Traffic
677 Woodland Square Lp SE
Lacey, WA 98503
P.O Box 3485
Lacey, WA 98509-3~85
(360) 493-6002
(888) 493-6002 Toll Free
(360) 493-2476 Fax
June 23, 1998
Cathie Carlson, City Planner
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
PO Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
RE. Proposed Safeway Store, Yelm AveNancil Road Vicinity
Traffic Study & Site Plan Review Comments
SCA #97006
Dear Cathie
I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Safeway Store and Retail
Center prepared by Heffron Transportation, dated May 6, 1998 In general, the TIA does a good
job in evaluating the site impacts and driveway access operations on the adjacent roadways
The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City's TIA guidelines and has incorporated
our initial review comments from the scbping process
The proposed mitigation measures identified in the TIA on page 19 are acceptable except for the
revisions, additions and c1qrifications described below
1 Yelm Avenue Frontage- Construct roadway frontage improvements along Yelm Avenue
The improvements include the following
. Construct a 6' sidewalk, planter strip, drainage swale, 5' bicycle lane and pavement
widl1ning in accordance with the Development Guide!in~s and roadway_section details
for an "Urban Arterial"
. Restripe Yelm Avenue as a 2-way center turn lane from the Vancil Road left-turn pocket
to 250 feet east of the easter~ site driveway
. Construct right-turn deceleration lanes for both site driveways, as noted ih the TIA.
. Install raised Traffic Island at western site driveway to prohibit left-turn egr~ss onto Yelm
- Avenue
C I V I L
~,
TRANSPgRTATION
P L 'A N N I N G
SURVEYING
L}~ 4
// 1/' < \ f/'
\/\ J'- J t' Y, ~
vY' ,'. '\.'
f << )
A / VJ'
f . j \~r1n'
(\,L\~\ .;",~'fi~
J \l}-J '\ . r
)J . @
(\I~lU
"I I}- d, 5
,J -
VJ
Cathie Carlson
June 23, 1998
Page 2
2 Vancil Road Frontage- Construct roadway frontage improvements along Vancil Road The
improvements will include the following
. Construct a 5' sidewalk, 7' planter strip, street Ii~hting and r,oC!dway widening in
accordance with the Development Guidelines and roadway section details for a
"Neighborhood Collector" All roadway drainage will be conveyed/to the on-site system
Drainage swales along Vancil Road will not be allowed
3
Yelm Avenue Channelization Plan- The proponent's engineer must submit a "Channelization
Plan for Approval" for the intended construction work proposed for Yelm Avenue The plan
needs to include at a minimum the proposed striping design, lane widths, taper lengths,
proposed right-of-way limits, curb radii, deceleration lanes, etc. This plan must be approved
by the City and WSDOT before final design plan submittal The City will pr~pare the
"Intersection Plan for Approval" for the proposed Vancil Road Realignment.
Vancil Road Driveway Entries- The proposed driveway entries on Vancil Road need to be
relocated to align with existing public street intersections The current site plan shows the
two southern driveways located approximately 50' north of Prairie Heights Street and Curry
Court. This offset will create turning movement conflicts and operational constraints for
the,se locations The site plan needs to be revised to correctly align tt;)e driveways with the
existing intersections
Interim Improvements to Vancil Road/Yelm Avenue- As noted in the TIA, there is the
potential of the Safeway Store being completed prior to the Vancil Road realignment being
constructed If this occurs, the proponents must complete the following at their expense
. Widen the entry and departure lanes on Vancil Road to accommodate truck turning
paths
. Relocate the pedestrian signal pole and install new loop detectors for Vancil Road
,
These interim improvements will be required only if the Vancil Road Realignment project is
not completed prior to the opening of the Safeway Store
6 TFC Contributions-In compliance with the City of Yelm TFC ordinance, the project
proponents must contribute $750 per new PM peak hour trip Based on the net new 450
trips associated with the project, the proponents will be responsible for a TFC of $337,500
Eligible credits that can be applied towards the TFC are the economic benefit (calculated to
be $8,500) and costs towards the Vancil Road realignment and signal modifications All
C I V I L
,
TRANSPORTATION
-
~'if!i
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
Cathie Carlson
June 23, 1998
Page 3
costs associated with Yelm Avenue and Vancil Road frontage improvements are not eligible
for a credit.
This concludes our review of the TIA and recommendations for traffic acces$ and roadway
improvements to accommodate the increase in site traffic associated with this proposal If you
have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (360) 493-6002.
"
I
Sincerely,
SCA Engineering
~1ApE~vJ
PAS/ct
(f" \text\corres \J u n-98\ 70060623.ltr)
C I ,v I L
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
SURVEYING
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS
SAFEWA Y STORE AND RETAIL CENTER
YELM, WA
MAY 6, 1998
HEFFRON
TRANSPORTi\' TRON
4133 Interlake Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103
(206) 547-7170
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Roadway Network
Traffic Volumes
Level of Service.
Traffic Safety
Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities
PROJECT IMP ACTS
Trip Generation
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Level of Service.
Site Access
Interim Vancil Road Conditions.
Traffic Safety
Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities
1
I
I
1
5
5
8
9
10
10
12
12
16
l7
18
18
19
MITIGATION
APPENDIX
FIGURES
Figure L Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figure 3 Existing (1997/98) Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour
Figure 4 1999-Without-Project Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour
Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution Pattern For New Trips
Figure 6 Total PM Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Figure 7 1999-With-Project Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour
3
4
6
7
13
14
15
TABLES
Table L Level of Service Sununary - Existing and 1999-Without-Project Conditions
Table 2. Study Area Accident Summary (January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1996)
Table 3 Trip Generation Summary - Total Driveway Trips
Table 4 Trip Components
Table 5 Level of Service Summary - Without- and With-Project Conditions
Table 6 Site Access Level of Service Summary
Table 7 Level of Service Summary - Interim Vancil Road Conditions with Existing GeometIy
8
9
11
12
16
17
18
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Safeway store and retail center to be
located in the City of Yelm, Washington. The scope of work and study area for this analysis were developed
with assistance from City ofYelm staff. The analysis evaluates the project's impact to off-site roadways and
intersections as well as site access.
Project Description
Safeway is proposing to construct a new shopping center on the southwest comer of the Yelm Avenue (SR 507)/
Vancil Road intersection. The new shopping center would include a 56,232-sf supermarket and approximately
18,733 sf of retail space for a total of 74,965 sf. It is likely that the proposed project will be built in phases with
the supennarket being built first The new shopping center would have four main access driveways: two on Vancil
Road, and two on Y elm Avenue. An emergency access road would be constructed along the back (south) of the
Safeway building and would have an emergency access driveway on Vancil Road. Approximately 418 parking
spaces would be provided for the Safeway store, 461 spaces would be provided for the full shopping center
Figure 1 shows the site location; Figure 2 shows the site plan and site access driveway locations.
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
This section of the report discusses the existing and future conditions that would exist without the proposed
Safeway project. The impacts of the project are evaluated against these base conditions. The Safeway project IS
scheduled to be complete by the year 1999
Roadway Network
The study area for this analysis was determined based on the proposed project's trip generation and tnp
distribution pattern (presented later in this report). The analysis determined that several roadways and
intersections would be impacted by 20 or more peak-direction PM peak hour trips. This study focuses on the
following key streets and intersections near the site.
. SR 51O/Solberg Street
. SR 507/SR 51O/1st StreetlYelm Avenue
. Yelm Avenue (SR 507)/103rd Street
. Yelm AvenuelVancil Road
. Yelm A venueJPlaza Drive
. Yelm A venue/Bald Hill Road
The roadways included in the study area for this analysis are described in detail below
SR 507/Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway that provides access through the City ofYelm. SR 507 approaches
the City of Yelm from the southwest and makes a 90-degree turn to the southeast at its intersection with SR 510
and 1st Street. At this location, it becomes Yelm Avenue. The SR 507/SR 51O/1st StreetlYelm Avenue
intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and has crosswalks equipped with pedestrian buttons and crossing
signals. The posted speed limit on SR 507 southwest of SR 510 and 1st Street is 50 mph; the speed limit is
reduced to 25mph approaching SR 510
HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION
- 1 -
May 6, 1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Yelm Avenue, just east of the SR 507/SR 51O/lst StreetlYelm Avenue intersection, is a two-lane roadway with
parking and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35mph from the SR 507/SR 51O/lst
StreetIY elm 1\ venue intersection through the Plaza Drive intersection. East of the Plaza Drive intersection, the
speed limit is reduced to 30 mph. Near the project site, there are three lanes (two in each direction and a center
turn lane) as well as a bike lane on the north side of the street. The bike lane continues northwest on Yelm
Avenue and then turns east to 103rd Street. There are bus stops serving Intercity Transit routes 92 and 94 along
Yelm Avenue.
Vancil Road is a two-lane, north-south roadway providing access between residential areas and Yelm Avenue.
The Vancil RoadNelm Avenue intersection is currently offset from the driveway serving the QFC retail center on
the north side ofYelm Avenue. All four legs of the intersection (including the offset QFC driveway) are
controlled by one traffic signal, with crosswalks, pedestrian buttons and pedestrian signals. The posted speed limit
on Vancil Road is 25 mph.
Plaza Drive is a two-lane, north-south roadway that connects 103rd Street and Y elm Avenue. Plaza Drive forms
a "T' intersection with SR 507 where traffic on Plaza Drive is controlled by a stop sign. There is currently a short
acceleration lane for traffic turning left from Plaza Drive to Y elm Avenue.
Bald Hill Road is a two-lane roadway that provides access from Y elm Avenue to the southwest. For most of its
length, Bald Hill Road has a two-foot shoulder However, at its intersection with Y elm Avenue, it has curb,
gutter, and sidewalk. Bald Hill Road ends at this intersection and Creek Street continues north beyond the
intersection. The Bald Hill RoadNelm Avenue/Creek Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and has
a crosswalk equipped with pedestrian buttons and signals. Southeast of the intersections with Yelm Avenue,
Bald Hill Road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The speed limit is reduced as it approaches Y elm Avenue.
1st Street is a two-lane roadway that provides access from the SR 507/SR 510Nelm Avenue intersection to the
northeast The posted speed limit on 1st Street is 25 mph.
10Jrd Street is two-lane, east-west roadway with bike lanes on both sides of the street. 103rd Street creates a
"T' intersection with Yelm Avenue where traffic on 103rd Street is controlled by a stop sign. At this
intersection, 103rd widens to three lanes.
SR 510 is a two-lane highway that provides access from the west to the City ofYelm. As SR 510 approaches
the City ofYelm from the west, the speed limit is reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph.
Solberg Street is a two-lane roadway providing access to downtown Yelm and residential areas northwest of
the project site. Traffic on Solberg Street is controlled by stop signs at its intersection with SR 510 Crosswalks
exist on the northeast and southwest legs of the Solberg Street/SR 510 intersection.
HEFFlRON TJRANSPOlRT A TmN
- 2-
Mav 6, 1998
.
N
Kt:>tK
. -\!
_, r
..
f T
1
\'-
,
,
,
"-
~- ..
"-
, ..
\
,
\
,
!\
\
\ fl
;(
-----\-
\
\
\
\
Sl
"
"-~
'-
..
Sf \
~--- \..
-'.v - 'St
~
..
\ <:,\.
~\/
rtl://
.~/'/
~~,/r
OLQ /"/
/
..
lID Sf
~,
.'
Ii
1\
~\
."
\ II
(~~~_.!'~--~
r\gU(e ~
tl&XX~9]
SAfE~A'V
"l e'I1'\, VI ~
s\1:e. "\C\~\T'l t/lf:t..P
.
N
~
<, ,':" /
'~/~
'~
I
-
,
"
i
a
..
~
t
\
\
\
-" \
~~J!!'o-l-\
\
\ \
"\ \
o
..
<
..
r
o
..
...
..
"
\i
l
~
SAfElN A'"
." e\l'I\, 'II ~
figure 2
Srn: p\p.-N
flBFFRot
~Rp,..'NS1?O R'T p,.. '{'l o~
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
One key transportation improvement planned by the City of Yelm would directly affect the project study area and
access. The City ofYelm is working to realign the Vancil RoadlYelm Avenue intersection. TIlis realigmnent
would create a four-leg, 90-degree intersection consisting of Vancil Road. the existing QFC access drive, and the
two approaches of Y elm Avenue. TIlis realigmnent is planned to be complete concurrently or shortly after the
proposed Safeway project. Therefore, the future-with-project analysis considers traffic conditions with the
realigned lane configuration. A separate interim analysis is also presented to evaluate the potential impacts to
operations at the Vancil RoadIY elm Avenue intersection if the Safeway supermarket is completed prior to the
realigmnent project.
In addition, the City of Yelm's Six Year Improvement Program identifies core roadway improvements for three
sections ofYelm Avenue: one from 4th Street to Clark Road. one from Plaza Drive to Five-Comers, and one
from Yelm High School to 1st Street.
Traffic Volumes
The City ofYelm requires that project impacts be evaluated during weekday PM peak hour conditions. TIlis is
because the PM peak hour is the time when traffic volumes on vicinity streets are highest, congestion is most
noticeable, and the proposed project would generate the largest number of trips. Existing PM peak hour traffic
volumes in the project vicinity were compiled from counts taken in 1997 and 1998. Figure 3 shows the existing
PM peak hour traffic volumes in the project study area.
The proposed shopping center is expected to open in 1999 To detennine the traffic conditions that would exist in
the future without the proposed project, existing traffic volumes were increased using a 4% annual growth rate.
TIlis growth rate was provided by City of Yelm Transportation review staff. Traffic generated by the planned
Prairie Plaza Shopping Center development (to be located just east of the Safeway project at Plaza Drive) was
also added to the future traffic volumes to represent year 1999-without-project traffic conditions. Trip generation
and distribution patterns from the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Prairie Plaza Shopping Center were
used to detennine this project's traffic impact Figure 4 shows 1999-without-project traffic volumes.
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. Six letter
designations, "A" through "F," are used to define the level of service. LOS A is the best and represents good
traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations
with long delays.
Level of service is defined in terms of delay For WlSignaIized intersections, delay is based on the number of
gaps in the major street traffic through which a vehicle can enter or pass through the major street. For signalized
intersections, delay is dependent on a number of variables, including the cycle length, green-time ratio, and
volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. A complete description of level of service
criteria for signalized and WlSignalized intersections is included in the Appendix.
Levels of service for the study area intersections were detennined using procedures in the Highway Capacity
Manual. Table 1 summarizes the existing and 1999-without-project levels of service. The future analysis for the
Yelm AvenuelVancil Road intersection assumes the proposed realigmnent by the City ofYelm. The conditions
that would eXist if this intersection is not realigned are presented later in the Interim Vancil Road Conditions
section of this report. TIlis table shows that all intersections would operate at LOS D or better (overall) However,
turn movements from 103rd Street and Plaza Drive would be degraded to LOS F conditions due to the increase in
background traffic and traffic from other planned developments.
HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION
- 5 -
May 6. 1998
~
.2
:>>
z
C">
;=
;>J
o
109TH
2
.ill
1--.t
397--.
347.
.
N
103 RD ST
L7
~437
.-51
l!'
175
SAFEWAY
Yelm, WA
Figure 3
EXISTING (1997/98) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR
HEFFRON
TRANSIPORTATION
416198
.
N
103 RD ST
()
s;:
:>J
^
:>J
o
<::
>
z
()
;=
€l
':~~~<"
e ''<:)
109TH
5 L10
JIL .-495
.-55
5----+ l!2r
455 ---.
395.
210
SAFEWAY
Yelm, WA
Figure 4
1999 WITHOUT-PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR
HEFFRON
TRANSPORTATJ[ON
416198
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Table 1 Level of Service Summary - Existing and 1999-Wlthout-Projed Conditions
Existing 1999-Without-Project
Sionalized Intersection LOS' Delay2 v/e3 LOS Delay vIe
SR 507/SR 510IYelm Avenue/1st Street C 17.8 070 D 25.1 078
Yelm AvenueNaneil Road C 15.7 0.72 C 21.6 0.73
Yelm AvenuelBald Hill Road B 10.8 0.56 B 117 0.62
Unsionalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay
SR 510/ Solberg Street (overall) A 0.6 A 0.9
Northbound movements from Solberg Street C 15.0 C 19.3
Southbound movements from Solberg Street C 15.9 D 20.1
Eastbound left turn from Yelm Avenue A 3.5 A 3.8
Westbound left tum from Yelm Avenue B 5.2 B 5.8
Yelm Avenue/103rd Street (overall) A 0.5 A 0.7
Left turn from 1 03rd Street D 29.0 F 46.7
Right tum from 103rd Street B 6.3 B 7.5
Left turn from Yelm Avenue B 5.1 B 6.0
Yelm AvenueIPlaza Drive (overall) A 01 A 3.5
Turns from Plaza Drive B 6.8 F 45.8
Left turn from Yelm Avenue A 47 B 6.0
1 Levelofservice
2. Average seconds of delay per vehicle
3 Volume-to-capacity ratio
Traffic Safety
Traffic accident records were obtained from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for
six study area roadways and intersections from Solberg Street to Bald Hill Road. Three years of the most recent
data available were evaluated to determine historical traffic safety conditions. The SR 510/S01berg Street
intersection had no reported accidents during the study period. Table 2 summarizes the traffic accident data for
the five other study area intersections. As shown, 53 accidents occurred at the five study area intersections during
the three-year period. The largest number of accidents (30) occurred at the SR 510/SR 507N elm Avenue/1st
Street intersection, nearly half of those accidents were rear-end accidents. This intersection of two state routes
occurs in the City of Yelm with reduced speed limits (reduced on SR 510 approaching from the northwest, and
reduced on SR 507 approaching from the southwest). The intersection is signalized and is the first signal for some
distance for vehicles approaching Yelm from the west. The combination of the reduction in speed limits, the
potentIally unexpected traffic signal, and wet conditions (8 of 14 rear-end accidents occurred with a wet roadway
surface) may all contribute to the higher rate of rear-end accidents. Additional advanced signs warning of reduced
speed limits, and the traffic signal may help to reduce the occurrence of rear-end accidents.
HEFFRON TRANSPORT A TBON
-8-
May 6, 1998
Yelm SaJeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Table 2. Study Area Accident Summary (January 1,1994 through December 31,1996)
Rear- Head- left- Side-
Intersection' End On Turn Anale Swioe Other Total Acc.Nr ·
SR 507/SR 510IYelm Ave/1st St 14 0 0 3 2 11 30 10.0
Yelm AvenueIBald Hill Rd. 2 0 2 6 0 1 11 3.7
Yelm AvenueNancil Road 3 0 0 2 0 2 7 2.3
Yelm AvenueIPlaza Drive 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 07
Yelm Avenue/103rd Street 0 0 {) 0 0 3 3 1.0
Acc./Yr = Average number of accidents per year
Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities
Intercity Transit provides bus transit service to the study area along Yelm Avenue with stops located just west
of Vancil Road and a bus shelter on the north side of Y elm Avenue. One route (94) provides transit service
between Yelm and Lacey and operates weekdays from 6.30 AM. until 7.30 P.M. on approximately one-hour
headways. There is a queue bypass lane for westbound buses at the Vancil Road intersection. Buses can use the
right-turn lane to directly access the far-side bus pullout just west of the QFC driveway A sidewalk and
bikepath also exist along the north side of Y elm Avenue.
HEFFRON TRANSPORT A TllON
- 9-
May 6, 1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
PROJECT IMPACTS
This section of the report describes the conditions that would exist with the proposed Safeway project. First, the
total number of project trips generated by the proposed shopping center was determined. Project trips were then
added to the I 999-without-project traffic volumes. Finally, level of service analysis was performed to determine
the proposed project's impact on traffic operations in the study area. The following sections describe the
methodology used to determine the proposed project's impact
Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed site was determined using a methodology that has been applied for over 30
Safeway stores in Washington and Alaska. The methodology is tailored for each site to account for site-specific
conditions such as traffic volumes passing the site and the number and location of competitive stores. The
methodology acknowledges that new supennarkets must "capture" customers who are currently shopping at other
stores or who would drive by the site on a regular basis. The trip generation is separated into three components:
. Pass-by Trips are trips that are already on the roadway network on the way to another destination. For
example, a trip to the supermarket made on a trip home from work would be considered a pass-by trip.
. Diverted (Intercepted) Trips are trips that, if not made to this supermarket, would be made to another
supermarket For example, this project is expected to "capture" a percentage of the customers who now
shop at the QFC across the street. These customers would be "diverted" to the new Safeway store.
. New (primary) Trips are single purpose trips generated by the supermarket New trips are generally
assumed to begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work or other locations.
These three trip components make up the total driveway trip generation. The methodology used for this site
determined the total driveway trips first This is done by applying national rates to the size of the facility Then
the driveway trips are separated into the three components based on the characteristics of the study area. Each
of these steps is described in the subsequent sections.
Driveway Trip Generation
A study, entitled Montgomery County Trip Generation Study (Douglas & Douglas, 1989), was conducted to
examine the trip generating characteristics of shopping centers that include supermarkets. It concluded that
shopping centers With supermarkets have higher trip generation rates than those without supermarkets. This
study recommended that the trip generation for shopping centers with supermarkets be calculated using a
combination of rates for both land uses. The methodology was applied for this study
Trip generation was determined using rates for "Shopping Centers" (Land Use Code 820) and "Supermarkets"
(Land Use Code 850) from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 5th Edition, 1991).
Supermarket trip rates were applied directly to proposed Safeway store. A per-sQuare-foot trip generation rate
was calculated for the other retail space using the total size of the shopping center, including the supennarket.
TIus methodology results in a higher trip generation rate than would result by applying shopping center rates
alone. Since the proposed retail portions are being developed speculatively (Safeway does not currently know
who the retail tenants will be) and because the "shopping center" rates inherently assume a broad mix of retail
and restaurant uses; the specific use of each retail pad is not needed to calculate trip generation.
Total driveway trips for the proposed shopping center are summarized in Table 3 The proposed project would
generate 8,560 driveway trips per day and 718 driveway trips during the PM peak hour
HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION
- 10-
May 6, 1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Table 3 Trip Generation Summary - Total Driveway Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Land Use Size (sf) Dailv Trips In Out Total
Proposed Supermarket 1 56,232 7,060 295 283 578
Proposed Retail Stores2 18.733 1.500 70 70 140
Total 74,965 8,560 365 353 718
1. Trip generation rate from "Supermarket" rates in ITE's Trip Generation (5th Edition, 1991 LU 850)
2 Trip rate calculated from 'Shopping Center" rates in ITE's Trip GeneratiOn (LU 820) for total center size of 71150-s(
Trip Components
As previously mentioned, there are three types of trips -new, pass-by, and diverted trips-which reflect the
traffic impact characteristics of retail developments. The fraction of driveway trips that is attributed to each of
the above components depends on the size, type, and location of the proposed project as well as the location of
other similar facilities.
The City of Yelm allows a traffic impact analysis to assume a maximum pass-by rate of 25%. Given that Yelm
provides most of the services for residents who live east of the City, and that many of those residences are located a
long distance away, it is reasonable to assume that many customers would shop on the way home from work or
school since it would save time. Therefore, the maximum 25% pass-by trip rate was used for analysis of the
supennarket component. For the small amount of retail space on the site, the pass-by rate was assumed to be 45%.
TIlls rate was based on the City ofYelm's Trip Generation Rate Default Values presented in its Concurrency
Management Ordinance (1540)
The proposed Safeway store is also expected to attract customers from other grocery stores in the site viCinity,
particularly the QFC across the street. For this analysis, the City of Yelm transportation review staff have
determined that 10% of Safeway's customers would be diverted away from other grocery stores. The project's
retail element was assumed to generate no diverted trips.
The remaining 65% of Safeway' s trips and 55% of the retail trips would be considered new to study area
roadways and intersections. The proposed project would result in 5,415 new trips per day and 450 new trips
during the PM peak hour Table 4 summarizes the net increase in driveway trips and the trip components for the
proposed project.
HEFFRON TRANSPORT AnON
- 11 -
May 6. J 998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Table 4 Trip Components
PM Peak Hour Trips
Trip Component Percent Trips Daily Trips In Out Total
Safeway Store 56,232 sf
Pass-by Trips 25% 1,765 73 73 146
Diverted Trips 10% 705 30 28 58
New (Primary) Trips 65% 4.590 192 182 374
Total Safeway Trips 100% 7,060 295 283 578
Retail Stores 18,733 sf
Pass-by Trips 45% 675 32 32 64
Diverted Trips 0% 0 0 0 0
New (Primary) Trips 55% 825 38 38 ..l&
Total Retail Trips 100% 1,500 70 70 140
Total Shopping Center 74,965 sf
Pass-by Trips 29% 2,440 105 105 210
Diverted Trips 8% 705 30 28 58
New (Primary) Trips 63% 5.415 230 220 450
T otalT rips 100% 8,560 365 353 718
Trip Distribution and Assignment
A trip distribution pattern had been developed for a previously proposed development on the project site. The
City of Yelm had approved this trip distribution pattern and stated that it was still reasonable for the proposed
Safeway project. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution pattern.
The new project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on this distribution pattem This assignment
was used to determine the study area for the traffic impact analysis. The diverted trips and pass-by trips were
assigned separately from the primary trips since they would primarily affect operations at the site driveways. The
pass-by trips were assigned based on the PM peak hour traffic on Yelm Avenue since pass-by trips are assumed
to come from traffic passing the site. The diverted trips were assigned assuming they would be diverted from the
QFC located directly across Yelm Avenue from the site. Figure 6 shows the total project trip assignment. The
project trips were added to the 1999-without-project traffic volumes. The resulting 1999-with-project traffic
volumes are shown on Figure 7
Level of Service
Levels of service for all study area intersections were calculated using the year 1999-with-project traffic vol-
umes. Table 5 shows the results of the analysis; levels of service for 1999-without-project conditions are shown
for comparison. The analysis determined that all study area intersection would continue to operate at LOS D or
better (overall) for with-project conditions. Analysis of the Yelm AvenuelVancil Road intersection assumed that
the intersection would be realigned with the QFC driveway as proposed by the City of Yelm. Under this
condition, it was assumed that 85% of the left-turns from the site onto Yelm Avenue would occur at the Vancil
Road signal. It should be noted that even if all left-turn traffic used the Vancil Road signal to access Yelm
Avenue, the signal would still operate at LOS D The conditions that would exist if this intersection is not
realigned are presented later in the Interim Vancil Road Conditions section of this report. The level of service
analysis also determined that some additional delay is expected for turns from Plaza Drive and 103rd Street
because of the Safeway project. Side street turning movements from both intersections are expected to operate
at LOS F in 1999 with or without the Safeway project. Descriptions of the turn-lane channelization at the Yelm
A venue/Plaza Drive/Safeway Drive intersection are presented in the site access section of this report.
HEFFlRON TRANSPOlRT A THaN
- 12-
May 6, 1998
.
N
2% 103 RD 5T
()
i'f\
rn
;><
(I)
-<
5%
D
<r
--'
--'
:E
()
5:
;0
^
;0
o
20%
1;2%
..;::
~
()
r=
El
6>i'o
10%~(-?o
109TH
III
~~ 0
~6%
XX% = Percent Site Traffic
SAFEWAY
Yelrn, WA
Figure 5
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
FOR NEW TRIPS
HEFFRON
TRANSPORTATION
416198
.
N
4J-o
(5'~
-1,<:-
103 RD ST
.<
:p
z
o
r=
;AJ
o
109TH
13 t
.. 14
~46
44 --.
35~
1
37
SAFEWAY
Yelm, WA
Figure 6
TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
HEFFRON
TRANSlPORTATiON
4/&'98 I
.
N
...~:;::::~:::::;::::t:: .w.."::'"":':::-":-
1':
<:
:>>
z
(")
;=
;;0
o
109TH
5
JIL
L10
+--541
.---- 55
5--+
499--.
430.
llr
247
SAFEWAY
Yelm, WA
Figure 7
1999 WITH-PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR
HEFFRON
TRANSPORTATION
<1&98
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
Table 5 Level of Service Summary - Wlthout- and With-Project Conditions
1999-without-Project 1999-with-Project
Signalized Intersection LOS1 Delay2 v/e3 LOS Delay vIe
SR 507/SR 510IYelm Avenue/1st Street D 25.1 0.78 D 31.5 0.84
Yelm AvenueNaneil Road (With Realignment) C 216 073 D 26.5 0.83
Yelm AvenuelBald Hill Road B 117 0.62 B 14.8 0.67
LOS Delav LOS Delay
SR 510/ Solberg Street (overall) A 0.9 A 1.2
Northbound movements from Solberg Street C 19.3 D 211
Southbound movements from Solberg Street D 201 D 274
Eastbound left turn from Yelm Avenue A 3.8 A 4.0
Westbound left turn from Yelm Avenue B 5.8 B 6.2
Yelm Avenue/103rd Street (overall) A 07 A 13
Left turn from 103rd Street F 467 F 87.5
Right turn from 103rd Street B 7.5 B 8.8
Left turn from Yelm Avenue B 6.0 B 7.2
Yelm Avenue)/P1aza Dr.lSite Dwy (overall) A 3.5 B 9.5
Turns from Plaza Drive F 45.8 F 121.8
Left turn from Yelm Ave to Plaza Dr B 6.0 B 5.9
Turns from Site Driveway nla4 E 32.9
Left turn from Yelm Ave to Site Dwv nla B 6.9
1 Level of service
2 Average seconds of delay per vehicle,
3. Volume..fo-capacity ratio.
4. The site driveway would not exist for withoul-project conditions
Site Access
The proposed project would have four site access driveways: two on Yelm Avenue, and two on Vancil Road.
Left turns out of the westernmost driveway on Y elm Avenue would not be allowed; this driveway would serve
nght-in, left-Ill, and right-out traffic only All other access driveways are proposed as full access; they would
serve right-in, right-out, as well as left-in and left-out movements. Analyses of site access conditions were
performed to determine recommend turn-lane channelization and level of service.
The WSDOT Design Manual guidelines for turn lanes were used to identify whether left- and/or right-turn lanes
should be provided to accommodate project traffic at the proposed site access driveways on Yelm Avenue.
Based on the project traffic assignment and future-with-project traffic forecasts, both site access driveways on
Yelm Avenue would meet guidelines for right-turn lanes. Guidelines for the length of right-turn lanes indicate
that the recommended length (assuming highway design speed of 40 mph and turning traffic design speed of 15
mph) would be 295 feet; the minimum length is 200 feet. However, to provide reasonable transition from the
Vancil Road intersection and between site access driveways, the right-turn lane lengths would need to be
shorter than 200 feet. Based on the length of right -turn lanes located directly across Y elm Avenue from the
project site serving the QFC shopping center, a minimum right-turn lane length would be 150 feet.
Both site access driveways on Y elm Avenue would also meet Design Manual guidelines for left -turn storage
lanes. The left-turn, storage-lane length guidelines indicate that the westernmost driveway should have a 150-
foot left-turn lane. Since there is approximately 350 feet between the two driveways on Yelm Avenue, the
center, two-way, left-turn lane could serve the westbound left-turn storage needs of the Safeway project and the
eastbound left-turn storage needs of Plaza Drive opposite this project. The easternmost driveway (directly
HEFFJRON TRANSPORTATION
- 16-
May 6, 1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
across from Plaza Drive) should have a 200-foot left-turn storage lane serving westbound turns from Yelm
Avenue to the Safeway project. That lane would eliminate the existing acceleration lane now serving left-
turning traffic from Plaza Drive. Turn lanes at both site-access driveways were assumed for the following level
of service analyses.
Project generated traffic was assigned to the each of the site access driveways to determine levels of service.
Approximately 85% of the project traffic destined to the west on Yelm Avenue was assigned to the Vancil Road
intersections where protected left turns would be made at the realigned and signalized intersection with Yelm
Avenue. Approximately 15% of the project traffic destined to the west on Yelm Avenue was assigned to the
easternmost driveway (opposite Plaza Drive). Levels of service were calculated for all site access driveways;
the Yelm A venueIPlaza Drive/Safeway Drive intersection was analyzed previously in the Level of Service
section (see Table 5). The turning volumes for the QFC driveway opposite the westernmost Safeway driveway
were estimated for the purpose of this analysis. As summarized in Table 6 below, all three site access driveways
would operate at LOS A (overall).
The level of service analysis of the easternmost driveway (presented previously in Table 5) indicated that
driveway would operate at LOS B (overall); the southbound left turn from Plaza Drive would operate at LOS F,
the northbound left turn from the Safeway Drive would operate at LOS E. However, these movements may
operate somewhat better due to the platoon affect of traffic signals at Vancil Road and Bald Hill Road. This
platoon affect would provide longer gaps in conflicting through traffic than is assumed for the level of selVlce
calculations. In addition, drivers may choose to use the signal at Vancil Road to make protected left turns onto
Yelm Avenue during peak conditions. Thus, the unsignalized left-turn access may become self-mitigating.
Table 6 Site Access Level of Service Summary
Unsignalized Intersections
Yelm AvenueNVestem Site Driveway (overall)
Right turn from Safeway driveway
Right turn from QFC driveway
Left turn to Safeway driveway
Left turn to QFC driveway
Vancil RoadINorthem Site Driveway (overall)
Westbound tums from Safeway Site
Southbound left turn to Safeway Site
Vancil Road/Southern Site Driveway (overall)
Westbound turns from Safeway Site
Southbound left turn to Safewav Site
1 Levelofservice
2. Average seconds of delay per vehicle.
LOS
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Delay
0.5
77
6.4
70
5.0
1 1
3.1
2.4
1.5
2.9
2.2
Interim Vancil Road Conditions
Currently the Vancil Road approach at Yelm Avenue is offset to the east from the QFC shopping center
driveway A traffic signal controls movements at this intersection; turns from Vancil Road and the QFC
shopping center driveway operate with split phases due to conflicting turning paths that result from the offset.
The City ofYelm plans to realign the Vancil Road approach to create a ninety-degree, four-leg intersection.
However, due to property acquisition issues, it is unclear when this realignment could occur Therefore, these
analyses were prepared to determine how long the existing channelization and signal configuration could
operate with the proposed Safeway project.
Background traffic forecasts were developed using tummg movement counts performed ill 1997, a 4% annual
growth rate, and pipeline traffic estimates prOVIded by the City of Yelm. Forecasts were prepared for years
HEFFRON TRANSPORT A 110N
- 17-
May 6,1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
1999,2000,2004, and 2005 Traffic that would be generated only by the Safeway supermarket was added to the
background forecasts for each future year It is likely that the retail portion of the shopping center would not
happen for some time. It was assumed that all traffic destined to the west on Yelm Avenue would use the signal
at Vancil Road as a worst case for all interim analysis conditions. This anIaysis was performed to determine
when the growth in background traffic would degrade intersection operations to LOS F The level of service
analysis results are sununarized in Table 7 As shown, with the Safeway supermarket, the intersection would
not degrade to LOS F until year 2005 due to growth in background traffic.
Table 7 Level of SelVice Summary -Interim Vancil Road Conditions with Existing Geometry
Existing lane Geometry and Signal Operation
LOS' Delay2 V/C Rati03
Analysis Year/Condiiton
1999 Without Project C 22.7 0.80
1999 With Safeway Onl1' E 45.4 0.88
2001 With Safeway Onl1' E 44.7 0.89
2004 With Safeway Onl1' E 54.3 0.93
2005 With Safeway Only4 F 65.5 0.97
1 LOS = Level of Service
2. Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
3. VIC Ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio
4. Assumes all traffic from the proposed 56. 232-sf Safeway supermarket destined to the west would turn left from Vancil Road.
Based on these analyses, it appears that the existing lane configuration of the Vancil RoadlYelm Avenue
intersection could support the worst-case Safeway traffic through year 2004 until background traffic degrades
operations to LOS F This would allow the City of Yelm approximately six years to resolve the realignment
issues and would be consistent with concurrency requirements since jurisdictions are required to have
improvements constructed within SIX years to accommodate new development.
Traffic Safety
The number of accidents may increase with the addition of new driveways and increase in turning movements
generated by the Safeway project. The increase in through traffic on Yelm Avenue may also contribute to a
proportionate increase in accident experience.
The proposed Safeway project may adversely affect traffic operations at the Plaza Drive intersection immediately
opposite the site's easternmost driveway Left-turn movements from Plaza Drive onto Yelm Avenue are forecast to
operate at LOS F in 1999 without the proposed project. Without the Safeway project, drivers turning left from Plaza
Drive are able to use the existing center lane as a left-turn acceleration lane. This allows them to make a two-step
turn onto Yelm Avenue (a left turn to the center lane, then accelerate and merge with the through traffic) With the
Safeway driveway, the center, left-turn lane would serve inbound left turns to the Safeway site and would not be
available as often for outbound movements from Plaza Drive. As vehicle delays increase, drivers may accept smaller
gaps in the traffic stream to maneuver, thus increasing the potential for accidents.
Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities
Some additional pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use increase is expected as a result of the project. However, the
increases are expected to be small. The project would be required to construct sidewalks along its frontage on
both Yelm Avenue and Vancil Road. In addition, bike lanes would be required along the frontage on Yelm
Avenue. These sidewalks and bike lanes would adequately serve the increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
actiVity generated by the project.
HEFFRON TRANSPORT A TllON
- 18-
May 6,1998
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
MITIGATION
The proposed project would not degrade the overall level of service at any off-site intersection to unacceptable
levels. Therefore, no specific transportation improvements would be required to mitigate the impact of the
proposed project. However, the City ofYelm has established a '''transportation facilities charge' as a condition of
development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. " The current
adopted fee is $750 per PM peak hour trip. The trip generation section of this report detennined that the proposed
shopping center would generate 450 new trips to the site during the PM peak hour. This would relate to a total fee
of $337,500
The City of Yelm is currently developing a credit system for projects that provide economic benefit to the City
This methodology would consider the B & 0 tax and the City share of state sales tax generated by the project over
a six-year period. The credit would be calculated as the portion of that tax that would be applied to the City road
fund that is designated as private share for projects on the TFC. The City has estimated a credit for a 50,000-sf
grocery store of approximately $18,500 In addition, Safeway may be asked to participate in funding the
realignment of Vancil Road at Y elm Avenue once the right -of-way issues are resolved. Since this is a project
plarmed by the City of Yelm, the cost contributed by Safeway to the realignment project would be credited against
the total assessed TFC.
As part of the proposed project, Safeway will be asked to pay for frontage improvements required as part of the
development. These frontage improvements would include sidewalks on both Vancil Road and Yelm Avenue and a
bike lane along Yelm Avenue. Right -turn deceleration lanes are recommended for both access driveways on Yelm
Avenue; the turn-lanes are shown on the proposed project site plan. Left-turn storage lanes are also recommended.
Since a center, two-way left-turn lane currently exists on Yelm Avenue, only some additional striping may be
necessary to provide this storage.
HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION
- 19-
May 6, 1998
APPENDIX
Level of Service Defin itions
Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are
designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating conditions with little or no
delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of
service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual.
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay Delay can be a cause of driver dis-
comfort, frustration, inefficient fuel conswnption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are
stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a
number of variables including the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to~pacity
ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table A-I shows the level of service criteria for signalized
intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual.
Table A-1 Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
Average Delay Per Vehicle
Less than 5.0 Seconds
5.1 to 15.0 seconds
15.1 to 25.0 seconds
25.1 to 40.0 seconds
E
401 to 60.0 seconds
F
Greater than 60 0 seconds
General Description
Free flow
Stable flow (slight delays)
Stable flow (acceptable delays)
Approaching unstable flow (tolerable
delay-occassionally wait through
more than one signal cycle befor
proceeding.
Unstable flow (approaching intolerable
delay)
Forced flow (iammed)
For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning
movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a dnver
to enter or pass through those gaps. Table A-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections
from the Highway Capacity Manual
Table A-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service
Average Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
Less than 5.0
5.1 to 10.0
10 1 to 20.0
20 1 to 30.0
30 1 to 45.0
Greater than 45.0
A
8
C
D
E
F
Source. Transportation Research Board, Hiahwav Capacity Manual, 1994.
n
I ,
U
Ye/m Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Ana/vsis
n
LJ
n
I
U
il
LJ
r
l.J
rr
G
levels of Service
f'
~
Existing Conditions
1',
LJ
n
I
U
n
I
U
f'
u
n
i
l.J
f'
,
LJ
f1
LJ
n
LJ
'l
U
n
u
f'
u
n
HIEFFiRO'\' Tl\ANSPOHTATiO!\
May 6. /998
tJ
n
\
U
[I
, I
LJ
Safewy Yelm
SR 510/SR 507
Exisitng Conditions
-it I-~
r
G SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Ver 1.21] - Capacity Analysis Summary
(I
~
f'
I
LJ
I'
LJ
n
, ,
U
n
I
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
rr
,
LJ
n
I
U
n
!
u
f'
L
n
LJ
1',
i
LJ
{l
i
LJ
n
,
u
n
l1
02/20/98
12:48:31
Intersection Averages:
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.70 Vehicle Delay 17.8 Level of Service C+
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 I Phase 4
**/** ------------------------ -----------------------
1 I 1 ^
+ + +
I + + + I ****
/1\ I +> <+ + <****
^ ****
v
1 I ^
++++ v
North I <* * *> 1++++>
I 1 * * * 1++++
1 * * * 1 v
------------------------ -----------------------
I G/C=0.112 G/C=0.167 G/C=0.123 I G/C=0.332
I G= 6.7" G= 10.0" G= 7.4" I G= 19.9"
1 Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0"
1 OFF= 0.0% OFF=l'7 . 8% OFF=41.2% 1 OFF=60.2%
C= 60 sec
------------------------ -----------------------
G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26.7%
Ped= 0.0 sec =
0.0%
249 1
171 I
250 1
172 I
585 1
188 1
498 1
596 I
189 I
308 I
225 I
310 I
227 I
638 I
245 I
551 1
649 I
247 I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I
I Group 1 Lanes I Reqd Used @C (vph) @E IVolume
1 HCM I L 190% Maxi
v/c I Delay S 1 Queue I
----------------------------------------------------.--------------------------
N Approach
15.0
C+
===============================================================================
91 ftl
54 ftl
TH+RTI 12/1 10.110 10.184 I
LT I 12/1 10.066 10.128 1
132 10.429 1
74 10.326 I
14.6 I B I
15.7 I c+1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S Approach
21.4
C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.1 I*c 1 157 ftl
21.9 I*c 1 115 ftl
TH+RTI 12/1 10.171 10.184 1
LT 1 12/1 10.119 10.128 I
22910.739 I
15810.690 I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E Approach
19.3
C+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TH+RTI 12/1 10.324 10.348 1
LT 1 12/1 10.130 10.140 1
53710.842 I
171 10.698 I
18.6 l*c+1 297 ftl
21.6 I*c 1 125 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W Approach
15.2
C+
======================================~====================================~===
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.090 10.348 1
I 12/1 10.308 10.348 1
I 12/1 10.094 10.140 1
96 10.174 I
517 10.797 1
115 10.466 1
8.8 I B+I 53 ftl
16.2 1 c+1 284 ftl
16.4 1 C+I 83 ftl
n
I ~
U
fI
. I
U
-U- ,~q - 2--'2-~
Safewy Yelm
SR 507/Vansil Road
Existing Condtions
02/20/98
12:57:32
n
~ SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Ver 1.21] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages:
r: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.72 Vehicle Delay 15.7 Level of Service C+
U
n
U
n
LJ
II
I
U
n
I
U
n
I
Li
n
U
~
LJ
n
U
n
i
LJ
{'
U
r
u
!l
U
[I
I
U
n
u
n
,
LJ
----------- ------------------------------------
Sq 74 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 I Phase 4 I
**/** ----------- ------------------------------------
* * 1 1 ^ I
+
+ * * I I ++++1
/1\ <+ * *> \ ++++\ <++++1
I ^
v
I ^ 1**** I 1
v
North <* * *>1 1****> 1
1 * * * I 1**** I
* * * I I v 1
----------- ------------------------------------
G/C=0.141 G/C=0.094 G/C=0.100 I G/C=0.399 1
G= 8.4" G= 5.7" G= 6.0" I G= 23.9" I
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I
OFF= 0.0% OFF=20.7% OFF=36.8% I OFF=53.5% I
----------- ------------------------------------
C= 60 sec G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane IWidth/1 g/C 1 Service Ratel Adj I
I Group 1 Lanes I Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E Volume
1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi
v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue
N Approach
18.6
C+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I RT
ILT+TH
1 12/1 10.078 10.157 1
1 12/1 10.142 10.157 1
254 I
285 1
14.8 1 B I 58 ft I
20.2 I*c I 138 ftl
83 10.327 I
197 10.691 1
197 1
225 1
S Approach
15.6
C+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I LT+TH+RT 1 12/1 10.030 10.111 I 126 1 172 I
241 0 . 13 6 I 15 . 6 I * C + I 25 f t I
E Approach
13.6
B
===============================================================================
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.112 10.415 I
I 12/1 10.366 10.415 1
I 12/1 10.011 10.116 1
575 I
684 I
141 I
7.2 I B+I 60 ftl
14.8 1 B I 302 ftl
15.2 1 C+I 25 ftl
621 1
730 1
190 I
118 10.190 I
592 0.811 I
7 10.036 1
W Approach
16.6
C+
===============================================================================
TH+RTI 12/1 10.374 10.415 I
LT I 12/1 10.105 10.116 I
762 I
200 I
15.7 I*C+I 315 ftl
21. 0 1 *c I 98 ft 1
717 1
150 I
635 10.833 I
131 10.642 I
11
,
u
n
U
Safewy Yelm
SR 507/Bald Hill Road
Exisitng Conditions
tI- 2-- el l - ~5 (p
71
U SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Ver 1.21] - Capacity Analysis Summary
n
LJ
Intersection Averages:
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.56 Vehicle Delay 10.8
n
U
Sq 35
**/**
Phase 1
II
U
.
/1\
I
North
I
n
LJ
n
U
n
u
02/20/98
13:03:44
Level of Service B
C= 60 sec
G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26.7% Ped= 0.0
sec =
0.0%
n
. I
U
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I
I Group I Lanes 1 Reqd Used @C (vph) @E IVolume
I HCM I L 190% Maxi
v/c Delay I S 1 Queue I
Ii
. I
U
N Approach
===============================================================================
n
I
J
TH+RTI 12/1 10.008 10.128 I
LT I 12/1 10.004 10.128 I
n
S Approach
===============================================================================
; I
u
f'
U
TH+RTI 12/1 10.031 10.357 I
LT I 12/1 10.139 10.179 I
n
U
E Approach
===============================================================================
Ii
U
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.013 10.365 I
I 12/1 10.284 10.365 I
1 12/1 10.051 10.128 I
W Approach
n
LJ
172 I
175 I
519 I
258 I
532 I
634 I
172 I
227 I
231 I
571 I
319 1
583 I
686 1
227 I
5 10.022 I
2 10.009 I
25 10.044 I
190 10.596 I
8 10.014 I
475 10.692 I
55 10.240 I
14.8
B
14 . 8 I *B I
14.7 I B I
25 ftl
25 ftl
15.8
c+
8.1 I B+I 25 ftl
16.8 I*C+I 131 ftl
12.8
B
7.9 I B+I 25 ftl
12.6 I*B I 253 ftl
15.3 I*C+I 40 ftl
8.1
B+
===============================================================================
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.270 10.593 I
I 12/1 10.260 10.365 I
I 12/1 10.002 10.128 I
n
LJ
11
LJ
935 I
641 I
175 I
958 I
693 I
231 I
377 10.394 I
432 10.623 I
1 10.004 I
4.3 I A I 128 ftl
11.4 I B I 229 ftl
14.7 I B I 25 ft I
n
I
U
n
U
c
n
U
o
II
J
n
I I
U
n
U
n
u
'l
U
,11
U
n
u
,n
lJ
n
U
n
u
II
u
n
U
n
LJ
n
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
Page 1
SOL510EX.HCO
=======================================================================
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
ph (904) 392-0378
=======================================================================
Streets (N-S) Solberg Street (E-W) SR 510
Major Street Direction. EW
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst Anna Mangus
Date of Analysis.. 2/18/98
Other Information . Existing Conditions
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
=======================================================================
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
No Lanes 1 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 18 691 60 24 419 10 13 3 13 6 1 3
PHF 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's (% ) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1 01 1 02 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1. 00 1 00 1 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5.50
6 00
6 50
2 10
2 60
3 30
3 40
n
u
n
U
n
U
n
J
n
, !
U
n
, I
U
n
u
n
U
RCS Unslgnalized Intersections
Release 2 1d
Page 2
SOL510EX RCO
=======================================================================
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State
767
566
566
o 98
452
817
817
1 00
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State
TR Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane prob
of Queue-Free State
799
713
713
o 96
1700
1700
457
1038
1038
o 98
0.95
Step 3 TR from Minor Street
NB
SB
if --------------------------------------------------------
U
n
I
U
n
u
n
LJ
n
,
LJ
n
j )
LJ
n
\
U
n
U
n
U
n
I
u
I'
LJ
Conflicting Flows (vph) 1269 1296
Potential Capacity (pcph) 235 228
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 93 0 93
Movement Capacity (pcph) 219 212
prob of Queue-Free State 0 99 1 00
Step 4 LT from Minor Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows (vph) 1266 1272
Potential Capacity (pcph) 196 194
Major LT, Minor TR
Impedance Factor 0 93 0 92
Adjusted Impedance Factor 0.94 0 94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 94 0.91
Movement Capacity' (pcph) 184 177
11
I ,
Li
n
U
II
I I
U
n
U
n
I
U
n
u
n
Ll
n
U
n
U
n
I
U
n
u
n
,
u
n
u
.11
LJ
n
U
n
L1
rJ
U
n
u
n
LJ
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1d
SOL510EX HCO
Page 3
==~=======~======================:=====================================
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
NB L 14 184 >
NB T 3 219 > 271 15.0 0 3 C 15 0
NB R 14 566 >
SB L 6 177 >
SB T 1 212 > 236 15.9 0.0 C 15 9
SB R 3 817 >
EB L 19 1038 3 5 0 0 A 0.1
WB L 27 713 5.2 0 0 B 0.3
Intersection Delay 0 6 sec/veh
11
,
u
(!
u
11
I :
U
n
U
n
U
'I
U
n
J
n
LJ
n
U
n
U
n
U
n
LJ
'l
U
n
r '
LJ
n
U
n
LJ
<l
u
n
u
n
LJ
HCS Unsignalized Intersectio~s Release 2 Id 103507EX HCO Page 1
=============================*=========================================
I .
Center For Microcomputers In Transportatlon
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph (904) 392-0378
,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(E-W) SR 507
Streets (N-S) NE 103rd Street
Major Street Direction.. EW
Length of Time Analyzed 15: (min)
Analyst An~a Mangus
. I
Date of Analysls. 2/t8/98
Other Information . Existing Conditions
Two-way Stop-controlled Inter~ection
=============================b=========================================
i
Westbound
L' T R
Eastbound
L T R
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
- - -- - - -- - - --
No Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 75 686 646 25 6 40
PHF 95 95 95 95 95 95
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (%) 0 0 0
SU/RV's (% ) 0 0 0
CV's (%) 0 3 3
PCE's 1 00 1 03 1 03
Adju~tment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5 50
6 00
6 50
2 10
2.60
3.30
3 40
11
u
r
u
n
LJ
n
\J
n
u
n
U
n
U
n
U
n
U
n
LJ
n
U
n
, ,
u
n
U
n
I
U
11
U
~
u
<l
LJ
n
LJ
n
I
LJ
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1d
Page 2
103507EX.HCO
=======================================================================
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 RT from Minor Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State
693
617
617
o 93
Step 2 LT from Major Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State.
706
790
790
o 90
Step 4 LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor
Adjusted Impedance Factor
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity (pcph)
1494
144
o 90
o 90
o 90
130
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) ( sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 6 130 29 0 0.0 D
9 2
SB R 43 617 6.3 0 1 B
EB L 79 790 5.1 0 3 B 0 5
Intersection Delay 0.5 sec/veh
n
u
11
L1
n
U
n
. I
LJ
n
LJ
n
U
'I
U
n
U
n
J
n
I
U
n
U
,n
LJ
n
u
n
, f
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
,
U
RCS' Unsignalized Intersections
1V~!\
Release 2.1e YELMPDEX.HCO
Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph' (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) Plaza Dr (E-W) SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Major street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. TSM
Date of Analysis.. .... ... 2/20/98
Other Information........ .Existing Conditions
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ) 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 13 715 618 52 1 20
PHF .93 .93 .93 .93 .93 .93
Grade 0 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0 0 0
SU/RV'S ( % ) 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 4 0 0
PCE's 1 .04 1 .00 1 .00
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2 10
2.60
3.30
3.40
n
I .
U
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
U
n
LJ
n
u
Q
n
LJ
n
LJ
fl
u
n
U
n
f
U
Il
LJ
'1
I
U
'l
LJ
n
LJ
n
I
U
"
LJ
11
LJ
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1e
YELMPDEX.HCO
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
step 1: RT from Minor street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob of Queue-Free state:
665
637
637
0.97
--------------------------------------------------------
step 2: LT from Major street
EB
WB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
721
777
777
0.98
--------------------------------------------------------
step 4: LT from Minor street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1476
148
0.98
0.98
0.98
145
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 1 145 >
555 6.8 0.0 B 6.8
SB R 22 637 >
EB L 15 777 4.7 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay =: O. 1 sec/veh
fl
,
u
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
n
u
n
U
n
u
n
LJ
'1
U
Levels of Service
n
U
Future Without-Project
n
,
LJ
n
LJ
f!
U
n
LJ
n
. I
U
n
LJ
n
i
U
n
u
'1
I
LJ
n
I
LJ
n
u
n
HEFFRON TRA!\.SPOWr -\ TRO!\'
May 6, 1998
u
11
LJ
ry
YtUv1.Z. f'oe
lis - (~
n Safeway Yelm
JSR 510/507
~ ture without Project
02/26/98
12.12:05
n
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
n Intersection Averages for Int #
U Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - SR 507/SR 510
.78 Vehicle Delay 25.1 Level of Service D+
:l Sq 44
U ** /**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
n
J ;"\
+ + +
+ + + ****
+> <+ + <****
v ****
++++ v
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
o North
I
11
U
G/C= .100 G/C= 159 G/C= . 11 6 G/C= .358
G= 6.0" G= 9.5" G= 7.0" G= 21.5"
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4 0"
OFF= .0% OFF=16.7% OFF=39.3% OFF=57.5%
n
I
U
1
LJ
C= 60 sec
G= 44 0 sec = 73 3% Y=16 0 sec = 26.7% ped= .0 sec =
0%
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
~J Group Lanes Reqd Used@C(vph)@EVolumev/cDelaySQueue
, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n N Approach 1 8 . 8 C+
iJ===============================================================================
I TH+RTI12/1 I .128 I .176 I 221 I 293 I 147 I .502 I 18.2 I C+1103 ftj
n LT 12/1 .086 .117 139 200 92 .447 198 C+ 69 ft
LJ
S Approach 32.8 D
n===============================================================================
U/ TH+RTI12/1 I .193 1.176 I 222 I 294 I 250 I .850 I 32.3 I*D+1174 ftl
LT 12/1 134 .117 141 202 168 .808 33.5 *D 125 ft
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LJ
E Approach 29.4 D+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JI
TH+RTI12/1 I .384 I .375 I
LT 1 2/1 . 1 50 . 1 33
619 I
162
681 I
227
636 I .934 I
190 .823
28 2 I*D+I 338 ftl
33.3 *D 140 ft
n
J W Approach
18.9
C+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
n RT 12/1 102 .375 534 595 103 173 9 5 B+ 54 ft
I I TH 12/1 .355 .375 638 700 598 .854 20.2 C 315 ft
LJ LT 12/1 .107 .133 165 231 125 .532 20.3 C 91 ft
n
I
U
fl
,
~
/l
U
n feway Yelm
LlR 510/5?7
euture wlthout Project
02/26/98
12:12.05
n
LJIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - HCM Input Worksheet
IYntersection # 1 - SR 507/SR 510
I
U
'1 90 45 85
, .0 12.0 12.0
U 0 1 1
n_____________ / \
LJ
Area Location Type: NONCBD
Key. VOLUMES -- >
I WIDTHS
v LANES
\
35 .0 0
.
/ \
550 12.0 1
-------------------
-------------------
'1 115 12.0 1 /
U~------------------
550 12.0 1
+
/ 175 12.0 1
-------------------
-------------------
North
I
1 95 12.0 1 \
L____________________
\
/
r~OSTTIME = 3 0 sec
U
155
12.0
1
70
12.0
1
160
. 0
o
Phasing:
SEQUENCE
PERMS V N
OVERLP N
LEAD LAG
44
N N N
N N N
LD LD
n Adj.Pkg
LJ l\ppr Grade g. Heavy Veh. Bus Pk Hr.Factor Conf.Ped Actuated Arr.Type
0
----- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------- --------
% RT TH LT Loc Nm Nb RT TH LT peds/hr RT TH LT RT TH LT
n____ ----- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------- --------
U N .0 2.6 2 6 2 6 NO 0 0 .92 .92 .92 O- N N N 3 3 3
E .0 3.6 3 6 3 6 NO 0 0 .92 92 .92 O- N N N 3 3 3
I] S . 0 1 7 1 7 1 . 7 NO 0 0 .92 .92 .92 O- N N N 3 3 3
I W . 0 1 .8 1 8 1 8 NO 0 0 .92 .92 .92 O- N N N 3 3 3
U
----- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------- --------
n
Usq 44
**/**
Il
LJ .
/ \
JNorth
n I
LJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+>
+ +
+ +
<+ +
V
****
<****
****
++++
v
<*
*
*
* *>
* *
* *
++++>
++++
V
fl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
G/C= .100 G/C= . 159 G/C= 116 G/C= .358 G!C= .000 G/C= .000
G= 6.0" G= 9.5" G= 7.0" G= 21 . 5" G= .0" G= 0"
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 0" Y+R== .0"
OFF= Og. OFF=16.7% OFF=39.3% OFF=57.5% OFF= Og. OFF= Og.
. 0 . 0 . 0
LJ
Il
I
LJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
C= 60 sec
G= 44.0 sec = 73 3% Y=16 0 sec = 26.7% Ped= .0 sec =
Og.
. 0
11
LJ
n
LJ
~ feway Yelm
n 510/507
uFuture without Project
02/26/98
12:12:05
~SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Volume Adjustment Worksheet
U
Appr
n -Mvt
I
U --
Mvt
Vol PHF
vph
Flow Lane
Rate Group
vph
Group No.of
Flow Lanes
vph
Lane
util
Adj
Flow
vph
Prop.of
LT RT
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
N-RT
11 N-TH
U N-LT
90 .92
45 .92
85 .92
98
49
92
o
TH+RT 147
LT 92
o
1
1
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
o .00 .00
147 .00 .67
92 1.00 .00
n E-RT 35 92 38 0 0 1 .00 0.00.00
LJ E-TH 550 92 598 TH+RT 636 1 1 .00 636.00.06
E- LT 1 75 .92 1 90 LT 1 90 1 1 . 00 190 1. 00 . 00
n------------------------------------------------------------------
S-RT 160 92 174 -- 0 0 1 00 0 .00 .00
U S-TH 70 92 76 TH+RT 250 1 1 .00 250.00.70
S-LT 155 92 168 LT 168 1 1 .00 168 1.00 .00
~-;=~;---95--~92---~03----~;-----~03----~-----~~OO----~03--~OO-~~OO
W-TH 550 .92 598 TH 598 1 1 .00 598.00.00
n W-LT 115 .92 125 LT 125 1 1.00 125 1 00 .00
U
o SIGNAL94/TEAPAC [Vl
Ap Lane
rl pr Group
U ch Mvmts
Ll.4] - HCM Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet
No Adjustment Factors Adj
Ideal of -------------------------------------------------- Sat-
Satfl Lns Lane Heavy Bus Ar Right Left Adj flow
pcphg Width Vehs Grade Parkg Block Lac Turn Turn Fact vphg
n===============================================================================
U N- TH+RT 1900 1 1.000 .975 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.0 .900 1.000 1.00 1667
N- LT 1900 1 1.000 .975 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00 1759
n E-
I
U E-
TH+RT 1900
LT 1900
1 1.000 .965 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 .991 1.000 1.00 1818
1 1.000 .9651.0001.0001.0001.01.000 .9501.00 1742
'l S- TH+RT 1900 1 1.000 .983 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 .896 1.000 1.00 1673
LJ S- LT 1900 1 1.000 .983 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00 1775
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W- RT 1900 1 1 .000 982 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 .850 1.000 1 00 1586
Il W- TH 1900 1 1.000 .982 1 000 1.000 1 000 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.00 1866
J W- LT 1 900 1 1. 000 .982 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 1. 0 1. 000 .950 1. 00 1 773
n
U
n
u
n
LJ
"
u
n
U Safeway Yelm
,..-, 510/507
n ture without Project
U
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - HCM Capacity Analysis Worksheet
n
I
UAp
pr
nch
i --
U ==================================================================
Lane
Group
Mvts
LT
phase
Type
Adj
Flow
Rate
vph
Adj
Satfl
Rate
vphg
V/C
Ratio
v/c
Crit
Lane
Grp
Flow
Ratio
vis
Green
Ratio
g/C
Lane
Group
Capac
vph
N~ TH+RT 147 1667 .088 .176 293 .502
~ N- LT pri. 92 1759 .052 .117 206 .447
U------------------------------------------------------------------
E- TH+RT 636 1818 .350 .375 681 .934 *
n E- LT Pri. 190 1742 .109 .133 231 .823 *
U------------------------------------------------------------------
S- TH+RT 250 1673 .149 .176 294 .850 *
n S- LT Pri 168 1775 .095 .117 208 .808 *
------------------------------------------------------------------
U W- RT 103 1586 .065 .375 595 .173
W- TH 598 1866 320.375 700 .854
i W- LT pri. 125 1773 .070 .133 235 .532
U------------------------------------------------------------------
Cycle Length, C 60 sec Sum(v/s) .703
nLost Time Per Cycle, L 12 0 sec Xc = .879
LJ
02/26/98
12.12:05
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1 4] - HCM Level-of-Service Worksheet
n
UAp Lane Vol Green Unif Delay Lane Cal Incr Lane Lan
pr Group Ratio Ratio Delay Fact Group Term Delay Group Grp Appr Appr
n ch Mvts v/c g/C d1 DF Capac m d2 Delay LOS Delay LOS
I sec/v vph sec/v sec/v sec/v
LJ --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II N- TH+RT .502 . 176 17.0 1 00 293 16 1 . 17 18 2 C+
N- LT .447 .117 18.8 1.00 206 16 1.05 19.8 C+
u _____________________________________________________~------------)
E- TH+RT .934 375 13.7 1.00 681 16 14.50 28.2 D+
II E- LT .823 .133 19.3 1.00 231 16 14.04 33.3 D
U ------------------------------------------------------------------)
S- TH+RT .850 .176 18 2 1.00 294 16 14.06 32.3 D+
II S- LT .808 .117 19.6 1 00 208 16 13.83 33.5 D
J ------------------------------------------------------------------)
W- RT .173 .375 9.5 1 00 595 16 .01 9.5 B+
II W- TH .854 .375 13.1 1 00 700 16 7.09 20.2 C
W- LT .532 133 18.5 1.00 235 16 1.82 20.3 C
U ------------------------------------------------------------------)
Cycle= 60"
n Int Total 783 ================================================)
U
Il
u
Il
LJ
18.8 C+
29.4 D+
32.8 D
18.9 C+
25. 1 D+
Il
I
LJ
Il
u
n. ieway Yelm
Uvancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future Without Project Conditions
04/25/98
09.21.06
n
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - HCM Input Worksheet
iHntersection #
U
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
Area Location Type: NONCBD
n
I
U
80
. 0
o
5
12.0
1
190
12.0
1
Key: VOLUMES -- >
I WIDTHS
v LANES
\ 115 12.0 1
.
/ \
1'"1-------------
U
/
\
645 12.0 1
-------------------
-------------------
n 125 12.0 1 /
U-------------------
665 12.0 1
+
/ 10 12.0
-------------------
-------------------
North
I
n
\
/
20 .0 0 \
u--------------------
15
12 0
1
5
12.0
1
10
. 0
o
Phasing:
SEQUENCE
PERMSV N
OVERLP N
LEAD LAG
54
N N N
N N N
LD LD
'lLOSTTIME = 3 0 sec.
LJ
n
J ~~~~ Grade g, Heavy Veh Adj. Pkg Bus Pk.Hr.Factor Conf.Ped Actuated Arr.Type
0
----- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------- --------
% RT TH LT Loc Nm Nb RT TH LT peds/hr RT TH LT RT TH LT
n ----- -------------- ------- -------------- --------- -------- --------
U N . 0 4 4 .4 NO 0 0 .89 .89 .89 O- N N N 3 3 3
E .0 8.2 8.2 8 2 NO 0 0 .89 89 .89 O- N N N 3 3 3
Il S . 0 . 0 0 . 0 NO 0 0 .89 .89 .89 O- N N N 3 3 3
u W .0 3.5 3 5 3.5 NO 0 0 .89 .89 .89 O- N N N 3 3 3
----- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------- --------
Il
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
u Sq 54
**/**
n
phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
phase 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
u
.
/ \
+ + + *
+ + + *
+> <+ + *>
v
<*
*
*
+ +
+ +
<+ +
v
++++
<++++
n
U North
I
****
++++
v
* *>
* *
****>
****
'I
* *
v
,
u -------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
G/C= 067 G/C= 043 G/C= 067 G/C= 114 G/C= .489 G/C= .000
G= 6 0" G= 3 8" G= 6 0" G= 10.2" G= 44.0" G= .0"
Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= .0"
OFF= Og, OFF= 11 .1% OFF=19.8% OFF=30.9% OFF=46.7% OFF= Og,
. 0 . 0
LJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Il
C= 90 see
G= 70.0 see = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% ped= .0 see =
Og,
. 0
LJ
ro
G
Safeway Yelm
r~mcil Road/ SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
~lture Without Project Conditions
04/25/98
09: 21 .08
11
~[GNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - HCM Volume
Aopr Mvt Flow Lane Group
r~Mvt Vol PHF Rate Group Flow
U-- vph vph vph
Adjustment Worksheet
No of
Lanes
Lane
util
Adj
Flow
vph
Prop.of
LT RT
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
II~-RT 80 .89
Lj;r-TH 5.89
N-LT 190 .89
90
6
213
o
TH+RT 96
LT 213
o
1
1
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
o .00 .00
96 .00 .94
213 1.00 .00
r~=~;--~~;--~8~---~2~----~;-----~2~----~-----~~~~----~2~--~~~-~~~~
L~-TH 645 .89 725 TH 725 1 1.00 725 .00 .00
E-LT 10 .89 11 LT 11 1 1 .00 11 1.00 .00
~-----------------------------------------------------------------
L3-RT 10 .89 11 -- 0 0 1 .00 0.00.00
S-TH 5 .89 6 TH+RT 17 1 1.00 17 .00 .65
I'S-LT 15 .89 17 LT 17 1 1 .00 17 1 00 .00
I I
L~=~;---2~---8~----22-------------~----~-----~~~~------~--~~~--~~~
W-TH 665 .89 747 TH+RT 769 1 1.00 769 .00 .03
nN-LT 125 89 140 LT 140 1 1 .00 140 1.00 .00
U-----------------------------------------------------------------
n
: I
J TAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - HCM Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet
No Adjustment Factors Ajj
Ideal of -------------------------------------------------- Sat-
Satfl Lns Lane Heavy Bus Ar Right Left Adj flJw
pcphg Width Vehs Grade Parkg Block Lac Turn Turn Fact vphg
~~=============================================================================
LN- TH + RT 1 900 1 1. 000 .996 1 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 0 .859 1. 000 1. 00 1 626
N- LT 1900 1 1.000 .996 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00 1798
7'~D
I \i-
l r
c-fi
Lane
Group
Mvmts
~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E- RT 1 900 1 1 . 000 . 924 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 0 . 850 1. 000 1. 00 1 493
LE_ TH 1900 1 1 000 .924 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.00 1756
E- LT 1900 1 1.000 .924 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00 1668
n______________________________________________________________________________
lJs- TH+RT 1900 1 1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0 .9031.0001.00 1716
S- LT 1900 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00 1805
~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uW-
W-
TH+RT 1900
LT 1900
1 1.000 .966 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.0 996 1.000 1.00 1828
1 1.000 .966 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1 000 .950 1.00 1744
n------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LJ
11
U
n
u
rS,afeway Yelm
'ancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
u
04/25/98
09:21:13
J1
~
Future Without Project Conditions
I)
LJ
r-SNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Capacity Analysis Worksheet
OAP Lane LT Adj Adj Flow Green Lane V/C Crit
pr Group Phase Flow Satfl Ratio Ratio Group Ratio Lane
n=~ M~:S TY~: R~~~ ~~~~ v~: g~~ ca~~~ v~= G:P
U==================================================================
N- TH+RT 96 1626 .059 .165 268 .358
~~=---~~-----~:~~--_:~:_---~~~~----~~~~---~~~~---_:~~---~~:~---_:-
E- RT 129 1493 .086 .500 746 .173
E- TH 725 1756 .413 .500 877 .827
n E- LT Pri 11 1668 .007 .125 208 .053
U_____________________________________________________-------------
S- TH+RT 17 1716 .010 .078 133 .128 *
n S- LT Pri. 17 1805 .009 .078 140 .121
U------------------------------------------------------------------
W- TH+RT 769 1828 421 .500 913 .842 *
n W- LT Pri 140 1744 .080 125 217 .645 *
, I
U------------------------------------------------------------------
Cycle Length, C 90 sec Sum(v/s) = .629
~Lost Time Per Cycle, L 12.0 sec Xc = .726
J
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Level-of-Service Worksheet
n
U
Lane Vol Green Unif Delay Lane Cal Incr Lane Lan
~L Group Ratio Ratio Delay Fact Group Term Delay Group Grp Appr App~
~,ch Mvts v/c g/C dl OF Capac m d2 Delay LOS Delay LOS
: ,__ -- -- -- sec/v -- vph - sec/v sec/v - sec/v -
U==============================================================================
N- TH+RT .358 .165 25.4 1.00 268 16 .37 25.7 0+
'~N- LT 720 .165 27.1 1 00 296 16 5.59 32.7 0
LJ------------------------------------------------------------------) 30.5
E- RT 173 .500 9.4 1.00 746 16 .01 9.4 B+
II E- TH .827 .500 14.6 1.00 877 16 4.62 19.2 C+
U E- LT .053 .125 26 4 1 00 208 16 .00 26.4 0+
______________________________________________________------------) 17.8
n S- TH+RT 128 .078 29.4 1.00 133 16 .02 29.4 0+
S- LT .121 .078 29.4 1.00 140 16 .02 29.4 0+
U------------------------------------------------------------------) 29.4
W- TH+RT .842 .500 148 1.00 913 16 5.08 19.9 C+
rj W- LT .645 .125 28.5 1.00 217 16 4.44 32.9 0
U------------------------------------------------------------------) 21.9
Cycle= 90"
'lInt Total
LJ
0+
C+
0+
C
.733 ================================================)
21 .6
C
n
u
f!
J Safeway Yelm
Vancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
'lFuture Without Project Conditions
LJ
04/25/98
09.22:11
c
OSIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1 4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
;',
~~tersection Averages for Int # 1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 73 Vehicle Delay 21.6
Level of Service C
r
U
Sq 54
0**/**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
.
n / \
, I
U
nNorth
U I
+
+
+>
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
v
+ +
+ +
<+ +
v
++++
<++++
****
++++
v
<*
*
*
* *>
* *
* *
****>
****
v
n
, i
U
G/C= .067 G/C= .043 G/C= .067 G/C= . 11 4 G/C= .489
G= 6.0" G= 3.8" G= 6.0" G= 10.2" G= 44.0"
Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0% OFF= 11 .1% OFF=19.8% OFF=30.9% OFF=46.7%
n
u
C= 90 sec
G= 70 0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% ped= .0 sec =
0%
n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UI Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
n~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U
_. Approach 30.5 D+
OI===~~:;;I=~~;~=I==~~~=I=~~~i=I===~~=I==~i~=I==:~~=I=~~~~=I==~~~;=I:~:I=~g~=~~1
[I
LJ S Approach
29.4
D+
/11 TH+RTI12/1 I 149 1.078 I 1 I 1161 17 1.1281 29.41*D+1 25 ftl
: i LT 12/1 .149 .078 1 123 17 .121 29.4 *D+ 25 ft
U_______________________________________________________________________________
n E Approach 17.8 C+
~===============================================================================
I RT 12/1 .195 .500 668 746 129 .173 9.4 B+ 85 ft
n TH 12/1 .465 .500 796 877 725 .827 19.2 C+ 476 ft
'ul LT 12/1 148 .125 1 193 11 .053 26.4 D+ 25 ft
l W Approach 21.9 C
~===============================================================================
I TH+RTI12/1 1.470 I 500 I 831 I 913\ 7691.8421 19.9!*C+1491 ftl
~ LT 12/1 .189 .125 1 203 140 .645 32.9 *D 156 ft
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!l
u
n
u
r:
~
u
Jet 3-;7 - ~t12_
II
I
U
Safewy Yelm
SR 507/Bald Hill Road
Background Conditions with Other Developments
{i
U
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Ver 1.21] - Capacity Analysis Summary
ri
LJ
Intersection Averages:
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.62 Vehicle Delay 11.7
n
U
Sq 35
**/**
Phase 1
Phase 2
* * +
* * +
<* * +>
[1
LJ
.
/1\
I
I
North
I
<* +>
++++ * +
v * +
v
11
U
M
G/C=0.174
G= 10.4"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0.0%
G/C=0.101
,
U
n
U
^
I Phase 5
1
++++1
<++++1
++++
v I
1++++>
1++++
I v
I G/C=0.357
^
02/20/98
13:04:59
Level of Service B
I
I
++++1
<****
^
C= 60 sec G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26.7% Ped= O. sec = 0.0%
'1
i :
U
I Lane IWidth/1
Group I Lanes I Reqd
g/C I Service Ratel Adj I
Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I
I HCM I L 190% Maxi
v/c I Delay I S I Queue I
n
J
N Approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
J
TH+RTI 12/1 10.014 10.118 I
LT I 12/1 10.007 10.118 I
M
S Approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u
TH+RTI 12/1 10.033 10.358 I
LT I 12/1 10.161 10.190 I
f1
LJ
E Approach
152 I
158 I
521 1
279 I
204 1
210 I
573 1
340 I
10 10.048 I
5 10.023 I
2710.047 I
228 10.671 I
15.1
C+
15.2 I *C+ I
15.1 I C+I
25 ftl
25 ftl
17.0
C+
8.1 I B+I 25 ftl
18.0 I*C+I 155 ftl
14.2
B
===============================================================================
/1
\ .
U
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.016 10.374 I
1 12/1 10.317 10.374 I
I 12/1 10.055 10.118 I
'I
U
W Approach
===============================================================================
n
RT
TH
LT
I 12/1 10.301 10.614 I
I 12/1 10.292 10.374 I
I 12/1 10.007 10.118 I
I
U
n
L1
n
u
547 1
652 I
156 I
972 I
659 1
158 1
597 I
703 1
208 I
992 I
710 I
210 I
11 10.018 I
538 10.765 I
60 10.284 I
429 10.432 1
495 10.697 I
5 10.023 I
7.7 1 B+I 25 ftl
14.2 I*B I 283 ftl
15.8 l*c+1 44 ftl
8.6
B+
4.1 I A I 138 ftl
12.4 I B 1 258 ftl
15.1 I c+1 25 ftl
r
LJ
n
U
n
u
n
U
n
U
r;
u
n
U
,---,
u
n
u
n
U
1\
. I
U
'1
LJ
,..,
u
11
u
11
{
LJ
11
LJ
Ii
LJ
h
u
n
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 Id
Page 1
SOL510FU HCO
=======================================================================
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets (N-S) Solberg Street (E-W) SR 510
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst Anna Mangus
Date of Analysis 2/18/98
Other Information Background conditions with Other Develo
pments
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound
L T R
Westbound
L T R
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
No Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (%)
CV's (%)
PCE's
1
1 < 0
o
> 1 < 0
o > 1 < 0
o > 1 < 0
N
480 12
94 94
o
N
770 65
94 94
o
15 5 18 7 5 5
94 .94 .94 94 94 94
o 0
000 000
000 0 0 0
o 000 0 0
1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00
28
94
20
94
o
o
1
1 01
o
o
2
1 02
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehlcle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5 50
6.00
6 50
2 10
2.60
3 30
3 40
11,
\
LJ
(I
\
I \
U
11
( \
U
n
U
n
u
r;
U
tI
U
Ii
U
n
\
LJ
n
U
Ii
U
jI
u
n
U
(I
u
'l
,
u
fl
U
n
u
A
\
U
r
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1d
Page 2
SOL510FU HCO
=======================================================================
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
prob of Queue-Free State:
854
511
511
o 96
518
757
757
0.99
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2 LT from Major Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State
TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane prob.
of Queue-Free State
524
965
965
o 98
888
647
647
o 95
1700
1700
o 93
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3 TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph) 1428 1456
Potential Capacity (pcph) 194 188
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 91 0 91
Movement Capacity (pcph) 177 171
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 97 0 97
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4 LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph) 1427 1434
Potential Capacity (pcph) 158 156
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 88 0 88
Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 91 0 91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 91 0.88
Movement Capacity (pcph) 143 137
--------------------------------------------------------
n
\
U
('
i I
U
n
i '.
U
n
LJ
1)
,
U
n
. I
U
\>
U
r--j
(
LJ
fI
J
fI
U
11
U
A
I
LJ
n
L
n
U
n
u
n
i
U
n
u
11
u
n
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1d
SOL510FU HCO
Page 3
=======================================================================
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
NB L 16 143 >
NB T 5 177 > 226 19 3 0.6 C 19.3
NB R 19 511 >
SB L 7 137 >
SB T 5 171 > 196 20 1 0.2 D 20 1
SB R 5 757 >
EB L 21 965 3.8 0 0 A 0 1
WB L 31 647 5 8 0 0 B 0 3
Intersection Delay = 0 9 sec/veh
n
,
l;
n
U
f\
LJ
.n
U
1")
'u
n
u
\">
I I
U
n
U
o
n
U
n
U
11
LJ
n
(
\
U
)1
, i
U
nr
w
n
,
U
n
U
N
u
n
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 Id
Page 1
103507FU HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
ph (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets. (N-S) NE 103rd
Major Street Direction
Length of Tlme Analyzed
Analyst
Date of Analysis
Other Information.
(E-W) SR 507
Two-way Stop-controlled
Street
EW
15 (min)
Anna Mangus
2/18/98
Background
pments
Intersection
Conditions with Other Develo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound
L T R
Westbound
L T R
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
10 43
95 95
0
0 0
0 0
3 3
1 03 1 03
No Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yleld N N
Volumes 81 810 765 35
PHF 95 95 95 95
Grade 0 0
MC's (%) 0
SU/RV's (% ) 0
CV's (% ) 0
PCE's 1. 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5.50
6 00
6 50
2 10
2 60
3 30
3.40
{l
i
u
n
u
(I
'LJ
n
U
n
I
U
n
U
o
U
{l
U
n
U
n
U
(I
I
U
1'1
U
{l
L
"
L
f1
u
n
LJ
n
U
II,
LJ
!I
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 Id
Page 2
103507FU HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity' (pcph)
prob of Queue-Free State
824
529
529
o 91
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2 LT from Major Street
EB
WB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Movement Capacity (pcph)
Prob of Queue-Free State
842
681
681
0.88
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4 LT from Mlnor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor
Adjusted Impedance Factor
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capaclty (pcph)
1762
101
o 88
o 88
o 88
88
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) ( sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 11 88 46 7 0 3 F
14 9
SB R 46 529 7.5 0 2 B
EB L 85 681 6 0 0 4 B 0 5
Intersection Delay 0 7 sec/veh
n
U
n
u
n
iU
f1
LJ
11
iU
n
U
n
u
n
( ,
U
n
U
n
U
n
u
n
U
n
U
[I
U
r{
f ,
u
n
LJ
n
I
U
n
lJ
n
LJ
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
1? J''V'
Release 2 1e YELMPDFU.HCO
Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) Plaza Dr (E-W) SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Major street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. TSM
Date of Analysis.......... 2/20/98
Other Information ........Future Without Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 90 775 670 95 45 75
PHF 93 93 93 93 .93 .93
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (% ) 0 0 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 4 0 0
PCE's 1 .04 1 .00 1 00
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2.10
2.60
3.30
3.40
(I
L
(I
U
n
I '
U
n
I
LJ
n
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
YELMPDFU.HCO
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
step 1: RT from Minor street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob. of Queue-Free state:
720
598
598
0.86
u --------------------------------------------------------
step 2: LT from Major street
WB
EB
n
U
n
U
n
U
rj
U
n
U
n
o
n
U
n
U
{I
\
U
'i
y
u
II
u
n
!
U
,n
u
n
LJ
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob. of Queue-Free state:
822
696
696
0.85
--------------------------------------------------------
step 4: LT from Minor street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity (pcph)
1701
110
0.85
0.85
0.85
94
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 48 94 )
200 45.8 3.4 F 45.8
SB R 81 598 )
EB L 101 696 6 0 0.5 B 0.6
Intersection Delay 3.5 sec/veh
n
LJ
'relm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
n
\ I
LJ
n
U
(I
U
'1
U
n
J
levels of Service
n
rJ
Future With-Project Conditions
n
U
n
I '
U
n
U
f71
U
n
I
lJ
n
[ .
U
'l
LJ
r-,
LJ
11
LJ
n
u
II
u
I-IEiFFHON THA!'\SPORT-\TION
Mav 6. 1998
fI,
U
rI
U
~
Yt:L.A/J 2 Fo 1:2..
I - ~(;
r;
\ .
L>
~ Leway Yelm
[\
SR 510/507
Future with Project
02/25/98
14.14:48
n
LSIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
nlntersection Averages for Int #
LJ Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - SR 507/SR 510
.84 Vehicle Delay 31.5 Level of Service D+
nsq 44
U**/**
Phase 1
phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
n .
U / \
+ + +
+ + + ****
+> <+ + <****
v ****
++++ v
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
n
\ North
UI
'-:>,
LJ
G/C= .092 G/C= . 156 G/C= 114 G/C= .392
G= 6.0" G= 10.2" G= 7.4" G= 25.5"
Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= .0% OFF=15.4% OFF=37 1% OFF=54.7%
1;
LJ
('
LL------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
n Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
\
LJ-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C= 65 sec
G= 49.0 sec = 75 4%
Y=16 0 sec = 24.6%
ped=
.0 sec =
0%
n N Approach 21.9 C
LJ===============================================================================
I TH+RTI12/1 I .134 I .172 I 206 I 285 I 147 I .514 1 19.9 1 C+1112 ftj
LT 1 2/1 . 1 05 . 1 07 11 6 1 81 11 2 . 593 24 . 5 C 92 f t
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U
S Approach 44.3 E+
n===============================================================================
UI TH+RTI12/1 1 .207 1.172 I 2061 285 I 2631.9201 43.61*E+1199 ftl
LT 12/1 .140 .107 117 183 168 .880 45.4 *E+ 137 ft
n
LJ E Approach
38.7
D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii
u
TH+RT I 12/1 I .435 I .407 I
LT 1 2/1 . 1 63 . 1 29
673 1
147
738 I
219
728 1 .986 I
202 .898
37.0 I*D I 398 ftl
44.9 *E+ 162 ft
n
. W Approach 20 8 C
u===============================================================================
I 12/1 I .108 1 .407 1 583 I 646 I 103 I .159 1 9.3 I B+I 56 ftl
12/1 .397 .407 695 760 674 .887 22.3 C 365 ft
(1,1
RT
TH
u
n
u
I
LT
I 12/1 I .113 I 129 I 151 I 223 I 125 I .546 I 22.2 I c I 99 ftl
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( \
LJ
n
i .
U
~
U
rr
\
U
~
n
LJ
n
U
n
,
LJ
11,
G
r
U
(1,
,
U
rr
LJ
n
\ ,
U
r'
; ~
U
,---,)
U
n
LJ
\l
U
il
L.1
n
I
I
U
r--!.
,
u
n
,
U
f:rjfeway Yelm
lcil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
CF'uture With Project Conditions
~SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1
Intersection # 1
n
I
LJ
n
I I
U
n
LJ======~~~==~;~~==~= 1
~ 796 12.0 1
LJ-------------------
41 .0 0 \
~f--------------------
i ,
U
LOSTTIME = 3.0 sec.
{I
i
LJ
Appr Grade
11____ -----
U %
-----
n N . 0
U E . 0
S . 0
n W . 0
-----
U
04/25/98
09:12:23
L1.4] - HCM Input Worksheet
- Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
Area Location Type: NONCBD
63
.0
o
13 180
12.0 12.0
1 1
\
+
\
134 12
12 0 12 0
1 1
Key: VOLUMES -- >
I WIDTHS
v LANES
\ 111 12.0 1
.
1 \
1
672 12.0 1
/
10 12.0
North
I
-------------------
-------------------
1
Phasing
SEQUENCE
PERMSV N
OVERLP N
LEAD LAG
44
N N N
N N N
LD LD
10
o
o
% Heavy Veh. Adj.Pkg Bus Pk Hr Factor Conf.Ped Actuated Arr Type
-------------- -------
. 4 . 4 4 NO 0
8.2 8.2 8 2 NO 0
. 0 . 0 0 NO 0
3.5 3 5 3 5 NO 0
-------------- -------
RT
nSq 44
U**I**
Phase 1
n .
U / \
*
*
*>
n
. i North
LJ I
<+
+
+
n
U
G/C=
G=
Y+R=
OFF=
. 11 9
8.4"
4.0"
0%
n
u
C= 70 sec
n
u
LT peds/hr RT TH LT RT TH LT
TH
LT Loc Nm Nb
TH
RT
--------------
0 89 .89 .89
0 .89 .89 .89
0 .89 89 .89
0 .89 .89 .89
0-
0-
0-
0-
-------- --------
N N N 3 3 3
N N N 3 3 3
N N N 3 3 3
N N N 3 3 3
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 4
* *
* *
<* *
v
++++
<++++
++++
V
****
+ +>
+ +
+ +
****>
****
v
G/c= .073
G= 5 1"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=17.7%
G/c= 075
G= 5 3"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=30 7%
G/c= .504
G= 35.3"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=43.9%
G/c=
G=
Y+R=
OFF=
.000
0"
.0"
oS!-
o 0
G/c=
G=
Y+R=
OFF=
000
0"
0"
oS!-
. 0
G= 54.0 sec = 77 1% Y=16.0 sec = 22.9% ped= .0 sec =
OS!-
. 0
n
LJ
n
U
n
LJ
n
L:safeway Yelm
Vancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
rFuture With Project Conditions
U
U. SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Volume Adjustment Worksheet
~ppr Mvt Flow Lane Group No.of Lane Adj Prop.of
-Mvt Vol PHF Rate Group Flow Lanes util Flow LT RT
n -- vph vph vph vph
G~=================================================================
N-RT 63 89 71 0 0 1.00 0 00 .00
n N-TH 13 .89 15 TH+RT 86 1 1 .00 86 00 83
LJ N-LT 180 .89 202 LT 202 1 1 .00 202 1 00 .00
E-RT 111 .89
n E-TH 672 .89
U E-LT 10 .89
n S-RT 10 .89
U -TH 12 .89
_-LT 134 .89
125
755
1 1
11
13
151
04/25/98
09:12:25
RT
TH
LT
125
755
1 1
1
1
1
1 00
1 00
1 .00
125 .00 1 00
755.00 00
11 1.00 00
o
TH+RT 24
LT 1 51
o
1
1
o .00 .00
24 00 .46
151100 .00
1 .00
1 00
1 .00
n
I W-RT 41 .89 46 0 0 1 .00 0 00 .00
U W-TH 796 .89 894 TH+RT 940 1 1 .00 940 00 .05
W-LT 108 .89 121 LT 121 1 1.00 1211.00 .00
./l_____________________________________________________--------------
,
,
U
nSIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl
UAp Lane
pr Group
rich Mvmts
u--
No
Ideal of
Satfl Lns
pcphg
Ll 4] - HCM Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet
Adjustment Factors
Ajj
Sat-
fl'Jw
vphg
Lane Heavy Bus Ar Right
Width Vehs Grade Parkg Block Loc Turn
Left Adj
Turn Fact
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'l N-
U N-
TH+RT 1900
LT 1900
E-
n
I E-
U E-
1900
1900
1900
RT
TH
LT
n S-
I
LJ S-
TH+RT 1900
LT 1900
TH+RT
LT
1900
1900
n
, W-
U
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 .000
1 000
966 1.000 1.000 1 000 1.0 .993 1.000 1.00
966 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 950 1 00
1822
1744
n
LJ
1 1.000 .9961.0001.0001.0001.0 .8761.0001.00 1658
1 1.000 .9961.0001.0001.0001.01.000 .9501.00 1798
1
1
1
1 .000
1 .000
1 000
.924 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 .850 1 000 1 00
.924 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 1.000 1 00
924 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.0 1.000 .950 1.00
1493
1756
1668
1.000 1.000 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.0 931 1.000 1.00 1769
1.000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1.0 1 000 .950 1.00 1805
n
LJ
n
,
u
n
U
[l
u
n
J
'1 Safeway Yelm
LJvaneil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With projeet Conditions
n
U
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Capacity Analysis Worksheet
04/25/98
09.12: 29
n
. lAp Lane LT Adj Adj Flow Green Lane
LJpr Group Phase Flow Satfl Ratio Ratio Group
ch Mvts Type Rate Rate vis g/C Capac
)1-- vph vphg vph
u==================================================================
N- TH+RT 86 1658 .052 088 145 .593 *
If N- LT pri. 202 1798 112 134 240 .842 *
I
LJ
V/C
Ratio
v/c
Crit
Lane
Grp
RT 125 1493 .084 .518 773 .162
E- TH 755 1756 .430 518 910 .830
n E- LT Pri. 11 1668 .007 .089 149 .074
LJ------------------------------------------------------------------
S- TH+RT 24 1769 .014 .088 155 .155
n: S- LT Pri. 151 1805 .084 .134 241 .627
LJ------------------------------------------------------------------
W- TH+RT 940 1822 .516 .518 944 996 *
n W- LT Pr i. 1 21 1 744 . 069 . 089 1 56 . 776 *
LJ------------------------------------------------------------------
Cycle Length, C 70 sec Sum(v/s) = .749
Lost Time Per Cycle, L 12.0 see Xe = .905
rr
! ,
I
'u
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - HCM Level-of-Service Worksheet
Unif Delay Lane Cal Incr Lane Lan
Delay Fact Group Term Delay Group Grp Appr Appr
dl DF Capac m d2 Delay LOS Delay LOS
see/v vph sec/v see/v see/v
LJ==============================================================================
N- TH+RT .593 088 23 4 1.00 145 16 4 49 27.8 D+
n N- LT .842 .134 22 5 1.00 240 16 15.51 38.0 D
'u------------------------------------------------------------------) 35 0 D
.., RT . 1 62 . 51 8 6 . 7 1. 00 773 1 6 . 01 6 8 B +
n TH . 830 5 1 8 1 0 . 8 1 00 91 0 1 6 4 58 1 5 4 C +
U E- LT .074 089 22.2 1 00 149 16 00 22 2 C
------------------------------------------------------------------) 14 3 B
S- TH+RT .155 .088 22 5 1 00 155 16 04 22 5 C
'I S- LT .627 .134 21 8 1.00 241 16 3.54 25 3 D+
U
n
UAP
pr
ch
n
Lane
Group
Mvts
Vol
Ratio
v/e
Green
Ratio
g/C
II
u
------------------------------------------------------------------>
n W- TH+RT .996 .518 12.8 1.00 944 16 21.57 34.3 D
U W- LT .776 089 23.7 1.00 156 16 14.16 37.9 D
---------------------------------------------------------------->
n _ ..::le= 70"
U1nt Total 827 ================================================>
24.9 C
34.7 D
-----------
-----------
26.5 D+
11
U
n
U
n
U
n
U
nSafeway Yelm
Jvancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With Project Conditions
04/25/98
09 13 16
'l
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1 4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
D1ntersection Averages for Int #
\ Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.83 Vehicle Delay 26 5 Level of Service D+
'1
, 'Sq 44
U** / **
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
n
* * *
* * * ++++
*> <* * <++++
v ++++
**** v
<+ + +> ****>
+ + + ****
+ + + v
.
U / \
n
, 'North
U I
r
U
G/C= . 11 9 G/C= 073 G/C= .075 G/C= .504
G= 8 4" G= 5 . 1 " G= 5 3" G= 35.3"
Y+R= 4 0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= Og. OFF=17.7% OFF=30.7% OFF=43.9%
. 0
II
u
(I
C= 70 sec
G= 54.0 sec = 77.1% Y=16.0 sec = 22.9% ped= .0 sec =
Og.
. 0
LJ_______________________________________________________________________________
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
n Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume vlc Delay S Queue
IU____________________________________________________---------------------------
", j Approach
,
35 0
D
~1:::r~:~;I:~~;~:I::~~~:I:~~~~:I::~~~:I::~~::I:::~~:I:~i~~:I::~~:~:I:g:I:~~~:~~1
u
n
U
CJ=~=~~~~~~~~==================================================~~~:===:==========
n~___~~:::l_l~~l_l_~~~~_l_~~~~_l__~~!_l__~~~_l__~~!_l_~~~~_l__~~~~_l_~~l_~~~_~~l
u
E Approach 14.3 B
n===============================================================================
U RT 1 2/1 . 1 39 . 51 8 721 773 1 25 . 1 62 6 . 8 B + 61 f t
TH 12/1 .465 .518 859 910 755 .830 15.4 c+ 371 ft
n LT 12/1 037 .089 73 138 11 .074 22.2 C 25 ft
U-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W Approach 34.7 D
Ol"""~~:;;l"~~~~"l"~~~~"l"~~~~"l""~~~"l""~::"l""~~~"l"~~~~"l""~~~~"l:~"l"f~~"~~l
n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LJ
n
U
n
U
{1
LJ
n
u
n
,
U
(I
i
U
r
u
n
,
u
n
u
{1
'u
"
u
1\
u
11
U
~
,/C./.--Al-- FeL-
I (- , -
57 - )}2-
n
LJ
eway Yelm
nL?R 507/Bald Hill Road
~uture with Project
02/25/98
14:22'45
n
L3IGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl Ll.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
rlntersection Averages for Int #
J Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - SR 507/Bald Hill Road
.67 Vehicle Delay 14.8 Level of Service B
r3q 34
~"* / **
Phase 1
phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
(f.
U / \
* * +
* * +
<* * +>
v
++++
<****
++++
****
v
n
. North
UI
<*
++++ *
V *
+>
+
+
+>
+
+
++++>
++++
V
n
U
/)
G/C= 192
G= 1 1 . 5 "
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF= 0%
G/C= 091
G= 5 5"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=25.9%
G/C= .091
G= 5.5"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=41 7%
G/C= .359
G= 21.5"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=57 5%
LJ
C= 60 sec
G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26 7% ped=
o sec =
09,-
. 0
(I
~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/j g/C I Service Rate\ Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
~ Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
u~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n N Approach 18.2 C+
~1~==~~:;;I=~~~~=I=~g~g=I=~~gi=I==~~~=I==~i~=I===~~=I=~g~~=I==~i~~=I:~:I==~i=~~1
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
LJ
S Approach 20.3 C
~===============================================================================
ul TH+RT 112/1 I .037 I .367 I 522 I 584 I 27 I .046 I 9.3 I B+ I 25 ft I
LT 12/1 .193 .209 296 371 268 .722 21.4 *C 178 ft
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
LJ E Approach
18 6
C+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
U
RT
TH
LT
12/1
12/1
12/1
.019
.347
.061
.375
.375
.108
540
645
128
601
707
186
1 1
588
60
.018
.832
311
9.0 B+
18.8 *C+
19. 1 *C+
25 ft
308 ft
45 ft
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'1
U W Approach
10 7
B
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III
u
RT
I 12/1 I .331 I 634 I 998 I 1021 I 467 I .457 I
4.5 I A I 143 ft I
r
U
I. TH I 1 2/1 I . 323 I . 375 I 649 I 711 I 542 I . 762 I 1 5 . 9 I C + I 283 f t I
(1 LT 12/1 .010 .108 129 187 5 .026 18 2 C+ 25 ft
LJ-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r
u
fl
LJ
Il
LJ
,if
U
n
U
n
LJ
n
u
n
,
U
n
i ,
U
n
U
fl
U
n
I
I
U
,'I
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
LJ
'1
U
r
LJ
[I
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
u
'1
U
n
i
U
!1
U
n
u
n
i
U
n
I
t
LJ
n
U
n
}
U
n
t
,
u
n
U
n
u
n
LJ
,...,
u
n
u
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
-1" t-'\
Release 2 1e SOL510WP HCO
Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) Solberg street (E-W) SR 510
Major street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . .. ............. TSM
Date of Analysis.......... 2/25/98
Other Information.........Future With Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No Lanes 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 20 816 65 32 524 1 6 15 5 23 12 5 5
PHF .95 95 95 95 .95 .95 95 .95 95 .95 95 95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1 .01 1 .02 1 00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5 50
6 00
6.50
2 10
2.60
3.30
3.40
n
u
I'
U
n
U
n
U
n
u
n
i
LJ
r
,
U
11
i
LJ
n
I
l.J
r
I
I
U
n
u
r
I
U
n
u
r
u
n
u
n
u
n
LJ
n
u
n
LJ
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
Page 2
SOL510WP.HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1: RT from Minor street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
893
489
489
o 95
560
720
720
0.99
step 2: LT from Major street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows' (vph)
Potential Capacity. (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob of Queue-Free state:
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane prob
of Queue-Free State.
569
918
918
0.98
927
620
620
o 94
1700
1700
0.92
step 3: TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows' (vph)
Potential Capacity. (pcph)
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob of Queue-Free State:
1542
169
1517
174
o 89
156
0.97
o 89
151
o 97
step 4 LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows. (vph) 1514 1523
Potential Capacity (pcph) 141 139
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 86 0.87
Adjusted Impedance Factor 0.90 0.90
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.85
Movement Capacity. (pcph) 125 119
n
LJ
j1
~
n
LJ
j1
~
n
U
r
l.J
r
LJ
rr
!
LJ
j1
I
U
n
I
U
rr
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
Page 3
SOL510WP HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
NB L 16 125 >
NB T 5 156 > 215 21 . 1 0.8 D 21 . 1
NB R 24 489 >
SB L 13 119 >
SB T 5 151 > 154 27.4 0.4 D 27.4
SB R 5 720 >
EB L 21 918 4 0 0.0 A O. 1
WB L 35 620 6.2 0.0 B 0.3
Intersection Delay 1 .2 sec/veh
n
I
U
r
I
LJ
{I
lJ
n
~
n
I
LJ
n
I
U
Ii
lJ
n
I
U
n
I
U
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
U
n
LJ
n
u
n
u
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
~0
Release 2.1e 103507WP.HCO
Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) NE 103rd street (E-W) Yelm Avenue
Major street Direction . . EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. ............... . TSM
Date of Analysis.......... 2/25/98
Other Information........ .Future With Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ----
No. Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 81 936 885 44 19 43
PHF .95 95 .95 95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0 0 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 3 2 2
PCE's 1 .03 1 .02 1 .02
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5 00
5.50
6 00
6.50
2.10
2.60
3 30
3.40
n
u
{!
LJ
n
I
LJ
Jl
~
n
I
I
LJ
f1
I
LJ
[l
LJ
Il
i
LJ
[l
I
LJ
/l
I
LJ
n
LJ
n
u
n
I
U
n
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
103507WP HCO
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1: RT from Minor street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
955
454
454
0.90
step 2: LT from Major street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
978
586
586
0.85
step 4: LT from Minor street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
Adjusted Impedance Factor.
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity (pcph)
2025
71
0.85
0.85
o 85
60
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 20 60 87.5 0.9 F
32.9
SB R 46 454 8.8 0.3 B
EB L 88 586 7.2 0.5 B 0.6
Intersection Delay 1 .3 sec/veh
(l
u
/l
LJ
r'
L
r'
lJ
n
I
LJ
fl
,
u
r'
lJ
I'
I
l.J
/l
I
U
"
\
U
n
LJ
n
I
LJ
n
u
fl
U
n
u
n
LJ
n
u
n
u
n
u
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
4l'r'
YELMSAWP.HCO
Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) Site Access/Plaza Dr (E-W) SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . . . . . . . .. ....... TSM
Date of Analysis... ...... 2/20/98
Other Information .. .... .Future With-Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 90 778 60 102 651 95 20 0 76 45 0 75
PHF .93 93 .93 .93 .93 '.93 .93 .93 .93 .93 .93 93
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1 .04 08 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 00 1 .00
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2.10
2.60
3.30
3.40
(,
u
I'
L.J
r
LJ
I'
u
r'
lJ
[l
lJ
[
r""l
lJ
r'
U
,---,
~
n
L.J
I'
I
LJ
f'
I
L.J
,---,
I
U
11
L1
11
u
,---,
L.J
,---,
LJ
,---,
u
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2 1e
Page 2
YELMSAWP.HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1: RT from Minor street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Probe of Queue-Free state:
700
612
612
0.87
837
521
521
o 84
step 2: LT from Major street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Probe of Queue-Free state'
902
637
637
0.81
802
711
711
0.86
step 3 TH from Minor street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity' (pcph)
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity. (pcph)
Probe of Queue-Free state:
1846
117
1809
123
0.70
82
1 .00
0.70
86
1 .00
step 4: LT from Minor street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
Adjusted Impedance Factor'
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1785
98
1836
92
o 70
o 77
0.70
0.77
0.66
65
0.65
59
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
NB L 22 65 >
NB T 0 82 > 210 32.9 2.3 E 32 9
NB R 82 521 >
SB L 48 59 >
SB T 0 86 > 136 121 .8 5.4 F 121 .8
SB R 81 612 >
EB L 101 711 5 9 0.5 B 0.6
WB L 119 637 6.9 0.7 B 0 8
Intersection Delay 9.5 sec/veh
Il
,
LJ
Il
u
[1
i
LJ
Il
l.J
Il
LJ
Il
LJ
Il
LJ
n
u
Il
LJ
Il
LJ
Il
LJ
Il
u
Il
u
Il
u
Il
u
n
LJ
n
L.J
n
LJ
n
HEFF'RO"\ THANSPORT ~Tl01'\
LJ
Yelm Safeway Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analysis
levels of Service
Site Access
Mav 6. 1998
r
lJ
n
I
LJ
1"1
LJ
n
lJ
n
LJ
[I
u
n
LJ
n
LJ
"
lJ
"
I
LJ
n
I
11
n
u
1"1
~
11
u
11
U
n
LJ
n
u
H
u
11
LJ
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
Page 1
YELSA1WP HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) Site Access (E-W) SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Major street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. TSM
Date of Analysis.......... 2/20/98
Other Information........ .Future With-Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 30 813 123 45 671 30 30 30
PHF .93 .93 .93 93 93 93 .93 93
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0 0 0 0
CV's ( % ) 4 8 0 0
PCE's 1 .04 1 .08 1 .00 1 .00
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2.10
2.60
3.30
3.40
n
U
f'
u
i:
u
'1
LJ
~
LJ
n
U
il
LJ
(I
U
r
I
U
n
I )
U
n
u
n
U
I'
U
f'
u
n
u
r---J
u
n
Ll
n
LJ
n
u
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
Page 2
YELSA1WP.HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1: RT from Minor street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity. (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
874
499
499
0.94
722
596
596
0.95
step 2: LT from Major street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state
1006
568
568
0.91
754
750
750
0.96
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
7.7
NB R 32 499 7.7 O. 1 B
6.4
SB R 32 596 6 4 0.0 B
EB L 33 750 5.0 0.0 B 0 2
WB L 52 568 7.0 0.2 B 0.4
Intersection Delay 0.5 sec/veh
rt
~
11
LJ
r'
U
n
i
U
Il
LJ
n
u
11
U
fI
\
u
r
,
I
LJ
ri
I
i \
LJ
n
~
[1
,
LJ
rr
r
I
LJ
f'
LJ
,n
u
1'1
LJ
n
,
LJ
I)
J
Il
u
HCS' Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
Page 1
VANNSAWP.HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph' (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) North Site Access (E-W) Vancil Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst.. ..... .......... TSM
Date of Analysis.. ....... 2/25/98
Other Information........ .Future With-Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
Eastbound
L T R
Westbound
L T R
No. Lanes 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE's
<0 0 >1 0 0
o
0 > 0 < 0
1 64
9 .9
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 .00 00
o
N
N
92 1 1 5
. 9 .9 9
0
0
0
0
1 00
49
.9
o
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5 50
6.00
6.50
2 10
2.60
3.30
3 40
r
LJ
(I,
II
f'
lJ
n
, ;
u
n
I !
U
n
I .
U
n
LJ
fl
LJ
r
LJ
('
i ,
LJ
fi
U
r
LJ
c
r
J
U
11,
u
'1
u
n
L.J
n
u
n
LJ
HCS Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
VANNSAWP.HCO
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1. RT from Minor street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state:
102
1229
1229
o 94
step 2: LT from Major street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state.
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State:
103
1531
1531
0.99
1700
o 99
Step 4 LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows (vph)
Potential Capacity. (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
Adjusted Impedance Factor.
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
174
840
0.99
0.99
o 99
830
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
WB L 830 )
1221 3 1 O. 1 A 3. 1
WB R 71 1229 )
SB L 1 7 1531 2.4 0.0 A 0.6
Intersection Delay 1 . 1 sec/veh
r
i
U
c
r
U
n
U
n
I i
U
n
i
U
n
! I
U
n
I
LJ
(1
U
n
i ,
U
r-<
L
r
u
r
u
I'
~
(1,
I
u
I
LJ
n
,
u
n
LJ
n
LJ
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2. 1 e
Page 1
VANSSAWP.HCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph' (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
streets: (N-S) South Site Access (E-W) Vancil Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. TSM
Date of Analysis.......... 2/25/98
Other Information........ .Future With-Project
Two-way stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
Westbound
L T R
Eastbound
L T R
No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 30 4 1 5 35
PHF 9 9 9 9
Grade 0 0
MC's ( % ) 0
SU/RV's ( % ) 0
CV's (% ) 0
PCE's 1 .00
0 > 0 < 0
4 63
.9 .9
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 .00 1 .00
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Maneuver
Critical
Gap (tg)
Follow-up
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
Right Turn Minor Road
Through Traffic Minor Road
Left Turn Minor Road
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2 10
2 60
3.30
3.40
fI
U
n
I
U
n
u
n
U
n
u
II
LJ
rl
, \
U
(f
LJ
(I
LJ
n
I I
U
r--->
LJ
(1
LJ
rl
I
I
U
n
U
11
U
n
I
LJ
'l
u
'I
LJ
'l
U
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1e
VANSSAWP.HCO
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
step 1. RT from Minor street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity. (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
prob. of Queue-Free state:
35
1329
1329
0.95
step 2: LT from Major street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Prob. of Queue-Free state.
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
of Queue-Free state.
37
1646
1646
0.99
1700
0.99
step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
Potential Capacity (pcph)
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor.
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
Movement Capacity. (pcph)
91
938
0.99
o 99
0.99
928
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
WB L 4 928 >
1299 2 9 0.0 A 2.9
WB R 70 1329 >
SB L 17 1646 2.2 0.0 A 0.7
Intersection Delay = 1 .5 see/veh
11
u
Yelm Safewav Store and Retail Center - Traffic Impact Analvsis
n
LJ
[I
U
f\
LJ
fJ
U
nl
U
levels of Service
n
L1
Interim Vancil Road Conditions
n
U
n
I
U
n
i
LJ
n
I
U
(I
u
/1
i
u
1\
LJ
n
LJ
n
L1
n
LJ
n
u
11
HEf'fHO~ TiRANSPOHT-\TlO0i
May 6. 1998
LJ
fl
~ I q q 'l UJ /6 pIUYS~L7J
LJ ~ 61/ ~ LA-- ,J I;...- &,-J FIe:,
(I" feway Yelm
J rancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
UFuture With~Project Conditions
oul'
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
04/07/98
14:10:41
nlntersection Averages for Int #
U Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.80 Vehicle Delay 22.7 Level of Service C
-------------------------------------------------------------
:lsq 76
U** /**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
r( .
U / \
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
v
++++
<++++
8North
I
++++
**** v ++++
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
****>
****
v
n
LJ
(I
LJ
G/C=
G=
Y+R=
OFF=
.133
8.6"
4.0"
0%
G/C= .086
G= 5.6"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=19.5%
G/C= .091
G= 5.9"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=34.2%
G/C= .000
G= . 0"
Y+R= .0"
OFF=49.4%
G/C= .444
G= 28.9"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=49.4%
11
U-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
r Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
U-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C= 65 sec
G= 49 0 sec = 75 4%
Y=16.0 sec = 24.6%
ped=
.0 sec =
O~
. 0
N Approach 27.4 D+
r ______________________________________________________-------------------------
ul---~~:R~I-~~~~-I-~~~~-I-:~:g-I--~~~-I--~~~-I--:~~-I-:~~g-I--;~:~-I:g:I-~~:-~~1
r_____________________________________________________--------------------------
LJ
S Approach 20.7 C
n===============================================================================
U I LT+TH + RT I 1 2/1 I . 060 I . 1 01 I 74 I 1 21 I 34 I . 260 I 20. 7 I *C I 28 f t I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
E Approach 19.5 C+
U===============================================================================
RT 12/1 .134 .459 630 686 129 .188 7.9 B+ 66 ft
TH 1 2 / 1 . 446 . 459 7 5 1 807 7 2 5 . 898 21 . 5 C 37 1 f t
LT 1 2/1 . 022 . 1 06 1 08 1 69 1 1 . 062 1 9 . 9 C + 25 f t
/l
u
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/l
W Approach 24 3 C
U===============================================================================
n I TH+RTI12/1 I .452 I .459 I 784 I 840 I 769 I .915 I 22.9 I*C I 383 ftl
LT 12/1 .125 .106 113 178 140 .753 32.0 *0+ 115 ft
U
n
/CJqq U/bA-FIiMIA'I ~N'i ~XI5T/~4 LANE.. tfECJA-j
ItlJ / L73 @ S / If/V''.4-L-
LJ
11
lJ
feway Yelm
Cvancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With Project Conditions
04/07/98
12'34:36
n
U SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
n Intersection Averages for Int #
: I Degree of Saturation (v/c)
U
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.88 Vehicle Delay 45.4 Level of Service E+
r'u Sq 76
**/**
Phase 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
n (\
U
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
V
f1 North
U I
(I
I
LJ
G/C= .118
G= 1 2 . 4 "
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= .0%
r
U
Phase 2
++++
<++++
++++
**** v ++++
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
G/C= .185
G= 19.5"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=15.6%
****>
****
v
G/C= .076
G= 8.0"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=37.9%
G/C= .000
G= . 0"
Y+R= .0"
OFF=49.3%
G/C= .469
G= 49.2"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=49.3%
C=105 sec
G= 89.0 sec = 84.8% Y=16.0 sec = 15.2% ped= .0 sec =
0Sl-
. 0
n
G -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
r Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
U -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N Approach 51 .5 E
11 ===============================================================================
U I TH+RT\ 12/1 I .232 I .127 I 1 I 191 I 91 I .431 I 33.1 I D I 116 ftl
LT 12/1 .262 .127 1 209 208 .908 59.5 *E 265 ft
n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u
S Approach
60.0
E
n ===============================================================================
i I LT+TH+RT I 12/1 I 309 I .195 I 1 I 204 I 203 I .923 I 60.0 I*E I 238 ftl
U ______________________________________________________-------------------------
n
E Approach
u ===============================================================================
[I
RT
TH
LT
12/1
12/1
12/1
u
248
472
211
.478
.478
.085
22.1
C
607
725
1
714
840
121
130
710
1 1
104 f t
567 ft
25 ft
. 182
.845
.077
11 .9
23.8
33.6
B
C
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
W Approach
U
59.8
E
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r
u
TH + RT I 1 2/ 1 I
LT 12/1
552 I .478 I
240 .085
75~ I
872 I
128
91911.054 I
127 852
59.8 I*E I 714 ftl
59.8 *E 173 ft
"
LJ
n
U
1..0() I wi SA F ~ W<\y' ON Ly lEx /5Tt,..Je" t.A,if€- 4 EoA/(
/P(r/ LTc; ~ S/4A/'kL--
feway Yelm
OVancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With Project Conditions
04/07/98
12:40.52
n
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
OIntersection Averages for Int #
, Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.89 Vehicle Delay 44 7 Level of Service E+
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illsq 76
U**/**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
n .
LJ / \
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
v
++++
<++++
.n
LJ North
I
++++
****
v
****
++++>
++++
v
****>
****
v
<* * *>
* * *
* * *
n
LJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
('
LJ
G/C= .129 G/C= .193 G/C= .044 G/C= .004 G/C= .455
G= 14.9" G= 22.2" G= 5 1 " G= .5" G= 52.3"
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4 0"
OFF= O~ OFF=16 4% OFF=39.2% OFF=47.2% OFF=51 0%
. 0
-------------------------------------------------------------
r<
lJ_____________________________________________________--------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
o Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
LJ-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C=115 sec
G= 95.0 sec = 82.6%
Y=20.0 sec = 17.4%
Ped=
.0 sec =
O~
. 0
n N Approach
50.6
E
~1~~~~~:::I~I~~I~I~~~~~~I~~I!~~I~~~~I~I~~~~~~I~~;!~~I~~~!!~l~~~!~~~l;~~l~~~~~~~l
I
u
S Approach 56.3 E
/l===============================================================================
LJ ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 I .332 I .202 I 1 I 208 I 203 I .890 I 56.3 I*E I 259 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1
( . E Approach 28.9 D+
U ===============================================================================
RT 12/1 .283 .463 559 692 140 .202 13.9 B 126 ft
TH 12/1 494 .463 668 814 738 .907 31.6 D+ 664 ft
LT 12/1 246 .053 1 67 11 .124 39.5 *D 25 ft
(i
i
U
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'l
LJ W Approach
53.9
E
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fl
U
TH + RT I 1 2/1 I . 571 I . 502 I
LT 12/1 274 .092
79~ I
917 I
136
94711.033 I
133 .826
53.3 I*E I 768 ftl
58.0 *E 197 ft
!l
U
(l
~
20D4 W! 5A-FE.W41 o1\l"Y FE-X/sr/~ tAN€- t,.Eo7v<
(~f) '/ ~~ @ ~ 14,vAYL
O feway Yelm
1ancil Road/SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With Project Conditions
n
, I
LSIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
04/07/98
12.42:29
(l[ntersection Averages for Int #
U' /
Degree of Saturation (v c)
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.93 Vehicle Delay 54.3 Level of Service E
[l
L' Sq 76
**/**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
nu .
I / \
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
v
++++
<++++
CNorth
I
****
++++ v ****
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
****>
****
v
/l
I
U
----------~--------------------------------------------------
r
U
G/C= .124
G= 1 4 . 8 "
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= .0%
G/C= .165
G= 1 9 . 8 "
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=15.7%
G/C= .040
G= 4 8"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF=35.5%
G/C= .005
G= . 6 "
Y+R== 4.0"
OFF=42.8%
G/C= .500
G= 60 0"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=46.7%
-------------------------------------------------------------
n
U_______________________________________________________________________________
C=120 sec
G=100.0 sec = 83.3%
Y=20 0 sec = 16.7%
ped=
.0 sec =
O~
. 0
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
o Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
u-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/l N Approach 81 .6 F
LJ==================================================================================
I TH+RTI 12/1 I .281 I .132 I 1 I 193 I 91 I .416 I 37.1 I D I 132 ftl
r LT 12/1 .317 .132 1 210 247 1.042 98.0 *F 358 ft
I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1
S Approach 100 7 F
[1================================================================================
UILT+TH+RTI12/1 I .344 1.173 I 1 I 172 I 20311.0411100.7 I*F I 280 ftl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rr
(l
i E Approach 28.4 D+
U=================================================================================
RT 12/1 .301 .508 637 759 153 .202 12.3 B 132 ft
TH 12/1 .536 508 760 893 822 .920 31.2 D+ 706 ft
LT 12/1 .262 .048 1 58 11 .138 41.7 *E+ 25 ft
I
U
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!l
LJ W Approach
60.1
F
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r'l
lJ
TH+RTI12/1 I .614 I .547 I 8841 I
LT 12/1 295 .086
9981103711.039 I 53.2 I*E I 800 ftl
124 155 1.026 106.8 *F 241 ft
II
,
u
ZD 0,5"
C III SA FE-WAY O~./l-y --t ~~. ~ArJE 4E{)M
/f)O;. t.1? te f?l q,vkt..-
n ~ _feway Yelm
G Vancil Road/ SR 507 (Yelm Avenue)
Future With Project Conditions
04/07/98
12:59:27
]l
USIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] - Capacity Analysis Summary
n Intersection Averages for Int #
~ Degree of Saturation (v/c)
1 - Yelm Avenue/Vancil Road
.97 Vehicle Delay 65.5 Level of Service F
-------------------------------------------------------------
Un Sq 76
**/**
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
jl .
LJ / \
+ + *
+ + *
<+ + *>
v
++++
<++++
n
LJ North
I
****
++++ v ****
<* * *> ++++>
* * * ++++
* * * v
****>
****
v
II
I
lJ
r
U
G/C= .124
G= 1 4 9"
Y+R= 4 0"
OFF= .0%
G/C= .167
G= 20 1"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=15.7%
G/C= .038
G= 4.5"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=35.8%
G/C= .008
G= . 9 "
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=42.9%
G/C= .497
G= 59.6"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=47 0%
n
I
U-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi
r Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue
I ______________________________________________________-------------------------
U
C=120 sec
G=100.0 sec = 83.3%
Y=20 0 sec = 16.7%
ped=
.0 sec =
Og,.
. 0
fl N Approach 91 .7 F
I
~1===~~:;;I=~~;~=I=~~~g=I=~~~~=I====~=I==~~~=I==~~i=l~~~~~=I=~~~~~=I:~=I=~~~=~~I
i'
LJ
S Approach 119.6 F
1'===============================================================================
U ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 I .351 I .176 I 1 I 164 I 203 11.086 I 119.6 I*F I 279 ftl
I'
I E Approach 34.2 D
u ===============================================================================
RT 12/1 .303 .505 630 754 158 .210 12 5 B 137 ft
TH 12/1 .551 .505 752 887 856 .965 38.2 D 741 ft
LT 12/1 .262 .046 1 55 11 .143 41.8 *E+ 25 ft
n
I
U
n
, W Approach 74.7 F
U ===============================================================================
TH+RTI12/1 I 6321.5461 881 I 9961107611.080 I 68.1 I*F 1831 ftl
II LT 12/1 296 .087 1 125 161 1.059 118.9 *F 250 ft
LJ
Tod McBryan
H ~~~f~~(~
CArNY J
We WA.l\IrtD 7t; p.4~S 4lt'N~ mE .e.eSUt,T5
,,~pJGJL. bAt>
~,:. PV~A/4N/H"YSI> IN A-~VA-NC-~ ~r
~{)12.. COMpL--E~ ~.t=j:IC S7VDy.
/)Ie.. WJl-L III/CLl/bE- 71-/1> !4Jf/A4.,VS1f A-f
W t;../"L ,A-? 7J.I1Z- LD..s C-4L-L S H tE:e:7S
WI f1.I pLJ,t.. 8bV/VZJ A~~,z7: Pf..6..ASE:
CA-LL WIn! A-~ <P1/~77~#S
(z." t;.) ~7- e4/ D
f3a~
EE4,#!htJ>
7l5P A4~/2YA-/\/"
I (11 i'
4133 Interlake Avenue N Seattle, WA 98103 Ph. (206) 547-7170 Fax: (206) 727-6700
,
~ '.
H ~~~f~Q~
MEMORANDUM
Date'
Apri/15, 1998
To
Cathy Carlson, City of Yelm
Perry A, Shea, P E , SCA Engineering
From'
Mitch Johnson, Safeway, Inc.
Frank Schmidt, Tiland/Schmidt Architects
T od S McBryan, P E JAf'/
Marni C Heffron, P E
CC
Subject:
Proposed Safeway Shopping Center, Yelm, Washington
Interim Vancil Road Signal AnalysIs
As discussed at our March 17 meeting, we have prepared analyses of the Vancil Road/Yelm Avenue
intersection. Currently the Vancil Road approach at Yelm A venue is offset to the east from the QFC shopping
center driveway A traffic signal controls movements at this intersection, turns from Vancil Road and the QFC
shopping center driveway operate with split phases due to conflicting turning paths that result from the offset.
The City ofYelm plans to realign the Vancil Road approach to create a ninety-degree, four-leg intersection.
However, due to property acquisition issues, it is unclear when this realignment could occur Therefore, these
analyses were prepared to determine how long the existing channelization and signal configuration could
operate with the proposed Safe way project.
Background traffic forecasts were developed using turning movement counts performed in ] 997, a 4% annual
growth rate, and pipeline traffic estimates provided by the City ofYelm. Forecasts were prepared for years
1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005 Traffic that would be generated only by the Safeway supermarket was added to the
background forecasts for each future year It is likely that the retail portion of the shopping center would not
happen for some time. It was assumed that all traffic destined to the west on Yelm A venue would use the signal
at Vancil Road as a worst case for all analysis conditions. Level of service was calculated to determine when the
growth in background traffic would degrade intersection operations to LOS F The level of service analysis
results are summarized in Table 1 below As shown, with the Safeway supermarket, the intersection would not
degrade to LOS F until year 2005 due to growth in background traffic.
4133 Interlake Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103 . Phone (206) 547-7170 Fax (206) 547-7744
Yelm Safeway - Interim Vancil Road Signal Analysis
April 15, 1998
Page 2 of2
H n~~f~~Q~
Table 1 Level of Service Summary Future Conditions with Existing Geometry
Analysis Year/Condiiton
Existing Lane Geometry and Signal Operation
LOS' Delav2 V/C Ratio3
1999 Without Project C 22.7 0.80
1999 With Safeway Only4 E 45.4 0.88
2001 With Safeway Only4 E 44 7 0.89
2004 With Safeway Only4 E 54 3 0.93
2005 WithSafeway Only4 F 65.5 0.97
1 LOS = Level of Service
2. Delay= Average delay per vehicle in seconds
3, vie Ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio
4, Assumes all traffic from the proposed 55,910-sf Safeway supermarket destined to the west would tum left from Vancil Road.
Based on these analyses, it appears that the eXIsting lane configuration of the Vancil RoadlYelm Avenue
intersection could support the worst-case Safeway traffic through year 2004 until background traffic degrades
operations to LOS F This would allow the City ofYelm approximately six years to resolve the realignment
issues and would be consistent with concurrency requirements since jurisdictions are required to spend
developer impact fees within six years of collection.
TSM/tsm
Vancil Analysis
"
FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF YELM
PO BOX 479 - 105 YELM AVE W
YELM WA 98597
360-458-3244
FAX 360-458-4348
To: ~M ~epfrci1
Fax#:(za.) ~1-7-7 741-
From: ~(~ (!o.,rfStA-
Date: 2.- L - 1 S
Pages: 3 , rncluding this cover sheet.
Subject:
COMNffiNTS i ~
11!G V~ AfiS (O)iu~)l2cL f/t~frifJ
qfA\d'(d)~ MJc~ 615 j} -(flU ~UU~ id1OflP'~1 &-0.
1he.. fol/oull1l7 [ei/v(' frOIV\ .)LIt ffOV,d6 .~
(!)1~R.-O /114 fJ ud.- --(D 1;6 ill e.-o r p of deL-1... I Ilfo
~cwr ffoA 4- --t'~ If- fI- ff ~tJlu htLO~ tYJ
. ~d}o pIJaA01J€ ~~ * ~1fuL d
~4-6e-g4U73 o( ~<<Iy ~ €) OW) 143 ~(dXJL.
* * If you do not receIve all copIes or an . .
soon as possible Y copy IS not legIble, please call (360) 458-3244 as
ds/e: \offiee\forms\fax. 3
677 Woodland Square Lp SE
Lacey, WA 98503
P.O Box 3485
Lacey, WA 98509-:;3485
(360) 493-6002
(888) 493-6002 Toll Free
(360) 493-2476 Fax
February 2, 1998
Cathie Carlson
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
RE Proposed Safeway Shopping Center - Review Comments
of Trip Generation Study
SCA #97006-001
Dear Cathie
We have reviewed the trip generation study prepared by Heffron Transportation, dated January
19, 1998 for the proposed Safeway Shopping Center A .trip generation analysis was completed
for both the Safeway store and the adjoining retail uses The traffic consultant prepared a
thorough analysis of the trip generation and distribution characteristics of the proposed project.
The vehicle trip rates used to estimate the new traffic generation are consistent with the default
I
rates listed in the Traffic Facility Charge (TFC) ordinance. The trip generation methodology
applied to this project is acceptable with the following exceptions
. The proposed "pass-by" trip discount for the Safeway store shall not exceed 25% as
illustrated in the TFC ordinance The trip gener~tion study proposed a pass-by rate of 31%
This rate was calculated using the pass-by equation that is contained in the 5th Edition of
the ITE Trip Generation Manual This equation refers to shopping center developments and
is based on the traffic characteristics of shopping center facilities, rather than supermarket
stores The ITE mantlal does not provide sufficient data to support the higher pass-by rate
propose9 for this project. The 25% pass-by rate for this type of facility is reasonable and
appropriate for a supermarket store in the City of Y~lm
. The proposed "diverted-link" trip discount of 25% as proposed is also 'very optimistic. We
disagree that 25% of the Safeway store customers will be diverted away from the QFC
store Rather, it is expected that this facility will attract more new trips to the new store than
cap1uring from the existing market share We feel that a 10% diverted-link trip discount 'is
reasonable for this project. '
. The study area will need to be expanded to include the following intersections
1 Yelm Avenue/103 Avenue
2. Yelm Avenue/Plaza Drive
C I V I L
T RAN S P 0 R TAT ION
PLANNING
SURVEYING
Cathie Carlson
February 2, 1998
Page 2
Based on our review and comments listed above, the total trip discounts applicable for this
project will be 35% The new'-to-network trips will account for 65% of the total trip-generation
calculated for the project. Applying these rates will yield 452 PM peak hour new primary trips,
rather than the 328 trips proposed in the study The new trips will be assigned to the area
roadways and intersections in accordance with the Trip Distribution Pattern depicted in Figure 1-
of the study
,
This concludes our review of the trip generation study prepared for the proposed Safeway
project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 493-6002.
Thank you
Sincerely,
SCA Engineering
. ~:.!dJvJ
Principal
PAS/sw
(f' \text\corres\feb-98\ 70060202 .Ilr)
C I V I L
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
SURVEY1NG
-
~'if;1
ENGINEERING
~
H tt~~f\~S~~
MEMORANDUM
Date
January 19, 1998
To
Cathie Carlson, City of Yelm
From
Mitch Johnson, Safeway, Inc
Frank Schmidt, Tiland/Schmldt Architects
Marnl C Heffron, P E0
CC
Subject:
Proposed Safeway Shopping Center, Yelm, Washington
Tnp Generation AnalysIs
Safeway IS proposing to construct anew shopping center on the southwest corner of SR-507/VancilRoad in
Yelm, Washington. The new shopping center would mclude a 55,910 square foot (sf) supermarket and
approximately 19,340 sf of retail space. It is likely that the proposed project will be bUIlt m phases with the
supermarket being built first.
Tllis memorandum was prepared to determine the study area for a traffic impact analysis that wIll be prepared
for this project. In doing so, it estimates the number of tnps that will be generated by tqe project and how those
trIpS Will distribute to Yelm's roadway network. The methodology used to estimate the shoppmg center's trip
generatlon is dIfferent than the methodology preferred by the City of Yelm. The assumptions used and the
rationale for their use are also documented in this memorandum. It should be noted that although the
assumptions and methodology applied for this project are different that the City ofYelm's, the resultIng new
trips are consistent with what would have been determined if the City ofYelm's trip rates. had been applied.
Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed site was detennined using a methodology that has been applied for over 30
Safeway stores in Washington and Alaska. The methodology IS tailored for each site to account for slte-sp~cific
conditions such as traffic volumes passing the site and the number and location of competitive stores. The
methodology acknowledges that new supermarkets must "capture" customers who are currently shoppmg at
other stores or who would drive by the site on a regular basis. It is not reasonable to assume that a new
supermarket would survive if the majority of its customers would need to be "new" to an area.
For tlris reason the trip generation IS separated into three components
. Pass-by Trips are tnps that are already on the roadway network on the way to another destmatlon. For
example, a trip to the supermarket made on a trIp home from work would be considered a pass-by tnp
4133 Interlake Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone (206) 547-7170 Fax (206) 547 -77 44
Yelm Safeway - Trip Generation Analysis
January 19, 1998
Page 2 of 5
H tH~I;:~~~~~
· Diverted (Intercepted) Trips are trips that, if not made to this supermarket, would be made to another
supermarket. For example, this project IS expected to "capture" a percentage of the customers who now
shop at the QFC across the street. These customers would be "diverted" to the new Safeway store.
· New (primary) Trips are single purpose trips generated by the supermarket. New trIpS are generally
assumed to begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work or other locations.
These three trip components make up the total driveway trip generation. The methodology used for this site
detennined the total dnveway tnps first. This is done by applying national rates to the size of the facIlIty Then
the driveway trips are separated into the three components based on the characteristIcs of the area. Each of these
steps is described in the subsequent sections.
Dnveway Tnp Generation
A study entitled Montgomery Countv Trip Generation Studv (Douglas & Douglas, 1989), was conducted to
examllle the trip generating characteristics of shopping centers that include supermarkets. It concluded tlIat
ShOpplllg centers witlI supermarkets have higher trip generation rates than those WIthout supermarkets. Tlus
study recommended that the trip generation for shopping centers with supermarkets be calculated uSlllg a
comblllation of rates for both land uses. The methodology was applied for this study
Tnp generation was determined using rates for "ShOpplllg Centers" (Land Use Code 820) and "Supermarkets"
(Land Use Code 850) from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 5th EdItIOn, 1991)
Supermarket trip rates were applied directly to proposed Safeway store A per-square-foot trip generdtlOn rate
was calculated for the other retail space using the total size of the shopping center, lllcluding the supermarket.
ThIS methodology results in a higher overall trip generation rate thaJ;! would result by applying shopping center
rates alone. Since the proposed retail Rortions are being developed speculatively (Safeway does not currently
.know who the retail tenants will be) and because'the "shopping center" rates inherently assume a broad mix of
retail and restaurant uses, the specific use of each retail pad is not needed to calculate trIp generation.
Total driveway trIpS for the proposed shopping center are summarized in Table 1 The proposed prOJect would
generate 8,400 driveway trips per day and 711 driveway trips during the PM peak hour
Table 1 Trip Generation Summary - Total Driveway Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Land Use Size (sf) Daily Trips In Out Total
Proposed Supermarket1 55,910 7,020 295 283 578
ProposedRetailStores2 19,338 1,500 70 70 140
Total }4,338 8,520 365 353 718
1 Tnp generation rate from "Supermarket" rates in ITE's Trip Generation (5th Edt/Ion, 1991 LV 850)
2. Trip rate calculated from 'Shopping Center" rates in ITE's Trip.Generation (LU 820]' for total center size of 71150-s(
Yelm Safeway - Tnp Generation Analysis
January 19, 1998
Page 3 of 5
H ~.~~f~~Q~
Tnp Components
As previously mention, there are three types of trips-new, pass-by, and diverted tnps-which reflect the traffic
impact characteristics of retail developments. The fraction of driveway trips that is attributed to each of the
above components depends on the size, type, and location of the proposed project as well as the location of
other similar facilities.
The percentage of pass-by trips for the proposed Safeway was deterrhined from the lTE pass-by trip equation ill
Trip Generation, which relates the percentage of pass-by trips to the average daily traffic (ADT) on an adjacent
street. Although this equation refers to shopping center uses, many of the small shopping center (less than 150000
sf) in this database likely include supermarkets. Based on Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) traffic counts along SR -507 near Bald Hill Road, an estlInated 31 percent of the proJect-generated
dnveway trips would be pass-by trips. Given that Yelm provides most of the services for residents who live east of
the City, and that many of those residences are located a long distance away, it is reasonable to assume that many
customers would shop on the way home from work or school since it would save time. Therefore, the 31 percent
pass-by tnp rate is reasonable for the Safeway For the small amount of retail space on the Site, the pass-by rate was
assumed to be 45 percent. This rate was based on the City ofYelm's Trip Generation Rate Default l alues
presented in its Concurrency Management Ordinance (15 40)
The proposed Safeway store is also expected to attract customers from other grocery stores m the site vicimty,
particularly the QFC across the street. For this analysis, it IS assumed that 25 percent of Safeway's customers
would be diverted away from other grocery stores. This rate IS reasonable given actual post-opening expenence
at other shopping centers that have opened on the fringe of suburban development. A trip characteristic survey
of a shopping center in the Lake Meridian area of Kent (at the comer of SR-515/SR-516) was perfonned about
one year after the center opened. That survey showed that 45 percent of the peak hour trips to the shoppmg
center were intercepted from traveling furtl1er west into Kent to shop (Lake Meridian Marketplace Origin and
Destination Survey, The TRANSPO Group, September 5,1991) None of the trips to the project's retail element
were assumed to be diverted trips.
The remaining 44 percent of Safewat s trips and 55 percent of the retail trips would be considered new to study
area roadways and mtersections. The proposed project would result in 3,915 new trips per <;lay and 328 new
trips during the PM peak hour Table 2 summarizes the net increase in driveway tnps and the trip components
for the proposed project.
Yelm Safeway - Trip Generation Analysis
January 19, 1998
Page 4 of 5
H tll~~~:~~~
Table 2 Trip Components
PM Peak Hour Trips
Trip Component Percent Trips Daily Trips In Out Total
Safeway Store 55;910 sf
Pass-by Trips 31% 2,175 90 90 180
Diverted Trips 25% 1,755 75 71 146
New (Primary) Trips 44% 3.090 130 122 252
Total Safeway Trips 100% 7,020 295 283 578
Retail Stores 19,338 sf
Pass-by Trips 45% 675 32 32 64
Diverted Trips 0% 0 0 0 0
New (Primary) Trips 55% 825 38 38 76
Total Retail Trios 100% 1,500 7() 70 140
Total Shopping Center 75,248 sf
Pass-by Trips 33.5% 2,850 122 122 244
Diverted Trips 205% 1,755 75 71 146
New (Primary) Trips 46,0% 3.915 168 160 328
Total Trips 100 0% 8,520 365 363 718
The tnp generation determined for the overall shoppmg center IS consistent with what would have been
detenillned usmg the City of Yelm's Trip Generation Rate Default Values fQr a shopping center of this size
The City of Yelm' s PM peak hour trip rate for a shopping center between 50 000 and 99 999-sf In size is 7.28
trIpS per 1,000 sf. The new trip rate is 55 percent. Applying these rates to the total 74,338-sf shopping center
would result in 301 new PM peak hour trips. In contrast, the methodology used above determined the new trips
to be 328 Therefore, the methodology used for this site is reasonable.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
A trip distribution pattern had been developed for a previously proposed development on the same SIte. The
City of Yelm had approved this trip distribution pattern and stated that it was still reasonable for the proposed
Safeway project. Figure 1 shows the trip distribution pattern.
The new project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on this distribution pattern. This assignment was
used to determine the study area for the traffic impact analYSIS. The diverted trips and pass-by trips wouldpnmanly
affect operations at the site driveway and were assigned separately Figure 2 shows the new-trip assignment.
Yelm Safeway - Trip Generation Analysis
January 19 1998
Page 5 of 5
H tH~t:f~~,~
Study Area
The City ofYelm's guidelines state that the study area for a new development should include intersectIOns
Impacted by 20 or more peak direction PM peak hour trips. Based on the traffic assignment, the study area for the
traffic Impact analysis should include the following intersections
. SR - 507 IV ancil Road
. SR-507/Bald Hill Road
. SR-507/SR-51O/1st Street
. SR-51OlEdwards Street (or Solberg Street)
Next Steps
After City of Yelm approves the trip generation values and the study area, a full traffic impact analysis will be
prepared. This will include documentation of the eXlstmg roadway and traffic conditions, and analysis of the
project's impact.
Please call Tod S. McBryan at (206) 547-8410 or Marui Heffron at (206) 547-7170 if you have any questions or
comments.
MCH/mch
Attachments.
Trip Distribution Pattern
Trip Assignment
c}
Q;-(j
Q)~
00,%0
c}
~0
:$-%
0~'/ 40
<<;
LEGEND
XX% PERCENT SITE TRAFFIC
1 04 TH
~
,-
,-
:::0
o
HEFFRON
TRANSPORTATION
Source; S. Chamberlain & Associates
Figure 1
Trip Distribution Pattern
Yelm Safeway
0'
~0
<<:;0
c,0,%0
0'
~c,
~/.
O~/4o
LEGEND
XX7. PERCENT SITE TRAFFIC
2% 103RD ST
-
0
;:;0
r<1
r<1
^
()1 <~\~
~
'\ 04TH \ 20% (S07
0
~ )>
z
:;Q 0
~ ^ r
r ;:;0 :;Q
r 0 OJ
Al ~~
0 ~
0
1 09TH ----.-J I :;Q ~
:;Q 10% <.
PROJECT (f) .f'&
;:;0
SITE 0
6%
Source: S, Chamberlain & Associates
Yelm Safeway
Figure 1
Trip Distribution Pattern
HEFFRON
TRAN SJPOJRTATli ON