The URL can be used to link to this page

Approved_TIA.pdfFi: -�spa" ra r Its Transportaflion �rnpact,Analys�s CHCSlC CLINIC May 2013 Prepared for: Abbott Construction May 2013 Prepared by� I'l 730 118" AVellUe NE, Suite 600 KirWand, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-8 1-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www,transpogroup,c!om 12270.00 (D 20,13 Transpo Group CIICSC Clinic Executive Summary ............................ -_..._.................. --.---.....~_.~...._~.~.............~...~U ............. Project —.................... ........ ..._....................................... —._.._..-.........1 Existing & Condith»ms..__.................--_—___—..-..~~..._......4 Roadway . ....... ........... 4 Planned Improvements ...... .......~..........................—...—._................. .......... 4 Traffic Vulu�neo..—............. _.......-.._.._...-...—..____........ ____ .................. 5 Traffic Operations...............,. ............. 8 Traffic .................. --............. 8 Project Ummpacts, ............~__.._—___—_--__—_--_---___—__.~................ _10 Trip....... -_........._................... —........... 10 Trip Distribution & ....... .............. .... 1O Traffic Operations _..—..—_—._...._....... —............. .....--..—..----_---........ 13 Traffic Kd)d0odhmmFee .—._........ —_........... _....... ..._...--.—.................... ................. 13 Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS De5midmme Appendix C: LOS Worksheets AppendixD� Trip Generation Study Figure 1, Site ........................__-._...-._.2 Figure 2. Site, Plan._~. ..... ..~......_..............-..~.....~............—._....... —.3 Figure 3. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Voonmea................-..—._.—....- 6 Figure 4, Future (2015) Without -Project Weekday PIM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,, 7 Figure 5. Weekday PMPeak Hour Project Trip Distribution and Trip Aosignmemt--.-11 Figure 6, Future (2015), With -Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............. 12 IMM Table 1. Study Area Existing ...4 Table 2. Bda§ng & Future Without -Project Weekday PM Peak, Hour LOS Sunnmary....8 Table 3. Study Intersection Collision Data —._..~-...... Table 4. Trip Generation Summary .......................... —._...... ............. ........ ....._....1O Table 5. Fo,tureWithout and WWth-PrmectWeekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary.,..- "13 Transportation Impact AnMysis CHCSC Clinic May 2013 Executive Summary, This section provides an executive summary of the Final Transportation Impact Analysis through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where lsihLapiect hacaked'' The proposed project is located north of SW 234th Street on the west side of Highway 99, adjacent to the existing Les Schwab, It is anticipated the project will be constructed and occupied by the end of 2015. What is the Droect land use and trip generation? The development includes the construction of an approximately 25,000 sf CHCS C clinic, The proposed project is expected to generate 70 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. All of the study Intersections are currently operating at LOS C or better during the weekday PM peak hour. With the increase in traffic due to background growth, all Study Intersections continue to operate at LOS C or better during without -project conditions in the project horizon year. Would the Prolect have any trans1oao2!r3t-afion Impacts? With the additional traffic generated by the project, all of the study' intersections and site access driveways would operate at LOS D or better during the weekday PM peak hour. fly R-10-for"MrM The preliminary Impact fee for the development is anticipated to be $76,856 ns r, kJI � Transportation Impact Analysis CHCSC Clinic May 2013 .. ... ... ...... . Introduction This report summarizes the results of the transportation impact analysis prepared for 0 -le proposed CHCSC, Clinic, in Edmonds, WA, The purpose of this analysis is to identify any potential transportation -related impacts the proposed project would have on the roadway network in the site vicinity, The proposed project is located north of SW 234th Street on the west side of Highway 99 in Edmonds, A. The report is divided into the three main sections described below: Existing & Future Without -Project Conditions documents current and future without project traffic conditions within the study area. Existing levels of service at study intersections are calculated based on existing intersection geometry and traffic Volumes, The future without -project operations analyses includes any planned roadway improvements, increases in traffic volumes resulting from background growth, and other planned developments in the project site vicinity that have received City approval, This section also includes descriptions of traffic safety, transit, service, and non -motorized facilities within the study area. Project Impacts documents the impact of the proposed project relative to I'LitUre with OUt-project conditions. This section also documents any mitigation measures that are necessary to offset identified transportation impacts. 0 Summary documents the overall conclusions of the analysis. The proposed project is, located north of SW 234th Street on the west side of Highway 99, adjacent to the existing Les Schwab, The site vicinity is illustrated in Figure 1, The development includes the construction of an approximately 2 ,000 sf CHCS C clinic. Access to the site would be provided via two driveways on Highway '99, A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. Study Approach Through the scoping process with the City of Edmonds, three off-site study intersections, were identified for analysis during the weekday PM peak hour, The study intersections include, 1, Highway 99 / SW 224th Street 2, Highway 99 / SW 228th Street 3, Highway 99 / SW 238th Street The intersection of Highway 99 / SW 228th Street will be signalized in, the near future and analysis at this location is limited to future without and with -project conditions, An analysis of this intersection is limited to future conditions only due to the change in travel patterns associated with the construction of the fourth leg and future signalization, Analysis of the site access driveways was also completed taking into consideration the driveway access points to Pacific Park apartments located across from the proposed access driveways. Page 1 A N NOTTO SCALE MA 1202270,00 - CHCSC Traffic S&udy1Gr4ip)hico812270-gr,,ipl)ic0I <She Vldnily> step hanieg 02101113 M02 Cill 1 (Irt r a nSPOGR UP 40 N NOT TO SWALE CH'CSC MAUU2270,00- CHCSC qraphld I <SRePhn>steph,9Meg M01113 1f 01 mKilm 'TtranSPOGROUP 2 Transportation Impact Analysis CHCSC Clinic May 2013 .... .... ... . . .... ... .. . .... Existing & Future With o ut-P ritions The following section describes existing conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project, including the surrounding roadway network, weekday PM peak hour traffic volurnes, intersection operations, and traffic safety at study intersections. TWs section also summarizes transit service, and non -motorized facilities in the surrounding area, zv =wmklm "10M Table I describes the existing roadway charactedstics in the proposed project vicinity. Table 1 Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary As documented in the City's Capital Facilities Plan (2012 — 2017), the City, has plans to extend SW228th Street from Highway 99 to 76th Avenue W and signalize the intersection of Highway 99 / SW 228th Street. These improvements are anticipated to be completed by 2015 and have been incorporated into the future analysis. Page 4 Wtranspo('�Iioul) Number of Posted' Travel Sidewalks Bicycle Roadway Arterial Classification Speed Limit Lanes TWLTL Parking? ? Facilities? I fighwiy 99 Principal Arterial 45 niph 7 Yes No Yes No SW 224th Street Local Street 25 mph 2 No No Yes' No SW 228th Street Minor Arterial 25 mph 2 No Yes' Yes' Yes' SW 238fli Street Minor Arterial 30 rnph 2 No No Yes No 1, Sast of Hqhwav 99. As documented in the City's Capital Facilities Plan (2012 — 2017), the City, has plans to extend SW228th Street from Highway 99 to 76th Avenue W and signalize the intersection of Highway 99 / SW 228th Street. These improvements are anticipated to be completed by 2015 and have been incorporated into the future analysis. Page 4 Wtranspo('�Iioul) Transportation Impact Analysis Cl1csc Clinic "MmaTrol May 2013 Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were collected in January 2013, Figure 3 illustrates the existing weekday PM peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections and the driveways, located across frorn the proposed site access driveways, Detailed count worksheets are included in Appendix A. Future 2015 without -project traffic volumes were estimated by increasing existing traffic Volumes by an average annual growth rate of 2.0 percent. Review of WSIDOT counts along Highway 99 show that over the last 5 to 8 years overall growth has decreased, although recent counts, show traffic Volumes are starting to increase. The use of a 2.0 percent growth rate is considered conservative. No pipeline projects were identified by City staff to include in this study. 2010 traffic forecasts at the intersection of Highway 99 / SW 224th Street were provided by City staff based on shifts associated with the extension of SW 224th Street. The forecasts were adjusted to reflect future 2015 conditions, Figure 4 illustrates future without -project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections, Page 5 0 HVVY99 224FHSTREErSW WY 99 T23H8THSIREErSW WY 99 OA HrE ACCESS N HWY 9 WE 9ACCESS S 1,1135 45 90 1 5 I U4 20 )�, 55 870 30 75 j I L 135) w 1,115 5 I 15 1,120 20 10 50- -80 35 40 M 25 1,525 20- 25 14 0 30 165 25 1,310 5 5 25 155 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE CHCSC 3 IT (anSPOGROUP HWY99 HWY 99 2) KVN 99 HWY 99 HWY 99 OB 2414TH SIRE ET Sw 238TH STREET SW 228TH STREP SW SITE ACCESS N SITEACCESSS 1,075 45 uuu9rr30 905 Bn 1220 1,160 I s 1,165 20 20) Cis 140) k, 10 40 16 is Io 50— —85 35 20— —25 145 30 60- 4 56 j-5 r(40 � r" I 25 190 25 1,v585 1,585 190 25 1,366 7� 12 I6ld5 5, 1,525 25 1,516 Future (2015) Without -Project, Weekday PM i Peak Hour Traffic Vol umeS FIGURE CHCSC Illyrtramr)OGROUP 4 Transportation Impact Atialysls CHCSC Clinic May 2013 The operational characteristics of an intersection are evaluated by determining the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole, and its individual turning movements, can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A to F). LOS A indicates free-flow traffic and LOS F indicates extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported for the intersection as a whole at signalized intersections. Control delay is defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, qUeLAe move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay, At two-way stop -controlled intersections,, LOS is measured in average stopped delay per vehicles for the worst movement of the intersection. A more deta,ile!d explanation of LOS is, provided inAppendix B. Existing and future without -project levels of service, delays, and volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios were calculated at study intersections based on the methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity, Manual. The software program Synchro 8 was used to evaluate intersection operations, For signalized and unsignalized intersections HCM 2000 was, used to report traffic operations. Signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis Utilized the HICM 2000 methodologies. At the signalized study intersections, the signal timing and phasing information was obtained from the City of Lynnwood, who operates, the signals for WSDOT and the City of Edmonds, and was used to evaluate intersection LOS and delay. Table 2 shows the results of the weekday PM peak hour level of service calculations, for existing and without project conditions. Signal timing was held constant between existing and without project conditions, Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 2. Existing & Future Without -Project Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Existing 2015 Without -Project Intersection DelayVIC'oLOW' S Delay VAC or WM Highway 991 SW 224th Street B 16 0,63 B 13 0,66 Highway 99 1 SW 228th Street C 26 0.67 Highway 991 SW 2381h Street 6 '15 0,73 B 16 0,75 1 Level of service, based on 2.000 Hghway Caparafty Manual methodology, 2. Average detay in seconds per, vehicle. 3. v/C = Volume -to -Capacity ratio, 4, Worst Movemrit reporWd forside-strpo stop -controlled Intersections. As shown in Table 2, all of the study intersections operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM peak hour for both existing and future without -project conditions. Overall intersection delay is reduced due to, the increase in traffic volumes for the northbound through movement. This movement has limited delay do to the significant amount of green time for this movement, resulting in an overall decrease in intersection delay. It should be noted that the v/c ratio increases, reflecting growth in traffic volumes. Collision records were reviewed within the study area, to, document existing traffic safety issues. The most recent surnmary of collision data from WSDOT Is for the three-year period between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 20M A historical review of the frequency of collisions was conducted at study intersections,. A summary of the collisions at eacii Study intersection is provided in Table 3, Page 8 transpoc,."-,o,)P, 1'ransportation hpact Analysis CHCSC Cflnic May 2013 Table 3. Study Intersection Collision Dato Summary As shown in Table 3, average collision range between approximately 3 and 11 collisions per year at the study intersections. The majority of collisions involved rear end collisions, resulting from vehicles following to Closely. M rates range from 0.20 to 0.97 collisions per MEV. Typically, intersections operating below 1,0 are not considered significant. The project site is well served by transit with bus rapid transit provided by Community Transit, with a bus stop located adjacent to the: site, The "Swift" bus operates every 12 minutes between &00 AM and 7:00 PM and every 20 minutes on weekdays from 5.00 AM to 6:00 AM, weeknights, and on Saturdays, The buses do not run on Sundays or major holidays, LPage ITIL(anspo . . . .. . Cir. tuber of Reported Collisions CoWsions Intersection 2009 2010 2011 Total Yearly Average per MEV Highway 991 SW 224th Street 9 12 13 34 1113 0.97 Highway 99 d SW 228th Street 1 4 3 8 2,67 0,20 fIghway 991'' w 238th Street 6 6 11 23 7.67 0,74 1, MEG =MHflmEnIeAnqVeWdes. As shown in Table 3, average collision range between approximately 3 and 11 collisions per year at the study intersections. The majority of collisions involved rear end collisions, resulting from vehicles following to Closely. M rates range from 0.20 to 0.97 collisions per MEV. Typically, intersections operating below 1,0 are not considered significant. The project site is well served by transit with bus rapid transit provided by Community Transit, with a bus stop located adjacent to the: site, The "Swift" bus operates every 12 minutes between &00 AM and 7:00 PM and every 20 minutes on weekdays from 5.00 AM to 6:00 AM, weeknights, and on Saturdays, The buses do not run on Sundays or major holidays, LPage ITIL(anspo . . . .. . Transportation Impact Analysis CHC SC Clinic May 20113, .. . . ....... . .. .... . Project Impacts This section of the report documents project -generated irnpacts, within the Study area, First, peak hour traffic volumes are estimated, distributed, and assigned to adjacent roadways and intersections, within the study area. Next, 2015 volumes are projected and the potential impact to traffic volumes, traffic operations, safety, non -motorized facilities, and transit are identified. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation provides trip generation rates for LU #720 Medical Office Building, which includes a wide variety of medicalproviders studied across the nation from the mid 1970s. The results of these studies are riot consistent with the experience CHCSC has at their local clinics or other clinics of this type, Their clinics tend to have less vehicular traffic as patients tend to have a higher use of transit. For this reason a trip generation Study of similar clinics was completed to determine an independent trip rate for the development. A memorandum was, prepared detailing the trip generation Study and is, included in Appendix D, The study showed that similar clinics average trip rates approximately 22 percent below ITE, 2.79 trips per 1,000 sf versus 3.57 trips per 1,000 sf. Table 4 shows the resulting weekday PM peak hour vehicle trip generation for the proposed development, Table 4, Trip Generation Summary Weekday PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate In Out Total Medical OfficelO, inic 25,000 si 2,79' 32 318 70 1. Trip rate based on specific trip eerier tion sludy (see Appendix Di. As shown in Table 4, the proposed project is, expected to generate 70 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. I 11111111111111 � Bill 11111 111 ;1111111111111 1 . . . . . . . . . . . The weekday PM peak hour vehicular trips associated with the project were distributed to the roadway network based on existing turning movement counts and anticipated travel patterns toifrorn the development, Trips generated by the project are assigned to the roadway network and are shown in Figure 51, The resulting trip assignment is also included in Figure 5. Site -generated weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to future without -project volumes at study intersections. The resulting future with -project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 6, A1,7111 � Page 10 ii"Ar t r a nSP01,3R0,Jl I HWY99 224THSrREETSW MY 99 238T 1-1 SIR E E If SW HV899 2281H Sl REE r SW HVN 99 SITE ACCESS N HWYO OB SITE ACCESS S 20 11 0 q 19 0 7 o 0— 0 0 0 0) 0 x, 0 0 0 fl 0 rl 12 0 0 17 0 0 0 19 0 0 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution and Assignment FIGURE CHCSC "ArtranSPOGROUP 5 HvVyw 224rHSl'REElSW HWY 99 238TH STREET SIN HWY 99 228TH STREET SIN HWY 99 SITE ACCESS N )HWY 99 SUE ACCESS S 1.085 45 95 U, J I U 925 32' 81 ' L U31 100J270, � 11160 13 6 J I1 L M76 20 �_ 55 ) 511 — —85 36) 141 ) k� 11 20— 25 30 145 apo 40J 10 60— 105 46 56 8 it, it f-5 7) 10 12) 5 'n.1 5 1 N �25 191 26 1.597 WO 26 1,382 75 121 1639 0 5 1,532 19 m Future (201 5) With -Project Weekday PM Peak Hour, Traffic VolS FIGURE CHCSC LranSPOGROUP Transportation Impact Analysis CHCSC Clinic F IF, i I 1!;1!1I III III I May 2013 Traffic operations at the study intersections were evaluated for future with -project conditions and then compared to future without -project conditions to identify project -related impacts. The signal timing parameters used In the future without -project analysis were maintained during the with -project analysis to show the incremental impacts, of project traffic. The intersection LOS for the future with -project scenario is shown in Table 5, Without -project LOS is shown for comparison purposes. Detailed! LOS worksheets for the analysis are included in Appendix C. Table 5. Future Without and With -Project Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary 2015 Without -Project 2015 With -Project Intersection LOS' Delay' VIC' or WMA " LOS Delay VIC or WN f fighway 991 SW 2241h Street IB 13 0,66 8 13 0,67 Highway 991 SW 228th Street C 26 O.67 C 26 0.67 Highway 99 1SW 238th Street 8 16 0.75 B 15 01,74 Highway 99 / Norih Site Access C 18 WB C 22 WB Highway 99 / Sokith Site Access C 20 WB D 251 WB 1, Leveed of service, based on 2000 Highway Capadiy Manual rnethodology. 2, Average delay In seconds her vehicle. �3, wC=VolurnetoCapacIityratio, 4, WON Moverneni repoded for:side-slreel. stq-conftofled Intersections, As shown in Table 5, all study intersections Would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM peak hour with the addition of project traffic, with the exception of the southern site access driveway, which degrades to LOS D at the westbound approach (driveway to Pacific Park apartments). A review of the eastbound approaches at the site driveways show that both approaches operate at LOS C during with -project conditions. At the request of City staff, an additional analysis was completed to evaluate the future 2025 with -project LOS at the driveway access points. This analysis shows that the LOS at the two driveway approaches is anticipated to operate at LOS D during 2025 with -project conditions. I "r i I F I F5 F i The City of Edmonds collects traffic impact fees to assist In funding transportation infrastructure projects. Based on the City of Edmonds fee schedule for a medical office land use, the 25,000 sf building would be required to pay a fee of $95',250 ($3,81 x 25,000). Based on the trip generation study completed for Similar developments, the rate associated with the clinic will be used for calculating the mitigation fee. Assuming a reduced trip rate of 2.79 from the trip generation study, 25 percent pass -by, and a trip length factor of 1 .40, the new impact fee payment to the City of Edmonds would be $76,856 (2,79 tripsftf x 75% x 1,40 x 25,000 ksf x $1,049.41 per trip)/1000,'This estimate is preliminary and its subject to review and approval by the City of Edmonds, 11,��11'11 F Page 13 ran Transportation Impact Analysis CHCSC Clinic May 2013 The proposed project is located north of SW 234th Street on the west side of Highway 99, adjacent to the existing Les Schwab, The development includes the construction of an approximately 25,000 sf CHCSC clinic, Access to the site is proposed via two site driveways located at the northern and southern property fines. 0 The proposed project is expected to generate 70 trips during the weekday PM peak hour using rates coilected through a comprehensive trip generation study, 0 With the addition of project traffic, all of the study intersections and site access points operate at LOS D or better during the weekday PM peak hour. a The proposed development would not have a significant impact on transit service nor non -motorized facilities in the surrounding area. 0 No specific cuff -site m,itigation measures are required to reduce/offset potential site - generated traffic impacts. 0 The preliminary impact fee for the development is anUcipated to be $76,856. Frallspo( 31'-�(X'fl Page '14 '/ 11 rU OArA QArHZR1N0 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 P,M PEAK HOUR- 4:15 P1,11 Tlk 5,15 PRI HV Heavy Vehicles PH F Peak Hour Factor Peds = 0 7 i 16 5 U -T rn 0 , .0) 0 1 16 + 0 1 17 0 U -Turns � M 1 17 ........... Edmonds, WA a74flMFZF,0NW 0 � 6 U -Turns INTERSECTION COUNTED BYCN DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 1/3,1/13 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4;00 - 6:00 PM REDUCTION DATE: Thu. 1/31/13 WEATHER: Overcast w .1 ww HV Heavy Vehicles PH F Peak Hour Factor Peds = 0 7 i 16 5 U -T rn 0 , .0) 0 1 16 + 0 1 17 0 U -Turns � M 1 17 ........... Edmonds, WA a74flMFZF,0NW 0 � 6 U -Turns INTERSECTION COUNTED BYCN DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 1/3,1/13 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4;00 - 6:00 PM REDUCTION DATE: Thu. 1/31/13 WEATHER: Overcast w .1 71)r((,,.�,..A rA 93A r"MRWO INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: MELknay AqLap0mogy— DATE OF COUNTThu. U31113 COUNTED BY: C:N Edm0q.dp ,gA TIME OF COUNT4:00- 6:4OPM W'EAIIIER:: Overcast PHP -Peak Hour Faoor 4iOO -6:00 PM PEAK FIOURk I 4t1 5 PM REDUCED BY' CN DATE OF REDUCTIOW WV2013 LOCATIOW DATE OF COUNT: Wq;d, 1123113--l-11 COUNTED BY: CN 9- 10M TIME OF COUNT� 4�00 - &00 PM WEATHER� R�Inv PHF - Pook Hour Factor 4:00 -6= PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM . fo-6�.o =PPA REDUCED BY: CN QATF OF REDUCTQN; 112.V21) t I Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel firne, Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay, per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a COMPIeX Measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows, LOS criteria for :signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000), Table ll� Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay General IDescrlfation. Level of Service (SecIvell) (Signalized lntersectionsl A �'l 0 Free Flow B >10 - 20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 - 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >3�5 - 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceedIng) E >55 - 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >80 Forced flow (ornmed) I sourfe. Miqhway Capacity Mamjar' 'T ransportaflon Research Board, Spec iM Report 209, 2000, Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all - way stop-controiled and two-way stop -controlled'. All -way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much, like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two- way, stop -controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather then its performance overall, For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop -controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind,, total, average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop -controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion, Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all -way and two-way, stop -controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignahzed Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 0-10 x•10- 15 >15 - 25 D >25-35 >35 - 50 F >50 ansportafion ,,(aaArce:H�r)hwayCapacilyMaaita�jr,Trarisport,at�ooi i esearch Board, SpedW Report 209, 201000 HCM Signalized Intersection CHC'SC 5M pm 1/23013 2013 Existing Synchro 8 Report. Page 1 Lane Configurations olume(vph) 20 50 35 40 80 55 5 165, 1525 :25 5`90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 total Lost tirde;(s) ,5 5.5 &5 5.5 5,5 ,5 6.5 ' 5,5 Lane LNt11. Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,69 1.00 0,95 1,00 1.00 art 1.00 0,65 1.,00 0;85 1,00 1,00 0.,85 1,110 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.98 1000 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 atd, Flow (prat) 1866 1599 1850 1699 17M 6569 1563 1770 Flt Permitted 0.75 1,00 6.85 1.00 0.23 1.69 1,99 9,11 8atd,'Flow (permi 1420 1599 1598 1599 428 3539 , 1563 206 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0,95 0.9.5 0.95 0.95 0.95 095 995 9.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 53 37 42 64 58 5 105' 1605 26 5 9 R1"CR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 52 0 0 0 7 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 74 4 0 126 ` 6 _ 01 200 1695 19 0 100 Heavy "vehicles 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% % 2% Turn Type Perm SNA Perm Perm NA Herrn Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perri pmi+pl Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 4 6. 81 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green„ C (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6' %8 115.7' 107.5 197'.5 115..7 Pffecttwe Creed, g () 16,8 16.8 16,8 %8 115.7 107.5 107.5 115,E Actuated g/C Ratio 011 6.11 0,11 0 11 0,77 012 032 0.77 Clearance "firma (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5,5 6.' 6,5 5 Vehicle Extension 3,0 3.0 3,0 3.0 2.0 3.5 15 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 179 178 179 , 403 2536 1134 244 v/s Ratio Prot c0 03 c0,45 0.02. v1s Ratio Perms 0,05 0.00 00.08 0.00 0,36' Mill 0.29 v/c Ratio 0,47 0.02 031 0.04 0.50 0,63 0.020.41 Uniform Delay,;d1 62.4 59,3 ` 64.2' 59,4 5.4` 11.0 ' 6.1. _ .1 Progression Factor 100 1.00 1100 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 ,1 0,1 12.1 0."1 0,4 1.2 ;. 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 64,5 59.3 76,3 59.5 5,8 12.2 6.1. 9.5 'Lev , el of Service F F F F a B; a Approach Delay (s) 62.8 710 11.4 Approach LOS F , r u, 1' !,/ f . ;. f (,,.I,,; r°(r/ii „i,6i,ll,�If/��/%/�1 ✓, IIJo)l. /.✓!�l//i�o,/1 /!, �r.,J �%/, / /t'i� l�il, i� ///iii , /'�o% r,; � (�/�,,, I✓/ r %iii /r �,r�� h�/1�,/��Ai,,��/,r/ru��,I/,rLi/��ir�ii,,i�.Ir��/�Il�,r,r,/G,,l�i,l��1�� , HCf 2000 Control Delay 15.6 HC 12000 Level of Service 6 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0: Sum of lost time (s) 17 5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (ronin) 15 c Critical Lane Croup CHC'SC 5M pm 1/23013 2013 Existing Synchro 8 Report. Page 1 HC M Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: HWY 99 & 224th St SW 2/5x2013 1 4/ LaneNonfigurations fil F Volume,(vph) 1035 45 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 (Total Lost time (s) U Lane U111, Factor 0.95 1,00 1.00 OM Fit Protected 1,00 1.00 $atd, Flow (prot) 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 100 1.99 Satd. Flow (perm) . . . ...... 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 U5 Ad), Flow (vph) 1089 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11089 3,4 H eavVeh lcl es, (% 2% 2% ,Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 107,5 107,5 Effective Green, g (s) 107,5 107,5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,72 0,72 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 H Vehicle Extensions 3.5 15 'Lane Grp Cap (vph:) 2536 1134 Ws Ratio Prot 0.31 V/s Ratio Perm 0,02 vic Ratio 0,43 0,03 ,Uniform Delay', dl 83 6.2 Progression Factor 1.08' 1.00 incremental Delay, d2 H 0.0 Delay (s) 9,2 6,2 Level of Service A A Approach Delay (s) 91 Approach LOS A CHCSC 5:00 pm WNW 2013 Existing Synchro 8 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2, 238th Street SW & HWY 99 215/2013 f, '4\ Lane Configurations tt ,Volum (vph) 135 20 140 30 25 10 5 185 1310 _25 76 870 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lt Total Lo ' s times 5,5 'M 5�5 5,5 615' 6,5 5,5 &5 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 0,95 1,00 1,00 OM lzrt 1,00 OM 0.98 1,00 1,00 0,85 1,06 1,00 Fit Protected 0,96 1 M M O 0.95, , 1.00 '1 M 0,95 1,00 Satd. Flow,(prof) 1803 1599 1817 1770 3539 1583 1787 3574 Fit Permitted 0,70 1,00 077 0.22 1.00 1.00 0,14 1,00 $atd,,Flow (Lerml 1326 1599 1424 416 3539 1583 256 3574 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0-95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 OM 0,95 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 21 147 32 26 11 5 1195 1379 26 79 916 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 124 0 8 0 0 00 12 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 163 23 0 61 0 0 200 1379 14 79 916 Heavy Vehicles %j 1 % 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 210 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Perm Per NA Perm ' 'pm+pt NA Perm pm4pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 491 40,9 40,9 40,1 364 Effective Green, g (s) 11,5 11,5 11 5 491 401.9 40 ,,9 40.1 36.4 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.16 0.16 016 01,67 0,56 0,56 0,54 0,49 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 M M 6.5 6,5 5,5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1'0 1,0 ZO 15 15 2.0 15 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 20,7 249 222 428 1966 879 216 1767 vis Ratio Prot c0,05 c0.39 0.02 0.26 vis Ratio Perm c0.12 0.01 0 0 0.26 0101 018 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.09 0.28 0.47 0.70 0,02 0,37 0,52 Uniform Delay, dl 29,9 26,6 27.4 6,0 11.9 7.3 9.0 112:6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,001,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Incremental Delay, �d2 16,5 0 0,2 0,3 12 0.0 OA 0,3 Delay (s) 46-4 26,6 27,6 63 131 73 94 129 Level of Service D C, C A A A B Approach Delay (s) 37,0 27,6 12.2 12.6 Approach LOS D C B B so RM HCM 2000 Control Delay 15,2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.6 Sum of lost time (s) 17,,5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group CHCSC 500 pm 112312013 2013 Existing Synchro 8 Report Pape 3 MMMMM3*2BVM=1- 2- 238th Street SW & HWY 99 215/2013 4/ Lac +fonfig u ration s, r V,ojiume: (vph) 30 Ideal Flow (vptipl) 1900 t,otal Lost time'(s) 6.'5 Lane Util, Factor 1,00 Frt U5 Fit Protected 1,00 patd, Flow �prot) 1699 Fit Permitted 1.00 ,8atd. Flow (perm) 15919 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0-95 Adj, Flow, (vph� 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 Heavy Vehicles 1% ,Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.4 Effective Green, g: (s) 36,E Actuated g/C Ratio 0,49 Clearance Time (s) 6,5 Vehicle Extension (s) 15 Lane'Grp Cap (vph) 790 v1s Ratio Prot vis Ratio Perm 0101 v/c Ratio 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 9,6 Progression Factor 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 0'0 Delay (s) 9,5 Level of Service A Approach Deiay (s) Approach LOS CHCSC 5:00 prn 112312013 2013 Existing Synchro 8 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis -1 - HWY 99 & 224th St SW 2'/512013 CHCSC, 5:00 pm 1123/2013 2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Configurations 4 iff tt If (Volume (vp:h) 20 56 35 40 86 55 5 190 1566 25 5, '95 Ideal Flow (vphpJ) 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 dotal Lost time (s) 5�5 5.5 5,5 5,5 5,5 6,5 &S 5,5 Lane LIM, Factor 1,00 1„00 1.00 1.90 1,00 0.95 1.00 1,00 art 1.00 OM 1,'OP H5 1100 1 �00 '0.85 1,00 Fit Protected OM 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0,95 $at, Flow (prat) 1855 1599 1852 1599 WO 3530, 1563 1!1770 Fit Permitted 0.75 1.99 0.85 1.00 0.22 1.99 1,00 0,10 8atd. Flow (perm) 1404 1599, 1608 1599 403 3539 1583 183 Peak -hour factor, PIF 0.95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0 95 0,95 0.95 0,95 Adj, Flow (vph) 21 53 37 42 89 58 5 200 1668 26 5 1100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 51 0 0 0 8 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 74 4 0 131 7 0 205 '1668 18 0 11,05 HeavX Vehicles, M I % 1% 1 % 1 % 1% 1% 2% 2% 210 2% 2% ,Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm i NA Perm Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm _2% pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 I7.2 17,2 1T2 115,2 106,6 1016,6 1,15A Effective Green:, g (s) 17,2 17,2 I7,2 1 T2 115.2 I96.6 106.6 115A Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.1'1 0,11 011 0,77 0,71 011 0,77 Clearance Time (s) M 5.5 5.5 5.5 5,5 16.5 6.5 5,5 Vehicle Extension s) 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 3,5 3.5 2,0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 183 184 183 387 2516 1124 232 v/s Ratio Prot c0,03 c0A7 0.03 V/s Ratio Perm, 01.05 OM COM 01,00 6.38 ObIl 0,32 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.02 0.71 0.04 0,53 0,66 OM 9A5 'niform Delay, d11 621 68,9 64,0 59.0 M: 111,9 6.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 2,83 0,37 1,00 1,00 Incremental Delay, Q 21 al 122 0,11 0.5 1.2 0,0 H Delay (s) 64,2 59,0 76.3 59.1 17,1 5,5 6.4 11.4 Level o,f Service E E E E B 'A A 8 Approach Delay (s) 62,5 71,0 H Approach LOS E E A 51 rgf M, 11/0 211? Lotilll--LL.1- I MIXMMIMMM � 1, HCM 2000 Control Delay 131 140 12000 Level of Service HC M 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160,0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 16 c Critical Lane Group CHCSC, 5:00 pm 1123/2013 2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: H�WY 99 & 224th St SW 215/2013 1 4/ Lane" onfig urations Itt F ,volume'(0) 105 45 Ideal Flow (vphp]) 1900 1900 ,Total Lost time, �s) 6,5 6"5 Lane Util, Factor 0,95 1,00 l"rt I �00 0.85 Fit Protected 1,00 1,00 Satd, Flow (:Prot) 3539 1683 Fit Permitted 1,00 1,00 8atd, 1`12Lperm) 3539 1593 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 0,95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1132 47 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1132 33 Heavy Vehicles, 2% 2% Tum Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) IOU 106.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1061 1063 Actuated g1C Ratio 031 0,71 Clearance Time (s) 6,5 6,5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2517 1126 v1s Ratio Prot0,32 erm vis Ratio Penn. 0.02 v1c Ratio 0.45 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl U 6A Progression Factor 1.911 I M incremental Delay, d2 0,6 U Delay (s) 9,8 6.4 Level of Service A 'A Approach Delay (s) 9,8 'Approach LOS A (!WK VMxf, ygp, INM HI Elm CHCSC 5:00 prn 1/23/2013 2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Configurations I I "+I 21512013 ftT+ I t+T+ boi'vme (vph) 40 Lane Configurations I I "+I ftT+ I t+T+ boi'vme (vph) 40 60 45 55 I4 5 10 75 105 120 210 '140 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19010 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1900 1900, �oWl Lost time (s) 5',.5 5,5 5.5 5.5 5,5 6,5 5,5 6,6 Lane LIM, Factor 1,00 1M 100 1.00 1.00 0,91 1,00 0,91 0 , 0 6.94 1,001 0.99 1.00 00 1,00 0.99 Fit Protected 0,95 1,00 0,95 1,00 0.95 1,00 0,95 1,00 8atd,'Flow' (prot), 1770 1743 1770 1838 1770, 5033 1 270 5028 Fit Permitted 0,48 1,00, 0,54 1.00 0,95 1.00 0,95 1,00 $atd, Flowleerm) 900 1743 998 1838 1770, 5033, 1770 5028 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 OM 0,95 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 63 47 58 111 111 79 1711 126 284 1284 105 RT 1,l Reduction �vph) 0 19 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 t -ane GrouE Flow v ) 42 91 0 58 119 0 79 1833 0 284 1384 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 �ctuated Green, G (s) 15,0 115,0 15,10 15,0 11'1 89,11 28,4 106.4 Effective Green, gi (s) 15,0 15,0 15.01 15,0 11.1 819.•1 28,4 106,4 Actuated gX Ratio 0110 0.10 010 0,10 0b7 OM 0A9 0,,71 Clearance Time is) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5,5 5.6 6,51 5,5 6,5 Vehicle Extension is) 3,0 H 10 M M 3.5 2,01 3,5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 90 174 99 1813 130 29,89 335 3566 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 cOM 0.04 cO.36 c0,16 0,28 v/s Ratio Perm 0,05 01,06 We Ratio 0,47 0.52 0.59 0.65 0.61 0.61 0,85 0,391 Uniform Delay, dl 63.7 64.1 64-51 65.0 67-3 19.4 587 8.7 'Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,010 1,00 0.90 1,28 Incremental Delay, Q 3.8 H 8,6 8.1 5.4 0.9 16,5 01,3 belay (s) 67,5 661,9 73.1 73,0 72.7 20.4 69A 11,E, Level of Service E E E E E C E B Approach Delay (s) 671 731 22.6 213 Approach LOS E E C C ifflN'K V11111q I HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCIVI 2000'Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 SLIM of lost time (S) 17,5 intersection Capaicity Utilization 73,3% ICU Level of Service 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 6 Critical Lane Group CHICK 5M pm 1/23/2013 2015 Baseline Synchro 81 Report Page 3 C 9 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysts a 238th Street Ste' & HWY 99 2/512013 ii Lane Configurations MIN tt r f ,Volume (vph) 140 20 145 30 2 10 5 190 '1365 2580 9'0 Ideal Flour (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900, 1900, 1900 1900., 1900 190 Total Lost time (s) 515 5.5 5a5 5.5 6,5 6.5 5a5 6. Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 1,00 1:95 1�bo 9.95 1m 1m OM ., 1 M, (1.85 0.98 199 1.90 0.85 1.00 1.0 Flt Protected 0.96 1,00 0.98 0M 1 00 IM 0.9 1M Saud. Flow (proi 150 1599 1017 17 0 3539 1550 f X87 3574 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.74 0.21 1 00 1.00 0.12 1,010 atd' 'low(perm), 1332 1599 ' 1372 397 3539,: 1583'; 232 3574 Pea k -hour° factor, PPF 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 OM 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.950,95 .dt. Flow (vph)' 147 21 153 32 26 11 5 200 1437 26 84. 953 RT'OR Reduction (vph) 0 0 129 0 8 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 168 24 0 61 0 0 , 205 143 15 84 953 Heavy Vehicles N 1 °l 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA, Perm prn+pt' NA Perri pri NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 4 8` 2 2 2 Actuated Green, C (s) 11.7 '11.7 11.7 51.2 410 43.0 42.2 38.5 Effective Green, 9 (s) 11.7 11.7 11 7 511.2 410 43.0 42:2' 38.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 015 0.15 0.87 0.57 0.57 0,56 0.51 Clearance TIrn (s) 515 5,5 5.6 5,5 6.5 6.5` 5,6 6.5 Vehicle Extension �sj 1.0! 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 246 2111 416 2004 896 2014 1812 v/s Ratio Prot c0,05 c0,41 0.02' 0,27 v/s Ratio Perrn CO. 13 0,01 0,04` 0.28 0,01 0.21 We Ratio 0,82 0.10 0,29 0,49 0.72 0.02 0.41 0.53 uniform Delay, d1 31A 27.6 28.4 6.2 . 12.0 7.2„ 9.3 12,6 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 11.00 1.00 1.010 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.9 0,1 0.3 03 13 0.0, 0,5 0.3 Belay (s) 51.9 27.6 28.7 6.5 113 7,2 9.8 12.9 Level of Service C C C A 10 A A S Approach Delay (s) 40.4 28.7 124 12.5 Approach LOS D t ttum zuuu control umay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity UtHizatlon AnWysis Period (min) c Crillcal Lane Croup CHCSC 5:00 pm 1/231.2013 2015 Baseline 153 HCI12000 Level of Sergi 075 75,9 Sum of lost time (s) 72i1% ICU Level of Service 15 17.5` C Synchro 8 Report Page 4 H Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 238th Street SW & HW2/5/2013 4/ LanmonflgUrauons r �olume '(,vp'h), 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 � otal Lost time (s) 6,5 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 art 0,85 Fit Protected 1,00 Saw"IFlow, (pro(} 1569 Fit Permitted 1,00 8atd, Flow (Perm) 1599, Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 HeavX Vehicles 1 % Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Pha'ses 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 Actuated g/C Ratio Mi Clearance Time (s) 6,5 Vehicle Extension s) 16 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 811 vis Ratio Prot vis Ratio Perm 0.01 v1c Ratio 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 9.3 Progression Factor 1,00 Incremental belay, d2 010 Delay (s) 9.3 'Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS M/ CHCSC 5M pm 1/2,3120,13 2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Repm-t Page 8 HCC Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: HWY 99 & North Site Access 21512013 Lane Configurations Y tt+ alum (vehih)' 15 1525 5 5 1160 Sign Control Stop Free Free lorade 0% 0°Jnr 0% Peak Hour Factor O.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0,92 Hourlyflow rate(vph) .. 5 15 1655 5 5 1261 Pedestrians ,Lane Width (ft) "Talking Speed (flls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (v'eh) Median type "1 WLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Opistr hnn signal (ft) p , platoon unblocked ,aC„ conflicting volume 2991 555 155 vC1„ stage 1 conf vol 1660 VC2, stage 2 cdnf vot 401 vC'u, unblocked vol 2091 555 16,63 tC, single (s) _ 5.0 5,9 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.13 tF O 0.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 90 97 99 cit capacity, (vehlh) 104 475 353 � re.r u/ r / d/ , / r z!,/,,, / i/, .✓ ,r�rr, r r/ /i �, l / a ,i rr/ Volume Total 22 663 550 007 255 504 ' 504 Volume Left 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 Volume Right _ 15 0 0 5' 0 0 0, c9'H 291 1700 1700 1700 553 1709 1700 Yoturne to Capacity 0.07 0,39 0,39 0.20 0,01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay () 15.4 0,0 O,O O,O 05 r 0.0 0,0, Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 194 0,0 0.1 Approach LCC' i „ P ,.,i./ll, /, /. ,/,,,/% .r, ,/ ///,/.r // ,/ J illi, , >l, ✓. � / �J l� ,/, / r7 ,H / Average Delay 0.2 intersection Capacity Utilization 09,O% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (rain) 15 HC'BC 5:00 pn7 1120/2010 2015 Baseline Cynchro tt Report Hage 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity, Analysis 5: HWY 99 & South Site Access 2/5/2013 t Lane Configurations Y Volume, (ve , h/h) 5 10 1:1515 25 20 1165, Sign Control Stop Free Free Oracte 01/0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 9,92 0,92 9.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 1647 27 22 1266 Pedestdans lLanq Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 2126 562 1674 vC1, stage I conf vol 1660 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 466 vCu, unblocked vol 2126 562 1674 ItC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 41! IC, 2 stage (s) 5,8 tF (s) 3,5 13 2,2 p0 queue free % 96 98 94 clot capacity (veh/h) 134 470 379, Volume Total 16 659 659 357 275 507 507 Volume Left 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 Volume Right I 1 0 0 27 01 0 0 cS,H 256 1700 1700 1700 379 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0,06 01,39 0.39 021 0,06 0.30 030 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 29.9 0,0 01,O 0 0 2A 0,0 0,0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 2H 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS C 1/111/1, M1111MIMM Average Delay 03 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46,6% ICU Level of Service A Analyses Period (min) 15 CHCSC 51M, pm 112312013 2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized 1•. Capacity Analysis 99 & 224th St SW 2612013 CHS C 5:00 pm 1/2,312013 2.015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 1 MINMI I MMMM MM Lane Configurabons Olume (vph), 20', 50 3,6 40 8,5 55 6 191, 1501 2�6 5 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1960, 19'60 1900 1900 1900 � Qtal Lost firne (s) ,6 u 5.5 5"5 5.5 6.5 6.5 '5,5 Lane Util, Factor 1,00, 1:,00 1,00 1-06 1.60 6.95 1.00 1.00' ll:rt 1,00 OM 1.66 085 i ,bd 1,00 0,85 1,00 Fit Protected 0,99 1,00 OM 1,00 OM 1.66 1,00 0.95 Satd, Flow (prot) 1866 1599, 1852 1599 1776 3539 1583 1770 Fit Permitted 0,75 1,00 0,85 1.00 011 1.66 1.00 0.10 Said, Flow (Eerml 1404 1599, 11:608 150 397 3539, 1583 179 Peak -hour factor, PHF OM OM 0.95 0,95 OM 0,95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 Adj, Flow (vph) 21 53 38 42 89 58 5 201 1681 27 5 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 51 0 0 0 8 0 0 Lane Group Flow('vph) ' vph) 0 74 4 0 131 7 0 206 1681 19 0 105 Heavy Vehicles(1/',) 1 % 1% 1 % 1 % 1 % I % 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% ,Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 4 85 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17,2 171 17.2 17,2 115.3 I66'.5 I06.5 115.3 Effective Green, g (s) 17,2 17,2 17,2 17.2 115.3 166.5 106,6 1153 Actuated g/C Ratio 011 0,11 OM 011 0,77 0.71 0.71 0,77 Olearance Time (s) 515 5,5 6,5 5,5 5,5 6.5 6.5 5:5 Vehicle Extension ,0 M, 3,0 3.0 2.0 3,5, 305 M Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 183 184 183 385 2512 1123 230 v1s Ratio Prot COM c0.47 0.03 vis Ratio Perm OM 0,00 C0.08 0,00 OM 0.011 032 v/c Ratio 0A6 OM 011 0.04 0.54 0,67 0.02 0.46 Uniform Delay, dl 621 58.9 64.0 59,0 5.9 12,0 6A 11.2 Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 2.95 0,36 0.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, Q 2.1 0. 1 12,2 0.1 0.6 1,2 0,0 0 5 belay (s) 64.2 %0 76.3 59.1 18.1 5-6 0,0 11.7 Level of Service E E E E B A A B Approach Delay (s) 62.4 71.0 6,8 A,pproach LOS E E A MOM"'M "I'llr. HN '111"1"06 "1 1 '111 "MR 2600 Control Delay 13,2 HCM 20100 Level of Service B H 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio OV Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17,6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86,5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group CHS C 5:00 pm 1/2,312013 2.015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HC M Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: HWY 99 & 224th St SW' 2/512013 Lane'Tonfiguraflons I'll F ,Volume (volr) 1085 45 Ideal Flow (vphpi) '1900 1900 � otal Lost time (s) H 5.5 Lane 1.101, Factor 4,05 1,00 Fd 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1,00 1,00 ,8atd�. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 1,40 1,00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 0,95 Adj. Flow (vp,h) 1142 47 RTO R Reduction (vph) 0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1142 33 Heavy Vehicles 2% 2% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 106.5 106.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1016,5 106,5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.71 0,71 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 U Vehicle Extension (s) 3,5 15 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2512 1123 v/s Ratio Prot 0.32, v1s Ratio Perm 0.012 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.03 Oniform Delay, dl 93 5.4 Progression Factor 1,00 100 Incremental Delay, d2 U U Delay (s) 9.9 U Level l of Service A A Approach Delay (s) 9,9 Approach LOS A CHCSG 5M Pm 1/2312013 2015 With Project Synchro, 8 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 2HWY 99 & 228th St SW 202013 CI-ICSC 5:00 pin 1/2312013 2015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 3 021M Lane Configurations , , MM i 0 f MM T+ ) 'Volume (vph) , ' ' , 40 '60 46 5,6 105 0 '75 109 121 :271E 1231 100 ldeal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19010 1900 1900 1900 ilotal Lost time'() 'Lane 55 5.5 5.6' 5.6: &5 &5 5.5 6.5 Util, Factor 1,00 100 1.00 1,00 1,00 M1 1,00 0,91 Prt 1,00 01,94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 `m' om Fit Protected 0,95 1,00 0.95 1,00 0,95 IM 0.95 1,00 8atd,' Flow (prot) 1770 1742 1770 1838 1770 5033 1770 5028 Fit Permitted OA8 1,901 0,53 1,00 0,95 1,00 0,95 1,00 $atd. Flow erre 900 1742 990 1838 1,770 5033 1770 5028 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 Adj,, Flow (vph) 42 63 48 59 ill 11 79 1725 127 284 1296 105 R,TOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow vph) 42 91 0 59 119 0 791 1848 0 284 1396 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 1 6 Permitted Phases, 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15,0 15,0 15.0 15 O 11.1 8911 28.4 106A Effective Green, g (s) 15,0 15,0 15,0 15,0 111 89,1 28.4 100,4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,10 0,10 010 0.10 ON 0,69 0A9 0.71 Clearance Tame (s) 5,5 5,5 5,5 5.5 5,5 6.5 5,5 6,5 Vehicle Extensions 10 10 3.0 3.0 2,0 3,5 2,0 3 5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 90 174 99 183 130 2989 335 3566 vis Ratio Prot OM c0,06 0.04 c0.37 c0.16 10-28 v/s Ratio Perm 0 05 0,06 v/c Ratio 0,47 0,62 OM 0.65 Hl! OM OM 0,39 Uniform Delay, di 63,7 64,1 64 6 65.0 673 19.5 587 8,8 Progression Factor IM IM 1.00 IM 1,00 1100 HO 1,29 Incremental Delay, d�2 3,8 2,8 93 8"1 5A 1.0 16,5 03 Delay (s) 67.5 66,9 719 73,0 72.7 20,5 693 11.6 Level of Service E E E E E C E 6 Approach Delay (s) 0x7.1 713 22.6 213 Approach LOS E E C C ME HCM 2000 Control Delay 261 HCM 2000 Level of Service C IHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150,0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 737% ICU, Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 i c Critical Lane Group CI-ICSC 5:00 pin 1/2312013 2015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 3 H Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 238th Street SW & HWY 99 2/512013 Lane Configurations 15,4 4 r Actuated Cycle Length (s) +T* Intersection Capacity Utilization 72,8% Analysis Period (min) tt If I ft ,VpJume,(vph) ' , ' , 141 20 145 30 25 11 6 190 1382 25 81 925 Ideal Flow (vplipl) 1900 19010 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 �Oial Lost time (S) 5.5 5,5 5.5 5,5 615 6. 1 5 M 6.5 Lane Util, Factor 1,00 1.00 1M 1.00 0.95 1,00 1,00 0,95 rt 1,00 05 0.98 1,00 1,00 0.85 1,00' 1,00 Fit Protected 01.96 1.00 OM OM 1.00 1,00 OM 1 00 8atd, How (Prot) 1802 1599 1815 1:1770 3539 1583 1787 3574 Fit Permitted 035 1.00 0.73, 0.21 1.00 1,00 0,12 1,00 Said, Flow (germ) 1409 1599 1362 386 3539 1583 225 3574 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,95 0,95 OM 0,95 01.95 0.95, 0.95 0,95 OM OM OM OM � dj. Flow (vph) 148 21 153 32 26 12 5 2010 1455 26, 85 974 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 129 0 8 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 169 24 0 62 0 0 205 1455 15 85 974 Heavy Vehicles 1% 1 % I % 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % ,Turn Type Perm, NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm prn+pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases, 'Actuated 4 4 8 2 2 2 6 Green, G (s) 11,8 11,8 11.8 52.0 418 43,8 43,0 39.3 EPective Green, g (s) 11.8 11.8 11.8 52,0 418 418 410 39,3 Actuated g)C, Ratio 01,15 0,15 015 0.68 01,57 0.57 0,56 0,51 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5,5 5,5 M 6.5 6,5 5,5 6,5 Vehicle Extensions 1.0 1,0 1.0 ZO 15 15 2.0 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 216 245 209 409 2018 902 201 1828 v1s Ratio ProtcOl, 015 c0.41 0.02 017 v1s Ratio Perm 40.12 OM OM OZ, 0,01 0,22 vtc Ratio 078 0,10 0.29, 0.50 0,72 0,02 0,42' 0.53 Uniform Delay, al 31,3 27,9 28.8 63 12,0 7,2 M 12:6 Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 100 IM Incremental lay, d2 15.5 O'l 0.3 0,4 13 0a0 M 0.3 Delay (s) 46,8 2&0 29.1 6.6 114 7.2 H 12„9 Levet of Service A 13 A A B Approach Delay (s) 378 29.1 12,5 12.6 Approach LOS D C, B B 11,12000 Control Delay 15,4 HCC 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76,8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72,8% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0 Level of Service Such of Inst time (s) ICU Level of Service B 17,5 C CHCSC &00 pm 1/213/2013 2015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 4 N 2/5/2013 La+tonfiguratlons r V,olume,(vph� 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 TIct4l, Lost time (s) ,5 Lane UtIl, Factor 1 Frt 0,85 Fit Protected 1,00 S,,atd, Flow (prot) 1599 Fit Permitted 1,00 $atd. Flow (perm) 1599 Feak-hour factor, PHF 0 95 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 HeavZ Vehicles ala 1 % ,,Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.3 'Effective Green, g (s) 39,3 Actuated g1C Ratio M1 clearance Time (s) U Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 818 v1s Ratio Prot Ws Ratio Perm Oki vac Ratio OkQ' Uniform Delay, dl U Progression Factor 1 ko Incremental Delay, d2 0,0 Delay (s) 93 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS CHICK 5:00 pm 1/23/2013 2015 W0, Project Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Or l i 4: HWWY 99 & North Site Access 2�5013 lag mill Lane Configurations 4� Volume (vph1h) 8 0 1 p 1 1 1" 1. Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade%°a 0/� Osla Peak Flour Factor 0,92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0..92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 0 12 5 '0 16 0 1665 5 5 1261 1 Pedestrians :ane Wid(h (ft)' Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type T LTL TVVLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) p, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1850 2949 427 2111 2954 558 9276 11671 vC1, stage 1 contval 1279 1279 1666 1666 vC2, stage 2 nanf vol 571 1671 443 1266 vCu, unblocked vol 1850 2949 427 2111 2954 558 1276 1671 tC, single (s) 7.6 6, 6,9 7.6 &5 6,9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6,5 5,5 6,5 5,5 1F (s) . 15 4,0 3.3 3.5 4,01 3.3 ' 2 2.2, p0 queue free % 95 100 98 94 100 97 100 99 W capacity (vehfh) 160 118 576 97 121 473 546 380 ,o,✓< , ,.r ,r rr „ ., / n, / , , �r :r r r r„ r r;,. , , rr, , u r ,. „„ y I�;„ r / ,✓, o ,i, //,, i, r/,,, /�, „/�,,/, %1 ,,ri,,rr ri ,//,Jo%,//////,�fr//�/ Volume Total 21 22 0 666 666 688 5 504 504 266 Volume Lett 9 5 01 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 12 16 0 01 0, 5 0 0 0 94 cSH 275 749 1700 1700 1700 1700 380 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 6.09 0,00 0.39 0.39 0.2O 0.01 0.89 0.30 0,16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 O 0 Control Delay () 19.2 21.5 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 14,6 O,01 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C 0 Approach Delay (s) 19.2 21.5 0.0 01 Approach LCIS C C cr rm r�rz ,r-✓ r. ,rr rr H' rrr n,2 rr r r.. rr r r r.. , ✓ ,/r / //, „r.'... /1„�'/r rrr./.. //. / ). ., r /r�, /I r�,,... r ,./ ,/ ,.,,,, epi) / � �1,,,,� ,,,,, ,// // ,,, �„ ,,,f,. ,, ,. Average Delay 03 Intersection Capacity Utilization 391% ICU Level of Cervdce Ati, Analysis Period (min) 15 CFI'CSC 5:00 pni 1123,(2013 2015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: HWY 99 & South Site Access 26/2013 Lane Configurations � Nip V�olume,(vehlh) '0 12 5 0 10, 19 1515 25 20 1176 0 Sign Control Stop Sto1p Free Free rade 0% 010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92' 0.92 0.92 0.92 OV OV 0,92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 0 13 5 0 11 21 1647 27 22 IM 0 Pedestrians (ane, Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Wdian type TWLTIL TVVLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting, volume 1923 30,37 426 2184 3023 562 1278 1674 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1322, 1322 1702 1702 .vC2, stage 2 cont vol 601 1715 483 1322 vCu, unblocked voll 1923 30137 426 21814 30231 562 1278 1674 tC, single (s) 7,5 6;5 6.9: 75 6.5 6.9 4.1 41 tC, 2 stage (s) 6,5 5,5 H 5.5 tF (s) 15 4x6 33 15 4.0 13 2 2 2.2 pO queue free, % 95 100 98 94 100 98 96 94 6M capacity (veh)h) 143 98 577 88 108 470 539 379 M�� Volume Total 21 16 21 659 659 357 22 511 511 256 Volume Left 8 5 21, 0 0 0 22 0 0 01 Volume: Right '13 11 01 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 cSH 273 1912 539 1700 1700 1700 379 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity OM 0,08 0,04 0.391 0.39 0,21 01.06 0.30 0,30 0,15 Queue Length 951h (11) 6 7 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 193 25.4 11,9 0.0 0.0 0,0 15, 1 0,0 0,0 H Lane LOS C D B C Approach, Delay (s) 19.3 25.4 0.1 013 Approach LOS C D r/1 M Average Delay M Intersection Capacity Utilization 3H% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 CHCSC 5:00 pm 1123/2013 2015 With Project Synchro 8 Report Page 7 NCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: HW Y 99 & North Site Access 513012013 -v 4r OWN Lane Configurations 81 V,olume, (ve41h) 8 0 11 5 0 15 0 1867 5 5 1415 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Gr,ad6 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 092 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 0 12 6 0 16 0 2029 5 5 1538 14 Pedestrians (ane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh)i Median type TwurL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,, conflicting volume 2249 3591 520 2568 3595 679, 1552 2035 vC1, stage I conf vol 1556 1556 2032 2032 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 693 2.035 06 1563 vCu, unblocked vol 2249 3591 520 2568 3595 679 1552 2035 tC, single (s) 75 6.5 6.9 7,5 6.5 6.9: 4.1 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6,5 5�5 61.5 5,5 tF (s) 15 4,0 3,3 3,5 4.0 3.3 2,2 2.2 pO queue free % 92 100 98 90 100 96 100 98 cM, capacity (veh1h) 108 78 501 57 81 394 423 274 Volume Total 21 22 0 812 812 411 5 615 615 322 Volume Left 9 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 12 16 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 14 cSH 198 159 1700 11,700 1700 1700 274 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0,14 0,00 0,48 0A8 0,24 0.02 0.36 036 0,19 Queue Length 95th (ft), 9 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 .0 0 Control Delay (s) 25.3 31,2 0.0 0,0 0,0 O�O 13.4 010 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D D C Approach Delay (s) 253 31,2 0,0 0.1 Approach LOS D D Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 CHCSC 5,00 prn 112312013 202'5' ith Project Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM n^si n li ed Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: HWY 99 & SOLIth Site Access 5/3012013 a 4n Lane Configurations 41� 'Volume (vehlh) 7 f1, 12 0 10 19 ' 1845 25 29 101 tt Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free ;Grade 0% 0% 614 0% Peak flour Factor 4,92 6.92 11.92 tt,92 0,92 0,92 ff 2 4,92 6,92 0,,92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 9 ` 13 5 6 11 21 2066 27 22' 1555 0 Pedestrians Lane Nd (ft),; Walking Speed (fVs) e rcent'B lockage Fklght turn flare (veh Median type TVVLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 ,Upstream signal (ft) p , platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 2320 3673 518 2635 3659 682 1555 2633 vC1„ stage 1 conf vol 1899 1599 2060 20611 vC2, stage 2 conf vol" 721 2974 678 1599 vCu, unblocked vel 2629 3673 518 2635 3659 682 1555 2033. tC„ single (s) 7,5 6,5 6,9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 _ 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6,5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3,5 4oO 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3' 2.2 2.2 p0 guerre free % 92 100 97 90 1118 97 95 92 CM capacity (veh1h) 95; 59 502' 52 76 392 422 275 a, rr � ,, r r , /, ✓if / if i,, r(J(,,, nra r r roi, r,; r+r r, r , , �, r, r, » ,, , ,N, ,, r : , "Volume Total 21 116 21 802 802 428 22 622, 622 311 ' "Volume Left 8 5 21 9 ff 6 22 tl Q 0 "Volume flight' 13 11 0 0 ff 27 0 8 0 6 cSH 195 123 422 1766 1799 176'11 275 1709 1700 1717'6 Volurne to Capacity 6.11 9.13 0,05 6.47 0,47 9,25 9.68 0,37 0.37 9,18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 11 4 tl ft 0 6 6 0 fl Control Detay (s) 25.6: 38.7 14.1E 0.9 6,0 9,f7 ' 19.2 11,11 9.6 11.6 Lane LOS D, F 6' C Approach Delay (s) , 25.6 38.7 9.1 0.3 Approach LOS D F n tew1/1 r , n n r wamr nt r r r r r e �i,,t Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46,2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Fe6od (min) 1 Cf1CSC 5:66 pm V23013 2025 With Project Synchro 8 Report t Page 2 X"T"I"T FransPOGROUP WHAf I RAN,5110H, I AMA GAN M', MEMORANDUM Date- January 28, 2013 TG: 1227000 To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds From: Mike Swenson, PE, PTOE ;=WE= cc* l Price Subject: Community Health Center of Snohomish County — Trip Generation Study This memorandum documents, the results of the trip generation study completed for the proposed Community Health Center of Snohomish County (CHCSC) in Edmonds, WA, CHCSC provides service to low income patients, Their clinics tend to have less, vehicular traffic as patients often arrlive at the clinic by transit or other modes. The results from the trip generation analysis provide a basis for the rate to be used in the transportation impact analysis, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation provides trip generation rates for LU #720 Medical Office Building, which includes a wide variety of medical providers studied across the nation from the mid 1970s. The results of these studies, are not consistent with the experience CHCSC has at their local clinics. The methodology used in the study is consistent with guidelines identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbolok, A trip generation rate represents the number of vehicles accessing an establishment from adjacent roadways during a specified time period, based on the establishment size, For this study, trip generation rates were calculated based on the square footage of each clinic, Traffic data was collected at five clinics around the Pugiet Sound with characteristics similar to the proposed CHCSC development. Three of the clinics were previously studied by Transpo, and were considered because they have similar characteristics to the CHCSC clinics and will provide a more robust data set. Data was collected at two local CHCSC clinics and was addled to the previous data set. The characteristics of each study location are identified in Table I Table I., Study Location Characteristics Clinic Location Address Size (sf) CHCSC and Pharrnacy Lynnwood 4111 194th Street 10,700 CHCSC and Pharmacy Everett 1019 112th Street 25,100 HealthPoint Bothetl Medical Bothell '10808 NE 145"' Street 17,000 and Pharmacy' Rainier Beach Medical- Seattle 9245 Rahler Avenue South 25,880 Dental Clinic Kent Medlcal and Pharmacy Kent 403 East Meeker Street 20,500 (HealthPont) I This locaflon nhw serves other JDw income oinics. The proposed CHCSC Clinic to be developed an SR, 99 would include a building with approximately 25,000 gsf, which is a comparable size to the clinics studied. Transpo Group 11730 118th Avergie N.l Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 425-821 -3665 Fax. 425-825-8434 jT. I WWOUTTAUM6,111 Traffic volumes were collected at all five Study sites during typical weekday PM peak hour (4W PM - 6:00 PM) for three weekdays, It should be noted that for the Kent site, on -street parking was, also observed and included in the overall site trip generation totals. The three-day trip generation counts, at each site were averaged to derive the weekday PM peak hour trip volume, The detailed trip generation summary for each day is provided In Attachment 1. A PM peak hour trip rate per 1,000 square feet was determined based on the size of each clinic studied, Table 2 summarizes the resulting trip generation rates in terms of trips per 1,000 sf. Table 2, Trip Generation Surrurrianj - Gross PM Peak obur TO s Average Gross Trips' Site Size (sf) In Out Total Trip Rate' Lynnwood 10,700 12 18 JO 2,80 Everett 25,100 49 57 106 4,22 Bothefl 17,000 20 30 50 Z94 Seattle 25,880 18 19 37 1.43 Kent 20,500 24 28 52 2.63 Weighted Average 179 1, Weekday PM Peak frour trips based on the three day average, 2, Based on average PM peak hour trips per day lo Me and development size (ksf), 3, Welghted Average calcWafion based an fetal square feet dWided by lratal trips, As shown in Table 2, the weighted average trip rate during the weekday PM peak hour for the five clinics observed is 2.79 trips per 1,000 sf, The weekday PM peak hour trip rate is approximately 22 percent lower than the average rate (3.57 trips/1,000 sf) identified for Medical Office Building in ITE Trip Generation, gth Edition, WE= A trip generation Study was completed and the results are proposed to be used for the proposed CHCS C clinic TlA, Since the trip generation characteristics of the clinic are not consistent with a typical medicate office building as defined by ITE Trip Generation, the data collection is likely more comparable to the proposed use. A Study of two HCSC clinics and three similar Healthpoint clinics shows average trip rates approximately 22 percent below ITE, 2,79 trips per 1,000 sf versus 3.57 trips per 1,000 sf. < U, w qq 1)m4 ilol I m C., m o ZI g gR , 8 'f 7 I 4 " 4 'r; v, <1 ar gj IN M' N N m m — ^d 00tl4 Wx xa Mry n, ^d 00tl4 Wx