20070404 Traffic Gen Est 011120080HEA
ARRJEWELLL.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Tami Merriman, City of Yelm / /,(V
FROM: Perry A. Shea, P.E., Principal it
DATE: January 8, 2008
SUBJECT: Traffic Generation Estimate and Operational Assessment
PROJECT: City of Yell - Creek Street Mixed Use
SC&J #605 -01 (24)
RECEIVED
JAN 10 2008
This memorandum has been prepared to assist the City of Yelm in reviewing and
assessing the potential traffic impacts of the Creek Street Mixed Use project. The
following sections of this memorandum discuss the traffic characteristics of the
proposed Creek Street Mixed Use project, traffic assignment of new site trips on the
street network and an operational assessment of pertinent intersections in the
project vicinity. The data and analysis contained within this document will allow the
City to determine the extent of the traffic impacts and the appropriate mitigation
measures for the proposed commercial project.
1. PROJECT
NAME OF PROJECT: Creek Street Mixed Use
Site Address or Location: Northeast corner of SR 507 /Creek Street intersection
Parcel Numbers) 64303400400,64303400501
Parcel Size: 11.06 + 5.49 acres
Existing Use: house and small barn on one parcel
Proposed Use w/ number or lots or units: 163 multifamily units, 45,540 - 50,000 sf
retail
Phasing Plan: No Year of Occupancy: 2009
APPLICANT Mike Avila
Mailing Address I315 39" Avenue SW #8
City, State and Zip Puyallup, WA 98373
Telephone (253) 286 -5604 EMAIL
ENGINEER /ARCHITECT /OTHER Sound Engineering, Inc.
Mailing Address 1102 Commerce St., Suite 300
City, State and Zip Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone (253) 573 -0040 EMAIL
2102 C,r,,.ge I— ,SeI Bldg .e om,e 11135 v 411 w ww.S h eaCa rrJ ewe l Lcom
Olympia. WA 98502 1- 111111.1509
SHEA
I,ARRR)EWELL.,
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 2
1.1 Study Intersections
The threshold requirement of development traffic exceeding 10 PM peak hour trips in
the peak direction or 25 trips through an intersection shall apply. The following
intersections shall be analyzed in this study:
1. Burnett Road /Yelm Avenue
2. Mountain View Road /Yelm Avenue
3. Killion Road /Tahoma Blvd /Yelm Avenue
4. Cullens Road /Yelm Avenue
5. Longmire Street /Yelm Avenue
6. Solberg Street /Yelm Avenue
7. First Street /Yelm Avenue
8. Mosman Street /SR 507
9. Second Street /Yelm Avenue
10. Clark Road /Prairie Park /Yelm Avenue
11. Vancil Road /Yelm Avenue
12. Plaza Drive /Yelm Avenue
13. Creek Street /SR 507 /Bald Hill Road
14. Creek Street /103rd Avenue
15. Creek Street /Grove Road
There are no other concurrency intersections affected by more than five project trips
that are required to be analyzed.
1.2 Project Trip Generation
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. The following tables summarize the
trip generation potential of the proposed commercial center.
Site- Generated Traffic Volumes
The City of Yelm has established a listing of Trip Generation 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. Based on this table, we
identified the appropriate trip rates and land use codes (Table 1) that closely match
the intended uses for the Creek Street Mixed Use project. The rates and percentage
of new trips are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Trip Generation Rates
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 2
# of Units or
Land Use
PM Peak
New Trips
New Trip
Land Use
sq It
Code
Trips /Unit
%
Rate
Multifamily - Apartment
163 units
220
0.60
100%
0.60
Shopping Center
(50,000- 99,999 sf)
50,000 sf
820
6.90
55%
3.80
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 2
0AHEA
RRJE W ELL...
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 3
The total trip generation expected from this development is calculated by applying
the total number of units to the appropriate trip generation rate. Then the resultant
trip generation of the project is determined by applying the "pass -by` factor to each
land use category.
A project such as a commercial center tends to attract a large amount of traffic from
people already driving on the area roadways. These trips are not new trips added to
the local roadways (primary trips), but represent "pass -by" trips according to the
following definition:
Pass -by Trios are trips made as an intermediate stop from an origin to
a primary destination (i.e., stopping to shop on the way home from
work) by vehicles passing directly by the project driveway.)
The new -to- network trip rate reflects an estimated 45% occurrence of "pass -by"
vehicles for the shopping center. No discount was applied to the apartment use.
Because this is a mixed -use development, a certain amount of traffic is expected to be
"captured" within the development. These trips will occur between uses within the
development and will not impact the off -site street network. The internal capture rate
was estimated using the methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook.
The calculation worksheet is provided with this memorandum. Based on this
calculation, the development is anticipated to have an internal capture rate of 16 %.
We have reflected this reduction on the trip distribution figure.
The total project trip generation is shown below in Table 2.
Table 2. Proiect Trip Generation — PM Peak Hour
1.3 Site 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.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 3
Trip
Generation
Basic
New
PM Peak
Hour
Week-
PM
Less
Trips
day
Peak
Internal
Less
Daily
Hour
Capture
Pass -
Land Use (LU)
Size
Trips
Trips
(16%)
by
Total
Enter
Exit
Multifamily - Apartment
163 du
1,095
98
16
0
82
53
29
Shopping Center
50,000
(50,000- 99,999 sf)
sf
2,147
345
55
131
159
76
83
3.242
443
71
131
241
129
112
1.3 Site 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.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 3
SHEA
IL. ARRJEWELL..
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 4
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 12 software
package has been calibrated to accurately represent the existing vehicle travel
patterns throughout the entire county.
In addition, the Emme /2 model has been enhanced to include more detail and
definition for the Yelm Urban Growth Area (UGA). The enhancements were made to
improve the traffic assignment and distribution patterns for vehicle trips entering and
leaving the Yelm UGA. Based on these model improvements, a distribution analysis
was performed for this project by conducting a "Select Zone Analysis" for TAZ 532,
that includes the proposed project area. This feature of the Emme /2 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, etc.) From this information, regional
distribution percentages were calculated for future traffic from the proposed Creek
Street Mixed Use project. The regional traffic distribution percentages and site traffic
distribution for the development are shown on Figure 1.
Creek Street Mized Use January, 2008
Page 4
c f + \Q
E
oT
O
+ v"
>a
t0Y
O
/n
t oT
n �3
O
n
�v
i
a0
CS
vE
t oT
n �3
O
n
�v
U
a0
CS
vE
lr
J3
��
~
n
02 OIL
lJ
i
le O
pE
t `o>
Vw
�O
a
O
O 0
�a \
1 } of
�O
/O \
+ Y <s �`
f �r
va
`E
f pr
0
\ O
¢a
u-
�O
U
a0
CS
U�
��
~
Of
02 OIL
O 0
�a \
1 } of
�O
/O \
+ Y <s �`
f �r
va
`E
f pr
0
\ O
¢a
u-
�O
� O
.+ + Y r
YE
or+ 1 } P :w
I
Zf i I I
�O
�E�`
E °1
oW
Gp
L
W U
W
a
d
W
d
H
U
a0
U�
� O
.+ + Y r
YE
or+ 1 } P :w
I
Zf i I I
�O
�E�`
E °1
oW
Gp
L
W U
W
a
d
W
d
H
U
��
~
Of
02 OIL
O
O ¢
ZN
Z�c�o
�Q
Qm
(Jd
22
ON
HIM
3�
Iff
�e
n
J
�I
Q
W
Q
(r L) C9 7 f
W
!n
as
as
I
I
�
r
(S -)
6l�
Ol► n
W
LL
F5 E
jJ
Q
W
W
N
Z
►�
`� YJ
�
-
a N
Q
}
}
W OC,
e
x
x
v
�I_^\
v )�
r
0 HEA Tami Merriman
ARRJEWELL.. January 8, 2008
Page 6
2. TRAFFIC VOLUME CONDITIONS
2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions
Figure 2 shows the existing PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections.
These volumes will be used to compare the current baseline conditions to future
traffic projections anticipated by the project's 2009 horizon.
2.2 Future Traffic Conditions
Future traffic volume projections for the study area include traffic generated by
pipeline developments and background growth.
Pipeline Development Proiects
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.
For this analysis, we included all of the commercial land use projects that meet the
definition of a pipeline project. The projects are listed below:
1. Burnett Commercial Park
2. Transmission Shop
3. West Road Professional Park
4. Cafe Elite Espresso
5. Yelm Plaza
6. Applebee's
7. Prairie Park Conference Center addition
8. Tahoma Terra Commercial
9. Yelm Creek Retail
10. Killion Crossing
11. Walmart
12. Carter Loop Commercial
13.Yelm RV /Boat and Mini - Storage
The traffic potential of these projects was calculated and assigned to the area
roadway network using data presented in the Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) for each
of the projects. If the TIA's were not available, the traffic was assigned to the
network using engineering judgment. The total pipeline development traffic volumes
are shown on the traffic volume worksheet in Appendix B.
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 will affect traffic volumes.
To estimate the non - specific traffic growth that will occur at the study intersections,
we applied an annual growth rate of 4% to the base year traffic volumes. The 4%
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 6
0 HEA
ARRJEW ELL.,
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 7
growth rate is based on two factors: historical growth trends and additional traffic
growth from approved residential developments within the City of Yelm. The
projected 2009 traffic volumes with background growth and pipeline development
traffic, without the future Creek Street Mixed Use development, are shown on Figure
3. The projected 2009 traffic volumes with the future Creek Street Mixed Use
development are shown on Figure 4.
Creek street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 7
s>1 0.
M
koz\
0
rc
"OL
v'
>a
rIsl.
f0£l
of
E
of'_
} r
m
SL +
SLID
000
s 3
s>1 0.
M
koz\
0
rc
"OL
v'
>a
C
f0£l
of
�E
of'_
} r
m
SL +
SLID
000
O
Sf 7
P
OZ%
1 }
uE
��
S7
an
rm
m'
Jjy �o
PE E
SLR } r DT
onry °3
oz �
�O
' 1}r E
ono 03
OL �
�O
m
koz\
Jiy
"OL
=E
' 1}r E
ono 03
OL �
�O
m
�s
Jiy
�s �a
J + y
f0£l
�E
of'_
} r
=,
SL +
SLID
000
�3
Sf 7
P
O
J +y (jsL yE
sy 1 } r Z
pON
OZ7 NP O
�o
i0a\
Jiy
�s �a
i I
�O
X09\
fOL Q
Jjy jsZ
oE
Osy � }r uw
s97 ama
O
mo
moo\
NNf
J + y
f0£l
Na
0S'
1}r
E
4i
SL +
SLID
n °o
X09\
fOL Q
Jjy jsZ
oE
Osy � }r uw
s97 ama
O
mo
<09
pE
oo�
e
U
� S \\;
__s'ti}row
N
S4 7
�O
Q
0
w
al
a�
SW +
J +y jsa �a
59S _on-
�O
n <SS \w
y !SS ina
} r do
V�
eo
�O
of\
v'na f06
"r-UZ ya
yE
sf6l r 1 } r uw
o °n
OBl nm
o�
SZZ
��oL J4
O1o�
O � �
2
W V
m
a
a
e
W
J+
596 - I 1 r OZ ! 1S 1aai0
OZ 7 9. 59Z +
C
Z
W
W
J
f
x I
x I
V T
P;
WV
QZ U
J
J
W
W
[/WOE"
— ( Q
r,
< Ol
41
~
Sz>
✓ +4
r --
N¢
oo
m'
E
Z
O
a )
l } !
ci
O
Vw
sit
ry
v3
r,
PE E
oz
>
�e)
/mom toot
E
vE
00 03
O1 1
�O
a
41
vv
>a
Sz>
}
ov
Si
oo
m'
�E
Z
O
PE E
oz
>
�e)
/mom toot
E
vE
00 03
O1 1
�O
< o,
4zv
m'
�E
m
a )
l } !
ci
O
PE E
oz
>
�e)
/mom toot
E
vE
00 03
O1 1
�O
O
< o,
�E
SC>
a )
l } !
ci
s�
Vw
or �
n
v3
O
> of
lu
S � i
�O
/.- \\
< ocz
o fS6 \i
SB +
OS3 �
O
° <ot\
oor �o�
+y jsz 6a
pE
ss> } aw
OL
�O
< 06
�E
SC>
a )
l } !
ci
s�
Vw
or �
n
> of
lu
S � i
�O
/.- \\
< ocz
o fS6 \i
SB +
OS3 �
O
° <ot\
oor �o�
+y jsz 6a
pE
ss> } aw
OL
�O
e
1
aE
oz> 1
o n.n
001 1
�O
I
H
W
0
H
N
e�
a`I
� Szf
OLf -+
G
Z
W
W
J
<\
COL v i
d +y dos i<
o
<S
+o \'
a �s9 ina
m0 U�
�O
mm
roN \;
Jjy �— cE
ool x3
�O
Q
'1002
✓ + y
o m
fOl
v
C+4
,�sll
na
sE
SLI+
E
EE=
1 } r
s
S47
rvmn
O
n
(]
a
.+ +
�Q
Os >.�}
W
uE
E
OZZ
m'
m
O
Q
'1002
✓ + y
o m
fOl
v
J +y
,�sll
na
sE
SLI+
E
EE=
1 } r
aw
S47
rvmn
3
(]
O
C
Q
'1002
✓ + y
o m
fOl
01
J +y
,�sll
na
sE
SLI+
vE
ssy
1 } r
aw
S47
rvmn
�O
(]
O
Q
Jyy r °Z �E
\OCR Mn °/
V O
�NO X09\
J
I
5 1 i
�O
/gym
�0l
✓ + y
fS6 Nv
�ssl a
fOl
01
� + y
rsof
oa
sE
SLI+
�E
ssy
1 } r
aw
S47
rvmn
�O
(]
O
Jyy r °Z �E
\OCR Mn °/
V O
�NO X09\
J
I
5 1 i
�O
/gym
tse\
✓ + y
fS6 Nv
�ssl a
E
Se+ ono
Osl 7
�O
°
oo°af
�$L\
/ non
fOl
01
� + y
rsof
oa
sE
SLI+
of
ssy
1 } r
aw
\ OZ.,
0
ry
�O
r1
e
IN
/oii ts�
E
oz > 4 } P ow
oon
OOl i
O
<�
„�2
J
S£ +
Sll 7
�O
w
no
�O
X00\
/ non
J + y
�OZC Ina
� + y
rsof
oa
sE
SLI+
°w
$Ol>
qtr
-E
==
�O
(]
IN
/oii ts�
E
oz > 4 } P ow
oon
OOl i
O
<�
„�2
J
S£ +
Sll 7
�O
w
no
�O
Q N C
m m
o -S E
IL
E
E Y
ou
W
r
O
x
m
a
IL
v
m
d
O
IL
J
J + y
�OZC Ina
Q
sfz>
sE
SLI+
°w
SLL7
^na
�O
Q N C
m m
o -S E
IL
E
E Y
ou
W
r
O
x
m
a
IL
v
m
d
O
IL
O � N
Z
W 8
W
J
f t
x i
x
a
<1Z
J
J
W
WW
OCR
l/?a
J
Q
�
o
(]
K
W
N
in
in
061
}
u
a�
«94
Jy
«oa
of
J
of >
sl
oz >
4s gawp
os[ I
99E +
0LS
oz
E
E
U
rn;
wa
O � N
Z
W 8
W
J
f t
x i
x
a
<1Z
J
J
W
WW
OCR
l/?a
0 HEA Tami Merriman
ARRJEWELL.. January 8, 2008
Page 11
3. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Traffic analyses were conducted to identify any existing deficiencies within the study
area for the 2007 base year and 2009 project completion horizon years.
3.1 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).
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 (LOS).
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 and Table 4 shows the criteria for signalized intersections.
Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Stop -Sign Controlled Intersections
Level of service Average Control Delay (seconds /vehicle)
A
<10
B
30 -15
C
>15 -25
D
>25 -35
E
>35 -50
F
> 50
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 11
0HEA
ARRJEWELL..
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 12
Table 4. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of service Average Control Delay (seconds /vehicle)
A 10
B >10 -20
C >20 -35
D >35 -55
E >55 -80
F > 80
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 2007 traffic volumes
• Projected 2009 traffic volumes without development of Creek Street Mixed
Use project.
• Projected 2009 traffic volumes with development of Creek Street Mixed Use
project
The capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix A. Following is a
description of the Level of Service analysis for the study intersections for the
scenarios listed above.
Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 12
0 HEA Tami Merriman
A2"JEWELL.. January 8, 2008
Page 13
3.2 Signalized Intersections
3.2.1 Killion Road /Tahoma Blvd /Yelm Avenue
Table 5. Killion Road /Tahoma Blvd /Yelm Avenue
Operational Summary
Traffic service levels will operate at acceptable conditions for each traffic volume
scenario.
3.2.2 First Street /Yelm Avenue
Table 6. First Street /Yelm Avenue
Operational Summary
Base Year 2007
Projected 2009 Without
Project
Projected 2009 With
Project
Approach
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
LOS(Delay) Worst v/c
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
Southbound
B (17.1)
0.10
C (30.1) 0.53
C (31.5)
0.54
Northbound
B (16.8)
0.00
C (26.4) 0.01
C (27.4)
0.01
Westbound
A (4.0)
0.56
A (8.1) 0J7
A (8.5)
0.78
Eastbound
A (8.7)
0.81
B (16.0) 0.91
B (17.8)
0.92
Intersection
Average
A (7.0)
0.69
B (13.5) 0.84
B (14.6)
0.86
Traffic service levels will operate at acceptable conditions for each traffic volume
scenario.
3.2.2 First Street /Yelm Avenue
Table 6. First Street /Yelm Avenue
Operational Summary
The overall increase in intersection delay will be approximately 8 seconds for
conditions expected in 2009. This slight increase in delay is difficult to measure and
represents an insignificant impact from the proposed project.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 13
Base Year 2007
Projected 2009 Without
Project
Projected 2009 With
Project
Approach
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
Southbound
D (41.0)
0.69
E (77.8)
0.91
F (82.4)
0.93
Northbound
D (35.3)
0.68
E (79.4)
0.99
F (159.9)
1.21
Westbound
C (30.5)
0.74
E (74.2)
1.13
E (78.4)
1.26
Eastbound
D (38.3)
0.88
F (137.7)
1.26
F (116.0)
1.20
Intersection
Average
D (35.6)
0.80
F (99.1)
1.21
F (107.2)
1.19
The overall increase in intersection delay will be approximately 8 seconds for
conditions expected in 2009. This slight increase in delay is difficult to measure and
represents an insignificant impact from the proposed project.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 13
0 FIEA Tami Merriman
ARRJEWELL.. January 8, 2008
Page 14
3.2.3 Clark Road /Prairie Park /Yelm Avenue
Table 7. Clark Road /Prairie Park /Yelm Avenue
Operational Summary
Projected 2009 Without Projected 2009 With
Base Year 2007
Approach LOS(Delay) Worst v/c LOS(Delay) Worst v/c LOS(Delay) Worst v/c
Southbound
C (25.8)
0.21
D (45.9)
2009 With
0.48
D (45.9)
Project
0.48
Northbound
C (25.6)
Worst v/c
0.10
D (44.6)
Worst v/c
0.21
D (44.9)
0.37
0.27
Westbound
A (5.0)
Northbound
0.66
C (32.6)
F (109.4 1.17
1.51
C (34.3)
Westbound
1.51
Eastbound
A (6.3)
C (31.5)
0.72
C (21.0)
C (21.0)
0.95
C (30.7)
F (89.1)
1.00
Intersection
Average
A (7.3)
0.65
C (27.9)
1.41
C (33.4)
1.41
Traffic service levels will operate at acceptable conditions for each traffic volume
scenario.
3.2.4 Vancil Road /Yelm Avenue
Table S. Vancil Road /Yelm Avenue
Operational Summary
C (26.4) 0.73 E (61.3) 1.17 E (67.8) 1.17
Overall intersection delay is expected to increase approximately 6 seconds for
conditions with project traffic. While the overall LOS is expected to decline from
present conditions, the decline is caused by background growth estimates and not as
a result of the increase of project site traffic. When the site is fully developed, the
project traffic will only account for less than 4% of the total entering traffic at the
intersection.
Creek Street Mwed Use January, 2008
Page 14
Projected 2009 Without
Projected
2009 With
Base Year 2007
Project
Project
Approach
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
LOS(Delay) Worst v/c
LOS(Delay)
Worst v/c
Southbound
C (30.4)
0.37
C (33.9) 0.48
C (34.0)
0.49
Northbound
D (48.4)
0.88
F (109.4 1.17
F (108.7)
1.17
Westbound
B (18.4)
0.66
C (34.7) 0.95
C (31.5)
0.99
Eastbound
C (21.0)
0.75
E (70.7) 1.10
F (89.1)
1.16
C (26.4) 0.73 E (61.3) 1.17 E (67.8) 1.17
Overall intersection delay is expected to increase approximately 6 seconds for
conditions with project traffic. While the overall LOS is expected to decline from
present conditions, the decline is caused by background growth estimates and not as
a result of the increase of project site traffic. When the site is fully developed, the
project traffic will only account for less than 4% of the total entering traffic at the
intersection.
Creek Street Mwed Use January, 2008
Page 14
Tami Merriman
HEA ARREWELL ,.. January 8, 2008
Page 15
3.2.5 Creek Street /SR 507 /Bald Hill Road
Table 9. Creek Street /SR 507 /Bald Hill Road
Operational Summary
Projected 2009 Without Projected 2009 With
Base year 2007 Project Project
Approach LOS(Delay) Worst v/c LOS(Deiay) Worst v/c LOS(Deiay) Worst v/c
Southbound
E (55.5)
0.81
F (136.7)
1.13
F (203.4)
1.31
Northbound
D (48.8)
0.79
D (53.6)
0.88
D (53.5)
0.88
Westbound
C (30.9)
0.75
E (72.1)
1.06
F (115.1)
1.20
Eastbound
C (20.2)
0.70
D (36.1)
D.99
D (41.8)
1.09
Intersection
Average
C (33.0)
0.76
E (64.4)
0.98
F (91.3)
1.16
The intersection LOS is expected to decline to LOS F when the proposed commercial
center is developed. The project will add a significant amount of new traffic to the
intersection and several legs will degrade to poor service levels. Several
improvement strategies should be explored to improve the overall performance of
the intersection. These could include:
• Converting the westbound right -turn lane taper to a right -turn lane with
additional storage;
• Signal phasing enhancements to optimize the performance of the intersection.
The overall effect and benefit of these options should be modeled with simTraffic to
visually assess the operation.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 15
0HEA
ARRJE W ELL .
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 16
3.3 Unsignalized Intersections
Table 10 below shows a summary of the operations analysis results for the stop
sign - controlled intersections.
Table 10. Level of Service (LOS) Summary - Stop Sign Controlled Intersections
PM Peak Period
Projected 2009 Without Projected 2009 With
2007 Volumes Project Project
Intersection LOS
LOS
Worst Intersection Worst Intersection
Movement Average Movement Average
LOS (Delay)
Worst Intersection
Burnett Road /Yelm Ave D (33.5) A (1.3) F (214.7) 8(13.1) F (263.4) C (15.4)
Cullens Road /Yelm Ave. F (>500) F (200.2) F (>500) n/a t F (600) n/a t
Longmire SVYeIm Ave. F (267.8) A (10.0) F (>500) n/a ' F ( >500) n/a r
Solberg SVYeIm Ave.
C (21.1)
A (1.8)
E (48.1)
A (3.0)
F (53.6)
A (3.2)
Second Stree4Yelm Ave
F (100.6)
A (2.2)
F (>500)
F (337.6)
F (>500)
n/a
t
103i0 Ave/Yelm Ave
C (24.7)
A (1.3)
F (311.7)
A (6.9)
F (544.2)
A (9
.7)
Plaza Drive /Yelm Ave
F (446.8)
A (7.7)
F (>500)
n/a
1
F (>500)
n/a
'
Creek 54103`° Ave
8(10.8)
A (4.4)
B (11.9)
A (4.7)
B (12.4)
A (5.2)
103'd Ave /Grove Road
B (13.9)
A (9.0)
C (15.6)
A (9.5)
B (14.1)
A (9.1)
n/a = Not available. Data is outside of range.
Several of the unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at poor service
levels. The Longmire intersection is planned to have signalization improvements in
the near future. It is anticipated that a portion of the City's TFC fees will be used to
construct the traffic control system. Once installed, the intersection will improve to
acceptable levels. In addition, it is also expected the LOS conditions for the Cullens
Road intersection will improve when the Longmire signal is installed. The new signal,
along with the signal system at the upstream intersection at Killion Road, will create
"gaps' in the vehicle stream which will improve the maneuverability of left- turning
vehicles from Cullens Road.
The Plaza Drive intersection will experience poor service levels for conditions with or
without the Creek Street Mixed Use project. There are no plans or provisions to
improve the intersection beyond its current configuration. However, there are other
access alternatives available for vehicles trying to enter the traffic stream on Yelm
Avenue, and during peak commute hours, vehicles will choose to find other routes to
their final destination. This is a very common condition and expectation for urban
arterial corridors.
3.4 Site Driveway Intersections
The Creek Street Mixed Use project proposes two primary accesses to Creek Street,
and project traffic can also use 106" Avenue, an existing commercial collector. For
Street Mixed Use January, 2008
Page 16
0AHEA
RRJE W ELL.
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 17
purposes of this analysis, we assumed that the existing Creek Street /106`h Avenue
intersection would operate as a right -in, right -out condition and the two primary
access points north of 106th would be full access. The intermediate driveway will align
with the existing driveway on the west side of Creek Street that provides access to the
abutting commercial properties, including the Dairy Queen on Plaza Drive. Our
analysis also assumed that frontage improvements for the project will include
extension of the two -way left turn lane on Creek Street along the project frontage.
With the above locations and restrictions, all proposed accesses will operate at LOS A.
Creek Street Mixed Use ]anuary, 2008
Page 17
0 HEA
ARRJEWELL.,
Tami Merriman
January 8, 2008
Page 18
4. SUMMARY
Based on the traffic potential of the proposed Creek Street Mixed Use project and the
results of the operational analysis, the site will have some impact to area roadways
and intersections. The project is expected to generate approximately 241 new
evening peak hour trips when fully developed in 2009. Specifically, the site
driveways will need to be designed to facilitate the traffic movement on Creek Street.
Placement and alignment of the site ingress /egress locations will be a primary site
design consideration for the project.
In addition, we have identified some potential improvement strategies for the Yelm
Avenue /Bald Hills intersection. The final assessment of these improvement
strategies should be evaluated and confirmed using the Yelm simTraffic model.
Creek Street Mixed Use January, 2009
Page 18
0 HEA
ARRJEWELL,.
APPENDIX A
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
1: Yelm Ave & Burnett Rd SE 1/412906
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
6 i ,6
Lane Configurations
Volume (vehm)
20
795
475
25 20
5
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.88
0.88 0.61
0.61
Hourly flow rate(vph)
22
855
540
28 33
8
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
568
1452
554
vCl, stage 1 con' vol
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
vCu, unblocked vol
568
1452
554
tC, single (s)
4,1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
77
98
cM capacity (vehlh)
142
536
}}100�04
fpm
i
Volume Total
876
568
41
Volume Left
22
0
33
Volume Right
0
28
8
cSH
1004
1700
167
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.33
0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
24
Control Delay (s)
0.6
0.0
33.5
Lane LOS
A
D
Approach Delay (s)
0.6
0.0
33.5
Approach LOS
D
... -•.:, w'�.,.
= "ro;4'F.: w.
`
� . :' "„ n
., .;, .L3n" r '?t+,tkk `. �
Average Delay
1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
67.9%
ICU Level of
Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
1: Yelm Ave R Burnett Rd SE 1/4/2008
Lane Configurations
ej
1�
Y
Volume (veil
30
935
675
55 50
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.88
0.88 0.61
0.61
Hourly flow rate(vph)
32
1005
767
62 82
33
Pedestrians
20
Lane Width (ft)
11.0
Walking Speed (fills)
40
Percent Blockage
2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
830
1868
818
vCi, stage i conf vol
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
vCu, unblocked vol
830
1868
818
Q, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
96
0
91
cM capacity(vehlh)
802
77
373
'NCO,
>' ^Nv&�a °;�iT"F
l ,.i° �1 ':�.i. -•"' j:��.
.t ... *in
M�4
WG.l,�
-.,4
Volume Total
1038
830
115
Volume Left
32
0
82
Volume Right
0
62
33
cSH
802
1700
100
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.49
1.15
Queue Length 95th (ft)
3
0
196
Control Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
214.7
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
214.7
Approach LOS
F
Average Delay 131
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
1: Yelm Ave & Burnett Rd SE 1/412008
Projected 2009 w /project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Volume Total
1070
864
115
Volume Left
32
0
82
Lane Configurations
Volume Right
0
62
33
cSH
Volume(vehlh)
30
965
705
55
50
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
0
Stop
Grade
1.3
0%
0%
0%
A
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.88
0.88
0.61
0.61
Houdy flow rate(vph)
32
1038
801
62
82
33
Pedestrians
r..�::
20
�,.ev �:m � ..ivt �shH£.a.�Y,. 4fi✓. �'�:,� 3 Y1 'A. ....e ih° �YfaJbl��y -y`.l
Average Delay
Lane Width (ft)
11.0
90.5%
ICU Level of Service E
Walking Speed (ftfs)
4.0
15
Percent Blockage
2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
864
1935
852
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
864
1935
852
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6,2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
96
0
91
cM capacity (vehlh)
779
70
357
Projected 2009 w /project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Volume Total
1070
864
115
Volume Left
32
0
82
Volume Right
0
62
33
cSH
779
1700
91
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.51
1.26
Queue Length 95th (ft)
3
0
213
Control Delay (s)
1.3
0.0
263.4
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.3
0.0
263.4
Approach LOS
F
M1'C.'}j'�!@dj�:S��YGi2$e `f-ti•:
�6 %�d}iv`d
r..�::
aM
�,.ev �:m � ..ivt �shH£.a.�Y,. 4fi✓. �'�:,� 3 Y1 'A. ....e ih° �YfaJbl��y -y`.l
Average Delay
15.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
90.5%
ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Penod (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
3: Yelm Ave & NW Killion Rd 1/4/2008
Mati fib'" "x •,Fff,° w E wAr" ASY •> t hl�G'.: 6f .FSB :,:
Lane Configurations
}
r
T
+
_ r
t1
H
Volume (vph)
5
1005
1
15
660 10
1
1
5
10
1
10
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12 12
12
12
12
11
12
11
Grade (%)
0%
0%
0%
_5%
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
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
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.86
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1,00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow(prot)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1859
1770
1863
1583
1788
1667
Flt Permitted
0.31
1.00
1.00
0.14
1.00
0.74
1,00
1.00
0.76
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
583
1863
1583
264
1859
1383
1863
1583
1426
1667
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.92
0.92
0.91 0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.46
0.92
0.46
Adj. Flow (vph)
5
1058
1
16
725 11
1
1
5
22
1
22
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
4
0
19
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
5
1058
1
16
735 0
1
1
1
22
4
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
2%
2%
2%
2%
2% 2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Effective Green, g (s)
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.70
0,70
0.70
0.70
0,70
0,15
015
015
0,15
0.15
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
30
30
30
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
408
1305
1109
185
1302
206
277
235
212
248
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.57
0.40
0.00
0.00
vls Ratio Perm
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
c0.02
v/c Ratio
0.01
0.81
0.00
0.09
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.02
Uniform Delay, dl
2.1
4.8
2.1
22
3.4
16.8
16,8
16.8
17.1
16.9
Progression Factor
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Delay (a)
2.1
87
2.1
2.4
4.0
16.8
16.8
16.8
17.3
169
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
8.7
4.0
16.8
17.1
Approach LOS
A
A
B
B
y
HCM Average Control Delay
7.0
HCM Level of Service
A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0,69
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
46.4
Sum
of lost time (s)
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
69.6%
ICU
Level of Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
3: Yelm Ave & NW Killion Rd 1/412008
Lane Configurations
I
T
F
9
A
295
I
1
F
'f
A
Volume (vph)
10
1200
1
20
935
35
1
1
10
55
1
15
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
it
12
11
Grade 1 %)
1.00
0%
1.00
1.00
0%
1.00
1.00
0%
8.8
0.0
-5%
2.6
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
16.2
3.5
3.5
3.5
15
3.5
26.4
Lane Util, Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
A
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1,00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0,85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow(prot)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1853
1770
1863
1583
1788
1663
Flt Permitted
0,16
1.00
1.00
0.07
1.00
0.73
1.00
1.00
0.76
1.00
Said. Flow perm)
302
1863
1583
134
1853
1369
1863
1583
1426
1663
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0.95
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.46
0.92
0.46
Adj. Flow (vph)
11
1263
1
22
1027
38
1
1
11
120
1
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
28
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
11
1263
1
22
1063
0
1
1
2
120
6
0
Heavy Vehicles 1%)
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
Turn Type
Perm
Penn
Perm
Penn
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
55.6
55.6
55.6
55.6
55.6
11.8
11,8
11.8
11.8
11.8
Effective Green, g (s)
55.6
55.6
55.6
55.6
55.6
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.75
0.75
075
075
075
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Vehicle Extension Isl
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
Ws Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, di
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
226
1392
1183
100
1385
217
295
251
226
264
co .68
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
c0.08
0.05
0.91
0.00
0.22
0.77
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.53
0.02
2.5
7.4
2.4
2.8
5.6
26.4
26.3
26.4
28.8
26.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.1
8.8
0.0
11
2.6
0.0
0,0
0.0
2.4
0,0
2.6
16.2
2.4
4.0
8.2
26.4
26.4
26.4
31.1
26.5
A
B
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
16,0
8.1
26.4
30.1
B
A
C
C
Intersepliom {Suplm9rYs
HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.4 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
3: Yelm Ave & NW Killion Rd
1/4/2008
*
0
-'*
%,(,
*--
"-
4\
1
�►
l
..
Lane Configurations
I
T
jr
I
t
r
tt
Volume (vph)
10
1230
1
20
960
35
1
1
10
55
1
15
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
11
Grade (%)
0%
0%
0%
-5%
Total Lost time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
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
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0,95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow(prot)
1770
1863
1583
1770
1853
1770
1863
1583
1788
1663
Flt Permitted
0.15
1.00
1.00
0.07
1.00
0.73
1.00
1.00
0.76
1.00
Sad. Flow (Perm)
285
1863
1583
129
1853
1369
1863
1583
1426
1663
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.95
0,95
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.46
0.92
0.46
Adj. Flow (vph)
11
1295
1
22
1055
38
1
1
ii
120
1
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
28
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
11
1295
1
22
1092
0
1
1
2
120
6
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
Tom Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
57.8
57,8
57.8
57.8
57.8
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
Effective Green, g (s)
57.8
57.8
57.8
57.8
57.8
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.75
0.75
0.75
075
0.75
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Clearance Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3,0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
30
30
30
30
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
215
1404
1193
97
1396
212
289
246
221
258
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.70
0.59
0.00
0.00
Ws Ratio Perm
0.04
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
00.08
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.92
0.00
0.23
0.78
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.54
0.02
Uniform Delay, di
2.4
7.6
2.3
2.8
5.7
27.4
27.4
27.4
29.9
27.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
10.3
0.0
12
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
Delays)
2.5
17,9
2.3
4.0
8.6
274
27.4
27.4
32.6
27.5
Level of Service
A
B
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
17.8
8.5
27.4
31.5
Approach LOS
B
A
C+�;
C
HCM Average Control Delay
14.6
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0,86
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
76.7
Sum
of lost time (s)
7.0
Intersection Capacity Ufilization
81.4%
ICU Level
of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
4: Yelm Ave & NW Cullens Rd
1/4/2008
>
t
`►
1
EIAI
'4�EB&
WBL,
:WER
WBft,h
,-NAL,,4
Lane Configurations
yj
js
yj
t♦
yj
Ta
Volume (veh /h)
20
930
20
5
625
20
5
1
5
30
1
35
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0°%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.81
0.81
0.81
Hourly flow rate (vph)
22
1011
22
6
710
23
7
1
7
37
1
43
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
765
pX, platoon unblocked
0.42
0.42
0.42
042
0.42
0.42
vC, conflicting volume
733
1033
1831
1810
1022
1796
1809
722
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
733
397
2280
2230
372
2197
2229
722
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
PQ queue free °%
97
99
25
92
97
0
93
90
cM capacity (veNh)
867
488
10
18
288
12
18
429
Olrectlon::Cedsi4! . n..: _
ERA,',,E8
2
-vNt-,
MIN
' BNB t.,.
, 6B1 !':.SR2-
-Ott
Volume Total
22
1033
6
733
16
37
44
Volume Left
22
0
6
0
7
37
0
Volume Right
0
22
0
23
7
0
43
cSH
867
1700
488
1700
19
12
260
Volume to Capacity
0.03
0.61
0.01
0.43
0.86
3.03
0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
1
0
60
Err
16
Control Delay (s)
9.3
0.0
12.5
0,0
430.9
Err
21.7
Lane LOS
A
B
F
F
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
0.1
430.9
4556.8
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay
200.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
61.9%
ICU
Level
of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
4: Yelm Ave & NW Cullens Rd 1/4/2008
-,* i 7 'r ~ t 4\ T /' j r
Lane Configurations
I
H
T+
4,
Vi
Ti
Volume (vehm)
25
1155
20
15
920
35
5
1
10
35
1
45
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.67
0,67
0.67
0.81
0.81
0.81
Hourly flow rate(vph)
27
1255
22
17
1045
40
7
1
15
43
1
56
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed fts)
Percent Bfockage
Right turn flare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
765
pX, platoon unblocked
0.32
0.32
0.32
0,32
0.32
0.32
vC, conflicting volume
1085
1277
2456
2440
1266
2425
2431
1065
vCi, stage i conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cord vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1085
813
4447
4396
780
4350
4368
1065
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 %
96
93
0
0
88
0
0
60
cM capacity (veh /h)
639
261
0
0
129
0
0
272
Volume Total
27
1277
17
1085
24
43
57
Volume Left
27
0
17
0
7
43
0
Volume Right
0
22
0
40
15
0
56
cSH
639
1700
261
1700
0
0
20
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.75
0.07
0.64
Err
Err
2.81
Queue Length 95th (ft)
3
0
5
0
Err
Err
193
Control Delay (s)
10.9
0.0
19.7
0,0
Err
Err
1213.7
Lane LOS
B
C
F
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
0.3
En
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
3."s
r
r''
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization
74.2%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
4: Yelm Ave & NW Cullens Rd
1/412008
tA-
`►
1
-'
AL.,u..rY. �,5AN� ^.y�,
-
6.trnf.GtSa
,�
•mi
d" •
�, iem.:;:
ci.4±
4x :rmjp.i�;
ox.•
e`y� d
Lane Configurations
Vi
T+
Ti
Volume (vehlh)
25
1185
20
15
945
35
5
1
10
35
1
45
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0 °%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.81
0.81
0.81
Houdy flow rate (vph)
27
1288
22
17
1074
40
7
1
15
43
1
56
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Aare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
765
pX, platoon unblocked
031
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
vC, conflicting volume
1114
1310
2517
2501
1299
2486
2492
1094
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1114
891
4758
4705
856
4657
4676
1094
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
Tl
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 %
96
93
0
0
87
0
0
79
cM capacity(veh /h)
623
235
0
0
113
0
0
261
DxeUbnkanelE.,.
EBt
E02
-;WB1
WB2.:NB1
,SBI
S82
Volume Total
27
1310
17
1114
24
43
57
Volume Left
27
0
17
0
7
43
0
Volume Right
0
22
0
40
15
0
56
cSH
623
1700
235
1700
0
0
12
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.77
0.07
0.66
Err
Err
4.67
Queue Length 95th (ft)
4
0
6
0
Err
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
11.0
0.0
21.5
0.0
Err
Err
Err
Lane LOS
B
C
F
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
0.3
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
Intamtl gillil aaw v
r:.a. £C
r W
i-:+am•
v F'. , +.
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization
75.8%
ICU Level
of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
5: Yelm Ave & NW Longmire St 1/4/2608
Lane Configurations
yj
t,
yj
1)
4+
eH
Volume (veh/h)
10
905
20
15
690
5
10
1
20
5
1
10
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph)
11
973
22
16
742
5
19
2
37
7
1
13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
1244
pX, platoon unblocked
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
vC, conflicting volume
747
995
1794
1785
984
1809
1793
745
vCi, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
747
574
2038
2022
554
2067
2037
745
c, single (s)
4.1
4.1
71
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
97
12
94
87
63
96
97
cM capacity ( veh/h)
870
548
21
31
292
18
30
418
- "t9,'f
Elf, 2
': W81
°W&2
�961
$B
t"'•' T
77:?,.'
,..":
"1::.
.h'
w,n
Volume Total
11
995
16
747
57
21
Volume Left
11
0
16
0
19
7
Volume Right
0
22
0
5
37
13
cSH
870
1700
548
1700
54
47
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.59
0.03
0.44
1.07
0.45
Queue Length 95th (R)
1
0
2
0
127
43
Control Delay (s)
9.2
0.0
11.8
0.0
267.8
132.4
Lane LOS
A
B
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
0.2
267.8
132.4
Approach LOS...
F
F
rrl
m
S
Average Delay
10,0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
58.8%
ICU
Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
5: Yelm Ave & NW Longmire St 1/412008
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 5
41gym hR,., a =.•E@L
-.,EB'V,,EPA
M- ,..3WIT
.,wag
:..
NB4.,'
NBI'•..
tiEi ,...tSBL,�`.BBtr
,S9t#
Lane Configurations
T.
T.
41
4*
Volume (vehlh)
10
1120
50
60
900
10
115
1
200
10
1
10
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0,93
0.93
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hourly flow rate(vph)
11
1204
54
65
968
11
213
2
370
13
1
13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
1244
pX, platoon unblocked
0.38
0.38
0.38
038
0.38
0.38
vC, conflicting volume
978
1258
2363
2360
1231
2699
2382
973
vCl, stage 1 con' vol
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
vCu, unblocked vol
978
870
3747
3739
800
4621
3795
973
VC, 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 %
98
78
0
0
0
0
0
96
cM capacity (veh /h)
713
299
0
1
149
0
1
309
fkle"4han. Lan9.Y.." ,ESI
EB2;;WB1
WB2,:.N$1.
$RA
-'+'
:.,'4'.I
Volume Total
11
1258
65
978
585
28
Volume Left
11
0
65
0
213
13
Volume Right
0
54
0
11
370
13
cSH
713
1700
299
1700
0
0
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.74
0.22
0.58
Err
Err
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
21
0
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
10.1
0.0
20.3
0.0
Err
Err
Lane LOS
B
C
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
1.3
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization
90.4%
ICU
Level of Service
E
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 5
HCM Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity
Analysis
65
1000
585
Creek Street Mixed Use
5: Yelm Ave & NW Longmire St
11
0
65
0
213
13
Volume Right
0
54
1/4/2008
11
370
13
cSH
700
1700
268
1700
0
0
Volume to Capacity
0.02
076
0.24
0.59
Err
Err
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
24
0
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
10,2
Lane Configurations
22.7
0.0
Err
Err
Lane LOS
B
C
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
Volume(veh/h)
10
1155
50
60
920
10
115
1
200
10
1
10
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.54
0.54
0.54
075
0.75
075
Hourly flow rate(vph)
11
1242
54
65
989
11
213
2
370
13
1
13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (fl/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
1244
pX, platoon unblocked
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
vC, conflicting volume
1000
1296
2423
2419
1269
2758
2441
995
vCi, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1000
941
4025
4016
867
4944
4075
995
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
15
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free%
98
76
0
0
0
0
0
96
cM capacity (veh /h)
700
268
0
1
130
0
1
300
Volume Total
11
1296
65
1000
585
28
Volume Left
11
0
65
0
213
13
Volume Right
0
54
0
11
370
13
cSH
700
1700
268
1700
0
0
Volume to Capacity
0.02
076
0.24
0.59
Err
Err
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
24
0
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
10,2
0.0
22.7
0.0
Err
Err
Lane LOS
B
C
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
01
1.4
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 92,2% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchm 7 - Report
Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
6: Yelm Ave & NW Solberg St 1/412008
Exisfing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 6
---*'r
t
'I-
4\
1
1�
1
kbuemeatr ar- _ ._ :
`EBt .
,'EBT
r:1
. 7 WBI
WBR4,
Ni
AEI ..
91BR : Wit,
441"'alo
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehlh)
40
745
120
35
580
55
10
5
20
15
1
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0,93
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.57
0.57
0.57
Hourly flow rate(vph)
43
801
129
38
630
60
17
8
34
26
2
35
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Pos)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare Ivor)
Median type
None
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
690
930
1694
1718
866
1662
1753
660
VC1, stage 1 conf Vol
952
952
736
736
vC2, stage 2 conf Vol
742
766
925
1016
vCu, unblocked Vol
690
930
1694
1718
866
1662
1753
660
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
61
5.5
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
95
95
92
96
90
87
99
92
cM capacity (vehm)
900
723
216
241
350
204
227
466
D'ir0*n.laq, i -. :
ES
EB 2::..
WB 1
„ WS 2
• -'NIB i
Si :
>
Se?=
Volume Total
43
930
38
690
59
63
Volume Left
43
0
38
0
17
26
Volume Right
0
129
0
60
34
35
cSH
900
1700
723
1700
282
298
Volume to Capacity
0.05
0.55
0.05
0.41
0.21
0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft)
4
0
4
0
20
20
Control Delay (s)
9.2
0,0
103
0.0
21.1
20.3
Lane LOS
A
B
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.4
0.5
21.1
20.3
Approach LOS
C
C
Intereectlon:Swrinpi Y
Average Delay
1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
56.5%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
Exisfing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
6: Yelm Ave & NW Solberg St \ / •T I 1/4/2008
w
/ �� • ♦ ~ \ 1
Lane Configurations
I
T.
38
f.
76
.;.
Volume Left
48
$.
38
Volume(veh/h)
45
1135
135 35
825
60 15
5
25
15
1
20
Sign Control
1700
Free
1700
Free
146
Stop
0.07
0.80
Stop
0.57
Grade
0.43
0%
6
0%
6
0%
60
50
0%
10.4
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.59
0.59
0.59
0,57
0.57
0.57
Hourly flow rate (vph)
48
1220
145 38
897
65 26
8
42
26
2
35
Pedestrians
E
E
Lane Width (ft)
Average Delay
3.0
Walking Speed (Ns)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
77.9%
ICU
Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
Upstream signal (11)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
962
1366
2399
2428
1293
2369
2468
929
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1390
1390
1005
1005
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1009
1038
1364
1462
vCu, unblocked vol
962
1366
2399
2428
1293
2369
2468
929
iC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
62
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
93
92
79
94
78
69
99
89
cM capacity (vehlh)
711
493
119
146
197
84
127
327
Crhe'"; 'Ai &''V717 " 1182''NB'1 gai . 77,`
Volume Total
48
1366
38
962
76
63
Volume Left
48
0
38
0
25
26
Volume Right
0
145
0
65
42
35
cSH
711
1700
493
1700
156
146
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.80
0.08
0.57
0.49
0.43
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
6
0
60
50
Control Delay (s)
10.4
0.0
12.9
0.0
48.1
47.5
Lane LOS
B
B
E
E
Approach Delay (s)
0.4
0.5
48.1
47.5
Approach LOS
E
E
Average Delay
3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
77.9%
ICU
Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5'.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
6: Yelm Ave & NW Solberg St 1/4/2008
�"` -�
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehlh)
45
1170
135
35
855
60
15
5
25
15
1
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.57
0.57
0.57
Hourly flow rate(vph)
48
1258
145
38
929
65
25
8
42
26
2
35
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Pos)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (van)
Median type
None
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflic8ng volume
995
1403
2469
2498
1331
2439
2538
962
vCi, stage conf vol
1427
1427
1038
1038
vC2, stage 2 card vol
1041
1071
1401
1500
vCu, unblocked vol
995
1403
2469
2498
1331
2439
2538
962
VC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
33
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free%
93
92
77
94
77
66
99
89
cM capacity (vehlh)
692
477
112
139
187
77
120
313
Dkil Land#; . �,.,
` -E6.1
Est,
WB t . W82 -:
NB 1 7
S61:'-
Volume Total
48
1403
38
995
76
63
Volume Left
48
0
38
0
25
26
Volume Right
0
145
0
65
42
35
cSH
692
1700
477
1700
148
134
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.83
0.08
0.59
0.52
0,47
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
7
0
65
56
Control Delay (s)
10.6
0.0
13.2
0.0
52.6
53.6
Lane LOS
B
B
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
04
0.5
52.6
53.6
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
9: Yelm Ave & N First Street
1/412008
Na�e1 atd4 ". `,
iE
I9T
WBL"
WBT
WBR' "
N$L
h§Y'
N912`
x'111
"SST'
"'36�
Lane Configurations
1j
T
jr
I
T+
p
T.
Volume (vph)
135
620
40
175
535
15
130
85
200
50
75
115
Ideal Flow(vpli
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
Frl
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
Sato. Flow (Prot)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1819
1811
1705
1770
1637
Flt Permitted
0.95
1,00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.24
1.00
0.28
1.00
Sold. Flow (Perm)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1819
452
1705
518
1637
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)
148
681
44
186
569
16
155
101
238
67
100
153
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
13
0
1
0
0
75
0
0
50
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
148
681
31
186
584
0
155
264
0
67
203
0
Heavy Vehicles 1%)
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Turn Type
Prot
Perm
Prot
pri
pm +pt
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
7
4
3
8
Permitted Phases
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.4
39.7
391
13.4
42.7
29.7
21.4
20.6
16.8
Effective Green, g (s)
10.9
402
40.2
13,9
43.2
30.2
21.9
21.6
17.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.42
0.42
0.14
0.45
0.31
0.23
0.22
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
28
20
28
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
218
770
698
251
816
267
388
172
294
vls Ratio Prot
0.08
c0.37
c0.11
c0.32
c0.05
c0.15
0.02
0.12
We Ratio Perm
002
0.13
0,07
we Ratio
0.68
0.88
0.04
0.74
0,72
0.58
0.68
0.39
0.69
Uniform Delay, dl
41.0
25.9
16.6
39.5
21.6
25.8
34.0
30.5
37.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
6,5
11.8
0.0
9.8
2.9
2.1
4.7
0.5
6.6
Delay (s)
47.5
37.7
16.7
493
24.5
27.9
38.7
31,1
43.6
Level of Service
D
D
B
D
C
C
D
C
D
Approach Delay (s)
383
30.5
35.3
41.0
Approach LOS
D
C
D
D
HCM Average Control Delay
35.6
HCM Level
of Service
D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
96,3
Sum
of lost
time (s)
16,0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
76.6%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
9: Yelm Ave & N First Street 1/4/2008
MavemeMw..a ;.
l i
AEQT
: -EBR-
-til
WBT
WBR f;
NBILii�
N9T;,
NBR
Protected Phases
5
Lane Configurations
T
j
"I
A
yj
Ti
Permitted Phases
H
2
Volume (vph)
170
960
60
270
745
65
155
95
270
100
85
150
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
4.0
4.0
4,0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane UtiI. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.8
1.00
1.00
2.8
1.00
1.00
839
Frt
1,00
1,00
0.85
1,00
0.99
158
1.00
0.89
0.10
1.00
0.90
c0.17
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0,95
1.00
v/s Ratio Perm
0.95
1.00
0.03
0.95
1.00
0.17
Said Flow (prof)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1805
1.26
1811
1695
0.97
1770
1628
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
47,0
0.18
1.00
43.7
0.21
1.00
44.6
Said. Flow (perm)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1805
1.00
340
1695
1.00
392
1628
31,3
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)
187
1055
66
287
793
69
185
113
321
133
113
200
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
12
0
3
0
0
93
0
0
58
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
187
1055
54
287
859
0
185
341
0
133
255
0
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)
11.6
49.5
49.5
15.5
53.4
30.4
21.9
23.6
18.5
Effective Green, g (s)
12.1
50.0
50.0
16.0
53.9
31.4
22.4
24.6
19.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.49
0.29
0.20
0.22
0.17
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)
212
839
760
253
884
217
345
158
281
we Ratio Prot
0.10
c0.57
c0.17
c0.48
c0.07
c0.20
0.04
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.17
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.88
1.26
0.07
1.13
0.97
0.85
0.99
0.84
0.91
Uniform Delay, di
48.2
30,0
16.9
47,0
27.3
33.0
43.7
53.6
44.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
31,3
125.5
0.0
977
23.4
25.3
447
30.3
30.5
Delay (a)
79.6
155.5
16.9
144.7
50.7
58.3
88.4
83,8
75.2
Level of Service
E
F
B
F
D
E
F
F
E
Approach Delay (s)
137.7
74.2
79.4
77.8
Approach LOS
F
E
E
E
Interaec6on,Summwn. ,
:+�
..r4 >:,vn
HCM Average Control Delay
99.1
HCM Level of Service
F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.21
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum of lost time (s)
20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
106.0%
ICU Level of Service
G
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
9: Yelm Ave & N First Street 1/4/2008
Lane Configurations
I
T
F
I
T#
I
I.
A
Volume (vph)
170
995
60
280
775
65
155
95
285
100
85
150
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 (a)
4,0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Uhl. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0,99
1.00
0.89
1.00
0,90
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1,00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1,00
Said. Flow (Prot)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1806
1811
1692
1770
1628
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.21
1.00
0.22
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1928
1845
1672
1736
1806
401
1692
403
1628
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)
187
1093
66
298
824
69
185
113
339
133
113
200
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
12
0
3
0
0
98
0
0
58
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
187
1093
54
298
890
0
185
354
0
133
255
0
Heavy Vehicles 1%)
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Turn Type
Prot
Perm
Prot
pm +pt
pr i
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
7
4
3
8
Permitted Phases
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.1
54.0
54.0
14.5
57.4
24.0
18,5
23.0
18.0
Effective Green, g (s)
11.6
54.5
54.5
15,0
57.9
25.0
19,0
24.0
18.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0,50
0.50
0.14
0.53
0.23
0.17
0.22
0.17
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
914
828
237
951
168
292
156
274
v/s Ratio Prot
0.10
c0.59
c0.17
c0.49
c0.06
0.21
0.04
0.16
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.19
0,14
v/c Rai
0.92
1.20
0.07
1.26
0,94
1.10
1.21
0,85
0.93
Uniform Delay, di
48.7
27.8
14.5
47.5
24.3
41.4
45.5
53.7
45.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
41.1
98.9
0.0
145.4
15.9
99.1
122.3
32.6
35.7
Delay (s)
89.8
126.6
14.5
192.9
40.2
140.5
167.8
86.3
80.8
Level of Service
F
F
B
F
D
F
F
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
116.0
78.4
159.9
82.4
Approach LOS
F
E
F
F
In Y
HCM Average Control Delay
107.2
HCM
Level of Service
F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.19
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum
of lost time (s)
16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
109.3%
ICU
Level
of Service
H
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w /project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
10: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Second St 1/412008
i * --v ~ t .4\ I
Lane Configurations
44�
4.
4�
4+
Volume ( vehlh)
1
810
1
5
840 5
5
1
40
1
1
1
Sign Control
Free
Free
Slop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0,93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94 0.94
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
1
871
1
5
894 5
8
2
61
2
2
2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (ft)
286
pX, platoon unblocked
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
vC, conflicting volume
899
872
1784
1783
872
1842
1781
896
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
899
547
1930
1930
546
2019
1927
896
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
PO queue free %
100
99
76
96
83
91
95
99
cM capacity (vehlh)
747
667
31
43
353
23
44
342
DItec A-L9nea
E91
+WB 1
NB 1
SB- 1.:..:
Volume Total
873
904
70
6
Volume Left
1
5
8
2
Volume Right
1
5
61
2
cSH
747
667
155
44
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.45
0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
53
11
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.2
46,0
100.6
Lane LOS
A
A
E
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
0.2
46,0
100.6
Approach LOS
E
F
Average Delay
2.2Y
Intersection Capacity Utilization
58.4%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
10: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Second St 1/412008
--" --I. 7 f 1 t4,, T j r
Lane Configurations
4.
4+
4�
4,
--
Volume (vel
1
1230
1
10
1200 10
5
1
45
1
1
5
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94 0.94
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hourly flow rate (vi
1
1323
1
11
1277 11
8
2
68
2
2
10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ills)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (ft)
286
i platoon unblocked
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
vC, conflicting volume
1287
1324
2639
2634
1323
2697
2629
1282
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1287
1149
3767
3755
1148
3882
3746
1282
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
62
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
21
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
TO queue free %
100
96
0
25
44
0
6
95
cM capacity (vehi
532
302
0
2
121
0
2
204
Volume Total
1325
1298
77
14
Volume Left
1
11
8
2
Volume Right
1
11
68
10
cSH
532
302
2
1
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.04
44.91
13.72
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
3
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
0.1
2,6
Err
Err
Lane LOS
A
A
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
2.6
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay
337.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
82.0%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
10: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Second St 11412008
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 10
Lane Configurations
Volume (vehlh)
5
1280
1
10
1245
10
5
1
60
1
1
5
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
093
0.93
0.93
0,94
0.94
0,94
0.66
0.66
0.66
0,50
0.50
0.50
Hourly flow rate(vph)
5
1376
1
11
1324
11
8
2
91
2
2
10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Bls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (it)
286
pX, platoon unblocked
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
046
0.46
vC, conflicting volume
1335
1377
2750
2744
1377
2830
2739
1330
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1335
1234
4212
4199
1233
4387
4189
1330
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
15
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
96
0
0
8
0
0
95
cM capacity(vehlh)
510
257
0
1
99
0
1
191
all IiL.A0e&,, ,.'t+>
'd E8't.,tWl-
+NB
Volume Total
1383
1346
100
14
Volume Left
5
11
8
2
Volume Right
1
11
91
10
cSH
510
257
0
0
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.04
Err
Err
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
3
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
0.7
3.9
Err
Err
Lane LOS
A
A
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
03
19
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
)
i'�A M'"
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Ublizabon
84.6%
ICU
Level of Service
E
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
13: E Yelrn Ave (SR 507)
& Prairie Park Rd
1/4 /2008
--*
--p.
--v
4-
'-
"-
1
�►
1
41
Lane Configurations
A
y,
Volume (vph)
20
905
15
80
800
20
15
5
75
25
5
20
Ideal Flow(vphp)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
10
11
11
Total Lost time (a)
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
Frt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
0.86
1.00
0.88
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Sate. Flow (prot)
1752
1840
1719
1803
1736
1622
1652
1583
Flt Permitted
0.25
1.00
0,20
1.00
0.74
1.00
0.69
1.00
Said. Flow (cannot
464
1840
363
1803
1346
1622
1207
1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.79
0.79
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
22
984
16
87
870
22
18
6
91
32
6
25
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
79
0
0
22
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
22
1000
0
87
891
0
18
18
0
32
9
0
Heavy Vehicles 1%)
3%
3%
3%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
6
2
4
8
Permitted Phases
6
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
49.2
49.2
49.2
49.2
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Effective Green, g (s)
497
49.7
49.7
497
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
25
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
348
1381
273
1354
173
208
155
203
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.54
0.49
0.01
0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
0.05
0.24
0.01
:0.03
v/c Ratio
0.06
0.72
0.32
0.66
010
0,09
0.21
0,05
Uniform Delay, di
2.2
4.5
2.7
4.1
25.5
25.4
25,8
25.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
1.9
0.6
1.1
1
0.1
0.5
0.1
Delay (s)
2.2
6.4
3.3
5.2
25.7
25.6
26.3
25.4
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
6.3
5.0
25.6
25.8
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
HCM Average Control Delay
7.3
HCM Level
of Service
A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
66,2
Sum
of lost
time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
74.9%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
13: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Prairie Park Rd 1/412008
1NK11R1Mae'.tiR} � }'!A -. L{F.BCR'.StEV@5
nit "'
;a .4-
AVw" "•
Wil :
, °4YPP
•'--a me
1.V[F'J5
%.`i4VYYs".
i'YS :WIYJ{4.i
YGF1
Lane Configurations
p
I
j*
i
%
Ta
Volume (vph)
35
1310
20
95
1140
30
20
5
90
35
5
30
Ideal Flow(vifii
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
10
11
11
Total Lost time (s)
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
Frt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
1.00
0.87
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said Flow (prot)
1752
1840
1719
1802
1736
1619
1652
1567
Fit Permitted
0.12
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.73
1.00
0.52
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
227
1840
82
1802
1331
1619
901
1567
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.79
0.79
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
38
1424
22
103
1239
33
24
6
110
44
6
38
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
81
0
0
34
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
38
1446
0
103
1271
0
24
35
0
44
10
0
Heavy Vehicles 1%)
3%
3%
3%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
6
2
4
8
Permitted Phases
6
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
Effective Green, g (s)
88.1
88.1
88.1
88.1
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
Actuated g1C Ratio
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
187
1515
68
1484
136
165
92
160
v/s Ratio Prot
0.79
0.71
0.02
0.01
Ws Ratio Perm
0.17
c1.25
0.02
c0.05
1//c Ratio
0.20
0.95
1.51
0.86
0.18
0.21
0.48
0.06
Uniform Delay, d1
2.0
7.8
9.5
5.7
43.9
44.1
45.4
43.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
13.7
293.2
5.1
0.5
0.5
2.8
0.1
Delay (s)
2.5
21.5
302.6
10.7
44.4
44.6
48.2
43.5
Level of Service
A
C
F
B
D
D
D
D
Approach Delay (s)
21.0
32.6
44.6
45.9
Approach LOS
C
C
D
D
In .t >,..
LL
s
rir.., ;ii
HCM Average Control Delay
27.9
HCM Level of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
107.0
Sum
of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
94.2%
ICU
Level
of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 wlo project 5 :00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
13: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Prairie Park Rd
11412008
W10 FIVE
4 y'
7W
Lane Configurations
)
p
11�
)
T.
)
Ti
Volume (vph)
35
1370
20
95
1190 30
20
5
90
35
5
30
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
12
12 12
12
13
13
10
11
11
Total Lost une (s)
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
Fd
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
1.00
0.87
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow(prog
1752
1841
1719
1803
1736
1619
1652
1567
Flt Permitted
0.10
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.73
1.00
0.52
1.00
Said Flow (perm)
182
1841
82
1803
1331
1619
901
1567
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.79
039
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
38
1489
22
103
1293 33
24
6
110
44
6
38
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
72
0
0
34
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
38
1511
0
103
1325 0
24
44
0
44
10
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
3%
3%
3%
5%
5% 5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
6
2
4
8
Permitted Phases
6
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
Effective Green, g (s)
88.1
88.1
88.1
88.1
10.9
10.9
10.9
10,9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Clearance Time (s)
4,5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2,8
25
25
25
25
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
150
1516
68
1485
136
165
92
160
We Ratio Prot
0.82
0.74
0.03
0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
0.21
cl.25
0.02
c0.05
vlc Ratio
0.25
1.00
1.51
0.89
0.18
0.27
0.48
0.06
Uniform Delay, dl
2.1
9.3
9.5
63
43.9
44.4
45.4
43.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.8
22.1
293.2
7.2
0.5
0.6
2.8
0.1
Delay (s)
2.9
31,4
302.6
13.5
44.4
45,0
48.2
43.5
Level of Service
A
C
F
B
D
D
D
D
Approach Delays)
30.7
34.3
44.9
45.9
Approach LOS
C
C
D
D
-
HCM Average Control Delay
33,4
HCM Level of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
107,0
Sum
of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
94,2%
ICU
Level of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 wlproject 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 13
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
14: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE 103rd St 11412008
Lane Configurations
I
p
9
T.
+
eT
F
Volume(vehlh)
75
925
5
1
735
20
5
1
5
5
1
45
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0 °%
Peak Hour Factor
0,94
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.79
0.79
0.79
Hourly flow rate(vph)
80
984
5
1
799
22
10
2
10
6
1
57
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f 1s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage van)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
476
1144
pX, platoon unblocked
0.69
0.66
0.82
0.82
0.66
0.82
0.82
0,69
vC, conflicting volume
821
989
1976
1969
987
1967
1961
810
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1146
1146
812
812
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
830
823
1155
1149
vCu, unblocked vol
517
731
1232
1223
727
1220
1213
501
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6,5
6.2
71
6.5
6.2
Q, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4,0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free%
89
100
94
99
96
96
99
86
cM capacity (vehlh)
725
580
162
186
284
163
187
394
61 h`on;43flfl,/ k r iEBA
EB2..:.WBd
�WB2
,44NIB1.
SB1,�.
Volume Total
80
989
1
821
22
65
Volume Leff
80
0
1
0
10
6
Volume Right
0
5
0
22
10
57
cSH
725
1700
580
1700
205
446
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0.58
0.00
0.48
0.11
0.14
Queue Length 95th (f)
10
0
0
0
9
13
Control Delay (s)
10.6
0.0
11.2
0.0
24.7
17.1
Lane LOS
B
B
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.8
0.0
24.7
17.1
Approach LOS
C
C
Average Delay
13
Intersection Capacity Utilization
67.4%
ICU
Level of
Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 14
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
14: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE 103rd St 1/4/2006
Lane Configurations
ll�
T*
44
.T
-r
Volume (veh /h)
90
1335
5
1
1040
30
5
1
5
20
1
100
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.79
0.79
0.79
Hourly flow rate (vph)
96
1420
5
1
1130
33
10
2
10
25
1
127
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (%/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
476
1144
pX, platoon unblocked
0.39
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.39
vC, conflicting volume
1163
1426
2811
2780
1423
2772
2766
1147
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
1614
1614
1149
1149
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1197
1165
1623
1617
vCu, unblocked vol
634
1122
1373
1311
1108
1295
1284
592
tC, single (a)
4.1
4,1
T1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
UP (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
Ili) queue free %
74
99
43
97
80
42
98
36
cM capacity (veh /h)
369
123
17
71
51
44
61
197
EkOL ft, taM's ",
"''EB S° "� i "`-WB1
WBg'...N91-'
SB f°
Volume Total
96
1426
1
1163
22
153
Volume Left
96
0
1
0
10
25
Volume Right
0
5
0
33
10
127
cSH
369
1700
123
1700
28
238
Volume to Capacity
0.26
0.84
0.01
0.68
0.80
0.64
Queue Length 95th (ft)
27
0
1
0
66
102
Control Delay (s)
18.1
0.0
34.6
0.0
311.7
71.6
Lane LOS
C
D
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.1
0.0
311.7
71.6
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay
6,9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
86.6%
ICU Level of
Service
E
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 14
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
14: E Yelm Ave (SR
507) & NE 103rd St
1/4/2008
Lane Configurations
j
T,�
Volume (veli
90
1390
5
1
1090
30
5
1
5
20
1
100
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.79
0.79
0.79
Hourly flow rate (vph)
96
1479
5
1
1185
33
10
2
10
25
1
127
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
476
1144
pX, platoon unblocked
0.33
0.19
0.53
0.53
0.19
0.53
0.53
0.33
vC, conflicting volume
1217
1484
2924
2892
1481
2884
2879
1201
vC1, stage 1 con' vol
1673
1673
1203
1203
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1251
1220
1681
1676
vCu, unblocked vol
646
1417
1345
1286
1403
1270
1260
597
tC, single (s)
4.1
41
71
6.5
6.2
71
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
pO queue free%
69
99
18
97
70
36
98
24
cM capacity (veh /h)
311
92
12
60
33
39
61
166
Dlro*n,Lana ..,LL ,.
° .:. E81
E82,
Vi
1141B
,: ..N &1
S81.
Volume Total
96
1484
1
1217
22
153
Volume Left
96
0
1
0
10
25
Volume Right
0
5
0
33
10
127
cSH
311
1700
92
1700
19
201
Volume to Capacity
0.31
0.87
0.01
0.72
1.15
0.76
Queue Length 95th (ft)
33
0
1
0
80
134
Control Delay (s)
21.7
0.0
44.5
0.0
544.2
95.6
Lane LOS
C
E
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.3
0.0
544.2
95.6
Approach LOS
F
F
Average Delay
9.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
86.6%
ICU Level
of Service
E
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 14
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
15: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Vancil Rd SE 1/4/2908
Lane Configurations
I
?
jr
I
?
F
x(
T.
Vi
11+
Volume (vph)
55
695
155
50
625
40
280
50
80
100
65
60
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
13
12
12
13
15
12
12
12
12
12
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
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
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1,00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.93
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1736
1827
1605
1703
1792
1574
1966
1707
1805
1763
Flt Permitted
0.25
1,00
1.00
0.18
1.00
1.00
0.59
1.00
0.61
1.00
Sold. Flow (Perm)
463
1827
1605
330
1792
1574
1215
1707
1151
1763
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.79
0.79
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
60
755
168
52
651
42
315
56
90
127
82
76
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
26
0
0
12
0
55
0
0
32
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
60
755
142
52
651
30
315
91
0
127
126
0
Heavy Vehicles 1 %)
4%
4%
4%
6%
6%
6%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Turn Type pri
Perm
pm +pt
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
1
6
5
2
4
8
Permitted Phases
6
6
2
2
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
64.5
60.4
60.4
64.3
60.3
60.3
31.2
31.2
31.9
31.9
Effective Green, g (s)
65.5
61.0
61.0
65.3
60.9
60.9
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
Actuated g1C Ratio
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.59
0.55
0.55
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
5.3
53
4.6
4,6
Vehicle Extension Is)
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
329
1013
890
252
992
871
359
504
340
521
vls Ratio Prot
0.01
c0.41
c0.01
0.36
0.05
0.07
vls Ratio Penn
0,10
0.09
0.11
0.02
c0.26
0.11
We Ratio
0.18
0.75
0.16
0.21
0.66
0.03
0.88
0.18
0.37
0.24
Uniform Delay, or
12.1
18,6
12.0
14.2
17.2
11.2
36.9
28,8
30.7
29.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
5.0
0.4
0.2
2.6
01
20.6
0,1
0.6
02
Delays)
12.3
23.6
124
13.3
19,3
10.3
574
29.0
31.3
29.6
Level of Service
B
C
B
B
B
B
E
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
21.0
18.4
48.4
30.4
Approach LOS
C
8
D
C
iii 7, -77f
'
HCM Average Control Delay
26.4
HCM Level
of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum of lost
time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
75.8%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchm 7 - Report
Page 15
HCM Signalized
Intersection Capacity
Analysis
Perm
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
pm +pt
5
2
67.9
68.9
0.63
4.5
2.5
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Creek Street Mixed Use
15: E Yelm Ave
(SR 507)
& Vancil Rd SE
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
125
1085
953
122
1064
934
1/7/2008
449
276
463
vls Ratio Prot
c0.02
c0.65
0.02
0.56
0.07
Lane Configurations
1j
}
jr
yj
0.30
jr
aj
A
0.13
f.
we Ratio
Volume (vph)
60
1100
165
60
970
45
305
55
95
105
70
70
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
13
12
12
13
15
12
12
12
12
12
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
33.0
4.0
4.0
32.1
Lane Ubl. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
F
1.00
1.00
C
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.92
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
HCM Average Control Delay
0.95
1.00
61.3
Satd. Flow(prot)
1736
1827
1605
1703
1792
1574
1966
1703
1805
1758
Flt Permitted
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.54
1.00
time (s)
0.55
1.00
12.0
Sald. Flow (Perm)
112
1827
1605
110
1792
1574
1110
1703
1048
1758
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.79
0.79
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
65
1196
179
62
1010
47
343
62
107
133
89
89
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
19
0
0
9
0
57
0
0
32
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
65
1196
160
62
1010
38
343
112
0
133
146
0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
pm +pt
1
6
67.9
66.9
0.63
4.5
2.5
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
pm +pt
5
2
67.9
68.9
0.63
4.5
2.5
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
4
27.7
29.0
0.26
5.3
2.5
4
27.7
29.0
0.26
5.3
2.5
Perm
8
28.4
29.0
0.26
4.6
2.8
8
28.4
29.0
0.26
4,6
2.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
125
1085
953
122
1064
934
293
449
276
463
vls Ratio Prot
c0.02
c0.65
0.02
0.56
0.07
0.08
vls Ratio Perm
0.31
0.10
0.30
0.02
c0.31
0.13
we Ratio
0.52
1.10
0.17
0.51
0.95
0.04
1.17
0.25
0.48
0.31
Uniform Delay, dl
22.4
22.4
10.1
533
20.8
9.3
40.5
31.9
34.2
32.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.54
1.16
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.0
59.8
0.4
0.9
8.7
0.0
107.0
0.2
1.2
0.3
Delays)
25.3
82.1
10.5
82.9
33.0
9.3
147.5
32.1
35.3
32.9
Level of Service
C
F
B
F
C
A
F
C
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
70.7
34.7
109.4
33.9
Approach LOS
E
C
F
C
HCM Average Control Delay
61.3
HCM Level of Service
E
HCM Volume. to Capacity ratio
1.10
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum
of lost
time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
92.8%
ICU Level of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
G Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 wlo project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
15: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Vancil Rd SE 1/4/2008
Lane Configurations
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
t
r
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4,6
2.8
f
r
1
1.
8
28.4
29.0
0,26
4.6
2.8
"1
H
1085
Volume (vph)
60
1155
165
65
1015
45
305
55
100
105
70
70
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
13
12
12
13
15
12
12
12
12
12
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4,0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
40.5
4.0
4.0
32.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.0
Fit
1,00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1,00
0.90
Delay (s)
1.00
0.92
10.5
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
F
0.95
1.00
C
Said. Flow(prot)
1736
1827
1605
1703
1792
1574
1966
1700
1805
1758
Flt Permitted
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.54
1.00
0.54
1.00
Said Flow (perm)
112
1827
1605
110
1792
1574
1110
1700
1032
1758
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0,96
0.96
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.79
0.79
0.79
Adj. Flow (vph)
65
1255
179
68
1057
47
343
62
112
133
89
89
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
18
0
0
8
0
59
0
0
32
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
65
1255
161
68
1057
39
343
115
0
133
146
0
Heavy Vehicles
4%
4%
4%
6%
6%
6%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
n%
Turn Type Pm +pt
Protected Phases 1
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 67,9
Effective Green, g (s) 68.9
Actuated glC Ratio 0.63
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
6
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
prri
5
2
67.9
68.9
0,63
4.5
2.5
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4,6
2.8
Perm
2
64.7
65.3
0.59
4.6
2.8
Perm
4
27.7
29.0
0.26
53
2.5
4
27.7
29.0
0.26
5.3
2.5
Perm
8
28.4
29.0
0.26
4.6
2.8
8
28.4
29.0
0,26
4.6
2.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
125
1085
953
122
1064
934
293
448
272
463
We Ratio Prot
0.02
c0.69
c0.02
0.59
0.07
0.08
We Ratio Perm
0.31
0.10
0.33
0.02
c0.31
0,13
v/c Ratio
0.52
1.16
0.17
0.56
0.99
0.04
1.17
0.26
0.49
0.31
Uniform Delay, d1
25.0
22.4
10.1
53.5
22,1
9.3
40.5
32.0
34.2
32.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.62
1.00
0.84
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.0
81.1
0.4
0.4
6,9
0.0
107.0
12
1.2
0.3
Delay (s)
27.9
103.5
10.5
87.3
29.0
7.8
147.5
32.2
35.5
32.9
Level of Service
C
F
8
F
C
A
F
C
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
89.1
31.5
101
34,0
Approach LOS
F
C
F
C
low
'j y
•" i F§ '
*"jV
?
HCM Average Control Delay
67.8
HCM Level
of Service
E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.14
Actuated Cycle Length Is)
110,0
Sum of lost
time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
95.7%
ICU Level of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w /project 5'.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
16: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Plaza Dr NE 1/4/2008
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 on Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 16
EBR
.W8L
„:WB7
..W6R.:;,skNBL.
a +NBi::aNBPo.6:.
"`w,,
SBTO,v
Saki
Lane Configurations
r
T
r
Volume(vehlh)
45
790
45
125
685
30
25
10
160
10
5
45
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0,90
0,90
0.89
0.89
0,89
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate(vph)
50
878
50
140
770
34
32
13
205
12
6
53
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (van)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage van)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
717
1019
pX, platoon unblocked
0.76
0.66
0.78
0.78
0.66
078
078
076
vC, conflicting volume
803
928
2084
2062
878
2240
2078
770
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
978
978
1051
1051
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1106
1084
1189
1028
vCu, unblocked vol
583
631
1556
1528
555
1756
1549
539
0, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
0, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
OF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
33
p0 queue free %
93
78
67
91
42
27
94
87
cM capacity (vehm)
757
633
97
139
352
16
105
415
fNr¢Cfippi�lle' &.S:,r. „_
ES I
.E82
.E_B3,.WB
1.;
W82,.We3-
N8.1
KN8,2'
<,,.SBJ,
Volume Total
50
878
50
140
770
34
45
205
12
59
Volume Left
50
0
0
140
0
0
32
0
12
0
Volume Right
0
0
50
0
0
34
0
205
0
53
cSH
757
1700
1700
633
1700
1700
106
352
16
320
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.52
0.03
0.22
0.45
0.02
0.42
0.58
0.73
0.18
Queue Length 95th (11
6
0
0
22
0
0
46
91
48
17
Control Delay (s)
10.1
0.0
0.0
123
0,0
0.0
62.0
28.5
446.8
18.8
Lane LOS
B
B
F
D
F
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.5
1.8
34.5
90.1
Approach LOS
D
F
Average Delay
77
Intersection Capacity Utilization
67.1%
ICU Level
of Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 on Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 16
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
16: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Plaza Dr NE 1/412008
-' -%* ' '1- 4% t /*� \� l -V ' 7r 99f : " Egg VBL' 'WBT - yVgk 7-NBL rN6f" t18R ' '' 9B4 °" $Bf 7 -il
Lane Configurations
t
r
T
ir
T
r
T.
Volume(veh /h)
65
1190
50
135
1030
50
25
10
170
25
5
70
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0,90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
72
1322
56
152
1157
56
32
13
218
29
6
82
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
717
1019
pX, platoon unblocked
056
0.44
0,66
0.66
0.44
0.66
0.66
0.56
vC, conflicting volume
1213
1378
3013
2984
1322
3152
2983
1157
vC1, stage 1 con' vol
1467
1467
1461
1461
vC2, stage 2 cool vol
1546
1517
1691
1522
vCu, unblocked vol
986
1223
2282
2238
1097
2492
2237
886
tC, single (s)
4.1
41
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.5
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
82
40
0
0
0
0
37
57
cM capacity (veh/h)
393
254
3
9
115
0
9
193
DW61166WK %10 7r '
t6 f
@R2
C63
W8 1'�W82
Volume Total
72
1322
56
152
1157
56
45
218
29
88
Volume Left
72
0
0
152
0
0
32
0
29
0
Volume Right
0
0
56
0
0
56
0
218
0
82
cSH
393
1700
1700
254
1700
1700
3
115
0
84
Volume to Capacity
0.18
0.78
0.03
0.60
0.68
0.03
13.23
1.89
Err
1.05
Queue Length 95th (fl)
17
0
0
91
0
0
Err
455
Err
157
Control Delay (s)
16.2
0.0
0,0
38.1
0.0
0.0
Err
494.7
Err
203.5
Lane LOS
C
E
F
F
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.8
4.2
2117.4
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
th
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization
88.7%
ICU Level of Service
E
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5'.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 16
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
16: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & Plaza Dr NE v4/2008
hbvemklt yt`. »,E4,� .'�. ,.,;.:EBk
"a F.BTti,,.,_�
.r
WB4::'aWB'6,
a �WBFL ;
rNBkm'
N6�i!,' =u•
N6kl�';�..�
� "%
Lane Configurations
r
jn
Q
H
Volume(vehm)
65
1255
50
140
1090
50
25
10
175
25
5
70
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0,90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.85
0.85
0,85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
72
1394
56
157
1225
56
32
13
224
29
6
82
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fi/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
717
1019
pX, platoon unblocked
0.58
0.38
0.59
0.59
0.38
0.59
0.59
0.58
vC, conflicting volume
1281
1450
3164
3134
1394
3309
3134
1225
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1539
1539
1539
1539
vC2, stage 2 con' vol
1625
1596
1770
1594
vCu, unblocked vol
1123
1369
2718
2669
1224
2964
2668
1026
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
6,1
5.5
6.1
5.5
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
80
19
0
0
0
0
0
51
cM capacity (veh/h)
364
194
0
2
84
0
2
167
Ulai on, lane #' c.:EB1
,E82
:_EB3
Wal -_WE2
WB3 a
N$1,,,
-NB2 -,
SB1
.: SE2
%
Volume Total
72
1394
56
157
1225
56
45
224
29
88
Volume Left
72
0
0
157
0
0
32
0
29
0
Volume Right
0
0
56
0
0
56
0
224
0
82
cSH
364
1700
1700
194
1700
1700
0
84
0
26
Volume to Capacity
0.20
0.82
0.03
0.81
072
0.03
Err
2.66
Err
3.35
Queue Length 9% (ft)
19
0
0
148
0
0
Err
557
Err
Err
Control Delay (s)
17.3
0.0
0.0
73.3
0.0
0.0
Err
857,4
Err
Err
Lane LOS
C
F
F
F
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.8
8.0
Err
Err
Approach LOS
F
F
dYY,
,➢ $
:
P:�.Nx
t,
Y..
ae
,
...
Average Delay
Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization
92.4%
ICU Level
of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
17: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Creek St 1/4/2008
7 t' ~ t 1 1
Lane Configurations
1
?
r
?
i
H
H
Volume (vph)
70
500
365
45
570
75
270
90
30
90
135
80
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
11
12
16
16
14
14
10
13
13
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.3
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
1.00
Fd
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
085
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.94
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (Prot)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1932
1668
1835
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1932
1668
1835
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
Adj. Flow (vph)
76
543
397
49
626
82
300
100
33
101
152
90
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
67
0
0
10
0
11
0
0
20
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
76
543
331
49
626
72
300
122
0
101
222
0
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1 %
1 %
1%
Turn Type
Prot
pm +ov
Prot
Perm
Split
Split
Protected Phases
1
6
4
5
2
4
4
3
3
Permitted Phases
6
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.3
50.6
70.3
5.2
49.5
49.5
19.7
19.7
16.0
16.0
Effective Green, g (s)
6.8
51.2
71.5
5.7
50.1
50.1
20.6
20.6
16.5
16.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.47
0.65
0.05
0.46
0.46
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.15
Clearance Time (a)
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.9
4,5
4.5
Vehicle Extensions)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
25
25
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
108
859
1019
88
840
809
379
362
250
275
vls Ratio Prot
c0.04
0.29
0.06
0.03
c0.34
c0.15
0.06
0.06
c0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
0.15
0.04
we Ratio
0.70
0.63
0.32
0.56
0.75
0.09
079
0.34
0A0
0.81
Uniform Delay, of
50.6
22.3
8.5
50,9
24.7
1TO
42.7
38.8
42.3
45.2
Progression Factor
0.93
0.95
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, 112
15.5
3.1
0,1
6.0
6.0
0.2
10.5
0.4
0.8
15.5
Delay (s)
62.6
242
6.5
56.9
30.6
17.2
53.1
39.2
43.1
60.7
Level of Service
E
C
A
E
C
B
D
D
D
E
Approach Delay (s)
202
30.9
48.8
55.5
Approach LOS
C
C
D
E
fava
HCM Average Control Delay
33.0
HCM
Level
of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum
of lost
time (s)
16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
75.3%
ICU
Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 17
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
17: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Creek St 1/4/2008
4., t �► 1
Lane Configurations
yj
+
r
Vi
T
r
aj
js
T+
Volume(vph)
80
775
420
90
830
120
320
105
75
200
165
85
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
11
12
16
16
14
14
10
13
13
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.3
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
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1,00
0.85
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.95
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1,00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (prof)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1882
1668
1844
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said Flow (Perm)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1882
1668
1844
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
Adj. Flow Ivor)
87
842
457
99
912
132
356
117
83
225
185
96
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
52
0
0
12
0
23
0
0
17
0
Lane Group Flow(vph)
87
842
405
99
912
120
356
177
0
225
264
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1 °/
Turn Type
Prot
pmrov
Prot
Perm
Split
Split
Protected Phases
1
6
4
5
2
4
4
3
3
Permitted Phases
6
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
6.3
49.9
71.0
7.0
50.6
50.6
21.1
21.1
13.5
13.5
Effectve Green, g (s)
6.8
50.5
72.2
7.5
51.2
51.2
22.0
22.0
14.0
14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.46
0.66
0.07
0A7
0.47
0.20
0.20
013
0.13
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Lane Grp Cap Ivor)
108
847
1029
116
859
827
405
376
212
235
vls Ratio Prot
0.05
0.46
0.08
:0.06
c0A9
c0.18
0.09
0.13
c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
0.18
0.07
we Ratio
0.81
0.99
0.39
0.85
1.06
0.15
0.88
0.47
1.06
1.13
Uniform Delay, of
50.9
29.6
IM
507
29.4
16.9
427
38.9
48.0
48.0
Progression Factor
1.00
0.97
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
17.5
19.6
0.1
41.6
48.4
0.4
18.9
07
79.0
96.5
Delays)
68.4
48.4
7.2
92.3
77.8
17.2
61,6
39.5
127.0
144.5
Level of Service
E
D
A
F
E
B
E
D
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
361
72.1
53,6
136.7
Approach LOS
D
E
D
F
IAf8F�6CiIW!$Ufi @2EY..
;z ^'
`
';u✓
HCM Average Control Delay
64A
HCM Level
of Service
E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.98
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum
of lost
time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
93.6%
ICU Level of Service
F
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 17
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
17: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & NE Creek St
1/4/2008
--j"
-•
1
�►
1
WBT...WW:
N_tU
^-I6P
Lane Configurations
T
tr
vi
T
T,
Volume(vph)
175
755
420
100
860
130
320
135
70
235
175
115
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
12
12
11
12
16
16
14
14
10
13
13
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4,3
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
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.94
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1904
1668
1829
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (Perm)
1752
1845
1568
1694
1845
1777
2025
1904
1668
1829
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
Adj. Flow(vph)
190
821
457
110
945
143
356
150
78
264
197
129
RTOR Reduction (vi
0
0
48
0
0
13
0
17
0
0
22
0
Lane Group Flaw (vph)
190
821
409
110
945
130
356
211
0
264
304
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Turn Type
Prot
pm +ov
Prot
Perm
Split
Split
Protected Phases
1
6
4
5
2
4
4
3
3
Permitted Phases
6
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.4
49.2
70.3
7.7
46.5
46.5
21.1
21 A
13.5
13.5
Effective Green, g (s)
10.9
49.8
71.5
8.2
47.1
47.1
22.0
22.0
14.0
14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.45
0.65
0.07
0.43
0.43
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.13
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (a)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2,5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
25
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
174
835
1019
126
790
761
405
381
212
233
Ws Ratio Prot
c0.11
c0A5
0.08
0.06
c0.51
c0.18
0.11
0.16
c0.17
Ws Ratio Perm
0.18
0.07
We Ratio
1.09
0.98
0.40
0.87
1.20
0.17
0.88
0.55
1.25
1.31
Uniform Delay, di
49,6
29.7
9.1
50.4
31.4
19.4
42,7
39.6
48.0
48.0
Progression Factor
1.02
0.80
0.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
74.8
18.2
0.1
43.7
100.5
0.5
18.9
1.4
143.5
165.0
Delay (a)
125.1
42.0
6.7
94.1
131.9
19.9
61.6
41.0
191.5
213.0
Level of Service
F
D
A
F
F
B
E
D
F
F
Approach Delay (s)
41.8
115.1
53.5
2034 ,
Approach LOS
D
F
D
F
HCM Average Control Delay
91.3
HCM Level of Service
F
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
1.16
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
110.0
Sum
of lost time
(s)
20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
102.2%
ICU Level of
Service
G
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected 2009 wlproject 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 17
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
25: NE 103rd St & NE Creek St 11412008
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 25
Atoueraent , a s:. t :
%
EBT
C EBR
- iWBI,
WST
= NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
'+
4
Y
Volume (veh /h)
65
105
75
50
55
55
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph)
71
114
82
54
60
60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
185
345
128
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
185
345
128
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
94
90
94
cM capacity (vehlh)
1390
613
922
ES 1
.WB 1
,: NB 1
Volume Total
185
136
120
Volume Left
0
82
60
Volume Right
114
0
60
cSH
1700
1390
737
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0.06
0,16
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
5
15
Control Delay (s)
0.0
4.8
10.8
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
4.8
10.8
Approach LOS
B
IntersectiEn Btunntahva ,
, , ; g
Average Delay
4.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
33.1%
ICU Level
of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 25
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
25: NE 103rd St & NE Creek St 1/4/2008
fw��
w 7 Off � EBFF'.WBL WBY NBE NB ff : *'.' %v:
Lane Configurations
'y
*T
Y
Volume (veh /h)
95
120
95
60
65
65
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph)
103
130
103
65
71
71
Pedestrians
Lane Width (k)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
234
440
168
vCi, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCn, unblocked vol
234
440
168
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6,2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
92
87
92
cM capacity (veh /h)
1334
530
876
Volume Total
234
168
141
Volume Left
0
103
71
Volume Right
130
0
71
cSH
1700
1334
660
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.08
0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
7
21
Control Delay (s)
0.0
5.1
11.9
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
5.1
11.9
Approach LOS
B
Average Delay
4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
38.4%
ICU
Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 25
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
25: NE 103rd St & NE Creek St 1/4/2008
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchm 7 - Report
Page 25
titovem ®B:�sk`��a: .�:tiEBY.:
•fiBl3=,;.W9E._.
W!@Fca =.:NflL..>NBR:�:r
gat. .;v�1'.,.':s
Lane Configurations
'F
Volume(veh /h)
95
120
110
60
70
80
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
103
130
120
65
76
87
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (8)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
234
473
168
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCo, unblocked vol
234
473
168
tC, single (s)
4,1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
PO queue free %
91
85
90
cM capacity (veh /h)
1334
501
876
Dire, kapdt.,t, , ... =E&1.
WS 1
_, N &1
Volume Total
234
185
163
Volume Left
0
120
76
Volume Right
130
0
87
cSH
1700
1334
649
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.09
0,25
Queue Length 95th (ff)
0
B
26
Control Delay (s)
0.0
5.4
12.4
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
5.4
12.4
Approach LOS
B
=5.2
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
40,4%
ICU
Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchm 7 - Report
Page 25
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
61: E Yelm Ave (SR 507)
& 106th Ave
1/412008
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh /h)
0
620
670
20
0
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate Ivor)
0
674
728
22
0
22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (11)
572
pX, platoon unblocked
0.77
vC, conflicting volume
750
1413
739
vC1, stage 1 cent vol
vC2, stage 2 cent vol
vCu., unblocked vol
750
1387
739
iC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
33
p0 queue free %
100
100
95
cM capacity (veh /h)
859
121
417
tlE�gii;Pa6> =EE9
4rBt
ei
Volume Total
674
750
22
Volume Left
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
22
22
cSH
1700
1700
417
Volume to Capacity
0.40
0.44
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
4
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
14.1
Lane LOS
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
141
Approach LOS
B
In(e7�S9c6p- $luttfiafl"'_. _,,
—.
Average Delay
0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.5%
ICU
Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 5'.00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 29
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
61: E Yelm Ave (SR 507) & 106th Ave 1/4/2008
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 one Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 29
Mo46meM_>'..EBL
EBT.:;WBT
WBR_..
SBL
SBR'_:.
Lane Configurations
Volume (veli
0
935
1015
20
0
20
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
1016
1103
22
0
22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
572
pX, platoon unblocked
0.56
vC, conflicting volume
1125
2130
1114
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1125
2622
1114
tC, single (s)
41
64
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
e0 queue free %
100
100
91
cM capacity (vehm)
621
15
253
Oaecdon. lane Or,
.' I
WB 1 .,.:
581
Volume Total
1016
1125
22
Volume Left
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
22
22
cSH
1700
1700
253
Volume to Capacity
0.60
0.66
0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
7
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
20.5
Lane LOS
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
20.5
Approach LOS
C
Average Delay
0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
64.6%
ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 one Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 29
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
61: E Yell Ave (SR 507) & 106th Ave 1/412008
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7- Report
Page 29
Lane Configurations
'y
Volume(vehm)
0
945
1000
50
0
90
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
1027
1087
54
0
98
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (tVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Pare(veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
572
pX, platoon unblocked
0.57
vC, conflicting volume
1141
2141
1114
vCi, stage 1 cant vol
vC2, stage 2 cant vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1141
2619
1114
tC, single (s)
41
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
33
p0 queue free %
100
100
61
cM capacity (veh/h)
612
15
253
15,-W drYBRIte4: . '°'..�;
E91
!'W13I
S131
..
_._..
Volume Total
1027
1141
98
Volume Left
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
54
98
cSH
1700
1700
253
Volume to Capacity
0.60
0.67
0.39
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
45
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
27.9
Lane LOS
D
Approach Delay (a)
0.0
0.0
27.9
Approach LOS
D
Average Delay
1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
67.9%
ICU Level of Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7- Report
Page 29
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
80: NE 103rd St & Grove Rd
1/4/2008
.uv.�r +'.�_?;Y:rAarwitrr�;
<efauoy
�cn,�ceracm
-»
Ww��;.,.:
uiea�
.� .,:�'�oAE
��auam_:
.v.ramESwaawsx
Lane Configurations
.j.
ff�A°
4-
Volume (veh/h)
105
35
10
1
10
5
45
65
1
1
35
85
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0 °%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph)
114
38
11
1
11
5
49
71
1
1
38
92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (it)
Walking Speed (Ills)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
fib
49
399
290
43
324
293
14
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
16
49
399
290
43
324
293
14
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
pO queue free%
93
100
89
88
100
100
93
91
cM capacity (vehlh)
1601
1558
460
575
1027
539
573
1066
so
Volume Total
163
17
121
132
Volume Left
114
1
49
1
Volume Right
11
5
1
92
cSH
1601
1558
524
849
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.00
0.23
0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
23
14
Control Delay (s)
5.4
0.5
13.9
10.0
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
5.4
0.5
13.9
10.0
Approach LOS
B
B
..
yl_:a =mt
• :.W t:W;
P b. iv
^», ..
°V?K»
fl
'rvro''t$.
�..
•�u
Average Delay
9.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.2%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing 2007 Volumes 590 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
80: NE 103rd St R Grove Rd 1/4/2008
Lane Configurations
4.
4.
4-
4.
Volume (veh /h)
125
35
10
1
15
5
50
70
1
1
35
100
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0 °%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph)
136
38
11
1
16
5
54
76
1
1
38
109
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Aare (van)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (a)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
22
49
464
339
43
376
342
19
vCi, stage 1 wnf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
22
49
464
339
43
376
342
19
tC, single (s)
4.1
41
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
LC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
15
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
91
100
87
86
100
100
93
90
cM capacity (veh/h)
1594
1558
403
532
1027
484
530
1059
17
Volume Total
185
23
132
148
Volume Left
136
1
54
1
Volume Right
11
5
1
109
cSH
1594
1558
472
837
Volume to Capacity
0.09
0.00
0.28
0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
7
0
29
17
Control Delay (s)
5,7
0.4
15.6
10.2
Lane LOS
A
A
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
5.7
0"4
15,6
10.2
Approach LOS
C
B
Average Delay
9.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
40.6%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w/o project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
80: NE 103rd St & Grove Rd 1/412006
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vehlh)
90
35
10
1
15
5
50
70
1
1
35
115
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Slop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour factor
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
98
38
11
1
16
5
54
76
1
1
38
125
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Pos)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
22
49
404
263
43
299
266
19
vCl, stage 1 wnf vol
vC2, stage 2 wnf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
22
49
404
263
43
299
266
19
c, single (s)
41
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
PO queue free %
94
100
88
87
100
100
94
88
cM capacdy (veil
1594
1558
445
602
1027
562
600
1059
Volume Total
147
23
132
164
Volume Left
98
1
54
1
Volume Right
11
5
1
125
cSH
1594
1558
527
895
Volume to Capacity
0.06
0.00
0.25
0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
5
0
25
17
Control Delay (s)
5.1
0.4
14.1
9.9
Lane LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
5.1
0.4
14.1
9.9
Approach LOS
B
A
1. ... ...
Mq:
.
S
YAWAai
Average Delay
9.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
39.6%
ICU
Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Creek Street Mixed Use
73: South Site Driveway & NE Creek St 1/4/2008
--* ! t 1 i t �► 1 r
Lane Configurations
4s
.j.
F.
Volume (vehlh)
10
5
35
85
5
10
10
335
40
15
365
20
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
11
5
38
92
5
11
11
364
43
16
397
22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (file)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage van)
Upstream signal (ft)
609
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
840
870
408
878
859
386
418
408
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
840
B70
408
878
859
386
418
408
0, single (s)
7.1
6.5
62
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
0, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
96
98
94
62
98
98
99
99
cM capacity (vehi
271
283
644
245
287
662
1141
1151
�1F`ec6$�i�ria�t °� ..• 'F�§i�
"WBt'
"iV9 "t
Fl�i'
$�i
'S9�-
- "?;
Volume Total
54
109
11
408
16
418
Volume Left
11
92
11
0
16
0
Volume Right
38
11
0
43
0
22
cSH
459
263
1141
1700
1151
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.12
041
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft)
10
50
1
0
1
0
Control Delay (s)
13.9
28.0
8.2
0.0
8.2
0.0
Lane LOS
B
D
A
A
Approach Delay (a)
13.9
28.0
0.2
0.3
Approach LOS
8
D
Average Delay
4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
39.3%
ICU
Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 30
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
77: North Site Driveway & NE Creek St
1/4/2008
t
�►
1
V
Lane Configurations
j,
I
T
Volume (vehlh)
25
15
330
40
10
380
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
27
16
359
43
11
413
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
858
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
815
380
402
vC1, stage i conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
815
380
402
Q, single (s)
6.4
6.2
4.1
c, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
PC queue free %
92
98
99
cM capacity (veh /h)
344
667
1156
DirgCb41! @8nY#. F. t ;
MR4
149 11-
SB 4'
SB 2
^r
Volume Total
43
402
11
413
Volume Left
27
0
11
0
Volume Right
16
43
0
0
cSH
420
1700
1156
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.24
0.01
0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft)
9
0
1
0
Control Delay (s)
14.6
0.0
8.1
0.0
Lane LOS
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
14,6
0.0
0.2
Approach LOS
6
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 31
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Creek Street Mixed Use
50: 106th Ave & NE Creek St
1/4/2008
j a •.'S" .Aim t'.VY �Yr9Ri".t-�'.IYCf
IWRr
JO6
w• l y q7-h 77 7-"'
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh /h)
0
10
415
70
20
510
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vi
0
11
451
76
22
554
Pedestrians
Lane Width (fl)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
228
pX, platoon unblocked
0.92
0.92
0.92
v0, conflicting volume
1087
489
527
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu,, unblocked vol
1053
406
447
lc, single (s)
6,4
61
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
98
98
cM capacity(vehm)
2
55966
1029
{27
+�
ry +� p
,iy�
Volume Total
11
527
22
554
Volume Left
0
0
22
0
Volume Right
11
76
0
0
cSH
596
1700
1029
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.31
0.02
0.33
Queue Length 95th (R)
1
0
2
0
Control Delay (s)
11.2
0.0
8.6
0.0
Lane LOS
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
11.2
0.0
0.3
Approach LOSy�,�,y�
B
( INIIIU) ^d
...?,
17
+*a
Average Delay
0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.1%
ICU
Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected 2009 w /project 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 7 - Report
Page 28
0 HEA
ARRJE W ELL.,.
APPENDIX B
Traffic Volume Calculation Worksheets
a �
� v
■ }
■ \ \
■ / %
■ \){
■ |!
s
@ :
e ƒ
� $\
■ � §{
■ ujz23
g 0 uw,
� ;K
Ǥ[|
tu
® LU
s PWZ
e
ILLI
§
� � 2
a 2
@
e
e
a
� 1
� \w
s ~\
s _
� !!
�
a
/)
'C /\
�H 1. /{
WIN
\\
\\
\
\
\\
\fs2
\§
a:
�
!
:a»:
�]
! /\
\
\/
WIN
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition ChapteT 7 0 ITE 109
\
\
\\
\§
�
�]
! /\
\
\/
LU
})+t\
�
I
,�\
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition ChapteT 7 0 ITE 109
Appendix B
Traffic volume Projections
Creek Street Mixed Use
PM Peak Hour
1) Burnett Road/
4
23
24
26
23
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Annual BackgrouM G—th-
4%
0
A
B
C
55
U
55
5
457
475
513
7
0
E
F
G H
2
0
96
n
13
15
7
a
164
677
26
703
6
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
7
0.
> 0
0
26
0
0-
a
a
a >'.
0.
E
0`
;.0
0
0
0
<::0
0
0'':
'.0.
8
0
5 a
E
3
0
0
4.
a
0
6
0
0
0
21
0
0
,1'0
0
0!'.
0'.I
9
0:'
0
0
/0
0
0:0
a
0
0
,:0,
a
a
0
0
0
au+
<0
u
0'
<0,
10
0
a
0
o
=
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
o
0
0
0
a
11
766
797
860
z
0
4
a
3
3
0
20
11
12
16
6
a
E
933
30
963
12
20
21
22
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
Fo
0
a
o
a
a
a
30
0
30
2) Mountain View
1
1
i
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
1
0
1
E
968
1007
1087
22
a
4
0
3
3
0
20
n
21
IS
.�
o
113
1200
32
1232
Avenue
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
1) Burnett Road/
4
23
24
26
23
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
a
0
29
55
U
55
5
457
475
513
7
0
20
0
5
2
0
96
n
13
15
7
a
164
677
26
703
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
7
0.
> 0
0
26
0
0-
a
a
a >'.
0.
0
0`
;.0
0
0
0
<::0
0
0'':
'.0.
8
0
5 a
0
';0
0
0
4.
a
0
6
0
0
0
21
0
0
,1'0
0
0!'.
0'.I
9
0:'
0
0
/0
0
0:0
a
0
0
,:0,
a
a
0
0
0
e'
<0
0
0'
<0,
10
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
o
0
0
0
a
11
766
797
860
z
0
4
a
3
3
0
20
11
12
16
6
a
73
933
30
963
12
20
21
22
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
o
a
a
a
30
0
30
2) Mountain View
1
1
i
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
1
0
1
Road Nelm
968
1007
1087
22
a
4
0
3
3
0
20
n
21
23
6
o
113
1200
32
1232
Avenue
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
10
0
10
1
6
'< 6
7
' <0
0
0
: o:
0
a
0
0
0
0 <:
0
0
0
6:0
7
0 <,
7 -- .
2
0
<: 0
0
<'a
0
0
0'.
0
0
df
0
a
0«
0
0
0
«0
0
O F
0 <.
3
17
.'0.....10..
« 18
19
' <0
a
a
_0
0
0
0
0>
0
a
4 F'.
4
0
o
F:a
27
0 F'.
27>
4
11a
0
.
0...0....0
0
05..
3
0_.
a...a
19....0....19.
5
557
579
626
16
0
22
0
5
3
0
96
n
17
18
7
a
197
823
26
849
6
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
7
0
: 0
a
:'0
o
0
:0:
0
0
:0
0
0
0<
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
8
0
:< 0
0
' <0
0
0
:'0
0
0
06.
0
0
0 S'.
0
0
0
S:0
0
0 2
0.2
9
0
0
0
:',0
0
00
0
0
0`
0
0
0«
0
a
0
«0
0
0«
OF
10
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
940
978
1056
22
0
4
0
3
2
0
20
n
16
19
6
0
103
1159
30
1189
12
9
9
10
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
1
5
-.- 5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 «:
0
0
0::at
13
0;::
-13 >1
2
0
: 0
0
<;0
o
0
>0
0
0
a?.
a
a
a <?
a
0
a
-': -o
a
0 <2
0f..
3
10
? 10
11
>g
0
a
'' 0
0
0
0?
0
1
41 ?:
4
0
0
-. -s6
57
0 ':
57'
4
11
11
12
0
0
2
0
0
o
a
0
2
18
3
a
0
25
37
0
37
5
636
661
714
16
0
22
a
5
2
0
98
11
37
21
7
0
219
933
28
961
6
15
16
17
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
3
0
a
a
0
3
20
0
20
7
6
Y 6
7
,.0
0
0
0_
0
0
a
0
4
o;:.
0
0
0
>.24
11
0,<
11-
8
0
0
0
0:
-0,
0
0
0''
0
0
0,
a
0
0
6:0
0
0':
0
0
'0
0
0.. <.
_o-
0
0
0?.
0
0
a«
0
0
a
::::a
0
0 <?
0 <.
10
1
1
i
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
1
0
1
11
968
1007
1087
22
a
4
0
3
3
0
20
n
21
23
6
o
113
1200
32
1232
12
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
10
0
10
Appendix B
Traffic volume Projections
Creek Street Mixed Use
PM Peak Hour
4) Cullens
Annual 9ackumun46mwA=
4%
A
B
C
RoadNelm Avenue
E
F
G H
1
'. 36.
37
40
':1
0
0:
0
3
0
:.a.
0
01
4
0
0
0:
5
45
0
45
-
0<'.
0
0
Ga
0
0
'0
0.
a
0
0
0
0.`
0
0
'.0
m
0
N
In
3
27 ''
28
30
'.0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
OE
3
1
a:
e
36
0<
36
4
21
22
24
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
s
33
0
33
5
600
624
674
15
0
24
0
s
2
3
98
16
51
24
1
0
Q
919
E
n
E
7
7
8
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
a
a
a
o
0
0
6
14
0
14
7
'3`'.
3
3 F
<0
a
a
a
o
_
0
o
0
0 >;
7
0
a'.
-8
11
:0 >.
it
8
0
F
c E
c>
0o.
=
e
a
a <;0.
a
a
a'.
a
0
c a -
1=
a
x 0
H
v
6
6
a
0
a
a:-
a
0
0
'0
0
0.
0
0
0:..
a
7-
0...
7
10..11...
18
19
D
u
o
0
0
u0
o
a
o
0
00
a
19
0
19
11
893
929
1003
4) Cullens
RoadNelm Avenue
1
'. 36.
37
40
':1
0
0:
0
0
0
:.a.
0
01
4
0
0
0:
5
45
0
45
2
0<'.
0
0
Ga
0
0
'0
0.
a
0
0
0
0.`
0
0
'.0
0
0
0r.
01'.
3
27 ''
28
30
'.0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
OE
3
1
a:
e
36
0<
36
4
21
22
24
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
s
33
0
33
5
600
624
674
15
0
24
0
s
2
3
98
16
51
24
1
0
245
919
28
947
6
7
7
8
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
a
a
a
6
0
0
6
14
0
14
7
'3`'.
3
3 F
<0
a
a
a
o
1
0
0
0
0 >;
7
0
a'.
-8
11
:0 >.
it
8
0
: 0
0 '':0
0o.
0
a
a <;0.
a
a
a'.
a
0
0
0
0
03
0 S3
9
6
6
7 ,.
0
a
a:-
a
0
0
'0
0
0
0.
0
0
0:..
a
7-
0...
7
10..11...
18
19
D
u
o
0
0
u0
o
a
o
0
00
a
19
0
19
11
893
929
1003
21
0
4
a
3
3
3
20
6
57
27
s
o
15o
1153
32
1185
12
17
18
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
25
0
25
5) Longmire
SNVeIm Ave
1
11
it
12
a
a
a.
a
o
0
o:.
0
0
0SS
0
0
0
»0
:12 :
0
12
2
2
: 2
2:
0
0
0
0
0
0
a:
0
0
af'.
a
0
a
I<a
2
0
2'
3
5
5
6
00
n:0
0
0
¢
0
0
02
3
0
023
9
110
4
7
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
o
a
3
11
1
12
5
562
688
744
14
0
26
a
6
2
4
0
16
47
33
6
o
158
902
28
930
6
16
17
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
3
0
a
40
58
1
59
7
18
19
>'20..
0
0
0
«.o
a
a
:0>
178
a
a <:
a
0>
a
181
201
1..
>202.
8
0
0
0 F.
-a
0
a
?0
0
0
0'
0
0
0>
0
0
0
0
0
0?:
0 <.
9
9
9
10'
1
0
0';.0
0
0
>:a.
96
a
4?.
a
4
0''107
111
0'
117'
10
18
19
20
2
0
0
0
0
0
a
s0
0
n
0
n
0
M
50
0
50
11
869
904
976
19
0
4
0
3
4
3
0
18
53
38
3
0
145
1121
32
1153
12
11
11
12
0
a
o
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
12
0
12
0
6) Solberg StlVelm
Ave.
1
18
i9
20 >l
1
0
o
J:0
0
0
a:
0
a
a
a
a
'0
1
21
<'0
21 <'
2
0
0
0'
-0
a
a
S0
0
0
a;
0
a
0
0
0
0:.
0
0
10
6'
3
13
14
15"
0
a
o
S0
a
0
a
a
a
0S
0
u
0'
<0
15
a<
15
4
52
54
58
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
58
5
557
579
626
13
0
26
0
7
2
4
37
18
47
3e
0
5
tee
824
30
854
6
33
34
37
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
37
7
21 :'
22
24 ,
'a
o
a
0
0
a
,0.
0
0
0 ><
0
0
0
24
0,.
24
8
5
5
6
::0
0
a
:0
0
0
u
a
a
a.
a
0
0
F:0
6
0:<
6
9
8
8
9
„o
a
a
>0
0
0
>0
0
0
0 <;
0
4
o
13
0'
13
10
116
121
130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
3
a
3
133
0
133
11
717
746
805
19
0
4
0
3
4
3
178
18
53
44
0
5
330
1135
35
1170
12
39
41
44
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
45
0
45
Appendix B
Traffic volume Projections
Creek Street Mixed Use
PM Peak Hour
A B C
Annual Background Breath- 4%
E F G H
3
E F
2
7) First StreetfYelm
Ave.
1
110
: 114
124
S>2
0
0.
0
0
0
'. 0.
7
a
r2
0
0
5
2
150
0'.
1505
2
71
'. 74
80
'a
a
0
0
0
a
So
0
0
0:'.
0
3
3
:: 6
86
01.:
86.2
3
49
' 51
55
<0
0
1
<0
0
2
:1
0
5
0'1
34
0
2
C 45
100
0<
100>
4
16
17
18
0
0
6
0
1
2
2
0
5
0
31
0
2
49
67
0
67
5
514
535
577
6
0
26
0
7
2
5
27
26
19
49
0
0
167
744
33
777
6
170
177
191
a
0
13
0
2
2
1
0
19
0
35
6
0
79
269
13
282
7
193
F'. 201
217>
"a
a
z:
0
1
3
1>
0
0
0«
39
7 F.
0
,52
269
<15
284.
8
90
:< 83
90
0
0
0;
0
0
0
0 >1
0
0
aF'.
0
3
5.3
6
96
0::
96:<
9
125
': 130
140
3
a
0"
a
o
0
a
0
o
tz S
0
0
a.
:15
155
0'S
155 .
10
37
38
42
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
17
59
0
59
11
596
620
669
7
0
4
0
3
4
4
175
13
22
53
0
0
290
959
36
995
121
131
136
147
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
13
0
0
5
21
168
0
168
8) Yelm Avenue/
Second St.
1
l 0
0
9
":a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
0
4..:
0
0
0<`4
4
:..0`:
SS4.
2
0
0
0'
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
'0
a
0
0
0
3
1
: 1
1
l.0
0
a'.
0
0
0
0.
a
a
0.2
1
0.:.g'
1
2
0
21.
4
7
7
6
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
1
0
0
1
9
0
9
5
808
840
908
6
0
45
0
10
6
6
21
53
15
115
6
0
291
1199
46
1245
6
7
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
7
39 :'
. 41
44
: >0
0
0
0
0
0
;;.0
0
0
>nd
0
0
0
FS0
44 ..
15 <-
.59:>
8
0:
0
0
<0
a
u..
0
0
0
<¢.
0
0
'0,.
0
0
0
F.0
0
0 <:.
0 <>
9
4
`: 4
4
'C0
0
0
<0
A
0
Ot
0
0
at<
0
0
0:
..0
4
'0.
4..
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
781
812
877
7
a
7
0
4
10
6
1n
53
16
124
7
0
353
1230
51
1281
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
a
a
4
0
0
0
4
4
0
4
9) Clark Read
ok SE/Y.I. Ave
1
20
:;: 21
22
<'0
0
0
0'.
0
0
10:::
0
0
a 11
0
0
0
10
32
0"
'32 .
2
3
S 3
3
S:0
a
a
a
0
a
1'F
0
0
0`I'.
0
0
0`:
1
4
0..
4...
3
25226
Z8
60
0
00:
0
0
9I
0
0
0S'
a
0
09
370:
37 ;
4
18
19
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
a
0
0
0
0
0
s
28
0
28
5
771
802
866
0
0
45
0
10
6
-1
24
53
11
121
5
0
2m
1140
50
1190
6
76
79
-
85
0
a
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
3
0
0
16
95
0
95
7
74
77
83
0
0
0>
a
0
0
0 <'
0
5
: 0-
4
0
0.
< 9
92
0 is
92: .
8
4
': 4
4
:'0
0
0
0'.
a
0
1>.
0
a
a,.
0
0
0>
1
5
0
5:.
9
15
:? 16
17
<0
a
a
0
a
0
0.'
0
0
4::
0
0
0
54
21
0:
21<
10
14
15
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
21
0
21
11
870
905
977
0
0
7
o
4
10
-3
114
53
a
132
5
0
335
1312
56
1368
12
21
22
24
0
a
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
34
0
34
Appendix B
Traffic volume Projections
Creek Street Mixed Use
PM Peak Hour
iD) 1
Ave /Velm
1
45
47
51.>
a
a
'45
0
0
0
Annual Backgrountl G naah-
4%
0
0>:
A
B
C
6'.48
99 >
0.
99':
2
0
0
E
F
G
H
0
0
0
:o:
0
a
OG
a
0
e
0
0
0
0€
3
7
3
8
"o
a
o ?.0
0
0
1 >.
a:
0
0
0
m
o
a"
n
19
0':
19'.
4
19
20
21
0
a
E
m
o
m
a
o
0
0
s
o
0
E
3
0
31
5
707
735
794
a
0
0
a
12
6
6
24
58
n
124
5
0
246
1040
50
1090
6
2
2
2
0
0
0
o
E
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
~
m
2
7
o —
3
o
0
0
0
o
a
0
::0:
0
0
lZ
�E
o
0<
0
3
0<
3«
8
0
0
0 <::a
0
a::.'0
0
0
0
0
'a'
a
a
0 <:
0
'u
0
0
0
A
—
iD) 1
Ave /Velm
1
45
47
51.>
a
a
'45
0
0
0
z:
0
0
0>:
0
1
a
6'.48
99 >
0.
99':
2
0
0
0
:.0
0
I.0
0
0
0
:o:
0
a
OG
a
0
e
0
0
0
0€
3
7
7
8
"o
a
o ?.0
0
0
1 >.
a:
0
0
0
m
o
a"
n
19
0':
19'.
4
19
20
21
0
a
e
a
o
1
a
o
0
0
s
o
0
10
31
0
31
5
707
735
794
a
0
0
a
12
6
6
24
58
n
124
5
0
246
1040
50
1090
6
2
2
2
0
0
0
o
a
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
2
0
2
7
3
3
3 >..
0
0
0
o
a
0
::0:
0
0
0:<
a
o
0<
0
3
0<
3«
8
0
0
0 <::a
0
a::.'0
0
0
0
0
'a'
a
a
0 <:
0
'u
0
0
0
0
'0
9
3
3
3 SS0
a
e:'.0
a
0
0'.
0
u
a
a
0S
a
s
,a:.0
a
3.
,0.
,'3
.10...4
'10
— 4
4
0
a
a
a
o
0
a
0
0
0'.
0
0....0...
0.2
0
11
0.
4
11
888
924
997
0
0
0
0
4
10
9
101
58
13
136
5
o
336
1333
56
1389
12
71
74
80
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
88
0
88
11) Venal
759
789
853
a
o
7
0
a
0
5
101
62
9
150
3
0
337
1190
66
1256
RoadlVelm Avenue
45
47
51
a
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
12
63
0
63
1
60'
: 62
67
'. o
a
a
>. 0
0: ,
0
0
0
0
0>.
0
1
a S
1
?.68
0
68
2
63
66
71
: 0
0
0
IU
0:
0.
0
0
0
0<
it
0
a:
0
71
0
71
3
94 ':
98
106
a
0
00
a'
a
0
0
00`
o
o
o:
0
1060
-106
4
38
40
43
0
0
0
0
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
e
a
43
D
43
5
603
627
677
0
0
45
0
12
7
5
24
58
7
133
4
0
295
972
45
1017
6
46
48
52
o
e
o
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
3
a
0
9
61
5
66
7
711 <:
79
85 -.:
< 0
0
Fro
0
1
1
:0:
a
4
0:<
4
a
0...
m
95
,5 >.
100<
8
49 <:
51
55 ';:
0
a
a
,a
9
o
'a:
a
a
a<
o
o
a
.: 0
55
0
55<
9
269.
280
302 >'
0
a
o'
0
0
0
0
0
o
aS
a
1
a
1
303
0:
3035
147
153
165
a
0
0
a
a
0
a
o
0
a
0
1
0
1
166
0
166
1
669
696
751
0
0
a
4
11
s
m1
58
9
146
4
0
346
1097
56
1153
53
55
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
60
12) Plaza
Drive /Yelm Avenue
1
44 -'
46
49 "0
02
0—
0
18
0..
0
0
a
a2
0
1
0'<
19
68
0'.
68
2
5 '.
5
6
0
0
0
?:o
a
0:
0
0
0
a'
0:
o
0
0
6
0:
6;.
3
12
12
13 ?
a
a
a
'o
0
8<
0
a
0
;0
3
a
0
n
24
3'
27'
4
28
29
31
a
0
0
0
7
6
0
0
0
0
3
1
a
17
48
2
50
5
659
685
746
a
0
45
0
a
6
6
24
63
7
136
3
0
290
1030
60
1090
5
121
126
136
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
A
o
0
136
3
139
7
153''.
159
172 .
a
a'
a
o
0
a
a
a
-. ,
o
o
o
a
172
'.3
175
8
'10
10
11 '>:
0
0
0
2:0
0
::0'.
0
0
0
0'.
u
u
0.2
0
11
0.
11.2
9
23`.
24
26 2
0
0
0
'0
0
a:
<0
0
0
0'
0
1
O:C
1
27
0.
27''
10
44
46
49
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
1
a
1
5D
0
50
11
759
789
853
a
o
7
0
a
0
5
101
62
9
150
3
0
337
1190
66
1256
12
45
47
51
a
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
12
63
0
63
Appendix B
Traffic volume Projections
Creek Street Mixed Use
PM Peak Hour
SVSR 507
An—I Backgrowd Growth=
4%
A
B
C
E
F
G H
84
F o
a
a
o
0
i
o
o
o ..
a
o
o
0'.
3
85
52
117 .
2
129 -.
134
145
'a
o
0
:0
0
:'_0
0
0
21
'a
a
a
a S
E
166
10
176
3
85
: 88
95
'0
0
10
Ca
15
0
0
0
66
:0
7
0
a
S iO4
199
art
233
4
71
74
80
0
0
3
0
o
E
0
a
0
B E
r
E
a
41
121
11
132
5
549
571
617
0
o
0
0
2
8
3
17
32
3
m
2
a
211
828
33
861
6
43
45
48
o
0
o
a
0
a
0
o
a
o
40
0
a
S
SVSR 507
1
75 .
1: 78
84
F o
a
a
o
0
i
o
o
o ..
a
o
o
0'.
1
85
52
117 .
2
129 -.
134
145
'a
o
0
:0
0
:'_0
0
0
21
'a
a
a
a S
'21
166
10
176
3
85
: 88
95
'0
0
10
Ca
15
0
0
0
66
:0
7
0
a
S iO4
199
art
233
4
71
74
80
0
0
3
0
o
a
0
a
31
0
r
a
a
41
121
11
132
5
549
571
617
0
o
0
0
2
8
3
17
32
3
us
2
a
211
828
33
861
6
43
45
48
0
0
o
a
0
a
0
o
a
o
40
0
a
40
88
10
98
7
27 <
28
30
f0
0
01'_:0
o
0
0''.o<
0 >,
o
a
2a
: 43
o
a
<:43
73
-5
68.
8
"' 86.
89
97
l <0
a
a
0
0
a
a;'
0
10
'0
0
0
0
«16
107
! 27—
134 .
9260
55
270
292
",o
a
o
S:o
o
3
iJ
a
114
0F.
a
1
0526
115
318
0
3185
10
351
365
394
0
o
0
o
a
2
o
17
0
n
o
1
0
24
418
0
418
11
480
499
539
a
o
o
a
0
5
3
68
0
5
153
2
a
23
775
-18
757
121
67
70
75
a
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
a
6
81
93
174
14) Creek St/ 103rd
Ave.
1
0
: 0
q.
o
a
0
a
'0
0
0
0
0
o..
o
o
0..
0
0
0
0'S
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0.,..
0.>
3
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
a
o'
0..
0
0
0.'
0
o
a >.
0
0
0'>
0' -
4
0
0
0
a
o
o
a
o
0
a
a
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
49
51
55
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
a
a
a
o
4
59
0
59
6
74
77
83
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
o
m
0
a
0
0
10
93
15
108
7
54
< 56
61
<:0
0
::o
o
a
a
0 >,
0
5
a<
a
a
0
F: 5
66
13
79
8
0
: 0
0
?:a
0
a
o
a
a
o <.
0
0
0?
0
0
0?
0
0
0'.
0 S1.
9
55
S 57
62
<'0
o
o>
o
a
0
01
a
5
0F.
a
a
0
115
67
'a
70
10
101
105
113
it
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
5
0
0
o
o
5
118
4
122
11
62
64
70
o
a
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
o
a
o
23
93
0
93
12
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15) 103rd Ave/
Grove Road
1
81
S: 84
91
0
a
a
0
0
0
0<
0
10
':0
0
o
all
10
101
148
115
2
32
< 33
36 ':
0
0
0
:0
a
0
0.
0
0
a
0
0
a':'0
36
0S'.
36.
3
1
1
1'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 "'a
1
0'
111
4
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
5
12
12
13
a
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
14
6
2
2
2
a
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
2
0
2
7
0 -.
0
0
:' >0
0
0
<:0
a
o
.101
a
0
02
<a
0
0 <,
<0
0
,0 >.
0..
8
62
>. 64
70
!.0
0
0
>0
0
0
0<
a
o
0 F'.
0
0
0..
0
70
0<
79 s.
9
4,5
: 47
51
< 0
0
0
<:0
0
0
0 >;
a
a
a>
a
0
0
«0
51
0
51
10
11
11
12
0
a
o
0
0
0
o
a
a
o
n
o
0
0
12
0
12
11
32
33
36
0
0
0
o
a
0
o
a
a
a
a
0
o
a
36
1
37
12
102
106
115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
9
124
12
136