TIA - full report .pdfu�«w�_,y
FY(�
"'"' -
z
William Popp Associates
Transportation Engineers/Planners
(425)401-1030
FAX (425) 401-2125
e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for
DEVELOPMENT SERVICEU
50 Pine St COUNTER
New Multi -Family Residential Building
Prepared for:
Edmonds Pine Street, LLC
2801 AlaskanWay, Suite 107
Seattle, WA 98121
Prepared by:
William Popp Associates
14-400 Building, Suite 206
14400 Bel -Red Rd
Bellevue, WA 98007
March 25, 2013
14-400 Building • Suite 206 9 14400 Bel -Red Road 9 Bellevue, WA 98007
Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction,............................,..............................,..............................................1
I. Project Description..................................................................................1
II. Site Inventory............................................................................................1
ExistingRoadway Network..............................................................................................1
Transit Service ...................... ................... ..............,....................................» ............,...,3
PedestrianServices............................................................................................................3
III. Project Trip Generation........................................................................4
Table 1 Project Vehicular Trip Generation.........................................................................4
IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment...............................................4
Table 2 Trip Distribution Summary (PM Peak Hour).. „„.,„.„.„ ........ d ....„„5
V. Site Access Roadway/Driveways and Safety.,......................................,..5
IX. Mitigation Recommendations ...,. .................................... ..,... .,........14
William Popp Associates Page i
TrafficVolumes.................................................................................................................5
SightDistance....................................................................................................................6
Table 3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). . . . . ........... ......... .........7
Levelof Service .... ........................................................................ .....................,.,....,,.,»....7
ChannelizationWarrants.................................................................................................7
Queuing ....., ...........................................................,........................,......................8
Table 4 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Queues (ft) '. .... --—...... ...... ...,.. ....... .........8
ParkingSupply and Demand...........................................................................................8
Accident History ........................ ..» ...........................................................».................9
VI.
Traffic Volumes........................................................................................9
ExistingTraffic Counts.....................................................................................................9
HistoricalGrowth...........................................................................................................10
Table 5 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Total Entering Vehicles) ........................10
VII.
Level-of-Service...................................................,.,............................,..10
Table 6 Intersection Level -of -Service Criteria.................................................................. l l
Table 7 PM Peak Hour Level of Service (at Off -Site Intersections)................................12
VIII.
Conclusions..........................................................................................13
IX. Mitigation Recommendations ...,. .................................... ..,... .,........14
William Popp Associates Page i
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Introduction
The following report was prepared to identify the traffic related impacts of the proposed
50 Pine Street new multi -family residential building located in the southwest vicinity of
the City of Edmonds downtown area. Based on preliminary project traffic impact
estimates submitted to the city, the city requested the analysis address the project impacts
at the following intersections:
• Edmonds Way (SR 104)/Dayton Street
• Edmonds Way (SR 104)/Pine Street
• Edmonds Way (SR 104)/15th St SW/226th St SW
• Edmonds Way (SR 104)/100th Ave W
I. Project Description
The proposed development is located at the west end of Pine Street, west of SR 104,
adjacent to the Town of Woodway. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. There is one
building proposed. It is proposed as a multi -family residential building with a unit count
ranging between 85 and 89 units. The units will be either apartment or condominium. In
an effort to provide a worst-case scenario given the project parameters, this traffic study
shall assume the building will be an apartment use with 89 units.
This building will be on the south side of Pine Street, adjacent to the Point Edwards
Condominiums. It will have two access points to Pine Street, a surface lot access directly
across from the Point Edwards Condominiums internal loop road (Pine Dr), and a garage
access approximately 80 to 90 feet north of the surface lot access. The garage parking
capacity is 70 stalls, and the surface lot is 74 stalls.
The development is expected to be completed and occupied by 2015. The proposed site
plan is presented in Figure 2.
III'. Site Inventory
Existing Roadway Network
The major roadways serving the site include Pine Street, and Edmonds Way (SR 104).
These roadways are discussed below:
Pine Street is a two roadway running east and west from the site to 9th Ave S.
However, vehicular east -west travel is not permitted through the SR 104 intersection.
The present roadway classification is a local access street west of SR 104 and a
Principal Arterial to the east between SR 104 and 3`d Ave S. In the vicinity of the
William Popp Associates Page 1
North
WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES
14400 Bel -Red Rd #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
425.401.1030
info@wmpoppassoc.com
Edmon ds
C10
Seattle HefigIIP,As
2 1 2m,
VICINITY MAP
50 Pine St
89 MF Units
North
Traffic Impact Analysis (3125/13) 50 Pine St
site the roadway is approximately 24 feet wide with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on
both sides. There is some "stub out" parallel parking on both sides with the majority
of on street parking on the north side. The final pavement grading in the site vicinity
is not yet completed thus there are no channelization markings. It is anticipated that
there will be no pavement centerline markings with the final pavement lift. Near SR
104 on the west side, the roadway is 40 feet wide with 2 travel lanes. There are 5
foot asphalt sidewalks on both sides. The speed limit is 25 mph. There are no
pedestrian crosswalks at the SR 104/Pine Street intersection. Pine Street east of SR
104 is two-lane roadway with primarily a residential character.
Edmonds' a SR 104 is a 4/5 lane arterial running generally north and south (in
the vicinity of the site) from the Kingston Ferry Terminal to SR 99 and I-5 to the
southwest. The present roadway classification is principal arterial. Two of the three
northbound lanes are designated as ferry storage loading lanes. The speed limit is 40
mph between Dayton Street and 5th Ave S and becomes 35 mph southwest of 5th
Ave S. In the vicinity of Pine Street, there are curb and gutter on both sides, and a 5
foot asphalt sidewalk on the west side. There is a sand/gravel walkway on the east
side. The roadway also includes ample street lighting.
In addition to these two roadways, a brief discussion of each of the four analysis
intersections are discussed below:
SR 1.04/Da on Street: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is
two-phase with no protected left turn phases. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all
legs. This intersection is configured as follows:
* 4 lane northbound approach; 1 general purpose use left turn lane and one general
purpose thru/right lane, plus two ferry lanes.
3 lane southbound approach; left, thru and thru/right.
3 lane eastbound approach; left, thru and right.
2 lane westbound approach; left and thru/right.
During busy ferry loading times, the two designated northbound ferry lanes are
controlled with police or ferry personnel. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all
legs.
SR 104/Pine Street: This is a non -signalized intersection. This intersection is
configured as follows:
r 3 lane northbound approach; 1 left turn lane and one general purpose thru lane
along with a right turn pocket across the curb lane ferry lane, and one thru lane
for ferry storage.
• 3 lane southbound approach; two thru lanes, plus a short right turn pocket/lane.
0 1 lane westbound approach; right turn only.
• 2 lane eastbound approach; left and right only movements. The through
movement is not permitted. The left turn movement has use of a center lane
refuge/acceleration lane northbound on SR 104. The storage distance is 100 feet,
plus approximately 250 feet of closing transition taper. The right turn lane has a
William Popp Associates Page 2
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
soft 100 -foot radius with 100' acceleration lane plus an approximate 200 -foot
taper subject to a yield sign through the radius. There is a large right turn island
separating this movement.
There are no pedestrian crosswalks.
SR 104/15th St Sw/226th St SW: This is a signalized intersection and the signal
phasing is three-phase with protected left turn phases on the mainline only. This
intersection is configured as follows:
• 3 lane northbound and southbound approaches; 1 left turn lane, one thru lane, and
one thru/right lane.
• 2 lane eastbound approach; left/thru and right.
• 2 lane westbound approach; left and thru/right.
There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs except the north leg.
SR 104/1 00th Ave W: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is a
typical 8 -phase signal with protected left turn phases on all approaches. This
intersection is configured as follows:
• 3 lane northbound, southbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches; 1 left
turn lane, one thru lane, and one thru/right lane.
There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs.
Transit Service
The City standard for bus service is 1/4 mile walking distance, Community Transit will
allow up to 1/2 mile walking distance. There is no transit service in the vicinity of the
site. The nearest bus stops within safe pedestrian walking distance are located north at
the SR 104/Dayton Street intersection vicinity, which is approximately 0.7 miles (3,600
feet) from the site. Transit Service through Edmonds is provided by both Community
Transit and King County Metro. Community Transit routes in this area include 110, 116,
130, 196 and 416. In addition to the transit service, there is an Amtrak Station located
between Dayton Street and Main Street on Railroad Avenue.
Pedestrian Services
With the recent development of the Point Edwards Condominium project, there is
sidewalks on both sides of Pine St in the project vicinity (within Edmonds city limits) and
a sidewalk on the southside of Pine St connecting east to the existing asphalt sidewalk
near SR 104. The nearest pedestrian crossing of SR 104 to the opposite side is at Dayton
Street.
William Popp Associates Page 3
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
III. Project Trip Generation
Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip generation rates
obtained from the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report, 2008. As noted in
the Project Description, Section I., the development's proposed use will be a multi -family
residential building, either as condominium or apartment use. The unit would is
estimated to be between 85 and 89 units. The average trip rate for general condominiums
is approximately 14% less than for general apartments. Therefore, in an effort to present
a worst case scenario for traffic impacts associated with the project, this study shall
assume the estimated upper limit unit count of 89 units, and the higher traffic generating
land use; apartments.
For this site, trip generation rates are associated with Land Use Code 220, General
Apartments, were used. It should be noted that a more refined category of apartments
may be appropriate for this specific site, however, for conservative trip estimating
purposes, the general apartment category was used. The results of the trip generation
analysis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Project Vehicular Trip Generation
ITE Land Use AM Peak PM Peak
Code Size AWT Total In Out Total In Out
220 a 89 units Rate 6.65 0.510 0.200 0.800 0.620 0.650 0.350
Vol 592 45 9 36 55 36 19
a LUC 220 — General Apartment category per ITE
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated per ITE to generate a total of 592
average weekday daily trips, 45 AM, and 55 PM peak hour trips. In comparison, an 89 -
unit condominium development is estimated to generate 517 daily, 39 AM, and 46 PM
peak hour trips.
IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment
Trip distribution patterns used to determine the PM peak hour the project traffic
assignment were nominally based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts
surrounding the site as well as the assumed project trip assignment for Point Edwards
Condominiums. The estimated distribution percentages are shown in Table 2.
William Popp Associates Page 4
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Table 2
Trip Distribution Summary (PM Peak Hour)
Distribution Project Trips
Roadway Percentage Inbound Outbound
SR 524 east of 9th Ave N
10%
3
2
Main St east of 9th Ave
10%
4
2
100`h Ave W north of SR 104
5%
2
1
SR 104 east of 100th Ave W
40%
14
7
100th Ave W south of SR 104
10%
4
2
Chinook Road south of Pine St
5%
2
1
Intrazonal; southwest Edmonds
5%
2
1
Downtown Edmonds
10%
4
2
Edmonds Waterfront
5%
1
1
Total
100%
36
19
Based on these traffic patterns, it was estimated that of the total project trips, the majority
(55%) of the project trips (30 vehicles) will be to/from the southeast on SR 104, 40% of
the project trips (22 vehicles) will be to/from the north towards downtown Edmonds on
SR 104, and 5% (3 vehicles) will be south through Woodway. The project PM peak hour
traffic assignment to the surrounding roadway network is shown in Figure 3.
V. Site Access Roadway/Driveways and Safety
Traffic Volumes
The current year 2013 PM peak hour volume on Pine Street west of SR 104 is 109
vehicles; 70 westbound and 39 eastbound. This PM volume equates to approximately
1,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on pre Point Edwards (2002 counts), the PM peak
hour volume on Pine St west of SR 104 was counted at 64 vehicles (34 west, 30 east),
thus it is estimated that approximately half of the current count at 109 vehicles is likely
volume associated with Point Edwards Condominiums and the other half likely from
Woodway.
With the inclusion of the project traffic on Pine Street (west of SR 104), the future year
2015 daily volume is estimated to increase approximately 560 vehicles per day. As a
general rule of thumb for local access streets, the maximum desirable volume threshold
sometimes cited by planners for the neighborhood character of a residential street is
approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. This is a subjective value based on interviews of
residents in San Francisco urban neighborhoods, as documented in a study entitled
"Livable Streets". The 2015 daily volume with project on Pine Street east of Nootka Rd
is estimated to be 1,560 vehicles per day. The daily volume on Pine Street west of
William Popp Associates Page 5
411 "l-l",
North 0%dl
Gaspers St 3 2
✓` 3 2
CD a o l 0S
0
l
� 0
1
5% 3 8
4 Main St 4
1 1 1 2 2
�= V 0 q 7 4. Davton St
Puget �% 1 5 5 8 2
Maple St
Sound
2 _ �N
W1CalnuISl 0
E 03 > - n!a
a
SITE w -2 d d n!a
14 8 8 ) p
A ¢ 10cm
000
...........
Pine .
S4: Pine Sn
Pine St 18 �
1 2 2 s
Y3o......
20
z _ ..
_ 000
10l_ 0
a 0
a ,ti 1 2 l 0 5 1:.�...------.�..-....
0
WOODWAh ,........
0
woo
114
til
---------
4�
I 1 _I I
7 _
226th St SW _
20 r
10 0
40 /
LEGEND.,
- a
l y,
xx - Project PM Peak Hour Trips I U ,p 7
(assumes full occupancy) r'
" xx%)- Project Distribution Percentage c c 2 4
apW2 1°�,�I
I LUM POPP ASSOCIATES
14400 Bel-Red Rd 81206 50 Pine St
Bellevue, WA 98007 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
r
425.401.1030 89 MF Units
info@wmpoppassoc.com Figure 3
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Nootka Rd and the primary Point Edwards entrance is estimated to be approximately
1,000 vehicles per day.
Assuming that the PM peak hour volume is approximately 10% of the daily volume in
this area, the PM peak hour volume on Pine St just north of the project's garage access is
approximately 100 vehicles, including project traffic. The garage access volume is
estimated to be approximately 27 vehicles (18 in, 9 out), with 73 vehicles through on Pine
St. The surface lot access is estimated to be approximately 28 vehicles (18 in, 10 out),
with 45 vehicles on Pine St, half of which estimated to be to/from the Point Edwards back
entrance and the remainder to/from Woodway.
Sight Distance
There are two sight distance parameters generally applicable towards site development.
One is intersection (or entering) sight distance from project driveways and the other is
stopping sight distance at the project driveways.
Intersection sight distance requirements are the design parameters set forth in order to
provide sufficient sight distance for entering vehicles such that they do not impede the
mainline traffic speed and in -turn do not reduce the capacity of the roadway. It should be
noted that the intersection sight distance deals with the ability of side street entering and
mainline left -turning motorists to see oncoming vehicles with sufficient time to make
crossing or entering maneuvers without significantly impeding the flow of mainline
traffic. Intersection sight distance thresholds generally allow a vehicle to enter the major
street from a side street and attain 85 percent of the design speed before being overtaken
by an approaching vehicle. As a result, it is understood that intersection sight distance
relates more to driver comfort and roadway capacity rather than safety. Also, it should be
noted that some major jurisdictions rely solely on stopping sight distance for driveway
adequacy checks especially on lower functional class facilities such as Pine St.
In this specific case, the project volumes exiting the site and the mainline traffic are
estimated to be low such that the average major street operating speed is not significantly
lowered with project entering traffic. Therefore, for low volume driveways accessing low
volume streets, it is suggested that available intersection sight distance at the project site
access points be based solely on safe stopping sight distance requirements. The available
(stopping) sight distance on a roadway should be sufficiently long to enable a vehicle
traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path.
The minimum acceptable values for safe stopping sight distance were obtained from the
AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004, Exhibit 3-1 and
adjusted for grade based on AASHTO Equation 3-3: d=V2/[30((a/32.2) ± G)]
The minimum SSD is 155 feet at 25 mph for a roadway grade between -3% and +3%.
The sight distance conditions and the computed distances are shown in the appendix.
William Popp Associates Page 6
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Table 3
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)
Design Required SSD b Measured
Intersection Speed a grade SSD (ft) SSD (ft) °
Pine St/Surface Lot access (Station 10+65)
looking left (south) 25 mph
-9%
175'
200' +
looking right (north) 25 mph
+10%
140'
162' d
Pine St/Garage access (Station 11+55)
looking left (south) 25 mph
-10%
180'
200' +
looking right (north) 25 mph
+9%
140'
167' d
Design speed calculated at 24 mph based on 150' curve radius in the vicinity of Station 12+00 on Pine St. Design
speed assumed at 25 mph.
b Per 2004 AASHTO, Exhibit 3-2 & Equation 3-3; Stopping Sight Distance on Grades. Grades are on Pine St. All
sight lines assume low growth ground cover landscaping and high canopy trees within the building setback line.
Sight lines also assume no vehicles parked on Pine St in the sight line zones.
C Based on plan and profile features. Sight lines assume driver eye setback of 14.5' from edge of traveled way (curb
line extended), and in profile assume an eye height of 3.5' and an object height of 2'.
d This is the traversed distance of approaching vehicle as it travels through curve. Sight distance line as measured
does not encroach beyond building setback line.
As shown in Table 3, the measured SSD from the proposed site plan indicate that the
minimum sight distance at the two driveways meets or exceeds the minimum safe
stopping sight distance requirement per AASHTO. This conclusion presumes that
proposed landscaping will not conflict with sight lines and there will be no on -street
parking in these zones.
Level of Service
A PM peak hour level of service analysis was not conducted at either of the two
driveways due to the fact that the estimated traffic from the project as well as the volume
on Pine St will be significantly low such that the anticipated level of service will more
than likely be LOS A. As noted above in the Traffic Volume discussion in this section,
the PM peak hour driveway volume (at each of the two site driveways) is estimate to
about 28 vehicles turning against through volumes on Pine St ranging between 45 and 75
vehicles.
Channelization Warrants
Based on the low volumes on Pine Street and the relatively low volumes entering and
exiting the site, it is safely concluded without analysis that this development will not
warrant the need for a left turn pocket nor a right turn pocket/taper on Pine Street at either
location.
William Popp Associates Page 7
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Queuing
A queue summary analysis was conducted at the SR 104/Pine St intersection for the PM
peak hour conditions. The City requested 50th percentile queue as well as 95th percentile
queue. The queue results were based on one hour simulation runs conducted using
SimTraffic and subsequent output results. SimTraffic is a sub -program of Synchro. The
results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
PM Peak Hour Vehicle Queues (ft) a
2015
2013 without
Approach/ Existing project
Intersection Movement 50th ` 95th ` 50th 95th
2015
with
project h
50th 95th
2020
with
project t
50th 95th
SR 104/Pine Street ` EB Left 16 46 15 45 22 50 21 53
EB Right 22 39 22 45 20 44 22 51
NB Left 8 27 12 34 18 38 20 45
All queues noted below are represented in terms of feet. All data based on 1 -hour traffic simulation runs. Results
can vary slightly between runs for similar traffic volume conditions.
Project full occupancy; based can 89 apartment units,
50a1 percentile queue represents queue that will not be exceeded 50 percent of the analysis period. The 951h
percentile queue suggests that the estimated queue will not exceed this distance 95 percent of the analysis period.
The eastbound approach on Pine Street at SR 104 is wide enough for a two-lane approach
and the right turn island and acceleration lane implies a two-lane approach, however there
is no designated striping other than a centerline skip stripe. Therefore, it is assumed the
storage distance for the left and right movements is approximately 400 feet extending
back to the Union Oil Company Road. The northbound left turn pocket striped storage
distance is approximately 125 feet not including the opening transition zone. As shown
in Table 4 above, the 50th and 95th percentile queues for both eastbound movements as
well as the northbound left turn movement do not exceed the storage distances available.
In addition, it should be noted that the queue results with project traffic indicate that
queues will not be significantly different than without project.
No noticeable vehicle queuing is anticipated at either of the two project driveways given
the very low volumes predicted. Thus, no analysis was conducted.
Parking Supply and Demand
As per the proposed site plan, there are proposed 70 garage and 74 surface parking stalls
for a total of 144 stalls. There is also on -street parallel parking on Pine Street east of the
site.
William Popp Associates Page 8
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation manual, 4`h
Edition', the anticipated peak weekday parking demand for the residential apartment use
in a suburban setting (per the ITE equation (P = 1.42 [X] - 38) would be 88 vehicles,
estimated to occur between 10 PM and 6 AM. The average rate in ITE (versus the
equation) yields a slightly higher demand. The rate is 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit.
Per the rate, the peak parking demand would equate to 109 vehicles.
Therefore, parking supply is estimated to be adequate at 144 stalls. Based on this source
for parking demand, it is estimated that there could be an excess supply of between 35
and 56 parking stalls on site. If the site were developed as a condominium project, the
estimated parking demand would be approximately 122 vehicles, thus the proposed
supply would remain adequate.
Accident History
The City requested a 3 -year accident history evaluation at the SR 104/Pine St intersection,
due to the fact this is the primary access to the surrounding area.
There were only two accidents identified by the City of Edmonds Police Department at or
near the SR 104/Pine St intersection within the past 3 years. These are both summarized
below:
1. Accident report 1 identified a ferry queue related accident that occurred
7/31/2010. This accident was a 2 -vehicle rear -end accident property damage only
that occurred in the ferry storage lane approximately 300 feet north of Pine St.
The ferry queue was stop and go.
2. Accident report 2 also identified a ferry queue related accident that occurred
8/10/2012. This accident was a 2 -vehicle rear -end accident property damage only
that occurred in the ferry storage lane just south of Pine St. The ferry queue
extended back through Pine St.
VI. Traffic Volumes
Existing Traffic Counts
Manual PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected by Traffic Data
Gathering (TDG, Inc.) in January 2013 at three of the four analysis intersections. The
count at the SR 104/100'' Ave W intersection was obtained from the Walgreen's Traffic
Study provided by the City. The PM peak hour turning movements at these intersections
are presented in Figure 4.
11TE 4h Edition Parking Generation manual, 2010, page 53.
William Popp Associates Page 9
..
North
. . . . .......... .
g�p
.�Ll&h S1 SW
14400 BO -Red Rd #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
M10,30
Caspers St
z"I 01 , A 101,12 1, 1
EXISTING VOLUMES
3
24
21
41
41
4
4
J223
L
51
94
17
110--)
r- w C\j
233-
CD C13
105
co
CDC.)
C\j
211
co
Inco
cm(n
J I
50
22 —J
F
\�� --- )
"t W C-4
C,
ONN
C\j
3
J L
L
21
41
41
4
4
51
43
110--)
r- w C\j
CD C13
CDC.)
C\j
211
J 1600
L
145
61
618
159----
ONN
C\j
N
4
50 Pine St
89 MF Units
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Historical Growth
As recommended by city staff, the background growth rate to be utilized in this traffic
study should be 2.0 percent per year.
The City has identified one land use development to include in the background traffic
forecasts. This project is the Walgreen's development located at SR 104/100th Ave W.
Table 5 identifies the total entering PM peak hour volume at each of the analysis
intersections for the various volume conditions.
Table 5
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Total Entering Vehicles)
a Background volume includes an annual 2% per year growth factor, plus City identified land use development
b Project volumes are based on 89 apartment units.
° Project volume divided by 2015 total entering volume.
d March 2012 count.
As shown in Table 5, the maximum project volume impact occurs at the SR 104/Pine
Street intersection, as expected since Pine St is the primary access to the project and this
intersection has the lowest overall intersection volume (total entering vehicles). The
project impact here estimated to be 52 vehicles during the PM peak hour, or
approximately 5% of the total intersection entering vehicles by 2015.
The project impact at the three signalized intersections ranges from 1% and 2%.
The 2015 background PM peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 5. 2015 PM
peak hour with project traffic is presented in Figure 6. The 2020 PM peak hour volumes
are shown in the appendix.
VII. Level -of -Service
Level -of -service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a
qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and
the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several
quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There
are six levels -of -service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F", with "A" being
William Popp Associates Page 10
2015
Project
2020
2013
2015
Project
with
Impact
with
Intersection
Existing
Background'
Trips s
Project
M C
Project
SR 104/Dayton St
1,201
1,250
22
1,267
1.7%
1,397
SR 104/Pine St
919
956
52
1,008
5.2%
1,108
SR 104/15th St
1,928
2,006
30
2,036
1.5%
2,245
SR 104/100th Ave d
3,008
3,192
30
3,222
0.9%
3,554
a Background volume includes an annual 2% per year growth factor, plus City identified land use development
b Project volumes are based on 89 apartment units.
° Project volume divided by 2015 total entering volume.
d March 2012 count.
As shown in Table 5, the maximum project volume impact occurs at the SR 104/Pine
Street intersection, as expected since Pine St is the primary access to the project and this
intersection has the lowest overall intersection volume (total entering vehicles). The
project impact here estimated to be 52 vehicles during the PM peak hour, or
approximately 5% of the total intersection entering vehicles by 2015.
The project impact at the three signalized intersections ranges from 1% and 2%.
The 2015 background PM peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 5. 2015 PM
peak hour with project traffic is presented in Figure 6. The 2020 PM peak hour volumes
are shown in the appendix.
VII. Level -of -Service
Level -of -service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a
qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and
the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several
quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There
are six levels -of -service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F", with "A" being
William Popp Associates Page 10
North
N M
loo St
J I
L— 52
Ma Ae Sl77
_J
123 5
J
Nv 495
C'01
waloul St
,.
Puget
w�
Sound
3
00
�
JI
_ _ 43
Caa
4
a'
53
llL 5q
45
N
27
114---)
CO
a CC
'0
SI71F w
o
C',.
r) CJ
" N
224
J
— 637
2
+
154
65
656-
56-169
169
N4V
O
0
z pN
U
WOODWAY
2261b St S�
xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour
Volume (without project)
0 66 0
WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES
14400 Bel -Red Rd #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
425 4M.W30
info@wmpoppucmw,com
Caspers St
2 �'
FNM
25
— 232
J
+ q� 96
242
109
LO CD
Main St
N M
loo St
J I
L— 52
Ma Ae Sl77
_J
123 5
J
Nv 495
C'01
waloul St
w�
3
00
JI
_ _ 43
l_
4
53
llL 5q
45
cn00
114---)
CO
Q
.c
as
4,
r) CJ
" N
224
J
— 637
+
154
65
656-
56-169
169
N4V
a
BACKGROUND VOLUMES 50 Pine St
89 MF Units
5
North
Puget
CO
Sound
wti
E CD
2
2
2?61h M SW
F
Caspers St
Main St
xQxro-Ifl[opq
r -
C) r,
C11 Cn
SITE
J L
L
232
I
25 -,
107
18 --J
242-
C"
110--)
00 co r.-
tco2
c7 rs
C"
Pine St
J L
651
cr
154
66
663
171
CIJ 0) (D
� :$r'
0
0
a
V
WOODWAY
xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour Volume (with project)
2
2
2?61h M SW
F
Caspers St
Main St
xQxro-Ifl[opq
r -
C) r,
C11 Cn
25
J L
L
232
I
25 -,
107
18 --J
242-
C"
110--)
00 co r.-
tco2
c7 rs
C"
: 2'
3 1�
22
J L
lL_ 52
31 _J
I
25 -,
� F
-- J
45
114
C"
3 1�
WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 50 Pine St
14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT VOLUMES . . .. .... . ..... .
Bellevue, WA 98007
42,5 401. t( 89 MF Units
info@ wmpn'pixissoc com I r" l "'. , — A
22
J L
43
4
53
45
114
tvu
c) cl
00 r, cl
fYA
c7 rs
C"
224
J L
651
154
66
663
171
CIJ 0) (D
� :$r'
WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 50 Pine St
14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT VOLUMES . . .. .... . ..... .
Bellevue, WA 98007
42,5 401. t( 89 MF Units
info@ wmpn'pixissoc com I r" l "'. , — A
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or
jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and
design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with
freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult.
The level -of -service for the four analysis intersections were calculated using the
Trafficware Synchro intersection analysis software. It is important to note that both
software packages and summary results presented herein are per the HCM signalized and
unsignalized methodology. In addition, it should be noted that the analysis of
unsignalized intersections utilizes the full hour volumes whereas the analysis of
signalized intersections utilized the peak 15 -minute volumes by approach within the peak
hour. In general, full hour volumes are used in the analysis of unsignalized intersections
because short-term fluctuations will generally not present major difficulties at such
locations. In this specific case at SR 104/Pine St, the southbound approach has regularly
occurring specific spikes in volumes for approximately 10 to 15 minutes each hour due to
unloading of ferry traffic.
Level -of -service criteria and definitions for signalized and non -signalized intersections
are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Intersection Level -of -Service Criteria
Level of Stopped Delay Per Vehicle
Service Definition signalized non -signalized
A Little or no delay
B Short traffic delays
C Average traffic delays
D Long traffic delays
E Very long traffic delays
F Extreme delay
1 Delay; seconds per vehicle
< 10.0 sec
< 10.0 sec
> 10 to 20 sec
> 10 to 15 sec
> 30 to 35 sec
> 15 to 25 sec
> 35 to 55 sec
> 25 to 35 sec
> 55 to 80 sec
> 35 to 50 sec
> 80 sec
> 50 sec
The existing 2013, future with and without project (year 2015) weekday PM peak hour, as
well as 2020 with project level of service at the analysis intersections are presented in
Table 7. Note the delay presented for unsignalized intersections represents the delay for
the critical approach or movement and not the overall intersection, whereas the delay for
signalized intersection represents the overall intersection delay only.
William Popp Associates Page 11
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
Table 7
PM Peak Hour Level of Service (at Off -Site Intersections)
2015 2015 2020
Approach/ 2013 without with with
Intersection Movement Existing project project a Project
SR 104/Dayton St
overall °
B (15.8) b
B (16.4)
B (16.9)
B (18.8)
SR 104/Pine Street °
WB right
B (11.2)
B (11.3)
B (11.3)
B (11.8)
EB left
C (23.0)
C (24.4)
C (27.4)
D (33.1)
EB right
A (9.4)
A (9.4)
A (9.5)
A (9.7)
EB approach
C (17.7)
C (18.5)
C (19.4)
C (22.8)
NB Left
A (8.2)
A (8.2)
A (8.3)
A (8.5)
SR 104/15th St SW
overall `
B (14.1)
B (13.9)
B (13.9)
B (14.9)
SR 104/100th Ave W
overall °
C (29.5)
C (32.0)
C (32.2)
D (36.2)
a Project full occupancy; 89 apartment units.
b signalized intersection, representative delay is for overall intersection, (xx) - Delay, seconds per vehicle
stop sign control on Pine Street; LOS represented for each side street movement and approach and major street left
turns. Ferry lane traffic omitted from the analysis.
SR 104/Dayton St - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B and will continue to
do so in the future. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by
approximately 0.5 seconds per vehicle (s/v) with project full occupancy. The analysis
does not include the ferry loading traffic.
SR 104/Pine Street - During the manual count and observations at this intersection, the
side street approach delay was very minimal for most of the 2 -hour period. Of course,
during ferry unload times, the southbound traffic on SR 104 increases dramatically and
the corresponding potential for delay on the Pine Street approaches increases accordingly.
The level -of -service results at this intersection are based on a full one hour period, for the
peak hour. As shown in Table 7, the eastbound approach LOS for the existing 2013 case
is estimated to be C (17.7 s/v delay). The critical side street movement, the eastbound
left, is estimated to be C (23.0 s/v delay). For the 2015 without project case, the
eastbound approach LOS is estimated to be C (18.5 s/v delay); with the eastbound left
LOS estimated to be C (24.4 s/v delay). For the 2015 with project condition, the
eastbound approach LOS is estimated to be C (27.4 s/v delay); with the eastbound left
LOS and delay estimated to be C (19.4 s/v delay). With the project the estimated increase
in the eastbound left turn lane delay is estimated to be approximately 3 seconds per
vehicle based on the 2015 "with-" and "without -project" LOS results. The estimated
delay for the 2020 with project condition for the eastbound approach is C (22.8 s/v delay).
The critical side street movement, the eastbound left, is estimated to be D (33.1 s/v
delay).
SR 104/15th St SW - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B and is estimated to
continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this
William Popp Associates Page 12
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
intersection is estimated to increase by approximately only one second per vehicle (s/v)
from 2015 with project to 2020 with project. It should be noted that the overall delay
actually improves slightly from the 2013 existing condition to the 2015 without project
condition. This is a result of the project increasing the weighting of a movement (major
street thru movements) operating at a high level of service.
SR 104/100th St W - This intersection is currently estimated to be operating at LOS C
and will continue to do so in the future with or without the project in 2015. The average
delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by approximately 3 seconds per vehicle
(s/v) from 2013 to 2015 with project. The intersection is estimated to operate at LOS D
in 2020 with project.
A summary of the calculations are attached in the appendix.
VIII. Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analysis for the proposed 50 Pine St Multi -Family Residential
development, the following traffic impact conclusions have been made in regards to the
surrounding arterial network:
This traffic study assumes a worst-case land use and unit count for trip generation,
parking, and traffic impacts. The study assumes the project would be developed as an
89 residential apartment building. Based on 89 apartment units, the site is estimated
to generate 592 average weekday daily trips, 45 AM, and 55 PM peak hour trips. The
final development unit count is estimated to range between 85 and 89 units. Should
the site be developed as a condominium project, the estimated trip generation would
be approximately 14% less.
Based on the trip generation estimate and the project trip distribution and assignment,
five percent (5%) of the project trips (only 3 PM peak hour trips) are estimated to
utilize the roadway infrastructure through the Town of Woodway. All of these trips
would be on Chinook Rd.
The project driveways level of service during the PM peak hour period is assumed to
be LOS A given the very low volume of traffic. A level of service analysis was not
conducted given the low volumes.
The available sight distance at the two proposed driveways for vehicles exiting the
site is calculated to exceed the safe stopping sight distance requirements per 2004
AASHTO assuming adequate sight line zones are maintained to be free of sight line
obstructions. This sight distance analysis was based on Stopping Sight Distance
criteria given the local access street character and the estimated low volumes on Pine
Street as well as the two driveways.
William Popp Associates Page 13
Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St
All of the signalized analysis intersections are estimated to operate at satisfactory
levels of service with project traffic impacts. Likewise, with the traffic impacts
associated with the project, the LOS grade remains the same as the without project
condition. The largest increase in delay with inclusion of the project traffic at the
three subject signalized intersection is approximately 0.5 s/v. This occurs at the SR
104/Dayton St intersection.
The eastbound approach at the SR 104/Pine Street intersection is estimated to operate
at LOS C for 2015 with project. This result is based on a peak hour volume scenario
within the 2 -hour PM peak period. The critical eastbound left movement level of
service is estimated to be LOS C (24.4 seconds per vehicle [s/v] delay) in 2015
without the project and LOS C (27.4 s/v delay) in 2015 with the project. Thus, the
average delay for the eastbound left increases 4 s/v with the project in 2015. The
estimated delay for the eastbound left in 2020 with the project is LOS D (33.1 s/v).
o The 2015 PM peak hour volume forecast on Pine Street west of SR 104 (east of
Nootka Road) with the project is estimated to be approximately 165 PM peak hour
vehicles. The daily volume is estimated to be approximately 1,560 vehicles per day.
The estimated PM peak hour volume just north of the project access points is
estimated to be approximately 100 vehicles, including project traffic. The garage
access volume is 27 vehicles, with 73 vehicles through on Pine St. The surface lot
access is 28 vehicles with 45 vehicles on Pine St.
• Based on accident history at the SR 104/Pine St intersection, there were only two
accidents recorded, thus it is concluded that there is not enough of an accident history
to warrant this location as a significant traffic safety concern.
• The proposed parking supply of 144 stalls is estimated to be adequate for either an
apartment or condominium use with 89 units.
IX. Mitigation Recommendations
The mitigation recommendations for the 50 Pine St Multi -Family Residential project are
as follows:
1. The City's GMA transportation impact fee will be formerly assessed at building
permit approval.
2. At the two project driveways including the surface lot and the garage access, sight
lines shall be maintained to meet the minimum required stopping sight distance
criteria noted in this report. Typical sight obstructions to avoid include abnormally
tall landscape ground cover, street trees with low canopies, utility vaults/boxes, and
on -street parking.
William Popp Associates Page 14
William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners
(425)401-1030
FAX (425) 401-2125
e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
FOR
50 .PINE ST
March 25, 2013
CONTENTS:
✓ PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
2012 PM Peak Hour (existing)
2015 PM Peak Hour without project
12, 2015 PM Peak Hour with project
12- 2020 PM Peak Hour with project
✓ Accident Data (SR 104/Pine St)
✓ Sight Distance Sketches
✓ Level of Service Calculations (Queue Results for SR 104/Pine)
2012 PM Peak Hour (existing)
2015 PM Peak Hour without project
2015 PM Peak Hour with project
2020 PM Peak Hour with project
14-400 Building 9 Suite 206 * 14400 Bel -Red Road . Bellevue, WA 98007
50 Pine St
PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes
1 SR 104/Dayton St
Existing 2013
PM PEAK HOU
Existing
2015
406
2015
24
Horizon Yr
341
Long Range
2013
Future
Ferry
Background
Project
2015
5 -yr
2020
PM PK
Growth aTraffic
0
Traffic
Trips b
PM PK
Growth
PM PK
EBLT
17
1
18
8
18
2
20
EBLT
EBT
233
9
242
242
-------
25
. ......
268
. .......... . .........
EBRT
105
4
109
1
110
11
122
WBLT
94
4
98
9
107
10
117
WBT
223
9
232
----------
232 .......
24
256
WBRT
24
-------
1
25
- - - -------
25
3
28
. ............ . ................................
"RT
3
...............
NBLT
149
6
155
1
156
16
172
NBT
83
- — - ------------
3
86
2
88
9 ...........
97
NBT170
NBRT
21
1
22
. . ...... . . . .. ..........
5
27 ..........
2
-- ----------------
29
SBLT
36
1
37
37
4
41
-------- - --- - ---
SBT
199
8
207
4
211
22
233
SBRT
17
1
18
14
18
2
20
Existing 2013
PM PEAK HOU
Existing
2015
406
2015
24
Horizon Yr
341
Long Range
2013
Future
Ferry
Background
Project
2015
5 -yr
2020
PM PK
Growth aTraffic
0
Traffic
Trips b
PM PK
growth C
PM PK
EBLT
22
1
23
8
31
2
- - —
33
- - - - - - - - - -------------------
EBLT
EBT--x
.
- ---- -
EBRT
141
10
. . .....................
—2-5
26
VirBLT
0
0
0
0
0
'"T
WBRT
--x - ----
50
2
------------ - ---
5252
. . . . . . --- . . ..... . . .
5
. .........................
57
WBRT
29
...............
NBLT
42
2
44
20
64
5
68
NBT
15
384
---- - . .. ............
384
40
------------
424
NBT56
NBRT
. ..........
1
24
24
2
26
. . . . . . . . . .......... . ...............
SBLT
x
SBT
368
15
383
38340---------
423
SBRT
25
1
26
14
40
3
43
913 37 86
950
52
1002
99
1101
5.2%
------
1047 .13%
11111-- .... - ....... . — — --------------- — ------
------ - ----------------------------- -
. ..............
- -----
.
. . . . . . . .. .. .. ........ .. ......................
. .
...........
Background growth: City identified as 2%
per year.
b Based on 89 apt units (general apt)
" not including project traffic
Existing 2013
PM PEAK HOU
Background Traffic 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
262 129
405 355
369 302
4141263
Horizon Yr 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
266
252
124
406
389
24
370
341
355
290
3981253
Background Traffic 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
262 129
405 355
369 302
4141263
Horizon Yr 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
266
131
104
406
364
24
370
307
4281271
Existing 2013
PM PEAK HOUR
393 441
#VALU 50
36 #VALUE!
382434
Background Traffic 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
F-4091459 i
52
24
1 3971452
Horizon Yr 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
4231467
104
52
55
24
1 071472
50PIne Turns,xIs, PM turns William Popp Associates
50 Pine St
PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes
3
Edmonds
Way/226th St SW
2015
Background
Traffic
Project
Trips b
Horizon Yr
2015
PM PK
5 -yr
growth
LongRange
21020
PM PK
Existing
2015
65
2015
66
Horizon Yr
72
Long Range
38
2013
Future
Pipeline
Background
Project
2015
5 -yr
2020
PM PK
Growth a
Proiect
Traffic
Trips b
PM PK
growth c
PM PK
EBLT
51
2
16
53
--------------- -----------
600
53
----
6
59
EBT
43
2
—
---- 717
45
13
45
5
49
EBRT
... i .
------------ ---------------
4
205
114
--------- ...........
114t2
----------- ... . ....
...... .......
126
. . . . . . ...............
WBLT
4
0
26
4
.218
449
4
0
5
WBT
41
...................... . . . . . . . ...
2
3
43
..... . . . . . . . .......................... . .
434
.. ...
---
.....
47
----------------- - ------- - - - - - - -
WBRT
21
1
173
22
173
22
2
24
NBLT
107
. . . . . . ...........................
4
................... 111
27
111
12
123
. . . .....
NBT
785
32
52
817
20
837
85
922
NBRT
1
33
33
3
37
SBLT
17
1
18
18
2
20
SBT
607111
27
4
699
....... .........
10
708
73
............ 78 1
SBRT
46
2
48
48
46
5
53
1928 78 4
2006
30
2036
209
2245
L5-%-----,
----- - --- - :2-%...... ------ ---- - - ----- ----- --------
..............
-------
Background growth: City identified as 2%
per year.
b Based on 89 apt units (general apt)
c not including project traffic
4
EBLT
EBT
EBRT
WBLT
WBT
VkrBRT
NBLT
NBT
NBRT
SBLT
SBT
SBRT
Edmonds Way/100th Ave W
Existing
2012
PM PK
2015
Future
Growth
Pipeline
Proiect
2015
Background
Traffic
Project
Trips b
Horizon Yr
2015
PM PK
5 -yr
growth
LongRange
21020
PM PK
4
1
65
1
66
7
72
. ...... ... ..
618
38
3
656
7
..... . . ........... ----
663
--------- . --- ..............
68
731
i59
. ... ....... ............. . . . . . . .
10
164
. . . . . . ............................... . .....
2
171
---- -
ii
------------------- -
-iii
--------
145---
9
1
154
154
16
170
600
37
6-7
14
651
66
—
---- 717
.. ........
211
13
224
— ------------
224
- --------------------------
23
----- - --------------------
247
205
13
4
222
23
244
423
26
2
.218
449
44947
496
128
8
3
136
..... . .
136
................ . ....................
.................... ...... .
14
.. .......
.............................
t50 ........
163
10
173
173
18
191
. ............................ .. . . .
248
15
......................
263
27
291
47
3
�263
50
2
52
5
57
3008 184 10 3192 30 3222 332 3554
0.9%
.......... -- ... .......
3281 _8%
' Background growth: City identified as 2% per year.
b Based on 89 apt units (general apt)
c not including project traffic
Existing 2013
PM PEAK HOUR
734
857
1194
66
204
92
785
924
Background Traffic 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
764 892
202 69
212 96
8171961
Horizon Yr 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
774 �912
202
69
212 96
827981
Existing 2012
PM PEAK HOUR
852 T 956
838909 909,
8 ackgroun,d Traffic 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
904 4161111 1015
889 965
586 802
Horizon Yr 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
488 739
924 1029
899 972
5881806
SOPIne Turns.xis. PM turns William Popp Associates
STATff(>rWA$HlN( N
REPORT NO. E061707
POLICIFTRAFFtIII 2=3
cl, COLUMN nEPOnT
CASE # 1
El FIRL
17c; SWm Vh wrx- 40.A� L.",
LIF ki
IV"^.+' .t� . ......... . ... . .....
:E7
L....... .. .
TUrAL 0 OF
F1 TRIBAL uNrrs 2
FIE5ERYATION I
III M u D v v v I Irm: l2mox LYJU�l Iy V 611 Lb'� ❑Ull v jr
El
2010 1440 0,365 oM
T1 [�] — ,,,—,'.. I — I -- s w 0 0F 17 ...................... .
INTERSECT10N NONANTE�-,SEGrION
4L] ON 'I'll MAHY TALI"
I'vVi B:SR 104
300
4ali M I F
[MILES I—'] N 17, E
300] (") . ........... ... I PINE
FEET /; s L WL ST
z PIPMAIr D qH A-0
UNIT !,Ufl&� W,/" C YCX L (206) 218-5400
ILL 1AWS F I RS T UA M E LORETTA L�E=K
... . .... ..............,...-
T
339 WELLS AVE N
C RENTON so, WA _[fIP 980575610 ]L2
. ............ ... . ........ ......... .. .........
,44 F - -----
CQVE�41S, I EE �
WILLILK40INL WA 8 E3 j - [:aj:6:0
RUE:rrq. 4 EJECT �GLMT IN.. J
U� TUU 1-11 7FATUS AIPUA5 use vu-::
,LAI,: o [-8iO A VVA viw, JTD9E:32KX40272I363
.............
12 M4O PI ATF v z0I ATF 4 9yq L
............ ........... .... ........ .... ...... . .... .... . . ...... .. .... ..... . ....... .. ..... qZ'
T17 * C g
4 TGY0 CCA M 4 D ER
1 lea2aO1, Y-- –1 ..... VEHICLE
I CC
AM IVA INS W0741321 ZK
'7
------ XY0,'17750 ow TOO c IE
1,111TO IVI r'l'rlll - ran
-my RIONE
UNIT 02 vcl�EME CWXE 1 71 (360) 582-7797
16 1 21 Mirfl. P 4
LAS mw,= I Hf.,, WAm IhJrrAAi
'I F J, DAR K]
-111111 — I. --- 11--.11--..................... -.111.11-11-1-1-11111 11-11111----l''I'll'', ... - -1111111 ..........
'ALJ�7TP -7
1626 W 15TH ST
Is
F1 C17Y PORT ANGELE8 Err � WA no ,9 368.45
is
F1 F�'-- ....... . ...... ...... . ....... ............................. ::7,T
I SW I; I ......... . V"V,A,—L: 1=5
. ... ...... .......
29F] I LIGld��E EDWARIDK4246N I El�
Z-ATf-i Rr=STP-
Ll 14r ' SE C -AZS
F
22F] UCDP�SE �TXT: WA ANog
PLATE 820-7GX KMHHU6KH9AU022047
. ..... ........ ... . .. . . ..........rLa ... ...... ........ .... . ...... .......... . .. . ..
IAI
24 20r,10
VEHICLE__
'A I-U N AHLA
E Ico IN S 41172531 M
1'�l E
'WI'D "A S [WW"t YMW,I g n
WA0310200
FALKE 1367 ,
PAGE 01 or't-1
PART
OLLISI07
"ATE OF WASINOTO"
PoUct�TRAFM 111111111111 Jill 111 CORRECTION REPORT NO. � . . E0617
. . ........ ..
CON HREPORT
TSI -72 CA68 # 10-2855
. . ................ . ................ . . ..... . ..... - - — — ----------- -
"NO
NO%
SIMONS, JENNIFER R
1327S PuG c
�- r , P. F-26 ) Ri)nton, 1dVA980615 �2ICF 5) 854-97 77 F -Ex F
PASISP,GFR w up&s AMAMI 2 ZipqTk4 l M
n
�................ . ............ . .
N, WX
fLAST, f1r43T, MM=,-WRnQ EUOJAR[�)S, 'SIEPHEr�-i W
iINA
2,�, 0 1 T H 4� 3T Porl Arplf,,s,
(,360) 80-3064
AA
..............
WW* F
0
3
Al H m',i,
E41
j
1
.5.
�T
F �MME FU U R E S
- ----------- ----------- - - - - --- - -----------
------- - - - - -
(IAMFIR'T. NIM FNM&V�
.... . .. . .......... ........ . ............. . . . . . .... . . ........ ...... . ...... . --- . ..... . . . ...... . ....... ..............................................
. . ..... .
---
PHUNE w
... ------
-- -
-----
--------------
------- . . ...............
--------------. . .
. .............. . . . .....
F); S S E v3C- R %v rr - E,&S
... .
uNrr 0,
...... . ......
SEAT
qEST�
E,1U',7
Lfli�VTI
14JUPY
�'A k�;
WJUPE U PLIUNEG
DIAGRAM:
I GFPT FY jTAFr,1 ARF.t IjNr;PR PFNA r? OF F%-RJUFIY 4INDFR T."F LAPIS OFT -4F SATE (7k qXAS-411A MN THAT -1- F r-OPFG04 N(3 IS 'MUF AND 00FIRFCT. IRC -N M,72.09,9.
E FALK 8/2/2010
'AT-5'1GAnr4G OF—CER'r, UNI- Or, C0,1W DET DA71. F-1. FLACE SIC.14M
.. ..... . . .....................
7777ka Bard, Michael D025 Q4,
BADGE CIP, ID 0 ON 00 2-46 PM T1fv1E�',U0-AP:11VGD 2'4�
-11367 ... . ........ . . . .............. . ----
- 1- - - 11— - 1..,j - 11111- 1 WA03102 -J OF
PAIR -r B aooak ix, n PAOEF2 F41
I Iti,A16111. IV VAN IWIWM a VWW IF W.
Narrative
JOTS: SFS 104 is a east/west highway, However, the location of the collision occurred where the
Highway runs north/south- For the narrative I will refer to the direction of the vehicles as east/west in
elation to the highways direction.
)nit's 1 and 2 were westbound SR 104 in the right ferry holding lane. The traffic was stop and go. At
lie time of the collision Unit 2 was stopped when Unit 1 struck the rear of Unit 2, The driver of Unit 1
old me she was distracted and took her foot off the brake, causing Unit 1 to move forward and strike
Jnit 2.
'he front license plate frame and its attachment screw head of Unit 1 left an indent in the right rear
pumper of Unit 2. The driver of Unit 2 said the trunk lid no longer functioned properly,
PACS E 3 of 4
No Scale
Kepon Numner; tubi rul
............ .,__... ®,...�
PAGE 4 OF 4
STATP OF W"K,'4(,
POLICE LUSIOTAAFAT
pI�<>N REPORT No. E186645 2=3
=42'
CONnion
rA-m El CASE
r4Tp1;f7 1:1 - " , LJ�
L
fkau'IE t -1/j CIH�41
MT6 V -N 1-11"'��,"�ma1.{.h#
1 .
a410"I"
I.-M-KC7
TOM- 0 C)F 2 sTrIL Z-,
TRIM UNrrS
FlEbERVA7"ON
mr
pli M u D y Y y 1 RAI: 19,109.1. �V')LIN IT v 1011.bl� ell] v 9
I
I 1055 N L E] IPA 7,V
L. *woi 8 31
-F 1,2
......... . .. . ........
A[] MAWY IRAFFIC 'K -NY) IN1`ERSEG11CM NON Krb�-T:uEGTION
8R 104 VLQGK NO,
4al 101- -;K CMG.-�h I Pkf-.
mILES N E REET
5[A] 00
FEET6 J�Z�
UNIT 01 1ALMr.XL ... f-il CYCLL' E.� )293-1295
9 La-';- WWC, F IAVA MILIME; D]
I U rlWTHAME PAULO NIT ITIA L
fj 3240 S 180TH ST APT 15V
ESEATAC sr WA ZIP '81884214
........... - ---- --....... ....
.......... ... ... . ...
61-1 FE1 sE HTS
M - 5 =198d ----
I I "AA 1, It %Lu,;, F
r'. F 4 FUIAVPD12 K =5
-SLMETIN'l lnr
OCT z.�
N
RE07R, 4 F-a�r 1
USE Y STATLS A1110,Ari � �1 I I [=
��LB4elR5WJ002268
01 4 0 —TT .. L
IIIA L40
P" /'Tp �DI Mr 4
. . . ......... . . . ....
.. ................... .... ..... . . . ........... .... . . . . .. ... ... ...... ..... . ..... ..... ..... ..............
..... ........
[—"Ox VAN VN
..........
04W. VEHICLS No. I
LLC, BF0 ffj 1.-k;C4
.......................... . . ......
14
CONTINENT,A]. WESTERN BOP289432a
112 - — ------------------ - --- .....
'g 7-771777 - FOLLOYVING'T00 CLOSE
pn-t . ri-M . Y ----T CW,10�Wr➢sr-,W,1�.rj� FlIcK.
UNIT 02 IVI zr'.rf�r`4Li' I I I 1 (360) 348-0984
191 2] rx -
LAS rom L MARK I DI
I NAM 041TALF
tT�87P,-.7T
9300 W MALL DR APT A413
C17Y EVERETT -r I' VVA I ZIPJ 9,92082164
.............
. ..... . . ........ . . . . . ......... . ................................................... :
OLME111-1714DN =SWL 70,
EM 1 1965
2@F1 P"o. "� RUN
0110 Lull'y SIG,mF1
�1 1 1 C1 MEI
2 . r
22F] G 0 2Z8 T VVAJJFIGH6B67AG809697 Y!1j
S IAI �- 9AILER
'I'ATE A
........ .....ai
........ . ....... .......... . ........ . .
24F-F� 21 () 10 Lll�
JAIW4RM uV'
NONE
HARBINSON STEVEN
PART
PROGR�-SSIVE2157618."
L"L 'ILL, E101:
VEHICLE NO, 2
re
1467
PD EDMONDS
PAGE 01 or 1 6
�,TAIE Of WASKINOTON
Pol I CIE IONREPORT TAALFIFIC COMIECTION REPORT NO.
COLLIS
'(14w,
CA68 # 12-2906
.... . ..... ... . ...... . . . . .. . ........
NAW
fv"51' W• 1. LUX -A I kr.Q TAUAL0. MARCUS T
. .. ... . ........... .. ... .. ........ ..... .
OCILM58 1% r.1 .
11042 5 E 240T H F L A201 Kent, WA 98030 & 2061718-11 b4 lo ign
PAS.9P,C-FR 4 ITtrF [4f 3 JARAG 7iFqTP- 4 F11prIT EUVET NXTURE OF PUUrOE
p �Ae�
.. . ...... ........ . ............ J'H
........ ..... ... ........ . ...... . ---- . ......... ..
NAW
[Lk ---L FIMT, MIM-=- COERBER, CHRISTOPHER Ej
Am'fE:5&r1HcN=- r
12,303 HARBOUR PTE BLVD EE305 Muldfteo, WA 982762923 f425)346-4989 M 4
23 __1-982",
UNII 0 2 "3F"T 3 AlHb-%(,' 2 401 K 4 k'*�' 1 1 HR,,
Fv� �m I mv;�s F-1 I pc'X� "'AAS'. -'L
. . . ........ . —1111111111 .. .......... 11-111—.1 .... . ........ ............. ........... . ................
4F1A M F I MF % M r1n. RM61,11 KELLOGG. AARON M
. ........... . .... . ... ..... . .......... . .
.........
PHGN= r [- 1
617 19TFI S�nohorri
Ssh, W 1987
A 9829D 1442 (425) 923-6799
FIASSE\C,ER wm,16' :�S F]Ft)t-jrr 2 6 1 ;ESTR-, E I ECT H NNIkmE GF MIUREG
P rx�"' � oir
AIR&:I(i
DIAGRAM
I Cr -PT FY JT FMA .p VNrAFRPF[\&,.TY OF FM,,�URY LJNDFR THF OF TAF !MV7 OF 4W,3 ANG -MN THAT -I- F FQPFGCHNQ3 19 TRUFAYM COFIRMT. fFIC'MAta. 7;�.W9
STEVEN HARBINSON 8J1112012
N'sTS-IGAnNG omcxrrs 5,55w.,- RE UNI- Or, rxl7r, DET CATO FLW1 SIG,'ED
77770 Roth, Karl 886 1 t"r - I
RADGE OR ID WA0310200 THE :�OJCEMPATGHED 11,00 AM POE -*' 1-l" ;IVEDI 11 '01 AM
11467 - — --------
PART Bliow'3-c-i6c r. u.-ae'. PAq3E r 2101F F(--)-]
?-lm
hF—T-1 I
� 1
Hal
$UPPLEMENTAL
POLI Cff T14AFFIC
COLUSION REPORT
REPORTNO. [E185645
CASE# 1 12-2906,
cOMMERCIAL MOTOR CA R!!�R
JPS7 'ME
MIDD-k
..
.......................
..
wFrsu-T- LJ INMASTATF
.
ST -{blur
UNIT N 1
U
100 if
ZIP'
VCH112-E-PPE
CARGO Pd)LY
S—am
D I A I ov�m
TYPE............
ON Qj I y Vo us
R LOVY A, A L C., f
llIIVFIY
NAME
CL -1%S
Ll(jEN5E-i
Nl$
PLAIL
CAAaICR
filk
TFthILfR
01TV
PATI: t
kT
ZIP
]'-, I
. .. . ....... . ............ . ............. .....
. . . ............... . .......
QWP�
............. ....
... -- . ........................ . .... . .........................
+H
f'Aba' i k' "Uhi . ....... ..........
... . ... . .............
................. .
. ......... .
. . ..... . ....
... . . . . . .. ... .. . .
. . ........ .. . ... . . . ......... . .. .... . ............................................... ..
UNIT " 4 1 ... . . ...... . ... ... . ... .... l" Ll
SEL L
Li
Li
. ...........
I I
. . ................ ... . -
LAST NAME
=np
NorlD. r
� �=
-
0111 o'.
. . .... . .......... ..... ....... . .. ..............................
. .........
....... ....
....... ....
. . .............................
ars
,"r
Fzlp,'F
... ...........
........
.....
...........................
iYitlkN
S15111:
SU
V U ts
L!"",
ON Dirr7i
I
I i r
L
L r---iEl
!Tl%nff];,,
-,l
W
. .........
PL S
STME
P --/Arc IF
ST AM
-]
. .. . . .... .. .. ............
UMIEL
tw;'.
an
FELL PJ DPRKPLD A&�LA
U4-UTY
R 0C
4
draw w
"T" 4
........ .........
m"-rV�
UNIT 0
FEW1
VO4"Lt
11.,YCI--
F—1
F-1
CIMICS
L!T- NRPdF
JPS7 'ME
MIDD-k
..
.......................
..
'k -
ST -{blur
11
U
ZIP'
�EDL-WEN-If
S—am
D I A I ov�m
-bx
ON Qj I y Vo us
R LOVY A, A L C., f
llIIVFIY
CL -1%S
Ll(jEN5E-i
Nl$
PLAIL
filk
TFthILfR
PATI: t
'ESA jw�E
F4 G STER E -D—, _MW M INF a .................... . . . . . ....... . ...... . -- - ............
H kPFA
5; ro,-f NUFVNZ;7,7C-
N
77.,T. 7 777
:W�J-WHY Uh,-*V�
HAR13K90N 8111 �21012
1& l w SiGro., Lim uml i C*.,, ulb I um I
BA006 YED 21, x4t ----I
lrv VVA03102W Ram E OF
1467 1 �
—�, "I PAO
Ip dl T
4ril
17
LL;
Other Descriptions
COLLIS�C.N LEVEL DEScRip,rIONS-
[1-r-)CATION CHARACTER DESCRf P7 N] - FERRY HOLDING LANE
PAGE 4 OF
I 17 NII Ibj/ # s V 1 VVVT
Narrative
vehicle 2 was stopped on SR 104 near Pine Street due to a large volume of ferry traffic. Vehicle 1 ww
i-aveling northbound on SIR 104 in the outside lana. The driver of Vehicle 1 looked at his GFS and did
iot notice Vehicle 2 was stopped for traffic. Vehicle 1 attempted to move left and slow in an attempt tc
nils Vehicle 2. Vehicle 1's right front corner impacted the left rear corner of Vehicle 2. No injuries
vere reported at the time of the collision. The driver of Vehicle 1 admitted he was distracted by his
':')'PS for just a second. Driver 1 was cited for following too close.
PAG E 5 OF 6
Keparx NumDei: k 1 csv>4:D
PAGE 6 OF 6
SIGHT LINE CLEAR ZONE POTENTIAL
fug
'y
IUADDHIONAL R,0 W DF-WCAR(M
j P ROM Cl Allo )l 1 1.)
Rro
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Davton St & SR 104 2/4/2013
c Critical Lane Group
2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St
Page 1
-0
t
l"
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
11,
I
+
r
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1787
1881
1599
1752
1818
1787
1881
1599
1736
3430
Flt Permitted
0.35
1.00
1.00
0.35
1.00
0.52
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
667
1881
1599
642
1818
978
1881
1599
1267
3430
Volume (vph)
17
233
105
94
223
24
149
83
21
36
199
17
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.55
0.55
0.55
Adj. Flow (vph)
24
333
150
125
297
32
175
98
25
65
362
31
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
108
0
7
0
0
0
10
0
8
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
24
333
42
125
322
0
175
98
15
65
385
0
Heave Vehicles (%)
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Effective Green, g (s)
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
177
499
424
170
482
589
1132
963
763
2065
v/s Ratio Prot
0.18
0.18
0.05
0.11
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.03
c0.19
c0.18
0.01
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.14
0.67
0.10
0.74
0.67
0.30
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.19
Uniform Delay, d1
16.9
19.8
16.7
20.2
19.8
5.8
5.0
4.8
5.0
5.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
3.4
0.1
15.2
3.5
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
Delay (s)
17.2
23.1
16.8
35.4
23.3
7.1
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.6
Level of Service
B
C
B
D
C
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
21.0
26.6
6.3
5.5
Approach LOS
C
C
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
15.8
HCM
Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
60.3
Sum
of lost time
(s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
45.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Davton St & SR 104 2/4/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
16.4 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
r
I
1k
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1787
1881
1599
1752
1818
1787
1881
1599
1736
3429
Flt Permitted
0.34
1.00
1.00
0.34
1.00
0.51
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
642
1881
1599
618
1818
963
1881
1599
1264
3429
Volume (vph)
18
242
109
98
232
25
155
86
22
37
207
18
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.55
0.55
0.55
Adj. Flow (vph)
26
346
156
131
309
33
182
101
26
67
376
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
108
0
7
0
0
0
11
0
8
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
26
346
48
131
335
0
182
101
15
67
401
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
1%
1%
1 %
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Effective Green, g (s)
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
175
513
436
168
496
574
1121
953
753
2044
v/s Ratio Prot
0.18
0.18
0.05
0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.03
c0.21
c0.19
0.01
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.15
0.67
0.11
0.78
0.68
0.32
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.20
Uniform Delay, d1
16.8
19.7
16.6
20.5
19.8
6.1
5.3
5.0
5.2
5.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
3.5
0.1
20.1
3.6
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
Delay (s)
17.2
23.2
16.7
40.6
23.4
7.6
5.4
5.0
5.5
5.8
Level of Service
B
C
B
D
C
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
21.0
28.2
6.7
5.8
Approach LOS
C
C
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
16.4 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/8/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
16.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
--v
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
4--
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
t
c Critical Lane Group
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
r
1
+
r
tT
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1787
1881
1599
1752
1818
1787
1881
1599
1736
3430
Flt Permitted
0.35
1.00
1.00
0.34
1.00
0.51
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
650
1881
1599
625
1818
956
1881
1599
1260
3430
Volume (vph)
18
242
110
107
232
25
156
88
27
37
211
18
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.55
0.55
0.55
Adj. Flow (vph)
26
346
157
143
309
33
184
104
32
67
384
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
108
0
7
0
0
0
13
0
8
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
26
346
49
143
335
0
184
104
19
67
409
0
Heavv Vehicles (%)
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Effective Green, g (s)
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
179
519
442
173
502
567
1116
948
747
2034
v/s Ratio Prot
0.18
0.19
0.06
0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.10
c0.23
c0.19
0.02
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.15
0.67
0.11
0.83
0.67
0.32
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.20
Uniform Delay, d1
16.7
19.7
16.5
20.8
19.7
6.3
5.4
5.1
5.4
5.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
3.2
0.1
26.4
3.4
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
Delay (s)
17.1
22.9
16.7
47.2
23.0
7.8
5.5
5.2
5.6
6.0
Level of Service
B
C
B
D
C
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
20.7
30.1
6.8
5.9
Approach LOS
C
C
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
16.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
61.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Davton St & SR 104 2/8/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
--*
_0�
--t
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
63.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
4%
Analysis Period (min)
I
/".
1,10.
t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
+
r
Vi
1�
Vi
+
r
Vi
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.99
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1787
1881
1599
1752
1818
1787
1881
1599
1736
3430
Flt Permitted
0.32
1.00
1.00
0.31
1.00
0.48
1.00
1.00
0.68
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
593
1881
1599
569
1818
912
1881
1599
1249
3430
Volume (vph)
20
268
122
117
256
28
172
97
29
41
233
20
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.55
0.55
0.55
Adj. Flow (vph)
29
383
174
156
341
37
202
114
34
75
424
36
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
105
0
6
0
0
0
14
0
8
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
29
383
69
156
372
0
202
114
20
75
452
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
1 %
1 %
1 %
3%
3%
3%
1 %
1 %
1 %
4%
4%
4%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
Effective Green, g (s)
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
18.9
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
177
562
477
170
543
524
1082
919
718
1972
v/s Ratio Prot
0.20
0.21
0.06
0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
0.05
0.11
c0.27
c0.22
0.02
0.06
v/c Ratio
0.16
0.68
0.15
0.92
0.68
0.39
0.11
0.02
0.10
0.23
Uniform Delay, di
16.4
19.5
16.3
21.4
19.6
7.3
6.1
5.8
6.1
6.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
3.4
0.1
45.4
3.6
2.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
Delay (s)
16.8
23.0
16.4
66.8
23.1
9.5
6.3
5.8
6.4
6.9
Level of Service
B
C
B
E
C
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
20.7
35.9
8.1
6.8
Approach LOS
C
D
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
18.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
63.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
50.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Pine St & SR 104 2/5/2013
2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
-11
--1.
'
4---
t
t -4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
'
r
r
�{
+
tt r
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
22
0
14
0
0
50
42
369
23
0
368 25
Peak Hour Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Hourly flow rate (vph)
22
0
14
0
0
50
42
369
23
0
368 25
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
None
Median storage veh)
1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
871
844
184
637
846
369
393
392
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
368
368
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
503
476
vCu, unblocked vol
871
844
184
637
846
369
393
392
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
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
90
100
98
100
100
92
96
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
223
396
833
350
291
634
1169
1163
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
Volume Total
22
14
50
42
369
23
184
184
25
Volume Left
22
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
14
50
0
0
23
0
0
25
cSH
223
833
634
1169
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.22
0.01
0.11
0.11
0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft)
8
1
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
23.0
9.4
11.2
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
C
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
17.7
11.2
0.8
0.0
Approach LOS
C
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
60
2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline
3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement
Wternent SIAL SSR W R, NBL NBT NBR SST SBR, All
Delay/ Veh (s) 14.4 1.0 3.9 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 4.6 1.3
Total Network Performance
Delay / Veh (s) 3.2
2/7/2013
2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104
Movement
Pl8
WB
NS
Directions Served
L
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
66
45
26
Average Queue (ft)
16
22
8
95th Queue (ft)
46
39
27
Link Distance (ft)
901
660
180
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) SimTraffic Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Pine St & SR 104
t
1I2/7/2013
t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
r
r
Vi
t
r
tt r
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
23
0
15
0
0
52
44
384
24
0
383 26
Peak Hour Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Hourly flow rate (vph)
23
0
15
0
0
52
44
384
24
0
383 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
None
Median storage veh)
1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
907
879
192
664
881
384
409
408
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
383
383
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
524
496
vCu, unblocked vol
907
879
192
664
881
384
409
408
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
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
89
100
98
100
100
92
96
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
208
384
824
334
277
620
1153
1147
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
Volume Total
23
15
52
44
384
24
192
192
26
Volume Left
23
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
15
52
0
0
24
0
0
26
cSH
208
824
620
1153
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.23
0.01
0.11
0.11
0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)
9
1
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
24.4
9.4
11.3
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
C
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.5
11.3
0.8
0.0
Approach LOS
C
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
60
2015 PM Peak without project (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR W R I' BL NBT NBR BBT SBR ,SMI`
Delay / Veh (s) 15.0 1.0 4.7 3.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 4.8 1.4
Total Network Performance
Delay / Veh (s)
2015 PM Peak without project (60min)
3.4
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104
Movement nt
E
'WB
NB
Directions Served
L
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
66
64
48
Average Queue (ft)
15
22
12
95th Queue (ft)
45
45
34
Link Distance (ft)
901
660
180
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
2015 PM Peak without project (60min) SimTraffic Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Pine St & SR 104 1I2/5/2013
Movement EBL EBT EBR W BL W BT W BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
r
r
+
r
tt r
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
31
0
25
0
0
52
64
384
24
0
383 40
Peak Hour Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Hourly flow rate (vph)
31
0
25
0
0
52
64
384
24
0
383 40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
None
Median storage veh)
1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
947
919
192
704
935
384
423
408
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
383
383
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
564
536
vCu, unblocked vol
947
919
192
704
935
384
423
408
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
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
84
100
97
100
100
92
94
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
192
366
824
304
252
620
1140
1147
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
Volume Total
31
25
52
64
384
24
192
192
40
Volume Left
31
0
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
25
52
0
0
24
0
0
40
cSH
192
824
620
1140
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.16
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.23
0.01
0.11
0.11
0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)
14
2
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
27.4
9.5
11.3
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
19.4
11.3
1.1
0.0
Approach LOS
C
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
60
2015 PM Peak with project (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement
Movement nt SBL SSR WBR I" BL DIST NBR SBT SSP All
Delay / Veh (s) 16.2 1.1 5.3 3.4 0.6 0.1 0.9 5.0 1.8
Total Network Performance
Delay/ Veh (s) 3.7
2015 PM Peak with project (60min) SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104
Movement
EB
WB
SIB
SB
Directions Served
L
R
L
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
66
63
46
48
Average Queue (ft)
22
20
18
3
95th Queue (ft)
50
44
38
19
Link Distance (ft)
901
660
180
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
70
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
2015 PM Peak with project (60min) SimTraffic Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Pine St & SR 104 2/5/2013
2020 PM Peak with project (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
-►
-,�v
t
/
I -V
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
r
r
t
r
tt if
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
33
0
26
0
0
57
68
424
26
0
423 43
Peak Hour Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Hourly flow rate (vph)
33
0
26
0
0
57
68
424
26
0
423 43
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
None
Median storage veh)
1
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1040
1009
212
772
1026
424
466
450
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
423
423
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
617
586
vCu, unblocked vol
1040
1009
212
772
1026
424
466
450
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
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
80
100
97
100
100
90
94
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
161
340
800
270
222
584
1099
1107
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
Volume Total
33
26
57
68
424
26
212
212
43
Volume Left
33
0
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
26
57
0
0
26
0
0
43
cSH
161
800
584
1099
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.20
0.03
0.10
0.06
0.25
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft)
19
3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
33.1
9.7
11.8
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
22.8
11.8
1.1
0.0
Approach LOS
C
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
39.2%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
60
2020 PM Peak with project (60min) 50 Pine St
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline
3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement
Movement EBL RIR W R NBL NBT NBR _ SRT SSR All
Delay / Veh (s) 19.6 1.1 5.9 4.0 0.6 0.1 0.9 5.4 1.9
Total Network Performance
Delay / Veh (s) 4.0
2/7/2013
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 2/7/2013
Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104
Movement
EB,
"IAB
NB
SB
Directions Served
L
R
L
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
66
68
48
48
Average Queue (ft)
21
22
20
3
95th Queue (ft)
53
51
45
21
Link Distance (ft)
901
660
180
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
70
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
14.1 HCM Level of Service B
--*
0.54
Mir
*--
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
t
/0
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
*'
r*
I
1�
Vi
+T
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
Fit Protected
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1779
1553
1805
1804
1787
3553
1787
3540
Flt Permitted
0.78
1.00
0.68
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1430
1553
1290
1804
1787
3553
1787
3540
Volume (vph)
51
43
110
4
41
21
107
785
32
17
671
46
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.70
Adj. Flow (vph)
64
54
138
6
59
30
126
924
38
24
959
66
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
118
0
26
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
118
20
6
63
0
126
960
0
24
1020
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1 %
1 %
1%
1%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
4
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
6.6
44.6
0.9
38.9
Effective Green, g (s)
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
6.6
44.6
0.9
38.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.66
0.01
0.58
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
208
226
188
263
175
2355
24
2046
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.07
0.27
0.01
c0.29
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.08
0.01
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.57
0.09
0.03
0.24
0.72
0.41
1.00
0.50
Uniform Delay, d1
26.8
24.9
24.7
25.5
29.5
5.2
33.2
8.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.5
0.2
0.1
0.5
13.3
0.5
183.7
0.9
Delay (s)
30.3
25.1
24.7
25.9
42.7
5.8
216.9
9.3
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
F
A
Approach Delay (s)
27.5
25.9
10.0
14.0
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
14.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
67.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
13.9 HCM Level of Service B
--I.
--v
fe
*--
Intersection Capacity Utilization
48.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
t
c Critical Lane Group
i
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
*'
r
il�
tT+
t'+
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
Fit Protected
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1779
1553
1805
1804
1787
3553
1787
3540
Flt Permitted
0.78
1.00
0.66
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1428
1553
1246
1804
1787
3553
1787
3540
Volume (vph)
53
45
114
4
43
22
111
817
33
18
698
48
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.70
Adj. Flow (vph)
66
56
142
6
61
31
131
961
39
26
997
69
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
121
0
26
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
122
21
6
66
0
131
998
0
26
1061
0
Heavv Vehicles M)
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
4
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
7.9
46.7
1.2
40.0
Effective Green, g (s)
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
7.9
46.7
1.2
40.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.66
0.02
0.57
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
213
232
186
269
201
2357
30
2011
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.07
0.28
0.01
c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.09
0.01
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.57
0.09
0.03
0.24
0.65
0.42
0.87
0.53
Uniform Delay, di
27.9
25.8
25.6
26.4
29.9
5.5
34.5
9.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.7
0.2
0.1
0.5
7.4
0.6
108.1
1.0
Delay (s)
31.6
26.0
25.7
26.9
37.3
6.1
142.6
10.4
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
F
B
Approach Delay (s)
28.6
26.8
9.7
13.5
Approach LOS
C
C
A
B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
13.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
48.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
13.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
49.5% ICU Level of Service A
3: 226th St SW & SR 104
15
c Critical Lane Group
--*
*--
*
I
12/4/2013
t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
*'
r
T+
tT+
01
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
Flt Protected
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1779
1553
1805
1804
1787
3554
1787
3540
Flt Permitted
0.78
1.00
0.66
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1428
1553
1246
1804
1787
3554
1787
3540
Volume (vph)
53
45
114
4
43
22
111
837
33
18
708
48
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.70
Adj. Flow (vph)
66
56
142
6
61
31
131
985
39
26
1011
69
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
121
0
26
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
122
21
6
66
0
131
1022
0
26
1075
0
Heavy Vehicles (%)
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1 %
1 %
1%
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
4
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
7.9
46.7
1.2
40.0
Effective Green, g (s)
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
7.9
46.7
1.2
40.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.66
0.02
0.57
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
213
232
186
269
201
2358
30
2011
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.07
0.29
0.01
c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.09
0.01
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.57
0.09
0.03
0.24
0.65
0.43
0.87
0.53
Uniform Delay, d1
27.9
25.8
25.6
26.4
29.9
5.6
34.5
9.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
3.7
0.2
0.1
0.5
7.4
0.6
108.1
1.0
Delay (s)
31.6
26.0
25.7
26.9
37.3
6.2
142.6
10.5
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
F
B
Approach Delay (s)
28.6
26.8
9.7
13.6
Approach LOS
C
C
A
B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
13.9 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
49.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013
--*
_0�
-,*
*--
t
f*
#
-4/
Movement EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
r
1
0
+T
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
Flt Protected
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1778
1553
1805
1804
1787
3554
1787
3540
Flt Permitted
0.77
1.00
0.63
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1415
1553
1195
1804
1787
3554
1787
3540
Volume (vph) 59
49
126
5
47
24
123
922
37
20
781
53
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 74
61
158
7
67
34
137
1024
41
22
868
59
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
0
135
0
29
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
135
23
7
72
0
137
1063
0
22
922
0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1 %
1%
1%
1%
1%
Turn Type Perm
Perm
Perm
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
4
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases 4
4
8
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
6.6
44.0
0.8
38.2
Effective Green, g (s)
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
6.6
44.0
0.8
38.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.66
0.01
0.57
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
206
227
174
263
177
2352
21
2034
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.08
c0.30
0.01
0.26
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.10
0.01
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.66
0.10
0.04
0.27
0.77
0.45
1.05
0.45
Uniform Delay, di
26.8
24.6
24.4
25.3
29.2
5.4
32.9
8.1
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
7.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
18.8
0.6
212.0
0.7
Delay (s)
34.1
24.8
24.5
25.8
48.0
6.1
244.9
8.9
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
F
A
Approach Delay (s)
29.1
25.7
10.8
14.3
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
14.9
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
66.5
Sum of lost time
(s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.6%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
73.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.3% ICU Level of Service C
4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W
15
c Critical Lane Group
}
12/4/2013
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
1
0
+11�
0
tT
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
. 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3431
1770
3401
1770
3416
1770
3455
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
3431
1770
3401
1770
3416
1770
3455
Volume (vph)
61
618
159
145
600
211
205
423
128
163
248
47
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
66
672
173
158
652
229
223
460
139
177
270
51
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
29
0
0
41
0
0
36
0
0
20
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
66
816
0
158
840
0
223
563
0
177
301
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.8
23.3
8.8
28.3
11.4
15.6
10.2
14.4
Effective Green, g (s)
3.8
23.3
8.8
28.3
11.4
15.6
10.2
14.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.32
0.12
0.38
0.15
0.21
0.14
0.19
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
91
1082
211
1302
273
721
244
673
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.24
c0.09
0.25
c0.13
c0.16
0.10
0.09
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.73
0.75
0.75
0.64
0.82
0.78
0.73
0.45
Uniform Delay, di
34.5
22.7
31.5
18.7
30.2
27.5
30.5
26.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
24.7
3.0
13.5
1.1
17.0
5.5
10.2
0.5
Delay (s)
59.3
25.8
45.0
19.8
47.2
33.0
40.7
26.7
Level of Service
E
C
D
B
D
C
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
28.2
23.6
36.9
31.7
Approach LOS
C
C
D
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
29.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
73.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
--*
--*
0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
4-
Intersection Capacity Utilization
4\
Analysis Period (min)
I
f*
#
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
0
1
ti�
I
tT+
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3430
1770
3401
1770
3416
1770
3455
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
3430
1770
3401
1770
3416
1770
3455
Volume (vph)
65
656
169
154
637
224
218
449
136
173
263
50
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
71
713
184
167
692
243
237
488
148
188
286
54
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
29
0
0
43
0
0
36
0
0
20
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
71
868
0
167
892
0
237
600
0
188
320
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.8
23.8
8.9
28.9
11.8
16.3
10.4
14.9
Effective Green, g (s)
3.8
23.8
8.9
28.9
11.8
16.3
10.4
14.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.32
0.12
0.38
0.16
0.22
0.14
0.20
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
89
1083
209
1304
277
738
244
683
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.25
c0.09
0.26
c0.13
c0.18
0.11
0.09
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.68
0.86
0.81
0.77
0.47
Uniform Delay, di
35.4
23.6
32.4
19.4
31.0
28.1
31.3
26.7
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
37.6
4.3
18.9
1.5
21.9
6.8
13.9
0.5
Delay (s)
73.0
28.0
51.2
20.9
52.9
34.9
45.3
27.3
Level of Service
E
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
31.3
25.5
39.8
33.7
Approach LOS
C
C
D
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
32.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
75.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
71.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SIR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
32.2 HCM Level of Service C
__O.
-i
'r
75.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
72.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
I
/,.
t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
0
0
+1
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3430
1770
3404
1770
3416
1770
3451
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
3430
1770
3404
1770
3416
1770
3451
Volume (vph)
66
663
171
154
651
224
222
449
136
173
263
52
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
72
721
186
167
708
243
241
488
148
188
286
57
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
29
0
0
42
0
0
36
0
0
21
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
72
878
0
167
909
0
241
600
0
188
322
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.8
23.9
8.9
29.0
11.9
16.3
10.4
14.8
Effective Green, g (s)
3.8
23.9
8.9
29.0
11.9
16.3
10.4
14.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.32
0.12
0.38
0.16
0.22
0.14
0.20
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
89
1086
209
1307
279
737
244
676
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.26
c0.09
0.27
c0.14
c0.18
0.11
0.09
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.70
0.86
0.81
0.77
0.48
Uniform Delay, di
35.5
23.7
32.4
19.5
31.0
28.2
31.4
26.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
39.8
4.5
18.9
1.6
23.1
6.9
13.9
0.5
Delay (s)
75.3
28.2
51.3
21.2
54.1
35.0
45.3
27.4
Level of Service
E
C
D
C
D
D
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
31.7
25.7
40.3
33.8
Approach LOS
C
C
D
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
32.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
75.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
72.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane .Group
2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
-*
-0.
0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
4-
78.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
t
c Critical Lane Group
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
0
0
+T
0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3431
1770
3403
1770
3416
1770
3452
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
3431
1770
3403
1770
3416
1770
3452
Volume (vph)
72
731
188
170
717
247
244
496
150
191
291
57
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)
76
769
198
179
755
260
257
522
158
201
306
60
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
28
0
0
41
0
0
36
0
0
21
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
76
939
0
179
974
0
257
644
0
201
345
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.6
25.4
9.0
29.8
12.1
17.7
10.0
15.6
Effective Green, g (s)
4.6
25.4
9.0
29.8
12.1
17.7
10.0
15.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.06
0.33
0.12
0.38
0.15
0.23
0.13
0.20
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
104
1116
204
1298
274
774
227
690
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.27
c0.10
0.29
c0.15
c0.19
0.11
0.10
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
0.73
0.84
0.88
0.75
0.94
0.83
0.89
0.50
Uniform Delay, di
36.1
24.5
34.0
20.9
32.6
28.8
33.5
27.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
23.0
5.9
31.8
2.5
37.6
7.6
30.9
0.6
Delay (s)
59.1
30.3
65.8
23.4
70.2
36.4
64.4
28.4
Level of Service
E
C
E
C
E
D
E
C
Approach Delay (s)
32.4
29.8
45.7
41.1
Approach LOS
C
C
D
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
36.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
78.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St
Page 1