ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ d C ~` Q1 s~ LL T N _A C Q V CSf E o ~L ~ L at~w- City of Yelm Public Safety Building - Traf€ic Impact Analysis 3i. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Area Land Uses Existing land uses in the area include single family residential to the south and east. A City Park is located to the west of the project and businesses are located to the north along Yelm Avenue and 15t Street. A City of Yelm public water reservoir is located directly north of the proposed Yelm PSB. 3.2 Roadway Inventory A comprehensive roadway survey was conducted to identify pre-existing conditions of the primary traffic facilities serving the proposed Yelm Pu,61ic Safety Building. For purposes of describing the roadways, avenues running generally parallel to Yelm Avenue are considered `east-west', and streets running generally parallel to 15t Street are considered `north-south.' The following is a description of the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project. 3.2.1 SE McKenzie Avenue SE McKenzie Avenue is a two-way local street that runs east-west along the south edge of the subject property, ]:n the project vicinity the roadway has a 16-foot chip seal paved surface with grass shoulders. Sidewalks are not present along this section of roadway. 3.2.2 SE Washington Avenue SE Washington Avenue is a two-way local street that runs east-west along the north edge of the subject property. Along the project frontage the roadway has a 34-foot chip seal paved surface with sidewalk on each side of the roadway. Parallel parking is provided along the south side of Washington Avenue. 3.2.3 2nd Street Si= 2nd Street SE is a two-way local street that runs north-south along the west edge of the subject property. Along the project frontage the roadway has a 17-foot chip seal paved surface with gravel shoulders on each side of the roadway. There are na sidewalks on this section of roadway. 3.2.4 3rd Street SE 3rd Street SE is a two-way local street that runs north-south along the east edge of the subject property. Along the project frontage the roadway has two 11-foot chip seal paved lanes with 5-foot paved shoulders on each side of the roadway. There are no sidewalks on this section of roadway. 3.2.5 SE Mosman Avenue Mosman Avenue is a two-lane roadway with 4-6 foot grass/gravel shoulders. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page S October, 2006 City of Yeim Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 3.2.6 E Yeim Avenue Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway that runs east-west through the City of Yelm. The roadway has two 12 foot lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders or curb and sidewalk. From Ist Avenue east to the City of Yeim limits, E Yelm Avenue is also designated as State Route 507. 3.3 Traffic Volume Data Trafficount, a traffic data collection firm, provided evening peak period turning movement counts. The counts were conducted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM for the following locations: 1. McKenzie Avenue SE/SE 2"d Street 2. Washington Avenue SE/SE 2"d Street PM peak hour turning movement counts were also available from the City of Yeim for the following locations: 1. Mosman Avenue/First Street 2. Yeim Avenue/f=irst Street 3. Yelm Avenue/second Street 4. Yelm Avenue/Third Street 5. Washington Avenue SE/SE Est Street These traffic volumes were used far our base year operations analysis, and as the basis for future year traffic volume projections, Figure 3 shows the existing 2006 traffic volumes for the study intersections. The turning movement count diagrams are provided in Appendix A. 3.4 Public Transportation Intercity Transit Route 94 provides daily service between Olympia/Lacey and 1Visqually Plaza in Yelm. The route runs along Yelm Avenue north of the subject property, providing hourly service on weekdays and service every two hours on weekends. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 6 October, 2006 ~ti s ~ a ~~ P ~ ~~ ~S ~ti ,moo h dS xr h1 h O ! y ~s /Yl~ f, r e ~ R ~s` ` `~sx +~ `. S ~ ,~~h ~ Q ,V~ ti ~y~s ~ti°~o ~s s ~a ~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~v~`` 5~ ! ~ sF ~ r ~ ~ „ y ~ t~1 •~~,h1h~ ~ `h ~ _d\ ,.. ~s R s s z s~ _._.~_.,.......:.~. x. d ~~p~ ~.1 ~ ~~~~ !~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~ ::.......................... . , ~'~ P ~ ~ , ~ h OA 'Vh ~ h ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ 0 1,P Q, s~ ~1 ~S~ `9n O~ S ~ ~ ~`r~ P~ ~S Z wryyh o~~P ~ ~S oyz ~ 0 .j'f~ ~ 9~ s~~ ~ R r ~s~s~ ~~ .~ ~~~ o~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ U Q z ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~ S ~ p 'n V ~ Q Q ~ W J 0. ~ ~' ~ Lil ~ J T+ T+ 1 1 X ~ d V ~ ~ «~ ~ ~ L m O ,~+ _~ c~ ~ AA~ ff ,, I~w V a~ N ~ ~J O W V c~ L1. N .N 9+ C a Q City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 4. PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS The two project-related characteristics having the most effect on area traffic conditions are peak hour trip generation and the directional distribution of traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. 4.1 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes The City of Yelm has established a listing of Trip Generatian Rate Default Values (Table 15.40.030. B.1 from the City of Yelm Municipal Code) that are to be used to calculate project traffic generation when applicable. However, no land-uses on that table correlate well to the proposed development. The closest match is 'Administrative office' which has a PM peak hour trip generation rate of 2.30 trips per 1,000 square feet. In lieu of using the City's trip rate schedule, an independent trip generation rate review was performed for this development. The Trip Generatian report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE} was referenced to find an applicable land- use. The Government Office Complex land-use (Land Use Code 733) was determined to be the best match for the proposed development. Due to the small sample size (two studies), additional analysis was required to corroborate the PM peak hour trip generation rate (2.85 per 1,000 square feet) for LU 733. Therefore a trip generation estimate was also prepared for the project by directly projecting the trip characteristics of all of the uses programmed for the proposed Yeim PSB. Interviews were conducted with Yelm police and court staff to identify the total employment and customer traffic that could be expected to occur at the project during peak periods of the day. This analysis indicated a PM peak hour trip generation rate of 2.72 per 1,000 sf. This additional trip generation estimate provided confirmation of the rates contained in the ITE Trip Generation The trip generation rates used For this analysis are shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rate review is summarized in Appendix B. Table 1 Trip Generation Characteristics Yelm Pu61ic Safety Building ITE Land Use Daily Trip PM Peak Hour {LU Code) Unit Rate Trip Rate Inbound Outbound Government Office Complex (LU 733) 1,000-sf 27.92 2.85 31% 69% Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 8 October, 2006 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis The total trip generation expected from this development is calculated by applying the total number of units to the appropriate trip generation rate. The proposed building will be approximately 11,765 square feet. The project trip generation is shown on Table 2, Table 2 Total Project Trip Generation Summary Yelm Public Safety Building PM Peak Hour ITI~ Land Use (LU Code) Units Daily Trips Total Trips Inbound Outbound Government Office Complex (LU 733) 11.765 3Z8 34 11 Z3 4.2 Sito Traffic Distribution The vehicle directional trip distribution to and from the site will be based primarily on: • the area street system characteristics • current travel patterns on the area roadways • the proposed access system for the project • locations of residential areas and shopping/commercial centers The directional distribution of traffic to and from the proposed project was estimated using the regional transportation model. The Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) created the area-wide transportation model with cooperation from local jurisdictions within the County. The model, developed using the Emme/Z software package, has been calibrated to accurately represent the existing vehicle travel patterns throughout the entire county. In the transportation model, the county-wide transportation network is divided into over 600 "Traffic Analysis Zones" (TAZs). The proposed Yelrrl PSB property is located within TAZ number 545. A distribution analysis was performed for this project by conducting a "Select Zone Analysis" for TAZ 545. This feature of the ~mme/Z software package allows all of the traffic into and out of a particular zone to be isolated and shown separately from the rest of the traffic on the network. This graphically shows the percentage of vehicles currently using each of the available routes into and out of the area (Yelm Avenue, First Street, Washington Avenue, etc.). From this information, regional distribution percentages were calculated for future traffic from the proposed Yelm PSB project. The regional traffic distribution percentages and site traffic distribution for the Yelm PSB development are shown on Figure 4, Sbea & Carr, Inc. _ _ Page 9 October, 2005 O N ~ ~ ~~ \ 0 " oy ~ ~ ' s ~~ \° ~ ~ ~ P v~ ~` ~s ~y q 1s ~~ oy Oryf, ~ t~ ~ ~ o ~ ~, P ~ ~., 1' ` ~~ ~ ~ .~y ~ ! ~ c, 2 ~S ~ ~v ~ OyZ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ R Z o e ti ~ r~, ~ ~ ~ y , , . .......................a.~ I~OB ~~~~~ t ._ / \ v ,~.~~ ~ Q. z ~' ....................... ~ _ . .................... y R! ~ ~ ~ ~ _. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ y e ~ ~, P y ~ ~~~ S O ~ ss ~ M ~ ~ ~{ Q~`' ~'S ~S ~~ V L LL ~ J ~ ~~ ~ O p ~ j ~/ w ~ ~ Q ~ .. .J C ~ `~ ~ V ~ W ~ ~ ~ o {- o ° ° N ~ o Q ~- ~~ m ~ ~ N ca ~ Q N Z ~ °- W j N W W ~ Q (7 Z ~ W ~~ W o ~ ~- J ~ ~ o~ o ~. W ~ '~ '~ 0 ~ X O d' d L _~ N _~ O V ~ ~ ~ m A`~ ^IW N Y ~ `~ ~+ ~~ .V ~ 3a ~ n. ~ O ~ Q .~c ~ ~ a O v ~ `~' `~ ^ City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis J. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 5.'! Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume projections for the study area include traffic generated by pipeline developments and background growth. 5.2 Pipeline Development Projects A pipeline development project is defined as a development in the project area that is either under construction, approved for construction or in the permitting process. 1=or this study, seven projects were identified that will add traffic to the study intersections and were included in the future year traffic volume scenarios. The projects are listed below: ~. Willow Glen 3 {52 lot plat) 2. Terra Valley (41 lot plat) 3. Tahoma Terra (~1,Z00 unit Master Planned Community) ~. Wal-mart (187,000-sf retail) 5. Green Village (52 lot plat) 6. Mountain Shadow {82 lot plat) 7. Mountain Sunrise (102 lot plat) The traffic potential of these projects was calculated and assigned to the area roadway network using data presented in the Traffic Impact Analyses for each of the projects. The total pipeline development traffic volumes are shown an the traffic volume worksheet in Appendix C. Figure S illustrates pipeline development traffic trip distribution, 5,2.1 Background Traffic Growth In addition to traffic from the identified pipeline developments, it is anticipated that background growth will occur within the study area and affect traffic volumes. To estimate the non-specific traffic growth that will occur at the study intersections, we applied an annual growth rate of 2% to the base year traffic volumes. The 2% growth rate is based on historical growth trends and was determined by the City of Yelm. The projected 2008 traffic volumes with background growth and pipeline development traffic, without the Yelm P58 project are shown on Figure 6. The 2008 with Yelm PSB project traffic volumes are shown an Figure 7. The traffic volume calculations for the study intersections are shown in Appendix C. Shea & Carr, Ir~c. Page I1 October, 2006 ,~y ~s ~~ ~~ P ~ ~ ,~S .~y~s ~'~ `~~~ pd~ ~ ~~ ~s~l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ P ,V~ ~ ~y~s R.~ ti'~~ s Oy Z ~v~~ ~ ~, ~ u ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ s,~ ~ ~i ~ 8~f' c~~c. f' ~' % k ~. P / d ,,.......m ................... _~...._ .............. ti ~~ 11 ~ ~ ~s ~P P~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ `~{ Q~ ~s ~~P~ ~S ~yZ ~s `~~ R ~s s9 ~' R ~~ 6~ ~~ Ord J b ^ Li ~ z w V Y ~ W ~- ~ `T F r LL V t~ ~ ~ 0 Y ~_ ~ ~~ G3 m ~ ~ a~~, o ~a ~, a ~ ~ ~ a ^~ W ~ ~~"' • •~ ~UF- ~''N ~s ~~ ~~ P -~`~ ms's .~,y ,o ap ~`S' r`+ °' p Od, s~ ~ R ~o ,~5, 'yl~s ~! x. s~ ~ 7 ~, '~'`~Op 4 P ~~ 2 .~y'lS ~~p O`' '~J' ~ p ~/y~ /~ r h ~ ~ ~~~~ c~' ! s~ ~ ~ ~ ` h ~_~~r. ~ph~~~ ~ ~~ tip p~h ~~ ~( h - ~'~ al O ~ ~~~. O 06, ~ ~ VrlD~c' ,Sj~~ 5~ leers, ~ /%..,..... ~. h p ~ v O '`0~ `lh hA h ~'1oi`~~p~l ~ t~h~~~C~ 71 P ~ O ~ s~~ ~ R~ss ~ .' `s ss s ~ ` ~ 03~ -tom`' . , o.,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ P ~s ~ ~~hh ~o~~P ~s MHz O~ ~! ~~ o ss ~ '~'~ s~ ~ ~o ~ a~~~.,+ ~~ o ~ ~~ © U ~ S z ~~ ~~ W ~z Y Q W J ~ N ~ ~ ~' ~ J X ~ X ~ i~7 LL v c~ .O ~_ N Q1 O V ~_ ~ ~~ ~ m O ~ ~ pct ~ ,N ~- ~ ~. LL ~ ~ ~~a ~~~ N ^~ Q.. W d ~" O ~/ •O a ti ~-- ~y ~s ~~ ~~ P ~ ~~ ~S .~,y ~o ao ~~ ~ a o ~S ~~ ~' ~ od~ ri ~~~ s.~ s ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ 2 ~ .~y~3' ~~o oh O ' `' ~ ~~~~ s 'l`f! do ~ y ~ rr ~ Y R ~Og ~ h ~~, ~`.'s'ww !n\ `. , aa.~ ~ os~ ~ s~~z srz~ c,~ ~ ~ o~, ,~ ~ r o~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ P E: / ,`per ~, hn- _. " > ~ R' ~~ ~ ~~h~~~U - ~ 71 P sf' ~ ~ ~ ~S' P~, F' {~ s~ ~ •rs~ss ~~ nor ~o s ~s mss, P~ ~s ~ITP~ `b4' is ~~Z ~ p ~ ~ ~ O O~~ V 4o s~ ~ S~ os~, OF~ y d ~p alt ~~1~~ oG'~ ~ V ~ ~~ J V Q Z ~ ~" ~, ° w ~~ Y yQ W ~ W J aN QW ff x, x, ti c~ LI.. v d ~O a ~_ d ~_ ~ _ O m .N a ~, a .ii ~ ~~a oa N ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ O v 'o~~ o. v F-- City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 6. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Traffic analyses were conducted to identify any existing deficiencies within the study area for the 2006 base year and 2008 project completion horizon years. 6,1 Intersection Level of Service The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity for arterial segments and independent intersections is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual {HCM). Capacity analyses were completed for the base year and projected 2008 PM peak hour traffic volume scenarios. Intersection analysis was performed using the Synchro software package. Synchro is a software package commonly used to analyze signalized and unsignalized intersections. The software implements the methods of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis results are described in terms of Level of Service (L05). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay} to F {long delays and congestion}. Level of Service D is the concurrency standard adopted by the City of Yelm for most of the study area. The only exception is the designated Central Business District (CBD} core area between Solberg Street and 4~" Street where a LOS F condition is considered acceptable. Level of Service calculations for intersections determine the amount of 'control delay' {in seconds} that drivers will experience while proceeding through an intersection. Control delay includes all deceleration delay, stopped delay and acceleration delay caused by the traffic control device. The Level of Service is directly related to the amount of delay experienced. For intersections under minor street stop-sign control, the LOS of the most difficult movement {typically the minor street left-turn} represents the intersection level of service. Table 3 below shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 3. Level of Serrrice Criteria for Stop-Sign Controlled Intersections level of Service Average Control ©elay (seconds/vehicle) A <10 B > 10 - 15 C > 15-25 D > 25 - 3S E > 35 - 50 F > SO Shea & Carr, Tnc. Page 15 October, 20fl6 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A < ~, 0 B >la-2a c >2a-35 D > 35 - 55 E > 55 - 8a F > 80 The capacity analyses were completed for traffic volume conditions expected to occur during the evening peak period at all study intersections for the following three traffic volume scenarios: • Existing 2006 traffic volumes • Projected 2008 traffic volumes without Yelm PSB • Projected 2008 traffic volumes with Yelm PSB The capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D. Fallowing is a description of the Level of Service analysis for the study intersections for the scenarios listed above. 6.2 Signalized Intersections 6.2.1 1St StreetlYelm Avenue This intersection operates under actuated traffic signal control with protected left- turns an Yelm Avenue and protected-permissive left-turns on 15t Street. The eastbound approach on Yelm Avenue has single exclusive lanes for each movement, The westbound, northbound and southbound approaches each have exclusive left- turn lanes and shared through-right lanes. The intersection currently operates at LQS D during the PM Peak Hour. It is projected that with the addition of pipeline development traffic it will operate at LOS F in 2008. The average delay at the intersection will increase by less than one second (from 83.5 to 84.5 seconds of delay) with the addition of project traffic. The following table summarizes the LQS analysis results for the intersection. No mitigation is required at this location. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 16 Oceober, 2006 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5 Yelm Avenue/First Street LOS Operationat Summary - PM Peak Hour Base Year 2006 Projected ZODS Without Project Projected 2008 With Project Approach LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) Southbound D {48,2) F (86.5) F (85,9) Northbound D {45,9) F (105.1} F (107.9) Westbound C (33.3) E (59.6) E (59.6} Eastbound C (34,2} F (92.7} F (94.1) Total Intersection D (38.1) F (83.6) F (84.5} 6.3 Unsignalized Intersections 6.3.1 3rd StreetlYelm Avenue The 3rd Street/Yelm Avenue intersection has a single approach lane in each direction, with stop sign control on 3rd Street. The northbound and southbound approaches each currently operate at LOS F condition during the evening peak hour. With the addition of background traffic, the intersection delay will increase. The proposed Yelm PSB project will add approximately nine vehicles to this intersection during the PM peak hour and will slightly increase the projected delay. The City of Yelm has designated the Yelm Avenue corridor between Solberg Street and 4t" Street as an exception area where LOS F is acceptable, Although the minor street approaches will have a poor level of service, the grid system in the area allnws drivers multiple options to gain access to the main street system (1St Street and Yelm Avenue.) No mitigation is required at this intersection. 6.3.2 SE 2nd StreetlYelm Avenue SE This intersection has a single approach lane in each direction. The Washington Avenue approaches are under stop sign control, During the evening peak hour, the north- and southbound approaches operate at LOS F. With the addition of background traffic, the intersection delay will increase, The proposed Yelm PSB project will add approximately nine vehicles to this intersection during the PM peak hour and will slightly increase the projected delay. As previously stated, this intersection is within the LOS exception area where LOS F is deemed acceptable. Although the minor street approaches will have a poor level of service, the grid system in the area allows drivers multiple options to gain access to the main street system (1St Street and Yelm Avenue.) No mitigation is required at this intersection. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 17 October, ~Oa6 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 6.3,3 Mosman AvenuelS. First Street The intersection of Mosman Avenue and First Street consists of two tee intersections. Both approaches on Mosman Avenue are under stop sign control. The southern tee intersection currently operates at LOS C for the eastbound approach and an intersection average of LOS A. By 2008, it is projected to operate at LOS F for the eastbound approach with a LOS C overall average both with and without project traffic. The northern tee intersection currently operates at LOS C for the westbound approach and an intersection average of LOS A. It is projected to operate at LOS C for the westbound approach and an overall average of LOS A by project horizon in 2008. The City of Yelm is planning to improve this intersection by realigning the Mosman Avenue/15~ Street intersection as a single four-way intersection. The improvement project will also include widening Mosman Avenue from Edwards Street to 15~ Street. The roadway improvement project is on the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program and they are currently collecting fees toward the improvement. No mitigation is required at this intersection. C.3.4 S. First StreetlWashington Avenue This intersection has a single lane in each direction with stop sign control on Washington Avenue. It currently operates at LOS C for the east- and westbound approaches and an overall LOS A intersection average. By 2008, it will decline to LOS D for the east- and westbound approaches and an overall LOS A both with and without project traffic. No mitigation is required at this intersection. 6.3.5 S. Second StreetlWashington Avenue The Washington Avenue/Second Street intersection has a single lane in each direction and stop control on Washington Avenue. It currentiy operates at LOS A during the PM Peak Hour and will continue to operate at LOS A in 2008, both with and without the addition of Yeim Public Safety BuNding traffic. No mitigation is required at this intersection. 6.4 Site Driveway Analysis The proposed project will have two access points: a one-way entry driveway from 2~'d Street and atwo-way entry/exit on Washington Avenue SE. The driveway from 2"d Street will be available only to police vehicles. Far our analysis, we have assumed that all trips entering the parking lot during the PM Peak Hour will occur at the Washington Avenue driveway. The driveway will have a single lane entry and a single lane exit. At project completion in 200$, it will operate at LOS A. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page J.8 october, 2006 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis The following table summarizes the operational results for the study intersections: Table 5 Level of Service {LQS) Summary -Stop Sign Controlled intersections PM Peak Hour Existing 2006 Volumes Projected 244$ Without Project Projected 2008 with Project LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) Intersection Worst Movement intersection Average Worst Movement Intersection Average Worst Movement Intersection Average SW Mosrrtan Ave/1St St. C {24.1} A {6.6} F (68.6) C (17.5} F (70.8) C (18.0} 5E Mosman Ave/ist St. C (1b.9) A {1.6) C (21,2} A {1.7) C (22,2) A (1.8) 2"d St/Yelm Ave. F (96,2) A {2.2) F {>500) ~ {49.1) F {>500) F (52.2) 3`d St/Yelm Ave. F (487.2) A {9.7) F{>500) n/al F{>500) n/a` Washington Ave/15t St. C (22.4) A (3.2} D (3(3.2) A (3.5) D (29.5) A (3.7) Washington Ave/2"d 5t. A (9.6) A (5.4) A (9.6) A (5.4) A (9.8) A (6.2) Site access/Washington Ave A (9.0) A (3.1) i3 n/a -Not availat~le. Data is outside of the range provided for in the software algorithm, Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 19 October, 2006 City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis 7. MITIGATION Traffic generated by the proposed Public Safety Building will have a minimal impact on the area roadways and intersections. This analysis has evaluated several intersections for conditions expected by the 2008 project horizon. Based on the analysis, two intersections {Yelm Avenue/3rd Street and Ye1m Avenue/Z"~ Street} will operate at a constrained LOS F level by 2008 without trips generated by the project. f~iowever, the City of Yelm through it's Comprehensive Plan has designated the CB© area of the City as an exception area where LOS F is an acceptable condition. Although the minor street approaches for the intersections will have a poor level of service, drivers have numerous options for routes because of the downtown grid system and can avoid the failing intersections. The following mitigation by the City of Yelm will mitigate the overall traffic impacts associated with the project. 7.1 Pay City of Yelm Transportation Mitigation Fee The City of Yelm is currently collecting transportation facilities charges from new developments to help fund roadway and intersection improvements throughout the City. The project developer would be responsible for a payment of $750 per new PM peak hour trip generated by the project, or a total of $25,500. The City of Yelm's current 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the Z"d Street improvement project that will widen and improve Z"`' Street to collector standards from Mosman Avenue to Yelm Avenue. The Yelm PSB project will construct the entire improvement in lieu of the $25,500 transportation facility charge. 7.2 Install Street Frontage Improvements In addition to the 2nd Street improvements, the Yelm PSB project will construct improvements to Mckenzie Avenue as part of site development. The improvements will include curb and gutter on the north side of McKenzie and two drive lanes from Z"d Street to 3rd Street. Curb and gutter on the south side of Mckenzie Avenue will be added along the project frontage. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 20 Dctober, ZOOb City of Yelm Public Safety Building -Traffic Impact Analysis ~. coNC~usNONs The City of Yelm proposes construction of a new Yelm Public Safety Building (PSB) to house the City of Yelm Police Department and Municipal Court facilities. The proposed building will be approximately 11,800 square feet in size. Access to the development will be provided by a one-way entry driveway from 2"d Street and a twa-way entry/exit on Washington Avenue SE. Parking will be provided in a dedicated lot off of Washington Avenue. This study has analyzed several off-site intersections for the 2008 horizon. Based on the analysis, this project will not have a significant impact on area roadways. The project will be responsible to pay a Transportation Facility Charge to the City of Yelm as mitigation for the project. Shea & Carr, Inc. Page 21 October, 2006 APPENDIX A Turning Movement Counts TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 YELM, WASHINGTON OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98547 File Name : S&C271Q2P SE 2ND ST SE M KE 360 49 ~ ~ 1-8118 Sife Code :00000002 C N~IE AVE Start Date :0912 812006 LOC# 02P S&C06270M Page No : 1 Groups Printed- PRIMARY 5E 2ND ST 5E MCKENZI>= AV E SE 21VD ST PARK From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Truck App' Right Thru LeR Thick App Right Thru Left ' Truck App Right Thru Left -Tr uck App. Fxclu. InClu. Int. Total Totat Total ~ _ 7otat Total Total Tota! Factor 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.D S.D 1.D 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.D ' i.0 A.p 1.0 1.0 1.0 04:D0 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 D 1 p 3 0 0 3 D 0 0 0 D' 6 7 7 04:15 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 D 0 fl D 1 4 0 0 5 fl 0 D 0 4 0 11 i1 04:30 PM 0 3 0 0 3 D fl 0 D D 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 D 0 0 0 4 4 04:45 PM D 5 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 ___ 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 D 9 8 Total fl 17 1 0 18 1 D 1 0 2 1 SO D 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 D5:00 PM 4 4 0 0 4 i D p D 1 0 2 0 0 2' D 0 0 0 D 0 7 7 05:15 PM 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 fl 4 D 0 4 0 0 D 0 0 0 9 9 45:30 PM 0 7 1 0 8 0 D 0 0 0 D 7 0 0 7 0 D 4 0 0 0 15 15 05:45 PM 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 O D 3 0 D 0 D 0: 0 12 12 Total 0 22 4 fl 26 1 0 0 0 1' D 15 0 0 16 0 0 0 D 0 0 43 43 Grand7otal 0 39 5 D 44 2 0 1 0 3 1 26 0 D 27 0 0 0 0 D 0 74 74 Apprch % 0.0 86.6 11.4 66.7 0.0 33.3 3.7 96.3 0.0 0.0 ~ O.D 0.0 Total % 0.0 52.7 6.8 59.5 2.7 0.0 1.4 4.1 1.4 35.1 0.0 36.5 D.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 SE 2Nt7 ST SE MCKEN ZIE AVE SE 2ND ST PARK From North From East From South ' From West Start Time Righi Thru Left App. Total ' Rrgm Thru LeR App. Total Right Thru Left App.Totat ' Right Thru LeR App. TOtal tnt.Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM -Peak 1 Of 1 --- -- Intersection 05:00 PM Volume D 22 4 26 1 0 D 1 0 16 0 16 D D 0 0 43 PercenF 0.0 84.6 15.4 100.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 05:30VOlume 0 7 1 8 D 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 D 0 D 0 15 Peak Factor 0 .717 t€igh Int. 05:45 PM 05:00 PM D5:30 PM ' 3:45:00 PM Volume 0 8 1 9 ~ 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 Peak Factor 0.722 0.250 D. 571 Peak Raur i;rom 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM -peak 1 of 1 By Approach 05:00 PM fl4:00 PM D5:00 PM 04:DD PM Vo€Fime 0 22 4 26 1 D 1 2 ' 0 I6 0 16 0 0 0 D Percent 4.0 84,6 15.4 5D.D 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - - High Int. D5:45 PM 04:00 PM 45:30 PM - Volume 0 8 1 9 D 0 1 1 0 7 0 7 - - - _ Peak Factor 0.722 D.500 0.571 - TRAFFICOUNT, 1NC. P.O. BOX 2508 YELM, WASHINGTON OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 File Name : S&C27102P SE MCKEN~IE AVE (360} 491-8115 Site Code :00000002 Start L7ate : 09128120D6 LQC# D2P S&C06270M Page No : 2 SE 2ND ST 5E MCKENZIE AVE SE 2ND 5T PARK From North From East From South From West Start7ime Right Thru Left App,Tatal RighE Thai Left App. Total Right : Thru iefl App.Tatal Right _. Thru ' Left App. iota! Int.TOtal Peak Hour From 04:00 PMto05:45PM•Peakiofl - ~ ---- - ~ - intersection O5:D0 PM Ualume 0 22 4 26 1 D 0 1: 0 16 0 16 ' 0 D 0 0 43 Percent 0.0 84.6 i5.4 100.0 D.p a.a D.D 100.0 D.D 4.4 D.0 D.0 05:3DVOlume 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 0 D 7 0 7 ' D D 0 0 15 Peak Factor 0 717 High int. D5:45 Ptd D5:D0 PM 05:30 PM 3:45:00 PM Volun¢e 0 B 1 9 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 Peak F&4ter D.722 0.25D 4.571 E 2ND ST OBE In Total 17 2s b3 D' _ 22 _ 4' Right Thru Leff E ~ _ a m 0 ~ °1 Noah ~ a m ' ~. ~ ~ o c n -- } n ~ ~ / 9128120D6 5:OO:OD PNI ~ ~ ~ ~ a '~ ; 912812D065;45:OOPM ~ o' ~ d .. ~ ~ ~ PRiMRF2Y - T y cn - w. 1 h Lef# Thru Right ... D 16 0 22 _.16 3B Out 1~ Total SE 2Nfl ST TRAFFICOUNT, (NC. P.O. BOX 2598 YEI.M, WASHINGTON OLYMPIA, WASHENGTON 98507 File Name : S&C27'(09P sE 2ND sT 360 49 ~ ~ 1-8116 site cone : oaoaoaa~ SE WASHINGTON AVE Start Date :0 912 812 0 0 6 LOC# 01 P S&C06270M Page No : 9 Groups Printed- PRI~IIARY SE 2ND ST ' SE WASHINGTON AVE 5E 2ND ST SE NUASHINGTON AVE From North From East From Sou th F rom West Start Time Right Thru Left Truck App' Right Thru left ~ truck App. Right Thru ' Left Truck ~ App. - Right Thru ' Left . Truck ' App. Exclu. ' Inclu. Int. Total ~ ... . Total ~ ... ... . Total : Total Total Total ' TOfa# Factor L0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.D 1.0 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 __1.0_ __ _ 1.D ~._..1.0 ' 1.0 . .. 1.0 ~ __- ~. - D4:DD PM 3 5 1 0 3 1 6 ... 0 D _ 7 1 2 3 0 6 1 _ 3 3 0 7 !) 29 29 04:15 PM 3 5 1 D 3 1 4 0 D 5 1 6 1 fl 8 1 9 5 1 15 1 37 38 04:30 PM 3 5 fl 0 B 1 2 3 D 6 1 6 1 D $ 0 8 3 D 11 0 33 33 D4:45 PM 6 1 2 0 9 0 2 0 4 2 0 fl 2 D 2 2 6 2 1 10 1 23 24 Total 15 16 4 0 35 3 14 3 4 20 3 14 7 D 24 ' 4 26 13 2 43 2 122 124 05:00 PM 3 10 1 1 14 2 4 2 0 8 0 q 2 0 6 0 3 3 0 6 1 34 35 D5:15 PM 3 3 4 0 6 1 4 0 0 5 0 3 1 0 4 1 5 2 D 8' D 23 23 D5:30 PM 3 3 3 0 9 0 2 0 0 2. 4 3 1 0 4 1 l i 2 0 14 0 29 29 05:45 PM 3 I 0 0 4 0 3 0 D 3 0 1 p D 1 0 3 4 0 7 D 15 15 Total 12 17 4 1 33 3 13 2 0 18 D 11 4 0 t5 2 22 11 0 35 1 t01 102 GrandTatal 27 33 8 1 68 6 27 5 0 38 3 25 11 0 39 6 48 24 2 78 3 223 226 ApprCh %a 39.7 48.5 11.8 15.8 71.1 13.2 7.7 84.1 2$.2 7.7 61.5 30.8 Total % 12.1 14.6 3.6 3D.5 2.7 12.1 2.2 17.0 1.3 11.2 4.9 17.5 27 21.5 10.8 35.D 1.3 98.7 SE 2ND 5T SE WASHINGTON AVE 5E 2ND ST SE WASHENGTON AVE From North From East From South From West Start Time !tight Thru Left App.TOtat Right Thru Left App.TOtal Right 7hrrr Left App. Total Right Thru Left App.TOtal Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to D5:45 PM -Peak 1 of I Intersection 04:15 PM volume 15 21 4 40 '. 4 12 5 21 2 1& 6 24 3 26 13 42 127 Percent 37.5 52.5 10.0 ' 19.4 57.1 23.8 $,3 6fi.7 25.0 7.1 61.9 31.0 04:15~olume 3 5 I 9 1 q 0 5 1 6 1 8 1 9 5 15 37 Peak Factor 0. 858 High Int. 05:DD PM 45:00 PM D4:15 PM D4:15 PM Volume 3 10 1 14 2 q 2 8 1 6 1 8 1 9 5 15 Peak Factor 0.714 - 0.656 0 .754 0.700 Peak Hour Fram 04:00 PM t0 05:45 PM -Peak 1 of 1 By Approach 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 44:00 PM 04:OD PM Volume 15 21 4 40 4 12 5 21 3 14 7 24 4 25 13 43 Percent 37.5 52.5 iD.O 19.0 57.I 23.$ 12.5 5$.3 29.2 9.3 60.5 30.2 High Int. 45:00 PM D5:40 PM 04:15 PM 44:15 PM Volume 3 i0 1 14 2 4 2 $ 1 6 1 8 1 9 5 15 Peak Factor 0.714 0.656 0. 750 0.717 TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 YELM, WASHINGTON OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 Fife Name : S&C27101P SE 2ND ST 350 491-8116 Site Code : OOpp0001 SE WASHINGTON AVE { ~ Sfart Date :09/2812006 LOC# 01 P S&C0627pM Page No : 2 SE 2ND 5T SE WASHINGTON AVE SE 2ND 5T SE WASHINGTON AVE From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thnr Left App.TOta1 Right Thru Left App.TOtat Right Thru Left App.7otal Right ' Thru Left ~ App-Total #nLTotal Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM -Peak 1 of I _ Intersection 04:15 pM Volume 15 21 4 4D q 12 5 21 2 16 6 24 3 26 13 42 127 Percent 37.5 52.5 ip.p 23.0 57.1 23.8 8.3 65.7 25.fl 7.1 61.9 31.0 fl4;15Valume 3 5 1 9 1 4 p 5 1 6 1 B 1 9 5 15 37 PCakFaetOr ~ 0.858 High Int. 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:15 pM Volume 3 10 1 14 2 q 2 8 1 6 1 6 1 9 5 15 PeakFaCtOr 0.71A 0.656 0.750 0,700 SE 2ND S7 put In Total 33 _ 46 _ 73 15 29 4 Right Thru left 1 1 ~~ m s` w a ~~ r,.. r ~ _ ' - p (n ~ Z v ~ North ~ ? ~ ~ p z ~ ~. "~ .~ ....... ~ a ~ c - ~ 9126/2006 4:15:00 PM ~ . ' c ~ ~ 9128/2006 S:OO:OD Pt~Ji N W ~ Q m.. ' d ~ ~ M rn PRIMARY m '-t Y u3 O (Y v. ~ " cs, o C ~ calm m w- 1 Left Thru Right 6 16 Z 29 24 53 . ....Out fn TotaE SE 2ND ST APPENDIX B Trip Generation Rate Review Appendix B Yelm Public Safety Building Trip Generation Rate Review The information below is from an interview of the future users of the Yelm PSB project. The interview was conducted by City of Yelm Public Warks staff Court employee trips between 4 to S PM Begin Shift 0 End Shift 3 Police e~x~ployee trips between 4 to 5 PM Begin Shift 2 End Shift 2 Patrol car/officer arrival and departure between ~l'M and 5PM 4 cars Average police cusromer/counter activity occurring between FPM and SPM 4 people Training facility typical usage Used once per week 40 to SO attendees Traini~xg will commonly take place between gam and 5 pm. Courtlcouneil chamber facility Court will use the chambers once a week, $:30am to 11:30am 35 to 40 people City Council will use the chambers twice a month, 7:30pm to 9:OOpm 15 people City Council Study Session will use the chambers once a month, S:OOpm to 8:34pm 15 people Yelm Public Safetry Building Trip Generation Estimate ~ PM Peek Hour {4PM to 5PM) T l Factored to Project Tri s ota Avg. weekdayz Inbound Outbound Total Court Fin loyees 3 3 0 3 3 Police Ern loyees 4 4 2 2 4 Patrolmen 4 4 3 3 6 Customers 4 4 4 4 8 Trainees 50 10 0 10 l0 Council Study _...._.. Session Attendees l5 1 I 0 l Total 10 22 32 ~r To provide a conservative analysis, vehicle occup<sncy of I person per vehicle vas assiamecf. Ore crnployee or customer arrival or depac•ture: was considered to equtil one vehicle as-rival or departure. '' Traffic from events occurring Icss than daily was averaged to reflect typical weekday cosulitions. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Summary: 1 [,765 Square Feet 32 PM Peak Hour Trips ((1,000 sf)(32 trips}}/{11,765 s~ - 2.72 gips per .1,000 square feet Percent Inbound = IO trips/30 Trips = 31% Percent Outbound = 20 Trips130 Trips = G9% Government Office Complex CITE Trip Genej~ation report Land Use 733} 2.85 Trips per 1,000 square feet Inbound = 31 Outbound = 69% APPENDIX C Traffic Volume Projection Worksheet Appendix C Traffic Volume Projections Yelm Public Safety Building PM Peak Hour U O ~ 4 v ~ m ~ U ~ ~ •0 ~ d L ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a a`_ ~ ~ N o _ ~ ~ _ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ C^ o .c ~ Annual Background Growth= Pipeline developments ~ ~ ~ p ~ © td7 QY ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ a~ ~ ~. ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ I- 2% O _ U ~ ~ f"" °o .~ o o ° 4 U ~ (6 a~ 'o ti ~ ~ ~ ~ U co 0 ° Mosman AvelFirst Street (south) 1: 27 2$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2$ 0 28 2 281 292 2 0 0 35 2 7 8 54 346 5 351 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {~ 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 357 371 3 0 0 '38 3 11 14 69 440 2 442 9 23 24 0 4 40 0 0 0 0 44 68 0 68 10 170 177 0 2 37 0 0 0 0 39 216 0 216 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 88 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 92 Mosman Ave/First St. (north) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 2 273 .2$4 2 0 0 35 2 7 8 54 338 0 .338 3 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 12 0 12 4 23 24 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 5 41 7 81 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 2 86 8 364 379 3 0 0 38 3 11 14 69 448 0 448 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1fl 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 of A N:1Projects1605 City of YeIm1605-03 Public Safety Build"inglexcellYelm psb volume talcs 10_06_D6.x[sSheel2 Appendix C Traf#ic Volume Projections Yelm Public Safety Building PM Peak Hour U N U ~ O 4 i _ ~ d Q ~ O ~ N ~ ~ Ca ~ .~ o ~ ~ a ~ f~. ~ ~ o m ~ 'd ~_ ~ ~ (.~. Yelm A~enuel First Street 1 110 114 2 71 74 3 49 51 4 16 17 5 514 535 6 170 177 7 193 201 8 80 83 9 1.25 130 10 37 3$ 11 596 620 12 131 136 Annual Background Growth= Pipeline developments c Ql Q Q D c m a v m ~ ~ a~ ~ `~ ~ ~ c ' ~ _ ~ ~, m ~ ~ j c~ ~ •c c v tz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ C ~ 9 3 25 0 0 13 15 65 2 0 0 0 0 7 8 17 0 0 0 34 0 3 4 41 0 0 0 31 0 6 7 44 0 10 98 49 13 0 0 170 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 38 3 0 0 0 0 11 14 28 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 6 107 53 8 0 0 174 21 2 27 0 0 22 28 100 Yelm Avel3rd Street 1 5 5 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 10 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 675 702 0 10 86 116 13 6 7 238 6 55 57 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 7 115 120 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 2. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 $85 920 0 6 93 125 8 3 4 239 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ f- ¢ ~ ~ _ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ 4) ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ 0_ ~ ~ 179 0 179 91 0 91 92 1 93 61 0 61 705 0 705 205 0 205 239 0 239 111 3 114 133 8 -141 40 0 40 794 4 79$ 236 0 236 5 0 5 0 0 0 7 0 7 11 0 11 940 0 940 59 3 62 122 2 124 0 0 0 2 0 2 10 0 10 1159 4 1163 2 0 2 2of4 N:IProjects16p5 City of Ys1m1645-03 Public Safety BuildinglexcellYeim psb volume calcs 10_O6_O6.xlsSheel2 Appendix C Traffic Volume Projections Yelm Public Safety Building PM Peak Hour U U ~ ~ O N ~ (~ L ~ L i~" Q Q Q ~ o .~ N ~ - Q.1 i.. C V 4. (T3 ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ f!7 ~ 'Q L m ~ d Washington A~e12nd Street 1 15 16 2 21 22 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 12 12 6 5 5 7 2 2 16 17 9 6 6 10 3 3 11 26 27 12 13 14 Site Access 1 0 0 2 a o 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 21 22 6 0 0 7 0 0 __ _ 8 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 fl 11 30 31 12 fl 0 Annual Background Growth= Pipeline de~elapments .~ C 47 O m ~ G ~+ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ tt3 L ~ LL. i[f v (U ~ N C ..: O ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o a o 4 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {} 0 0 0 0 {~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2°/v O ~ C U • ~ ~ U ~ _ ~ U N O ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O 16 0 16 22 0 22 4 5 9 4 4 S 12 11 23 5 5 10 2 2 4 17 0 17 6 0 6 3 0 3 27 0 27 14 0 14 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 (? 20 20 0 7 7 31 0 31 o a o 3of4 N:IProjects184S City of YeIm1605-03 Public Safety BuifdinglexcellYelm psb volume colts 10_06 06.x1s5heet2 Appendix C Traffic Volume Projec#ions Yelm Public Safety Building PM Peak Hour U U ~ ~ 'o m ~ ~ ~" 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C 4 p ,_ ~ N s.. N Q } ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~_ E~ ~ •2 ~ m Avenu 1 2 2 2 0 0 3 2 2 4 20 21 5 640 666 6 35 36 7 35 36 8 2 2 _ 9 1 1 10 15 16 11 795 827 12 5 5 Washington Avenue/1st Street 1 5 5 2 270 281 3 50 52 4 35 36 5 a a 6 25 26 7 35 36 8 465 484 9 15 16 10 10 10 11 5 5 12 10 1D Annual Background Growth Pipeline developments C 47 E ~z 0 a~ N (9 ~ (U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ O E ~ ~ (n ~ `" t fC5 N C ~ ~ .~ .~ 7 :., ~... ~ a ~.. 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 o D D o 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ', 0 0 D 1 0 D 0 1 ~ 0 10 86 115 13 6 7 237 D D D a D o 0 0 D D D D D D a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Q 0 -0 0. 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 6 93 124 8 3 4 238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fl 0 D 3 0 0 fl 0 0 D 0 D D 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 7 8 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D 0 0 0 o D 0 0 0 o D 38 3 11 14 69 o _ D o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% e c ~ U ~ . C N N tl ~ ~ U ~ U U ~'-- c0 ,N ~ (~ ~ 00 O O _ 2 0 2 o D D 3 0 3 22 0 22 903 0 903 36 0 36 36 4 40 2 0 2 1 0 1 16 5 21 1065 0 1065 5 0 5 5 0 .5 335 0 .335 52 0 52 36 11 47 0 D 0 26 0 26 36 0 36 553- 0 553 16 0 16 10 0 10 5 0 5 10 0 10 4 of 4 N:1Projects1605 Cify of YeIm16Q5-03 Public Safety BuildinglexcellYelrn psb volume talcs 10_06_06.xlsSheet2 APPENDIX D Capacity Analysis Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Yelm Ave & N l"irst Street Yeim PSB TIA 1 011212006 ~ ~ 1 Moverh~nt EBL BB1' +EBR ,VVBL 'WBT 1NBR ''NBL : NBT NBR SBL" 'SBT 'SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~' '~ '~, ~ '~, ~ ~ Ideal Flow {vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 15 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 13 12 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 Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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 Satd. Flow (prot} 1928 1845 1672 1736 1819 1811 1703 1770 1635 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm} 1928 1845 1572 1736 1819 417 1703 419 1635 Volume {vph) 130 595 35 170 515 15 125 80 195 50 70 110 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph} 143 654 38 181 548 16 149 95 232 67 93 147 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 78 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow {vph} 143 654 27 181 563 0 149 249 0 67 187 0 Heavy Vehicles {%} 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s} 11.1 50.9 50.9 13.9 53.7 30.6 20.7 23.8 17.3 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 51.4 51.4 14.4 54.2 31.6 21,2 24.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.13 0.49 0.29 0.19 0.23 0.16 Clearance Time {s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 862 781 227 896 252 328 180 265 vls Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.35 c0.10 c0.31 c0A6 c0.15 0.02 0.11 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.76 0.04 0.80 0.63 0.59 0,76 0.37 0.71 lJniform Delay, d1 47.5 24,2 15.9 46.4 20,5 31.4 42.0 35.0 43.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 6,2 0.1 16.4 3.3 2.5 9.5 0.5 8.1 Delay (s) 56.3 30.4 16.0 62.8 23.8 33.9 51.4 35.5 51.7 Level of Service E C B E C C D D D Approach Delay (s) 34.2 33.3 45.9 48.2 Approach LOS C C D D lntersectiort Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length {s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20A Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 9: Yelm Ave & N First Street 1 011 212 0 0 6 +, 1 ovem~nt ilr~L 'EI3T . ~BR _ ';lIVBL _ 1NBT. WBR _. NBL '; NBT ` NBR' SBLr SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 15 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 13 12 11 11 Total Lost tune {s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane U#il. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.$5 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow {prot) 1928 1845 1672 1736 1805 1811 1713 1770 1621 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.00 ~ ~ 0.20 1.00 Satd. Flow {perm) 1928 1845 1672 1736 1805 374 171-3 ~ ~ 380 1621 Volume {vph) 235 795 40 205 705 60 '~~, 115 240 90 90 180 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 874 44 218 750 64 167 137 286 120 120 240 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 9 0 3 0 0 68 0 0 65 0 Lane Group Flow {vph) 258 874 35 218 811 0 167 355 0 120 295 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4°/a 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt pmfpt Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G {s) 12.5 48.5 48.5 14.5 50,5 29.8 19.9 28.2 19.1 Effec#ive Green, g (s) 13.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 51.0 30.8 20.4 29.2 19.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.46 0.28 0.19 0.27 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.$ 2.0 2.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 822 745 237 837 241 318 222 289 vls Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.47 0.13 0.45 c0.07 c0.21 0.05 0.18 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.13 0.10 vlc Ratio 1.13 1.06 0.05 0.92 0.97 0.69 1.12 0.54 1.02 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 30.5 17.3 46.9 28.7 33.2 44.$ 33.6 45.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 99.6 49.6 0.1 36.4 24.5 6.8 86.0 1.4 58.4 Delay (s) 148.1 80.1 17.4 83.3 53.2 39.9 130.$ 35.0 103.6 Level of Service F F B F D D F D F Approach Delay {s) 92.7 59.6 105.1 86.5 Approach LOS F E F F Irtersectior~ Summary HCM Average Control Delay 83.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min} 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 9: Yelm Ave & N First Street 10/12/2006 Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~ ~ '~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 15 12 14 12 12 12 13 13 13 12 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1,00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1928 1845 1672 1736 1805 1811 1713 1770 1621 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.OD 0.20 1.00 Satd. Fiow (perm} 1928 1845 1672 1736 1805 377 1713 380 1621 Volume {vph) 235 800 40 205 705 60 140 115 240 95 90 180 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 879 44 218 750 64 167 137 286 127 120 240 RT4R Reduction (vph) 0 0 9 0 3 0 0 68 0 0 65 0 Lane Group Flow (vph} 258 879 35 218 811 0 167 355 0 127 295 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3°/n 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 48.5 48.5 14.5 50.5 29.6 19.7 28.4 19.1 Effective Green, g {s) 13.0 49.0 49.0 15.0 51.0 30.6 20.2 29.4 19.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.46 0.28 0.18 0.27 0.18 Clearance Time {s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.8 Lane Grp Cap {vph) 228 822 745 237 837 240 315 225 2$9 vls Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.48 0.13 0.45 c0A7 c0.21 0.05 0.18 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.13 0.10 vlc Ratio 1.13 1.07 0.05 0.92 0.97 0.70 1.13 0.56 1 A2 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 30.5 17.3 46.9 28.7 33.3 44.9 33.6 45.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 99.6 51.6 0.1 36.4 24.5 6.9 89.8 1.9 58.4 Delay {s} 148.1 82.1 17.4 83.3 53.2 40.2 134.7 35.5 103.6 Level of Service F F 8 F D D F D F Approach Delay (s) 94.1 59.6 107,9 85.9 Approach L4S F E F F Ir~tersectoil Stammary HCM Average Control Delay 84.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacit y ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length {s) 110.0 Sum of lo st time (s) 12,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period {min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea ~ Carr Inc Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 11: E Yelm Ave SR 507 & NE Third St 10/12/2406 ~ ~- Movemeht __ . _. EBL IrBT EBR 'iNBL INBT 1NBR NBL : NBT ' NBR SBL: SBT >SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 2 885 10 55 675 10 2 0 115 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate {vph) 2 941 11 59 71$ 11 3 0 153 7 0 7 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft) Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh} Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 767 1932 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.93 vC, conflicting volume 729 952 1798 1797 947 1945 1797 723 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 749 932 1935 1933 925 2133 1933 703 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage {s} tF {s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 88 92 100 34 18 100 98 cM capacity {vehlh) 824 508 33 43 231 8 43 407 ~irect~or; Lanei# EB'1 WB 1 _. : NB 1 `SB 1 Volume Total 954 7$7 156 13 Volume Left 2 59 3 7 Volume Right 11 11 153 7 cSH 824 508 209 16 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.12 0.75 0.84 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 130 54 Control Delay (s) 0.1 3.4 60.0 4$7.2 Lane LOS A A F F Approach Delay (s) 0.1 3.4 60.0 487.2 Approach LOS F F Iritersecti~n Stammary Average Delay 9.7 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period {min) 15 Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Entersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB T{A 11: E Yelm Ave SR 507 & NE Third St 10/13/2006 Nfovemer~t ESL ~BT, ?~BR WBL . WBT .... `1VBR NBL _ ` NBT " NBR SBL :SST . _. 'SBR Lane Configurations ~, ~ ~:, Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 2 1160 10 60 940 10 2 0 120 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate {vph) 2 1234 11 64 1000 11 3 0 160 7 0 7 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft) Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft} 767 1932 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.57 0.70 0.70 0.57 0.70 0.70 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1011 1245 2383 2382 1239 2537 2382 1005 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1014 1426 2413 2411 1416 2631 2411 1007 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage {s) tF {s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 76 79 100 0 0 100 97 cM capacity {veh/h) 504 267 13 18 97 0 18 217 C)rectio~ Lane # EB'"~1 WB'1~ ~ N~".1 "." ~;SB 'C ,.. Volume Total 1247 1074 163 13 Volume Left 2 64 3 7 Volume Right 11 11 160 7 cSH 504 267 87 0 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.24 1.87 Err Queue Length 95th {ft} 0 24 360 Err Control ©elay {s} 0.2 13.9 511.8 Err Lane LOS A B F F Approach Delay {s) 0.2 13.9 511.8 Err Approach LOS F F intersection Surrimary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Uti lization 1 11.2% lCU Level of Service M Analysis Period {rein) 15 Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 11: E Yelm Ave SR 507 & NE Third St 10/13/2006 ~"' M'"1r ~ ~ ~ l~ ~" t [Movement " EBL :SST . EBR WBL `:INI~T _. _ ."'WBR .. ` NBL ` NBT> " N8R` SBL SB`1" SSR Lane Configurations ~ ~:, ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Q% Volume {vehlh} 2 1165 10 60 940 10 2 0 125 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 2 1239 11 64 1000 11 3 0 167 7 0 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed {ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) 767 1132 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.58 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.70 0.70 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1011 1250 2359 2387 1245 2549 23$7 1005 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked val 1014 1434 2420 2418 1425 2647 2418 1007 tC, single (s} 4.1 4.2 7,1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 tC, 2 stage {s} tF {s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.2 3.5 pQ queue free % 100 76 79 100 0 0 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh} 504 265 13 18 97 0 15 196 [Direction, Lane # EB;1 WB 1. " " ;NB 1 SB 1 " " _ . . " Volume Total 1252 1074 169 13 Volume Left 2 64 3 7 Volume Right 11 11 167 7 cSH 504 265 87 0 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.24 1.94 Err Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 24 379 Err Control Delay {s} 0.2 14.1 540.9 Err Lane LOS A B F F Approach Delay {s) 0.2 14.1 540.9 Err Approach LOS F F lrifersec#~an Summary', Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 11.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min} 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yeim PSB TIA 20: SW Mosman Ave & S First St SR-507 10I12I2o06 ~1 Mov~r~ent EBL E8R ;NBL NBT SBT SBR . Lane Configurations -~ ~ '~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 4% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 90 170 25 355 280 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hauriy flow rate {vph) 105 198 32 449 346 31 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft} Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh} Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1074 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 874 361 377 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 874 361 377 tC, single {s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s} tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 66 71 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 311 683 1171 l~irecEi~n, Lane # EB 1 Ni3.1 ? SB 1 Volume l'otal 302 481 377 Volume Left 105 32 0 Volume Right 198 0 31 cSH 483 1171 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.63 0.03 0.22 Queue Length 95#h {fk) 110 2 0 Control Delay {s} 24.1 0,8 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 24.1 0.8 0.0 Approach LOS C intersection Summary Average Delay 6.6 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 61.3% iCU Leve l of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Pxisting 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 20: SW Mosman Ave & S First St SR-507 10/12/2006 Moverx~erit sIWBL EBR NBL . IVBT SBT " 'SBR ,. Lane Configurations '+~ ~ '~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 4% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 90 215 70 440 345 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 O.S6 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate {vph) 105 250 $9 557 426 37 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft} Walking Speed {ft/s} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) 1474 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1179 444 463 VC1, Stage 1 COnf VOI vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1179 444 463 tC, single {s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s) tF {s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 46 59 92 cM capacity {vehlh) 193 613 1088 Direction; Lane;f#, EBi1 " NB's SB 1 Volume Total 355 646 463 Volume Left 105 $9 0 Volume Right 250 0 37 cS H 373 1088 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.95 0.08 0.27 Queue Length 95th {ft) 271 7 0 Control Delay {s) 68.C 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS F A Approach Delay {s} 68.6 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS F Irterseetinn Summary Average Delay 17.5 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 75.2% ICU Leve ! of Service D Analysis Period {min) 15 Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yeim PSB TIA 20: SW Mosman Ave & S First Sfi SR-5Q7 10/12/2006 itiovement BBL ~BR" "" NBL NBT ''SBT ?SBR .:: .:... ,,:.: Lane Configurations ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 4% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 90 215 70 440 350 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate {vph} 105 250 89 557 432 37 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft} Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh} Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft} 1074 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1185 451 469 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1185 451 469 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s) tF {s) 3.5 3.3 2,2 p0 queue free % 45 59 92 cM capacity {vehlh) 191 608 1082 I~rectio( Lane:"# : EB '1 NB 1 ;S13 1 ,. Volume Total 355 646 469 Volume Left 105 89 0 Volume Right 250 0 37 cSH 370 1082 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.96 0.08 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 276 7 0 Control Delay {s) 70.8 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS F A Approach Delay {s) 70.8 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Stimmary; _. _ Average Delay 18.0 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 21: SE Mosman Ave & S First St SR-507 10/12/2006 ''~ '~ ~' ~ Movement >WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL 'SBT '' Lane Configurations '~` '~ ~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh} 35 25 365 80 10 275 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rake {vph) 49 35 462 101 12 340 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh} Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft} g40 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 877 513 563 vC1, stage 1 canf val vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 877 513 563 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s) tF {s} 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % $4 94 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 315 561 998 Direction; Lane # WB 1 NBj1 ''SB 1 . Volume Total $5 563 352 Volume Left 49 0 12 Volume Right 35 101 0 cSH 386 1700 998 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.33 0.01 Queue Length 95th {ft) 21 0 1 Control Delay (s) 16.9 OA 0.4 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s} 16.9 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C intersection Suri~mary;, Average Delay 1.6 intersection Capacity Ut ilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 2'l : SE Mosman Ave & S First St SR-507 10i12i2aos Movement . ... WBL WBR NBT - iVBR SBL _. . ;SBT Lane Configurations '~ ~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 35 25 450 85 10 340 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 49 35 570 108 12 420 Pedestrians Lane W idth (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Nane Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft} 940 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1068 623 677 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1068 623 677 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s) tF (s) 3.5 3,3 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 93 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 242 486 905 Direction; Lane # WB 1 NB'1 SB 1 Volume Total 85 677 432 Volume Left 49 0 12 Volume Right 35 108 0 cSH 306 1700 905 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.40 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 0 1 Control Delay (s) 21.2 OA 0.4 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 21.2 OA 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Projected 2008 wIo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 6 HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 21: SE Mosman Ave & S 1=first St SR-507 10/12/2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement VlIBL <WBR _. `NBT =NBR <SBL 'SBT" .. Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh} 40 25 450 85 10 340 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph} 56 35 570 108 12 420 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft} 940 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1068 623 677 vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1068 623 677 tC, single {s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage {s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 77 93 99 cM capacity (vehlh} 242 486 905 Directinn.Lane`# WB 1 NB'1 " :SB ~ ,. _. Volume Total 92 677 432 Volume Left 56 0 12 Volume Right 35 108 0 cS H 300 1700 905 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.40 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft} 33 0 1 Control Delay {s) 22.2 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay {s) 22.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary .. Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr inc Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 22: SW Washin ton St & S First St SRT507' 10/12/2006 Mnvemeht EBL EBT . EBR WBL 1NBT 'INBR ?NBL 'NBT NBR' SBL SBT SBR. Lane Configurations ~, ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade Q% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh} 10 5 10 25 1 35 15 465 35 50 270 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0,69 0.69 0.78 0,78 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly flow rate (vph} 14 7 14 32 1 45 18 567 43 58 314 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft} 302 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1104 1079 317 1076 1061 588 320 610 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1104 1079 317 1076 1061 588 320 610 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.2 tC, 2 stage {s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 22 2.3 p0 queue free % 91 96 98 $2 99 91 99 94 cM capacity (vehlh} 163 203 728 177 207 509 1223 950 Direction; Larte"~ I"8 `1 WB'1 _ . NB'1 ...... SB 1 Volume Total 36 78 628 378 Volume Left 14 32 18 58 Volume Right 14 45 43 6 cSH 251 284 1223 950 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.28 OA1 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 28 1 5 Control Delay (s) 21.8 22.4 0.4 2.0 Lane LOS C C A A Approach Delay (s) 21.8 22.4 0.4 2.0 Approach LOS C C Irfetsecton Siirnm~ry '; Average Delay 32 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yeim PSB TIA 22: SW Washin ton St & S First St SR-507 101121zoos fVlavernenf IBL 'IrBT ESR ';1lIIBL UVBT :'WBR NBL NBT: NBR SBL SBT `5BR Lane Configurations ~ Sign Control Stop Stop E=ree Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 10 5 10 25 1 35 15 555 35 50 335 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 0,78 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 7 14 32 1 45 18 677 43 58 390 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) 302 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1289 1265 392 1262 1246 698 395 720 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1289 1265 392 1262 1246 698 395 720 tC, single {s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.2 #C, 2 stage {s) tF {s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2,3 p0 queue free % 88 95 98 75 99 90 98 93 cM capacity (vehlh} 119 157 661 130 159 440 1147 864 Direction, Lar~e'# BB 1 _. WB:-1 NB 1 SB 1 _ Volume To#al 36 78 738 453 Volume Left 14 32 18 58 Volume Right 14 45 43 6 cSH 191 219 1147 864 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.36 0.02 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft} 18 40 1 6 Control Delay {s) 28.3 30.2 0.4 1.9 Lane LOS D D A A Approach Delay (s} 28.3 30.2 0.4 1.9 Approach LOS D D Intersectiori Summary;<< Average Delay 3.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min} 15 Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 7 HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 22: SW Washin ton Ave & S First St SR-507 1011212oD6 ~ Movement i=BL ~~7 EBR .UVBL WBT WBR NBL. NBT ' NBR SBL SBT , SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 10 5 10 25 1 45 15 555 35 50 335 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.$2 0.82 D.82 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 7 14 32 1 58 18 677 43 58 390 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Righ# turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) 302 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1302 1265 392 1262 1246 69S 395 720 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1302 1265 392 1262 1246 698 395 720 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4,2 tC, 2 stage {s) tF {s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.3 p0 queue free % 87 95 98 75 99 87 98 93 cM capacity (veh/h} 113 157 661 130 159 440 1147 864 Direction; Lake # _. X81 WB 1 iVB 1 SB 1 Volume Tntal 36 91 738 453 Volume Left 14 32 18 58 Volume Right 14 58 43 6 cSH 184 236 1147 864 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.39 0.02 0.07 Queue Leng#h 95th (ft) 18 45 1 6 Control Delay (s) 29.3 29.5 0.4 1.9 Lane LO5 D D A A Approach Delay {s} 29.3 29.5 0.4 1.9 Approach LOS D D lrtfersection Summary ; .. .. ,. Average Delay 3 7 _ Intersection Capacity Uti lization 55.3°1o ICU Leve l of Service B Analysis Period {rain) 15 Projected 200$ wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yeim PSB TIA 65: SE Washington St & SE Second St 10/12/2006 ___ _ - _ ii~~li ~iliiii im lii illli 111 iilillliii~ii~~ ~i~i~~ ~i .~ ~ Trr Movement.... _ SEL SET SIwR ;`NINE NWT _.. . NWR _ .. NEL _ .. ; NE,T ` NER '' SWL- ;`SWT 'SINR Lane Configurations ~, ~ ~, ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Frei; Grade 0% 0% 0% E}% Volume (vehlh) 15 25 5 5 10 5 5 15 5 5 20 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph} 24 33 7 7 13 7 7 20 7 7 27 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh) Median type Nane None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) pX, piatoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 100 90 37 110 97 23 47 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf val vCu, unblocked vol 100 90 37 110 97 23 47 27 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 % 98 96 99 99 98 99 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 859 793 1036 830 787 1053 1561 1587 Di'rectior~,Lane'# SE 1 NW 9 NE'1 _ SW 1 . Volume Tota[ 60 27 33 53 Volume Left 20 7 7 7 Volume Right 7 7 7 20 cSH 836 852 1561 1587 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th {ft) 6 3 0 0 Control Delay (s} 9.6 9.4 1.5 0.9 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.6 9.4 1.5 0.9 Approach LOS A A Intersecflon Summary;: _ _. . Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 13.7% I CU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 65: SE Washin ton St & SE Second St 1 011 21200 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement SEL . SIFT `SER NWL NWT " ;':NWR >NEL `NAT NER> SWL SWT " ;'SWR Lane Configurations ~ ~, ~, Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 15 25 5 5 10 5 5 15 5 5 20 15 Peak Hour Factor 0,75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 33 7 7 13 7 7 20 7 7 27 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft} Walking Speed (ftls} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 100 90 37 110 97 23 47 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 eonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 100 90 37 110 97 23 47 27 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 % 98 96 99 99 98 99 100 100 cM capacity {vehlh} 859 793 1036 830 787 1053 1561 15$7 Direction; Lane # SE':1 NW:!-1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 60 27 33 53 Volume Left 20 7 7 7 Volume Right 7 7 7 20 cSH 836 852 1561 1587 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.6 9.4 1.5 0.9 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay {s) 9.6 9.4 1.5 0.9 Approach LOS A A Intersection Surn,mary -: Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.7% lCU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 8 HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yeim PSB TfA 65: SE Washin ton St & SE Second St 10112I2oo6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement SEC SST Sj=R NINL NWT. N~1/R NEL NIrT ; NER' SWL? SWT SINR. .._ . . Lane Configurations ~, ~ . . ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade D% D% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 15 25 5 10 25 10 5 15 5 10 20 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 D.75 D.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 33 7 13 33 13 7 20 7 13 27 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare {veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Ups#ream signal {ft} pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 130 103 37 123 110 23 47 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 130 103 37 123 910 23 47 27 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 % 97 96 99 98 96 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 797 777 1036 810 770 1053 1561 1587 Direction'; Lane#~ S'1 ~ NW ~:~9 __._ ~ N~ 1 5W 'f Volume Total 60 60 33 60 Volume Left 20 13 7 13 Volume Right 7 13 7 20 cSH 806 829 1561 1587 Volume to Capacity 0.07 O.D7 D.DO 0.01 Queue Length 95th {ft) 6 6 D 1 Control Delay (s) 9.8 9.7 1.5 1.7 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay {s) 9.8 9.7 1.5 1.7 Approach LOS A A intersection Summary - ,, Average Delay 6.2 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 14,0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA '[ 0: E Yeim Ave (SR 5~7) & NE Second St 1 011 312 0 0 6 .... ... . 1111 it liilill~ Pnlgq.i~ppinnnn~ Nwllllw~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ llllovement EBL BBT ;EBR UIIBL- VVBT 1111BR _ ' NBL . ' NBT NBR ; 'S13L =SB1' 'SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 5 795 15 35 640 20 1 2 35 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate {vph} 5 855 16 37 681 21 1 3 47 3 0 3 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft} Walking Speed {ftls) Percent Blockage Right #urn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) 286 pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 vC, conflicting volume 702 871 1642 1650 863 1688 1648 691 vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 702 815 1923 1934 803 1988 1930 691 tC, single (s) 4.1 4,1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF {s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 93 96 94 82 89 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh} 886 560 33 42 266 24 43 444 nirectioi~, l:ane;## I;B 3 WB;:1 NB 1 . SB 1 Volume Total 876 739 51 5 Volume Left 5 37 1 3 Volume Right 16 21 47 3 cSH 886 560 182 45 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.07 0.28 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 28 10 Control Delay (s} 0.2 1.9 32.3 96.2 Lane LOS A A D F Approach Delay (s} 0.2 1.9 32.3 96.2 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary _, Average Delay 2.2 intersection Capacity Uti lization 69.3% lCU Leve l of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing 2006 Volumes Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr lnc Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TlA 10: E Yelm Ave SR 507 & NE Second St 1x/2712006 Jlc~verr}~r#t. >~~~ „ ~~3T l/I~R ~~L I/V~~ _~IIr<~f, il~l~~. NI~~ .:` ~fiit SILL; 5~3'..vE~R Lane Configurations ~ ,~y ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh) 5 1065 15 35 905 20 1 2 35 3 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1145 16 37 963 21 1 3 47 4 0 3 Pedes#rians Lane W idth (ft) Walking Speed (Ells} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Nane Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) 286 pX, platoon unblocked 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 vC, conflicting volume 984 1161 2215 2222 1153 2280 2220 973 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf voi vCu,unblocked vol 984 1311 3338 3354 1295 3426 3349 973 tC, single (s} 4.1 4.1 7.7 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage {s} tF {s) 2.2 2,2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 86 38 23 54 0 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 694 271 2 3 102 0 4 306 brept#a, L~~e # . tr(~ ;~ W~.~ NB 1 ~B ~ Volume Total 1167 1021 51 7 Volume heft 5 37 1 4 Volume Right 16 21 47 3 cSH 694 271 27 1 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.14 1.85 10.39 Queue Length 95#h {ft) 1 12 157 Err Control Delay {s} 0.3 7.2 707.2 Err Lane LO5 A A F F Approach Delay (s) 0.3 7.2 707.2 Err Approach LOS F F ~itersecti©n Summary; - Average Delay 49.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected 2008 wlo project Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr Inc page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 10: E Yelm Ave SR 507 & NE Second St 10127!2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {111g~rem~nt... .;. ,. ... 1WBE. ~~T , I~~I;t 'kI-1BL Wl~~' NI~R NFL : NB's` - NCR;; SB Sl~"t' , .5 Lane on figurations ~ ~ ,~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehJh) 5 1065 20 35 905 20 1 2 40 3 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1145 22 37 963 21 1 3 53 4 0 3 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft) Walking Speed (ft/s} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh} Upstream signs! (ft) 286 pX, pla#oon unblocked 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 vC, conflicting volume 984 1167 2217 2225 1156 2269 2225 973 vC1, s#age 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 9$4 1323 3362 3378 1303 3463 337$ 973 tC, single (s} 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 86 34 20 47 0 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 694 266 2 3 101 0 3 306 l~rectttsri, Land # E3 'l„ WB° 1 NB 1 , ~(~ 1 ,_ .: Volume To#al 1172 1021 57 7 . , Volume Left 5 37 1 4 Volume Right 22 21 53 3 cS H 694 266 29 0 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.14 1.99 14.42 Queue Length 95th (ft} 1 13 176 Err Control Delay (s) 0.3 7.4 755.0 Err Lane LOS A A F F Approach Delay (s} 0.3 7.4 755.0 Err Approach LOS F F ark#ersedtion 5~mmary,;,, ;; , Average Delay 52.2 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 83.9% !CU Leve l of Service E Analysis Period (min} 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Report Shea & Carr lnc Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Yelm PSB TIA 7: Washington Avenue & Si#e Access 10/27/2000 i ii liliil~ lilim I~nppln~ 1~19gnNin~ /wl~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lane Configurations '~i ~ '~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume {vehlh} 30 5 5 20 20 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Hourly f{ow rate (vph) 40 7 7 27 27 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal {ft) pX, pla#oon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 47 83 43 vC1, stage 1 conf vof vC2, stage 2 conf vof vCu, unblocked vol 47 S3 43 tC, single (s} 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF' {s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pfl queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity {vehlh) 1561 914 1027 ~irect~oi%Y.l.ane'# :'- SIr 1 NV41;1 N 1, ~~ ~. ~:, ~ , .. Volume Total 47 33 33 Volume Left 0 7 27 Volume Right 7 0 7 cSH 1700 1561 935 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.00 0.04 Queue Length 95#h {ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay {s} 0.0 1.5 9.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay {s) 0.0 1.5 9.0 Approach LOS A 1~ ~rsee ryn, uf'r?rnary; Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utili zation 15.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Projected 2008 wlproject Synchro 6 Repor# Shea & Carr Inc Page 1