Final Newman's Addition TIA (2)Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................3 Project
Location and Description ...........................................................................................3 Study Approach...................................................................
.....................................................6 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................7 Roadway Network ..................................
..................................................................................7 Non-Motorized Facilities...........................................................................................
..............9 Traffic Volumes .........................................................................................................................9 Traffic Operations .........................
......................................?????.....................................................9 Traffic Safety ....................................................................................
.......................................11 Transit Service ..........................................................................................................................12
FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS...........................................14 Planned Transportation Improvements ...............................................................................14
Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................................14 Traffic Operations ..........................................
........................................................................15 PROJECT IMPACTS .............................................................................20 Trip Generation
.......................................................................................................................20 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................
...........................................20 Traffic Volume Impacts..........................................................................................................20 Traffic
Operations Impacts....................................................................................................26 Site Access...................................................................
............................................................30 Traffic Safety Impacts .............................................................................................................30
MITIGATION PLAN .............................................................................31 Traffic Impact Fees ...................................................................................
.............................31 Intersection Improvements....................................................................................................31 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
..........................................................34
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 ii Figures Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity ................................................................................................
Figure 2. Project Site Plan......................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Existing Intersection Channelization and
Control ............................................8 Figure 4. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................13 Figure 5. Baseline Weekday PM
Peak Traffic Volumes (Without Crossroads) ...........16 Figure 6. Baseline Weekday PM Peak Traffic Volumes (With Crossroads).................17 Figure 7. Project Trip Distribution....................
................................................................21 Figure 8. Project Trip Assignment......................................................................................22
Figure 9. With Project Weekday PM Peak Traffic Volumes (Without Crossroads) ...23 Figure 10. With Project Weekday PM Peak Traffic Volumes (With Crossroads) .........24 Tables Table 1.
Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary ...........................................................10 Table 2. Intersection Accident Data Summary (2003-2005) .........................................11
Table 3. Baseline PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (Without Crossroads) ....................18 Table 4. Baseline PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (With Crossroads) ..........................19 Table
5. Project Trip Generation Summary.....................................................................20 Table 6. Traffic Volume Impacts (Without Crossroads) ........................................
......25 Table 7. Traffic Volume Impacts (With Crossroads) .....................................................26 Table 8. With-Project PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (Without Crossroads)
............27 Table 9. With-Project PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (With Crossroads)..................29 Table 10. Site Access LOS Summary..................................................................
...............30 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA APPENDIX B: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS APPENDIX C: CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 3 Introduction This report summarizes the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the Newman’s Addition residential
development in the City of Yelm, Washington. The scope for this study was developed in coordination with planning and engineering staff from the City of Yelm and its traffic consultant.
The report is divided into four primary sections. ?? Existing Conditions documents the current conditions within the study area. Existing levels of service at study intersections are
calculated based on existing intersection geometry and traffic volumes. This section also includes descriptions of transit service, non-motorized facilities, and traffic safety within
the study area and on roadways adjacent to the site. ?? Future Without-Project Conditions documents the conditions expected to prevail in the study area in 2008 without the proposed
project. The operations analyses include all roadway improvements and increases in traffic volumes resulting from other planned developments in the vicinity of the project site by 2008.
?? Future With-Project Conditions documents the impact of the proposed project relative to baseline conditions. ?? Summary and Proposed Mitigation documents the results of the analysis
and identifies measures that are necessary to offset potential transportation impacts. Project Location and Description The proposed residential project includes the construction of
90 single-family dwelling units. The project site, shown in Figure 1, is located south of 103rd Avenue SE and east of the proposed State Route (SR) 510 Loop Road in the City of Yelm.
The property is zoned for residential uses (R-6 Moderate Density Residential under city zoning code), which allows for construction of single-family dwelling units. Access to the site
is proposed via one full-movement driveway along 103rd Avenue SE.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 6 Study Approach The approach for this analysis was developed based on City guidelines, coordination with review staff
and in compliance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. The specific study scope was identified through meetings and the submittal of initial traffic analyses to the
City of Yelm and its consultants. As directed, the analysis focuses on weekday PM peak hour traffic operations at the proposed site driveways and at the following 27 off-site intersections
which are represented in graphical form in Figure 3. 1. SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE 2. SR 510/86th Ave SE 3. SR 510/89th Ave SE 4. Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE 5. Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE 6. Yelm
Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE 7. Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE 8. Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St 9. Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St 10. Yelm Ave SE/Solberg St 11. Yelm Ave SE/Rice St 12. Yelm Ave SE/Edwards
St 13. Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave 14. Yelm Ave/First St 15. Yelm Ave E/2nd St 16. Yelm Ave E/3rd St 17. Yelm Ave E/4th St 18. Yelm Ave E/Clark Rd SE 19. Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave SE 20. Yelm
Ave E/Vancil Rd SE 21. Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE 22. NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 23. SR 507/Grove Rd SE 24. SR 507/SR 510 Loop 25. SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE 26. SR 507/Vail Rd SE
27. SR 507/SR 702 The project is expected to be completed in 2008. As such, the full study area is evaluated to determine the impacts of this project at the anticipated year of opening
(2008). The following sections within this report document the existing and future withoutproject (baseline) and future with-project conditions within the study area. Project impacts
are identified by comparing forecast with-project conditions against forecast without-project conditions. Potential mitigation measures are identified where necessary to offset these
impacts. Per discussions with City staff, an additional analysis scenario was considered and summarized within this report. Due to the status of the Crossroads retail project application
and given the size of the project, the analysis summarized within this report includes an analysis of with and without the Crossroads project. The LOS analysis for this additional scenario
has been generated for the without and with-project conditions.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 7 Existing Conditions This section of the report provides an inventory of existing transportation conditions throughout
the study area. This inventory serves as the foundation from which future traffic conditions are forecast and evaluated. The following paragraphs describe the vicinity roadway network,
non-motorized facilities, existing traffic volumes and operations, traffic safety and existing transit service within the study area. Roadway Network The following roadways comprise
the primary roadway system in the project site vicinity. Furthermore, these roadways would accommodate a majority of the project-generated traffic and, in doing so, would experience
the greatest project impacts. The following paragraphs describe the general characteristics of these roadways. The existing channelization and intersection control at each study area
intersection is illustrated in Figure 3. SR 507(First Street SE) is a regional highway operated by WSDOT that is the primary roadway in the region and will carry a large portion of project
traffic to the site. It is a two-lane highway entering the City of Yelm from the southwest. Upon entering the city, SR 507 becomes First Street and then turns southeast onto Yelm Avenue,
intersecting SR 510. SR 507 then continues east past the project site before turning northward and ending at SR 7. SR 507 is a two-lane roadway with a varying speed limit between 55
mph and 35 mph along this section. SR 510 is a regional state highway and the primary connector to Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater for the City of Yelm. This is also a two-lane roadway with a
speed limit of 55 mph before entering the City. Traveling southeast through the City, the roadway changes name from SR 510 to SR 507 at First Street SE. This roadway will carry project
traffic to the site from the west and northwest. SR 510 and SR 507 serve together as the primary transportation spine of the City of Yelm and have the highest concentrations of traffic
within the City. Bald Hills Rd SE is a rural two-lane road with a speed limit of 35 mph running southeast from the City of Yelm. The roadway intersects SR 507 at NE Creek St southwest
of the site near the southern city limit. This road carries traffic from the Clear Lake residential development southeast of the city. The remaining roadways within the study area are
minor in nature and generally serve to provide access between adjacent land uses and the wider transportation network. A few of these facilities have lane markings and some form of non-motorized
accommodations, such as sidewalks or wide shoulders. However, most are unmarked roadways with little or no pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 9 Non-Motorized Facilities Sidewalks are provided along roadways at many study intersections primarily along Yelm Avenue
within the city. Bike lanes are provided along Yelm Avenue from approximately Third Street to Bald Hill Road. Traffic Volumes The traffic analysis focuses on the weekday PM peak hour.
Turning movement traffic counts for all study area intersection were conducted on June 13, 2006. The peak hour for each individual intersection was used in the technical analysis. This
produces a reasonable, yet conservative analysis of traffic conditions within the study area. Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections are summarized in Figure
4. These counts were used to establish existing traffic conditions and provide the basis for estimating forecast traffic volumes. The existing counts are also included in Appendix A
of this report. Traffic Operations A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the study intersections under existing conditions. Level of service is a qualitative measure of
the performance of an intersection. Levels of service values range from LOS A, indicating good operation and low vehicle delays, to LOS F, which indicates congestion and longer vehicle
delays. Appendix B contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. The LOS results tabulated in this report reflect overall intersection levels of service based on total
intersection delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections as directed by the City’s traffic consultant. This standard was affirmed through the land use hearings conducted for
the adjacent Wal-Mart project. Existing lane geometries and traffic controls were used for all study intersections. Synchro v.6.0 (Build 614) was used to evaluate intersection levels
of service based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) methodologies. Existing signal timing parameters were obtained from WSDOT for the signalized
study intersections and used for the evaluation of existing conditions, as well as the future without-project and future with-project evaluations described in subsequent sections of
this report. The results of the intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 1.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 10 Table 1. Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Overall Worst Movement Intersections LOS1 Delay2 V/C or WM3 LOS Delay Veh4
Signalized Yelm Avenue E/First St5 D 36.2 0.72 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE A 8.7 0.60 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE C 22.2 0.61 n/a NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 D 50.8 0.93
n/a SR 507/SR 702 B 14.8 0.65 n/a Unsignalized SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE A 0.2 WB C 19.5 10 SR 510/86th Ave SE A 0.1 NB A 0.2 0 SR 510/89th Ave SE A 0.1 EB B 14.4 5 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd
SE A 0.9 SB D 27.7 25 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE A 1.4 NB C 20.1 65 Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE A 0.7 SB D 32.9 20 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE A 0.4 SB D 31.6 15 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St
A 5.0 SB F 71.2 70 Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St A 0.9 SB E 39.1 15 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St5 A 2.0 NB E 35.9 35 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St5 A 0.5 NB C 21.2 15 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St5 A 2.8 SBL F
59.9 35 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave5 A 3.1 SB F 174.2 20 Yelm Ave E/2nd St5 A 1.7 SB F 166.6 5 Yelm Ave E/3rd St5 A 4.1 SB F 70.6 10 Yelm Ave E/4th St5 A 0.5 SB D 27.5 10 Yelm Ave E/103rd
Ave A 1.2 NB F 54.1 10 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE A 7.0 SBL F >200 10 SR 507/Grove Rd SE A 2.1 SB E 40.1 70 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE A 0.6 SB D 32.7 25 SR 507/Vail Rd SE A 4.8 NB E 37.8
165 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio reported for signalized intersections.
Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 4. Number of vehicles using worst movement. 5. LOS standard is F as documented in the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan. The City
of Yelm and WSDOT have established a minimum intersection level of service standard of LOS D for intersections within their respective jurisdictions. The exception is the City downtown
core where the minimum standard is LOS F1 and includes the following intersections: 1. Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St 2. Yelm Ave SE/Rice St 3. Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St 4. Yelm Ave SE/Railroad
Ave 5. Yelm Ave E/First St 6. Yelm Ave E/2nd St 7. Yelm Ave E/3rd St 8. Yelm Ave E/4th St 1 City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan, April 1998, page VI-2.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 11 LOS is measured as the average of all approaches to the intersection and is used to insure that maintenance and expansion
of transportation infrastructure occurs concurrently with development. Intersections operating below standard are often earmarked for future improvements. Although some movements at
unsignalized intersections operate poorly, the overall average LOS at each study intersection currently meets the City’s and WSDOT minimum LOS D of F standard as shown in the table above.
Traffic Safety Historical accident data at the 26 existing study intersections was obtained from WSDOT for the most recent three-year period available (2003-2005). The detailed accident
data was evaluated to assess the current traffic safety at the study intersections. Typically, intersections with collision rates greater than 1.00 collisions per million entering vehicles
are earmarked for continued evaluation and potential safety improvements. Table 2 summarizes the accident data. Table 2. Intersection Accident Data Summary (2003-2005) Study Area Intersections
2003 2004 2005 Total Ave. MEV1 SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE 0 0 1 1 0.33 0.07 SR 510/86th Ave SE 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SR 510/89th Ave SE 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE 0 2 1 3 1.00
0.22 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE 1 1 1 3 1.00 0.21 Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE 4 0 1 5 1.67 0.34 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE 1 1 2 5 1.67 0.32 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St 3 3 0 6 2.00 0.34
Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St 2 1 0 3 1.00 0.18 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St 3 3 6 12 4.00 0.69 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St 0 0 4 4 1.33 0.26 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St 2 2 0 4 1.33 0.25 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad
Ave 3 0 1 4 1.33 0.22 Yelm Ave SE/First St 8 5 4 17 5.67 0.74 Yelm Ave E/2nd St 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.05 Yelm Ave E/3rd St 4 0 2 6 2.00 0.30 Yelm Ave E/4th St 1 3 1 5 1.67 0.25 Yelm Ave E/Clark
Rd SE 5 2 2 9 3.00 0.40 Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave 1 0 1 2 0.67 0.10 Yelm Ave E/Vancil Rd SE 0 6 12 18 6.00 0.80 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.05 NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507
3 2 7 12 4.00 0.52 SR 507/Grove Rd SE 2 3 4 9 3.00 0.57 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE 1 1 2 4 1.33 0.24 SR 507/Vail Rd SE 1 1 2 4 1.33 0.19 SR 507/SR 702 1 6 4 11 3.67 0.58 1. Average accidents
per million entering vehicles.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 12 As shown in Table 2, the greatest number of collisions in the study area occurred at the intersections of Yelm Avenue
SE/First Street and Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Road SE. The most common accident type at these intersections was rear-end accidents. No fatalities were reported at these intersections, or
in the study area during the time period analyzed. This, combined with accident rates less than 1.00 per million entering vehicles, implies that there are no serious existing traffic
safety deficiencies in the study area. Transit Service Transit service to the City of Yelm is provided by Intercity Transit Route 94. The route connects Yelm to the Tri-City area of
Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater along SR 510 with service every 60-70 minutes between 5:50 am and 7:25 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 7:10 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The nearest transit stop
to the site is located in the Nisqually Crossroads, approximately one mile to the southwest of the proposed project.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 14 Future Without-Project Conditions A future (2008) without-project analysis was developed to identify forecast traffic
conditions without the development of the proposed project. These evaluations establish a baseline for identifying project impacts based upon a comparison of withoutproject traffic conditions.
The future roadway network, traffic volumes, and traffic operations are defined in this section. Planned Transportation Improvements Transportation improvements within the study area
are planned jointly through the coordination of WSDOT and the City of Yelm. The City of Yelm maintains a Six-year Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that lists all planned transportation
improvements for City facilities. The City’s 2006-2011 STIP identifies a total of 16 improvement projects. All of these projects are focused on maintenance, right-of-way acquisition
or upgrades to existing roadways in order to meet the appropriate street classification standards with the exception of the Stevens Street extension from Edwards Street and First Street.
Although this project is funded and would improve intersection operations, the analysis has been performed without it to provide an evaluation of conditions at the year of opening and
provide a worst-case scenario of future conditions. The SR 510 Loop Road (Y2/Y3) project, which is planned jointly by WSDOT and the City of Yelm, will add significant capacity to the
roadway network within the City. This new loop road, which should be completed by 2010, will provide a route around downtown Yelm, with the expectation that through traffic would tend
to use the loop as a by-pass road to avoid congestion in the downtown area. Since the completion of the SR 510 by-pass, and the associated shifts in travel patterns are not expected
to occur prior to 2010, the by-pass was not accounted for in the 2008 evaluations described in this report. Traffic Volumes Future without-project, or “baseline”, traffic volumes were
established in two steps. First, existing counts were projected to 2008 using a 2-percent annual growth rate as directed by City and WSDOT staff. Secondly, several pipeline projects
were added to the projected 2008 traffic volumes. Pipeline projects are development projects that have been permitted but not currently built and therefore do not currently generate
traffic on the roadway. The following projects were included in the baseline traffic forecasts: 1. Green Village 2. Mountain Shadow 3. Mount Sunrise 4. Tahoma Terra 5. Terra Valley 6.
Willow Glen 3 7. Cherry Meadows 8. Wal-Mart As previously mentioned, the Crossroads project located southwest of the site along SR 507 has not yet been approved and therefore is not
required to be added as a pipeline project. However, the level of traffic generated by that development will have an impact
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 15 on the operations of nearby study area intersections. As a result, the future analysis has been prepared assuming
two scenarios; with and without Crossroads project traffic. The resulting baseline traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6 for the without and with Crossroads scenarios. Traffic
Operations Future traffic operations in the study area were evaluated based on the 2008 forecast traffic volumes described above, using the same methodologies discussed in the evaluation
of existing levels of service. Based on discussions with City and WSDOT staff, existing signal timing parameters were held constant for the future conditions. Table 3 provides a summary
of without-project LOS for the study intersections for the without Crossroads scenario while Table 4 provides a summary of without-project LOS for the study intersection for the with
Crossroads scenario.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 18 Table 3. Baseline PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (Without Crossroads) 2008 Baseline Conditions Overall Worst Movement Intersections
LOS1 Delay2 V/C or WM3 LOS Delay Veh4 Signalized Yelm Avenue E/First St5 E 69.9 0.97 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE B 11.6 0.75 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE C 23.2 0.75 n/a NE Creek
St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 F 85.0 1.19 n/a SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road D 35.4 1.11 n/a SR 507/SR 702 C 20.3 0.81 n/a Unsignalized SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE A 0.3 WB D 28.6 10 SR 510/86th Ave SE
A 0.1 NB A 0.2 0 SR 510/89th Ave SE A 0.1 EB C 17.6 5 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE A 1.7 SB E 42.1 35 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE A 1.9 NB D 30.4 70 Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE A 2.0 SB
F 89.7 35 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE A 0.9 SB F 68.3 20 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St C 18.5 SB F >200 75 Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St F >200 NB F >200 230 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St5 A 4.3 SB F 125.8
35 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St5 A 0.8 NB E 41.9 15 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St5 D 29.0 SBL F >200 40 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave5 F >200 NB F >200 25 Yelm Ave E/2nd St5 F >200 NB F >200 55 Yelm Ave
E/3rd St5 F 69.1 SB F >200 10 Yelm Ave E/4th St5 A 2.6 SB F >200 10 Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave C 15.5 NB F >200 10 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE F >200 SBL F >200 10 SR 507/Grove Rd SE A 23.7 SB
F >200 30 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE A 0.9 SB F 147.4 10 SR 507/Vail Rd SE F >200 NB F >200 200 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay
in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 4. Number of vehicles using worst
movement. 5. LOS standard is F as documented in the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan. As shown in Table 3, under the 2008 baseline without Crossroads scenario, all study intersections
remain in compliance with the LOS standard in 2008 with the exception of the NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507, Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street, Yelm Avenue E/Plaza Drive NE and SR
507/Vail Road SE intersections which are expected to operate at LOS F. Please note that although there are other study intersections that are expected to operate at LOS F, these are
located in the downtown core and therefore are in compliance with the City’s LOS standard adopted for that area.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 19 Table 4. Baseline PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (With Crossroads) 2008 Baseline Conditions Overall Worst Movement Intersections
LOS1 Delay2 V/C or WM3 LOS Delay Veh4 Signalized Yelm Avenue E/First St5 F 87.1 1.04 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE B 14.4 0.82 n/a Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE C 24.5 0.81 n/a NE Creek
St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 F 127.5 1.29 n/a SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road C 31.4 1.13 n/a SR 507/SR 702 C 27.0 0.88 n/a Unsignalized SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE A 0.3 WB D 29.9 10 SR 510/86th Ave
SE A 0.1 NB A 0.2 0 SR 510/89th Ave SE A 0.1 EB C 18.0 5 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE A 1.7 SB E 44.9 35 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE A 2.2 NB D 32.4 70 Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE A 2.9
SB F 116.4 40 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE A 1.3 SB F 88.8 25 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St D 32.1 SB F >200 80 Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St F >200 NB F >200 235 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St5 A 5.4 SB F
177.6 35 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St5 A 1.0 NB F 60.4 15 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St5 F >200 SBL F >200 40 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave5 F >200 NB F >200 25 Yelm Ave E/2nd St5 F >200 NB F >200 55 Yelm
Ave E/3rd St5 F >200 SB F >200 10 Yelm Ave E/4th St5 B 14.8 NB F >200 15 Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave C 17.8 NB F >200 10 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE F >200 SBL F >200 10 SR 507/Grove Rd SE F >200
SB F >200 195 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE A 1.4 SB F 110.1 20 SR 507/Vail Rd SE F >200 NB F >200 235 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay
in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 4. Number of vehicles using worst
movement. 5. LOS standard is F as documented in the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan. As shown in Table 4, under the 2008 baseline with Crossroads scenario, all study intersections remain
in compliance with the LOS standard in 2008 with the exception of the NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507, Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street, Yelm Avenue E/Plaza Drive NE, SR 507/Grove
Road SE, and SR 507/Vail Road SE intersections which are expected to operate at LOS F. Please note that although there are other study intersections that are expected to operate at LOS
F, these are located in the downtown core and therefore are in compliance with the City’s LOS standard adopted for that area.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 20 Project
Impacts This section highlights forecast traffic conditions with the proposed project. The results were compared to without-project (baseline) traffic conditions to identify project
impacts. A description of project trip generation, trip distribution, and future traffic operations with the proposed project is provided in this section. Trip Generation Weekday PM
peak hour trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using rates identified in Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Weekday PM peak hour rates were used for singlefamily detached housing (LU 210). Table 5 summarizes the PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed project. Table 5. Project Trip Generation
Summary PM Peak Hour Trips Proposed Land Use Dwelling Units Trip Rate1 Total In Out Single-Family Residential 90 1.01 91 57 34 1. Trip rate based on ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition
(2003). Average rate cited. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 91 weekday PM peak hour trips with 57 entering trips and 34 exiting trips.
Trip Distribution and Assignment New project trips were distributed to the surrounding roadway network according to the existing travel patterns in the study area and the specific access
plan for the proposed site. This distribution was approved by City staff prior to the analysis. In 2008, approximately 51-percent of project related traffic is expected to orient to
the west along SR 507 and 103rd Avenue SE while 39-percent would orient to the east along SR 507. The remaining 10-percent would orient to the Wal-Mart and Crossroads developments south
of the site. The trip distribution is summarized in Figure 7. Trips were then assigned to the study area roadways based on this trip distribution. Figure 8 shows the resulting weekday
PM peak hour trip assignments at the study area intersections. Traffic Volume Impacts The project generated traffic was added to the baseline traffic volumes to obtain the with-project
volumes for the study intersections. The results are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10 for the without and with Crossroads scenarios, respectively. To gauge the relative traffic impacts
of the proposed project, future weekday PM peak hour traffic volume comparisons are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 25 Table 6. Traffic Volume Impacts (Without Crossroads) 2008 Traffic Volumes Intersections Baseline Traffic1 Project
Traffic1 With-Project Traffic1 Percent Increase SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE 1,645 24 1,669 1.5% SR 510/86th Ave SE 1,650 24 1,674 1.5% SR 510/89th Ave SE 1,555 24 1,579 1.5% Yelm Ave SE/Burnett
Rd SE 1,585 24 1,609 1.5% Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE 1,640 24 1,664 1.5% Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE 1,705 24 1,729 1.4% Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE 1,845 24 1,869 1.3% Yelm Ave SE/Cullens
St 2,035 24 2,059 1.2% Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St 2,225 24 2,249 1.1% Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St 2,105 24 2,129 1.1% Yelm Ave SE/Rice St 1,950 24 1,974 1.2% Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St 2,025 27
2,052 1.3% Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave 2,220 27 2,247 1.2% Yelm Avenue E/First St 2,800 41 2,841 1.5% Yelm Ave E/2nd St 2,115 44 2,159 2.1% Yelm Ave E/3rd St 2,290 44 2,334 1.9% Yelm Ave
E/4th St 2,305 44 2,349 1.9% Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE 2,505 44 2,549 1.8% Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave 2,205 44 2,249 2.0% Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE 2,540 44 2,584 1.7% Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr
NE 2,350 44 2,394 1.9% NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 2,645 44 2,689 1.7% SR 507/Grove Rd SE 1,945 44 1,989 2.3% SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road 2,085 79 2,164 3.8% SR 507/Old McKenna Rd
SE 1,985 35 2,020 1.8% SR 507/Vail Rd SE 2,465 35 2,500 1.4% SR 507/SR 702 2,190 35 2,225 1.6% 1. Total traffic entering intersection. As shown in Table 6, for the without Crossroads
scenario, the largest percent increase in traffic volumes is anticipated at the SR 507 intersections with Grove Road SE and the SR 510 Loop Road. This is due to the close proximity of
these intersections to the project. At all other study area intersections, the project is expected to represent approximately two percent or less of future traffic volumes which is within
the daily fluctuations typically observed in background traffic volumes. Therefore, it is unlikely that the average motorist would perceive any increase in traffic.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 26 Table 7. Traffic Volume Impacts (With Crossroads) 2008 Traffic Volumes Intersections Baseline Traffic1 Project Traffic1
With-Project Traffic1 Percent Attributable to Project SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE 1,680 24 1,704 1.4% SR 510/86th Ave SE 1,685 24 1,709 1.4% SR 510/89th Ave SE 1,595 24 1,619 1.5% Yelm Ave
SE/Burnett Rd SE 1,620 24 1,644 1.5% Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE 1,685 24 1,709 1.4% Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd SE 1,760 24 1,784 1.4% Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE 1,900 24 1,924 1.3% Yelm
Ave SE/Cullens St 2,125 24 2,149 1.1% Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St 2,320 24 2,344 1.0% Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St 2,210 24 2,234 1.1% Yelm Ave SE/Rice St 2,050 24 2,074 1.2% Yelm Ave SE/Edwards
St 2,125 27 2,152 1.3% Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave 2,330 27 2,357 1.2% Yelm Avenue E/First St 2,995 41 3,036 1.4% Yelm Ave E/2nd St 2,305 44 2,349 1.9% Yelm Ave E/3rd St 2,490 44 2,534
1.8% Yelm Ave E/4th St 2,500 44 2,544 1.8% Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE 2,710 44 2,754 1.6% Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave 2,410 44 2,454 1.8% Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE 2,755 44 2,799 1.6% Yelm
Ave E/Plaza Dr NE 2,565 44 2,609 1.7% NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/SR 507 2,960 44 3,004 1.5% SR 507/Grove Rd SE 2,415 44 2,459 1.8% SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road 2,540 79 2,619 3.1% SR 507/Old
McKenna Rd SE 2,280 35 2,315 1.5% SR 507/Vail Rd SE 2,740 35 2,775 1.3% SR 507/SR 702 2,400 35 2,435 1.5% 1. Total traffic entering intersection. As shown in Table 7, for the with Crossroads
scenario, the largest percent increase in traffic volumes is anticipated at the SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road intersection. This is due to the close proximity of this intersection to the project.
At all other study area intersections, the project is expected to represent less than two percent of future traffic volumes which is within the daily fluctuations typically observed
in background traffic volumes. Therefore, it is unlikely that the average motorist would perceive any increase in traffic. Traffic Operations Impacts An LOS analysis was conducted for
with-project conditions in order to quantify traffic operations in the study area with the proposed retail development. The same HCM 2000 methodologies were applied and all intersection
parameters such as channelization,
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 27 intersection control, and signal timings were held consistent with those used in the evaluation of existing and baseline
conditions. Table 8 provides a summary of 2008 intersection LOS at the study intersections during the weekday PM peak hour for the without Crossroads scenario. Table 9 provides a summary
of 2008 intersection LOS at the study intersections during the weekday PM peak hour for the with Crossroads scenario. Without-project LOS results are provided for comparison purposes.
Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 8. With-Project PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (Without Crossroads) 2008 Baseline Condition 2008 With-Project Condition Overall Worst
Movement Overall Worst Movement Intersections LOS1 Delay2 V/C or WM3 LOS Delay LOS Delay V/C or WM LOS Delay Signalized Yelm Avenue E/First St4 E 69.9 0.97 E 72.8 1.03 Yelm Avenue E/Clark
Rd SE B 11.6 0.75 B 12.1 0.77 Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE C 23.2 0.75 C 23.3 0.77 NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/NE Creek Rd/SR 507 F 85.0 1.19 F 92.5 1.20 SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road D 35.4
1.11 C 33.1 1.09 SR 507/SR 702 C 20.3 0.81 C 21.3 0.83 Unsignalized SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE A 0.3 WB D 28.6 A 0.3 WB D 29.5 SR 510/86th Ave SE A 0.1 NB A 0.2 A 0.1 NB A 0.2 SR 510/89th
Ave SE A 0.1 EB C 17.6 A 0.1 EB C 17.9 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE A 1.7 SB E 42.1 A 1.7 SB E 44.0 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE A 1.9 NB D 30.4 A 1.9 NB D 31.5 Yelm Ave SE/Mountain View Rd
SE A 2.0 SB F 89.7 A 2.1 SB F 95.5 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE A 0.9 SB F 68.3 A 0.9 SB F 71.5 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St C 18.5 SB F >200 C 19.8 SB F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Longmire St F >200 NB
F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St4 A 4.3 SB F 125.8 A 4.5 SB F 135.8 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St4 A 0.8 NB E 41.9 A 0.8 NB F 44.3 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St4 D 29.0 SBL F >200 D 34.9
SBL F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave4 F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/2nd St4 F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/3rd St4 F 69.1 SB F >200 F 73.1 SB F >200 Yelm
Ave E/4th St4 St4 A 2.6 SB F >200 A 3.2 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave C 15.5 NB F >200 C 16.6 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE F >200 SBL F >200 F >200 SBL F >200 SR 507/Grove Rd SE
A 23.7 SB F >200 F 151.6 SB F >200 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE A 0.9 SB F 147.4 A 0.8 SB F 142.3 SR 507/Vail Rd SE F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized
intersections. 4. LOS standard is F as documented in the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 28 As shown in Table 8, for the without Crossroads scenario, the project is expected to increase delays by varying degrees
throughout the study area; however, most intersections are anticipated to maintain compliance with the City’s LOS standard. Those that are expected to operate below their LOS standard
include NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507, Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street, Yelm Avenue E/Plaza Drive NE, SR 507/Grove Road SE and SR 507/Vail Road SE. However, all are expected to
operate below their LOS standard in the baseline (or without-project) scenario and only the intersection of SR 507/Grove Road SE is expected to drop below its LOS standard due to the
proposed project. Potential improvements at these intersections are discussed in the “Mitigation Plan” section of this report.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 29 Table 9. With-Project PM Peak Hour LOS Summary (With Crossroads) 2008 Baseline Condition 2008 With-Project Condition
Overall Worst Movement Overall Worst Movement Intersections LOS1 Delay2 V/C or WM3 LOS Delay LOS Delay V/C or WM LOS Delay Signalized Yelm Avenue E/First St4 F 87.1 1.04 F 91.0 1.10
Yelm Avenue E/Clark Rd SE B 14.4 0.82 B 15.8 0.84 Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE C 24.5 0.81 C 25.0 0.83 NE Creek St/Bald Hill Rd SE/NE Creek Rd/SR 507 F 127.5 1.29 F 136.2 1.31 SR 507/SR
510 Loop Road C 31.4 1.13 D 39.5 1.25 SR 507/SR 702 C 27.0 0.88 C 28.7 0.89 Unsignalized SR 510/Mud Run Rd SE A 0.3 WB D 29.9 A 0.3 WB D 30.8 SR 510/86th Ave SE A 0.1 NB A 0.2 A 0.1
NB A 0.2 SR 510/89th Ave SE A 0.1 EB C 18.0 A 0.1 EB C 18.3 Yelm Ave SE/Burnett Rd SE A 1.7 SB E 44.9 A 1.8 SB E 46.9 Yelm Ave SE/93rd Ave SE A 2.2 NB D 32.4 A 2.2 NB D 33.7 Yelm Ave
SE/Mountain View Rd SE A 2.9 SB F 116.4 A 3.0 SB F 124.8 Yelm Ave SE/Killion St SE A 1.3 SB F 88.8 A 1.4 SB F 93.7 Yelm Ave SE/Cullens St D 32.1 SB F >200 D 34.0 SB F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Longmire
St F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Soldberg St4 A 5.4 SB F 177.6 A 5.8 SB F 192.8 Yelm Ave SE/Rice St4 A 1.0 NB F 60.4 A 1.0 NB F 65.7 Yelm Ave SE/Edwards St4 F >200 SBL
F >200 F >200 SBL F >200 Yelm Ave SE/Railroad Ave4 F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/2nd St4 F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/3rd St4 F >200 SB F >200 F >200 SB
F >200 Yelm Ave E/4th St4 B 14.8 NB F >200 F 61.8 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/103rd Ave C 17.8 NB F >200 C 20.6 NB F >200 Yelm Ave E/Plaza Dr NE F >200 SBL F >200 F >200 SBL F >200 SR 507/Grove
Rd SE F >200 SB F >200 F >200 SB F >200 SR 507/Old McKenna Rd SE A 1.4 SB F 110.1 A 1.5 SB F 120.7 SR 507/Vail Rd SE F >200 NB F >200 F >200 NB F >200 1. Level of service, based on 2000
Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized
intersections. 4. LOS standard is F as documented in the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan. As shown in Table 9, for the with Crossroads scenario, the project is expected to increase delays
by varying degrees throughout the study area; however, most intersections are anticipated to maintain compliance with the City’s LOS standard. Those that are expected to operate below
their LOS standard include NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507, Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street, Yelm Avenue E/Plaza Drive NE, SR 507/Grove Road SE and SR 507/Vail Road SE. However,
all are expected to operate below their LOS standard in the baseline (or without-project)
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 30 scenario. Potential improvements at these intersections are discussed in the “Mitigation Plan” section of this report.
Site Access As described in the Project Description section of this report, the proposed site plan identifies a single full-movement access point on 103rd Avenue SE. The following subsections
describe the results of the site access LOS and queuing evaluations conducted for the proposed development. Site Access Operations The site access driveway was evaluated using the same
methodologies described in the previous Traffic Operations sections of this report. The results are shown in Table 10. As shown, all movements at the driveway are expected to operate
at LOS A or better in 2008 both with and without the Crossroads project. Table 10. Site Access LOS Summary 2008 With-Project Conditions Overall Worst Movement LOS1 Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay
SR 510 Loop Road/North Driveway A 2.4 NB A 9.0 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported
for unsignalized intersections. Site Access Queuing Queuing evaluations were performed at the site access driveway. Based on these evaluations, the 95th-percentile queue lengths at all
movements are not expected to exceed one vehicle. Traffic Safety Impacts As indicated by the existing traffic accident history, none of the study intersections currently exhibit an unusually
high rate of traffic accidents. This suggests that the facilities are currently operating within average safety parameters. The project would increase traffic through these intersections
by varying degrees. However, the facilities are expected to continue operating within the existing safety parameters. As such, it is unlikely that these increases would create a safety
concern or significantly increase the number of reported accidents at the study intersections.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 31 Mitigation Plan The mitigation plan for the proposed project includes traffic impact fees and intersection improvements.
The following sections describe each in more detail. Traffic Impact Fees The City of Yelm collects traffic impact fees to help fund the City’s Six-year Transportation Improvement Program.
The fee is currently $750 per weekday PM peak hour trip generated by a proposed development. Based on the trip generation identified in Table 8 of this report, the proposed project will
generate 91 weekday PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the project will be required to pay a total traffic impact fee of $68,250. This figure is provided as an estimate based on the current
project plans and city fees. The total fee will be confirmed at the time of permit issuance. If the project is required to construct off-site improvements, this fee may be reduced by
the cost of the improvements. Intersection Improvements The following outlines the proposed intersection improvements for all intersections that are expected to exceed their LOS standard.
NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507 This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hours with or without the proposed project. The poor operation is a
result of the high traffic volumes expected to utilize the intersection, especially in the eastbound and westbound directions along SR 507. Physical mitigation at the intersection is
not possible due to right-of-way constraints and is not encouraged by the City due to the fact that the City’s long term improvement plans include the construction of the Y2/Y3 loop
road. The intent of the Y2/Y3 loop road is to attract through traffic and lessen the demand along SR 507 through the City. The construction of physical improvements at this intersection
would serve to increase capacity along SR 507 and discourage the use of the Y2/Y3 loop road when it is constructed. However, a possible intermediate mitigation is modification of the
intersection phasing to operate the southbound and northbound approach with split phasing. This will result in the intersection operating at pre-project conditions, thereby off-setting
the project impacts. The LOS worksheets are provided at the back of Appendix C. Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM
peak hours with or without the proposed project. The poor operation is a result of the lack of gaps in eastbound and westbound traffic along Yelm Avenue SE, which results in long delays
as northbound and southbound left-turning traffic waits to enter the traffic streams. Due to the limited connectivity to the south, traffic is concentrated at Longmire Street and results
in a higher volume of traffic on the minor street approach than most of the other intersections in the immediate vicinity. In fact, based on the 2008 with-project
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 32 traffic volumes shown in Figure 9 and 10, the traffic volumes are sufficient to warrant the installation of a traffic
signal as a possible mitigation measure. If the intersection is signalized, vehicles will be able to turn onto Yelm Avenue SE with significantly lower delay. Since the project is expected
to increase traffic at this intersection, it should contribute a proportionate share toward the installation of this signal in order to mitigate its proportional impacts. This share
will be based on the percentage of total future growth at the intersection represented by project traffic. The future growth in traffic will be obtained from the City of Yelm travel
demand model. This model is currently being developed and is not yet complete. As a result, the exact percentages will be calculated at a later date. Yelm Avenue E/Plaza Drive NE The
southbound and northbound approaches at this intersection are expected to operate at LOS F during the the weekday PM peak hour with or without the proposed project. The poor operation
is a result of the lack of gaps in eastbound and westbound traffic along Yelm Avenue E, which results in long delays as southbound and northbound left-turning traffic waits to enter
the traffic streams. As a result, it is expected that as delays increase the majority of southbound left-turn traffic will shift to the NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507 traffic
signal while the majority of northbound left-turn traffic will shift to Yelm Avenue E/Vancil Rd SE, both of which are expected to have significantly less delay. Therefore, it is expected
that actual operations at this intersection will be significantly better than calculated. SR 507/Grove Road SE The southbound approach at this intersection is expected to operate at
LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour with or without the proposed project. The poor operation is a result of the lack of gaps in eastbound and westbound traffic along SR 507, which
results in long delays as as southbound left-turning traffic waits to enter the traffic streams. As a result, it is expected that the majority of southbound left-turn traffic will shift
to the SR 507/SR 510 Loop Road traffic signal which is expected to have significantly less delay. Therefore, it is expected that actual operations at this intersection will be significantly
better than calculated. SR 507/Vail Road SE This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hours with or without the proposed project. The poor operation
is a result of the lack of gaps in eastbound and westbound traffic along SR 507, which results in long delays as northbound left-turning traffic waits to enter the traffic streams. Based
on the 2008 with-project traffic volumes shown in Figures 9 and 10, traffic volumes on the minor street (Vail Road) are sufficient to warrant the installation of a traffic signal as
a possible mitigation measure. If the intersection is signalized, vehicles will be able to turn onto SR 507 with significantly lower delay. Since the project is expected to increase
traffic at this intersection, it should contribute a proportionate share toward the installation of this signal in order to mitigate its proportional impacts. This share will be based
on the percentage of total future growth at the intersection represented by project traffic. The
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 33 future growth in traffic will be obtained from the City of Yelm travel demand model. This model is currently being
developed and is not yet complete. As a result, the exact percentages will be calculated at a later date.
Newman’s Addition December 2006 The Transpo Group | 06247r1 Page 34 Summary and Conclusions The following summarizes the findings of this traffic impact analysis with regard to the proposed
Newman’s Addition residential project. ?? The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 91 weekday PM peak hour trips on the surrounding roadway system. ?? The proposed
project would increase traffic volumes at the study intersections by about one to four percent. The greater impact would be along State Route 507 near the project site. Project traffic
impacts in the rest of the study area are generally less than two percent of the total volume and would likely not be noticeable to the average motorist. ?? The addition of project-generated
traffic would not cause any of the study area intersections to operate below their LOS standard with the exception of the SR 507/Grove Road SE intersection in the without Crossroads
scenario. ?? All movements at the site access point is expected to operate at LOS A. ?? The proposed project will be required to pay an estimated $68,250 in traffic impact fees to the
City of Yelm. ?? Mitigation for the proposed project includes modification of the existing phasing at the NE Creek Street/Bald Hill Road/SR 507 traffic signal, and proportionate share
contributions toward the installation of future traffic signals at the Yelm Avenue SE/Longmire Street and SR 507/Vail Road SE intersections.