The URL can be used to link to this page

Traffic Impact Analysis.pdfWilliam Popp Associates for Transportation Engineers/Planners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com 50 Pine St New Multi -Family Residential Building Prepared for: Edmonds Pine Street, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, 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 x 2 -1,453� 1," '!0 -3 14-400 Building 9 Suite 206 9 14400 Bel -Red Road ® Bellevue, WA 98007 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Introduction.........................................................................................................1 I. Project Description ..................................................................................1 II. Site Inventory............................................................................................1 Existing Roadway Network..............................................................................................1 Transit Service...................................................................................................................3 Pedestrian Services............................................................................................................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).........................................................5 V. Site Access Roadway/Driveways and Safety.........................................5 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................................5 SightDistance....................................................................................................................6 Table 3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)..............................................................................7 Levelof Service..................................................................................................................7 Channelization Warrants.................................................................................................7 Queuing..............................................................................................................................8 Table 4 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Queues (ft) a....................................................................8 Parking Supply and Demand...........................................................................................8 Accident History................................................................................................................9 VI. Traffic Volumes........................................................................................9 Existing Traffic Counts.....................................................................................................9 Historical Growth...........................................................................................................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 William Popp Associates Page i Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 50 Pine St 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 Project1. 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. II. 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 3rd 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 50 Pine St 89 MF Units X_ y s Edmonds , l ` 13I1 Seattle Heights < iC ei 3. `' S SITE ice.. _ t r . i >^� E5perance tR� ,`„'r 0oa �" � r 3.r�Ft3 a' �"� �➢3,tITCji��" v, ,i WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com 50 Pine St 89 MF Units North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 50 Pine St Bellevue, WA 98007 SITE PLAN 425.401.1030 89 MF Units info@ winpoppassoc.corn Traffic Impact Analysis (3/25/13) 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 Way (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 104/Dayton 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: ® 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. ® 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 104/100th 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 Project • 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 North k Gaspers St 3 2 3 2 �ryb V 0 0 �\ 0 \♦ M� 0 -_ 5% 3 3 Q 3 2 c a 10% Qom' 4 CBD 4 Main St 4 4 10% 2 1 12 1 2 2 1 9 9 7 4 Dayton St Puget 1 5 5 3 2 Maple St Sound - 5% Walnut St c __ 0 P a w rn > < n/a n/a SITE _ l� 14 8 Cl) ED MONDS 8 j n/a -- - ,• > > -- 10 ) o00 N y 1 Pine St I _ _34 Pine St 18 U) A 1 2 � o 6 I ,A = U Z 20 o00 10- 0 0 \,\ 1 2 — — — 1 j-- 0 5% 0 0 - ®p ��/� i VV 0 — 1 000 - 5%cm 1O4 I 7 -- - �ro�b 2 1 2 1 226th St SW 20 r — — 10 0 LEGEND a' 40% 14 xx - Project PM Peak Hour Trips a v 7 (assumes full occupancy) xx% - Project Distribution Percentage o (0 2 4 3�w 10% WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206�' PROJEC---- ENT 50 Pine St Bellevue, WA 48007 425.401.1030 89 MF Units info@ wmpoppassoc.com cs 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 a 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 A queue summary analysis was conducted at the SR 104/Pine St intersection for the PM peak hour conditions. The City requested 501h 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 2015 2020 2013 without with with Approach/ Existing project project b project b Intersection Movement 50th` 95th° 50th 95th 50th 95th 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 on 89 apartment units. 50t percentile queue represents queue that will not be exceeded 50 percent of the analysis period. The 95th 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`t' 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. 'ITE 4"' Edition Parking Generation manual, 2010, page 53. William Popp Associates Page 9 Caspers St m Cl) �– 24 J —223 94 17 —J 233- 33---105 Sound00 105---) m c� o_ro 2,i' OD N r Z• tea! Qom. N Puget Q' Sound00 2,i' tea! Qom. Main St N m Dayton St J j 50 (l ✓' Maple St 22CIJ l v� 14 A �C7N Walnut St 0 0 ¢ w -° SITE m �3; —.• MON a � 2, .i J 2 41 •' _ 51� r Pine St 43 I �r— Pine St 110 noaoorNi U O cr I Y Z o1 O — U N I v c2 (_ 211 .�� - — - — -- J L 600 145 ��p �qt� ®� WOODWAY 7 6168 159 1, NDN s9raa 226th St SW F o 4' al � CJ xx - 2012/13 PM Peak Hour Volume o o �W WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 EXISTING 50 Pine St Bellew425AVA 007 01.1030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com V;- A 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. V11. 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 b Project M ° 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. V11. 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 Caspers St N M 25 J — 232 98 18 242 �' a 109 WcoN o to 0DN TZ N Puget Q' Sound Qa r Main St 00 N M Da on St 52 ��✓' Maple St 23 __J _ 15 d c a j a ccoo N M—N M �+ Walnut St a o ¢ P w SITE a �..— > 22 ¢ L �43 53 45� --• — —:— _ _\ r---------- Pine St — Pine St 114 r�.M � � rip cc W cc s cc Z 0 O ;4; I �\ — — — J ! -- 637 154 IF O A I`� 65 656 169 co cm r ro4 ;1 226th St SW ,3) I 4 4.. va xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour Volume (without project) °o o SII WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 AC VOLUMES 50 Pine St Bellevue, NVA 98007 425.401.1030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com Figure 5 North Puget Sound Gaspers St 2NM 25 J — 232 P SITE + (— 107 18 � 242- Q L 110-1 yQJ Q>� �C" —_—_---_—_ -- --- 224 c o '.1 'O cc 0 0 O Z 13 yp 154 66 � Q 663 II WOODWA I 1 �I 'I l'. i xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour Volume (with project) Gaspers St 2NM 25 J — 232 52 + (— 107 18 � 242- Q L 110-1 yQJ Q>� �C" gQ caQ ti 224 c 5J = �J+ 154 66 � Q 663 Gaspers St 2NM 25 J — 232 52 + (— 107 18 � 242- Q L 110-1 moor CD 10mN �r �C" Main St v M 777 52 —J 231 5 Q L CMN U�� C" I I SR'o4 I 226th St SW 3 22 JI�--43 4 1iILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATF,S 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 J 50 Pine St Bellew425. 01.11030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com M,,, — A 45� 114 Q L �C" 224 -- 651 �J+ 154 66 � r 663 171 4* m2 N i r 1iILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATF,S 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 J 50 Pine St Bellew425. 01.11030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com M,,, — 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 Trak 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. 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). ® 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. RecommendationsIX. Mitigation The mitigation recommendations for the 50 Pine St Multi -Family Residential project are as follows: 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 EngineerslPlanners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com FOR March 25, 2013 CONTENTS: ✓ PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 2012 PM Peak Hour (existing) 2015 PM Peak Hour without project 2015 PM Peak Hour with project 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 1 SR 104/Dayton St EBLT EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT WBRT NBLT NBT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 50 Pine St PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Ferry GrowthTraffic Q 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 5 -yr PM PK growth ` Long Range 2020 PM PK 17 1 1 9 4 4 9 1 3 6 3 170 1 1 8 1 18 1 9 1 2 5 4 18 2 20 398,253 263 X 233 242 242 25 268 105 109 110 11 122 94 98 107 10 117 223 232 232 24 256 24 25 25 3 28 149 155 156 16 172 83 86 88 9 97 368 383 383 40 423 21 22 27 2 29 36 37 37 4 41 199 207 211 22 233 17 18 18 2 20 1201 49 174 1250 22 1272 130 1402 1.7% 1521 -21% ' Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. Based on 89 apt units (general apt) not including project traffic 2 SR 104/Pine St EBLT EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT WBRT NBLT NBT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Growth' Ferry Traffic Q 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr Long Range 2015 5 -yr 2020 PM PK growth ` PM PK 22 1 1 0 2 2 15 1 15 1 1 29 56 23 8 10 20 14 31 2 33 398,253 263 X 14 15 25 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 X 50 52 52 5 57 42 44 64 5 68 369 384 384 40 424 23 24 24 2 26 X 368 383 383 40 423 25 26 40 3 43 913 37 86 950 52 1002 99 1101 5.2% 1047 -13% ' Background growth: City identified as 2% per year b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR Background Traffic 2015 PM PEAK HOI IR 252 124 131 389 364 370 341 355 271 290 398,253 263 Background Traffic 2015 PM PEAK HOI IR Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK HOUR 262 129 131 405 364 370 355 369 271 302 414 263 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK HOUR Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR 393 441 266 131 406 364 370 307 428 271 Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR 393 441 #VALUE! 50 36 #VALUE! 382 434 Background Traffic 2015 PM PEAK HOUR Horizon Yr 2015 PM PFAK HOUR 423 409 459 52 70 24 407 52 37 24 397,452 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PFAK HOUR 423 467 104 52 55 24 407 472 50Pine Turns.xls, PM turns William Popp Associates 3 Edmonds Way/226th St SW EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 50 Pine St PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Growth Pipeline Project 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 PM PK 5 -yr growth ` Long Range 2020 PM PK 51 2 2 4 0 2 1 4 32 1 1 27 2 4 53 20 10 53 6 59 43 45 45 5 49 110 114 114 12 126 4 4 4 0 5 41 43 43 4 47 21 22 22 2 24 107 111 111 12 123 785 817 837 85 922 32 33 33 3 37 17 18 18 2 20 671 698 708 73 781 46 48 48 5 53 1928 78 4 2006 30 960 -2% Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic 4 Edmonds Wav/100th Ave W EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2036 209 2245 1.5% Existing 2012 PM PK 2015 Future Growth' Pipeline Project 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr Long Range 2015 5 -yr 2020 PM PK growth ` PM PK 61 4 38 10 9 37 13 13 26 8 10 15 3 1 3 1 2 3 65 1 7 2 14 4 2 66 7 72 618 656 663 68 731 159 169 171 18 188 145 154 154 16 170 600 637 651 66 717 211 224 224 23 247 205 218 222 23 244 423 449 449 47 496 128 136 136 14 150 163 173 173 18 191 248 263 263 27 291 47 50 52 5 57 3008 184 10 3192 3281 -8% a Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic M 3222 332 3554 0.9% Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR Background Traffic 2015 PM PFAK Hni IR 695 734 857 194 66 204 92 785 924 Background Traffic 2015 PM PFAK Hni IR Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK H01 IR 695 764 892 202 69 212 96 817 961 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK H01 IR Existing 2012 PM PEAK HOUR 458 695 774 912 202 69 212 96 827 981 Existing 2012 PM PEAK HOUR 458 695 852 956 838 909 552,756 802 Background Traffic 2015 PM PFAK Hr)I IR 486 738 904 1015 889 965 586 802 Horizon Yr 2015 PKA PFAK I-Irl1 IR 488 739 924 1029 899 972 588,806 5nPine Turns.xls, PM turns William Popp Associates TE: C tN POLICFTRAFFIC BERT NC}. E061707 nF!;I-FRFD r1HFI%INFO.- 2 sr I VVA COLLISION REPORT 73363819345 9 WELLS AVE N rIPL:'F1�aE V r STYRE n rN 'SSTF:-'eT ,11:j.��111.E CO. I� L' SPG'Lt Yc NIS'ld"'.t`•i r'i �`:1{�t�.1 {ihi 011 I ' i Lw l CTH'"H l.___I i r a dJ fiITFt,fi' if L�Ril RENL ATIONsr V �❑n CTl1R:]`L'E rzsl„l+rE ,t.;'`' itl;t:l"alr7 _ TuT L d OF Glx £ C C.0 RICK 582-7797 (36- �-. �_ . TRIBAL UNITS 2 STRL._l. fit' -,IA ,'INP KMJ'-11..IU6K[.I9AI-1022 017 EC�V+lARDIS _. , — - FIHAI ggar�,t DA�'LEh•>IE FluaERVATt9N ;ThTZ 3 JA �jt�D: �9�lLEP LATE L;— r1l $Fi- L1 l:° Y Y Y Y 1 IN IL 1;NOX LY -WI, I'Y R MU - Ds CII Y g ME 3: 31 � �I [;Lli,l 7 t - 21L 1440 31 r� _ � � 0365 a Y(;:Y w �r,� — nFi IJ r 411 SIJ{ R6 F'Y IHAff-lC ,'AY�i IPYILPSEC-1ION '� NO IhIfEi+.sEc:I'l0lN I� 1 €U:TR, 4 GILOT � '4`�t,� � S� `� C�G1PLOCK 111FFC' T � 3�71u1 � uL _•vl I•LFIt k 870SAA alma � JTD9- F32KX4027'28r-33- GiaTANCE ES N FE F 1hFFkfi1-:NI F, 1,H ti S INill PINE ST 114 t i`3 PI ATF 4 FEET i L LJ >l`a1! _ I'1alLF31 Di ATP a �,Tdrr=�. f.1.IT9;ssi *F' .� UNIT 01 ,LIII(at 71 FH'NE (2U3 ) 218-5400 1= re 1411 EC F] 2111 22F] pe 24 Mx, 2511-1 2Em L'^-hLh lE IVILLIAPUI nF!;I-FRFD r1HFI%INFO.- FIF::-�TNAMELOPEITh sr I VVA 11111 LlI 73363819345 9 WELLS AVE N ll klll IP¢:d 4ti d-� ,aetrk ,11:j.��111.E CO. I� L' SPG'Lt Yc NIS'ld"'.t`•i r'i �`:1{�t�.1 {ihi :chs 14 �XY0377507FOLLOW GT TY' RENL ATIONsr kF+1A zip 980575610 1G n;rray C.0 RICK 582-7797 (36- qtr-�TFIIOTTINS . fi Li . }AFra1( ;TXr fit' -,IA ,'INP KMJ'-11..IU6K[.I9AI-1022 017 EC�V+lARDIS _. , — - FIHAI ggar�,t DA�'LEh•>IE r�irr ai K) ;ThTZ 3 JA �jt�D: �9�lLEP LATE L;— L — 1a�0WILLILK401NL Ds Y(;:Y nFi IJ r 3TXT:9 AIRDA� €U:TR, 4 GILOT � SI -MU dPJ IRr -1 uercr ;r IH;�IIYr uL _•vl I•LFIt k 870SAA alma � JTD9- F32KX4027'28r-33- �� 114 t i`3 PI ATF 4 >l`a1! _ I'1alLF31 Di ATP a �,Tdrr=�. A FrYL� ruu' £ PLa,1.:?, r�.>iec�,,� ",�M4I)Y'ER tJ{•{,,.. �.---L�.•�- .L•#r HI . Y£i �rd4: .. nF!;I-FRFD r1HFI%INFO.- sr I VVA VEHICLE Ni}, t 73363819345 ll klll IP¢:d 4ti d-� ,aetrk ,11:j.��111.E CO. I� L' SPG'Lt Yc NIS'ld"'.t`•i r'i �`:1{�t�.1 {ihi :chs 14 �XY0377507FOLLOW [it('j.� ,1AErf?~, TOO CLOGE UNIT 02 M0T(.n n;rray C LVo.iETtIESH'JLr, MET RICK 582-7797 (36- P�UE . ;TXr fit' -,IA ,'INP KMJ'-11..IU6K[.I9AI-1022 017 EC�V+lARDIS _. , — - FIHAI ggar�,t DA�'LEh•>IE r�irr ai K) r, fig_ 16261 VV 15TFI ST �9�lLEP LATE r CITt PORT ANGELES sr I VVA I M 73363819345 {ihi ;�p$7HIC:17rJN: � [it('j.� ,1AErf?~, �It 5n 11-)T,f'11'ARFIK42-)4BI%J tSfAII, �'�f 5 t,h F k"A41�'i Ys'Y _M%T,-S ; IR21LG 1 2 RESTR_ 4 EIEvT 1 jJ£E ^ � n4 P�UE 321)EGX ;TXr fit' -,IA ,'INP KMJ'-11..IU6K[.I9AI-1022 017 PLATE . .., IAI �9�lLEP LATE v(1 'L.144 at r:.a 7:iT,-1 _3"I'i: 20'10 H`rUN �C=I�lEtisd� L ra,- rd1,141.�1rlslh .�-rrHrraraFs,, VEHICLE NO. 2 GI IaA�L Pt L:.y: � a=U Af'r R LL"uuP-h9 '.i'L Cµ.141.11 IA': �Eu IaLriz;: JIacta�., c II::t7 IDIS 41112531 G; ,,. LL��,,yy,, ��11 r I '.5 'TGhti Y�9 ir.t� _3f�4tii21fy �N�tl.,(',S tF; Tnn IwdtME rsrlv.=r.swkveT-awt,- FALK, E 11x37 .,,WA031CI200 PART A :irlitt", ;+._. ,:;n P PAGE 01 C9F VOA?yyl9 ^-/"j V i 319 l T E061707 !$TATE Of VIA-5HINOTON COLPOLICIEETRAFrIC CORRECTM REPORT NO LISION REPORT N.610�� 410,; 1, HF*J, kll:U-='Nl I VL� SIMONS, JENNIFER R Renta PunLr cR F-26 n. VA. 98055 lSExj F I. D.O.11- "F 87 '932 ""IT 2 rs, Th F. ir 2 1 1 HELVE1 W/I I [ t 4 EDWARDS, STEPHEN W V67, FIRU, kirfj-2 P1 WE ,V-'cfE:u &' 1 via v.) i,,,T-HST Port Angeles. VVA 98,363 (360) 809-3064 �%EALM WOO __2 ... r itik r' I4 Fvl F-1 1-hj 0 1 2 ,;PAT 1 3 1 AJHH-7�6 121 Hi-fi I K 141 1 1 1 1 H toxupE Cf: FUlJRE!3 ijAM, FIRFT, hirn. 2 111TV11, k PHUN= cD kkUl I ut-iff -1_ r� 6 AT AIRRAci :�EW- I_ j k J Rf,1 HATL19E_Uf NAIFIE�i RV ("3r PIAGRAM I URT PY i.r.fr.1 AFF} UNDFR PFNA TV OF P,--rJL]qY (INDPR THF I NXIq QF T -4p -57.47 F 17JF WA:3. ANMON THAT -I- P F QPFGL74 NO, 10 TqU F :Wrj C',RRF173T IRCW 19A.7P.095) E FALK 802010 4Vl rl r 3r-11 r-F,,G s:735 -NT- ;F IJNI- Or, PJ ST DrT rIlAITcr, Ti, -7-r ��icvn Bard, Michael 0028 UA RADE OF1. ID o TIME ::OJGFR��PAPAFD� UCEAR;rED 2'47 PM 11307 A0310200 I ell E VVA 2-46 PM T 7 RAR B I Fl, PAOEF-2-10 FF -41 -6 1 M%4FM I W'Off . �vW If a JOTS; SR 104 is a eastiv/est highway, However, the location of the collision Occurred where the iighway 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 if Ai ie 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 strik-. )nit 2. *he front license plate frame and its attachment screw head of Unit 1 left an indent in the right rear Umper of Unit 2. The driver of Unit 2 said the trunk lid no longer functioned properly. KeparT ivumner: too-i iut PAGE 4 OF 4 STATIF OF WX51-11NC TON POLIGETRAFPIC N 1111111111111 IN 111111111111 I 1- 1, H F F F-�4k N :1F IM C; CS ti I V� NIIESFt N F c n PANE STREET FEET /1 8 LVI W REPORT No. E186645 2 3 COLLISION REPORT El '.;fTY — 0 F7 Ln^-ri-Amr FUJAVA FIR�'�T UAW PAULO 412 Fil E F��) U1 E Z C-TH-P. Li I H t 1A. L J *-TO 4�111 I Ix'A Af:,pm�w (101 ul N (i ,IF I 3 25931351 ZO, Y "-IT Fil cowry fl�, _j LIE HIT 6 =Mi H 13 21 0 TUfN:'TrFA EVV�6E TK-ESW-'-LO m=r - - - JIA Clplzc- ryowcn Nil I YPI13AL 'OF 1 2 -UIAVPD126K5 tijVA. M jl�� 5 EEI - 1 1 T F2 E�,TAWj XPEIIA5 FiEM?- 4 EACT 1 -1 1 XT W.ik YINo 4KLB4B1R5VVJ002268 B:) 3 4 2 1 U H RE15ERVAPON u, U 1) y y a Y Imi: I 11 1,7,z,�N8 1=0 1 f4 L I [ w E] OF�� 14 2 KF1 2f] 2 -IF] 2.2F] ?I= 241 25u] 79M 0IJ lep. F qR 104 F t IF PIC07 1- 1, H F F F-�4k N :1F IM C; CS ti I V� NIIESFt N F c n PANE STREET FEET /1 8 LVI W NIT 01 1-0 0 Fy- - - - - Olt "'�Itjj'4 _Jjlpm�f Hft HUNE '3 (2C� 293-1295 — 0 F7 Ln^-ri-Amr FUJAVA FIR�'�T UAW PAULO KIIIA.". INITIAL rlTr 6114�1:fl ri v1w.,;;.1zAj Al�1 &A I — ----CI S 180TH ST ------------------------ APT 15V ,IF I 25931351 ZO, Y "-IT SEATAC si ��1 QIP 13 21 1T2 EVV�6E TK-ESW-'-LO m=r - - - NINE (�ieq VcHlrac ryowcn Nil I LK; ;tn —F9uNJDL.Pv1Fj154DN VVA ',*x, M ra,3 1985 TLS AIRSIC2;E,Tp- :Ji -T ss 4IV; 17STACL MET N—Aff I I 1 1 1lj -UIAVPD126K5 tijVA. M jl�� 5 EEI - 1 1 T F2 E�,TAWj XPEIIA5 FiEM?- 4 EACT 1 -1 1 XT W.ik YINo 4KLB4B1R5VVJ002268 B:) 3 4 2 1 U H PI ATF 4 11 RUNDLE UWE miz 1.11'. ---I LI-NI't — - — — — — — — — — — — — — 011--f—I'I NI: Nw•m 9300 W MALL DR APT A413 nFf.'FTFr,FI) �1444MINFP. YES c. E Y61111CLNO, LLC, 6F0 NONE rlTr 6114�1:fl ri v1w.,;;.1zAj Al�1 &A I u11uuj,--K,J.v,-,',4.h i �� F,'O. C. E CC 'ONTINENTAL WE5TERN BQP28W12�3 JrtIV ;Parry: C ,IF I 25931351 ZO, FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE mou"n UNIT 02 rmwray Jvj_ A; t.4, �, I 'i AN EVV�6E TK-ESW-'-LO m=r - - - NINE (�ieq VcHlrac ryowcn Nil I LK; ;tn —F9uNJDL.Pv1Fj154DN VVA ',*x, M ra,3 1985 TLS AIRSIC2;E,Tp- :Ji -T ss 4IV; 17STACL MET N—Aff I I 1 1 1lj RUNDLE 't4A .1h NJPK 'minrx , iz- --I _4] irmD 9300 W MALL DR APT A413 YES c. NONE rlTr IEVERETT I Tr I VIA ,IF FJ,9 LK; ;tn —F9uNJDL.Pv1Fj154DN VVA ',*x, M ra,3 1985 TLS AIRSIC2;E,Tp- :Ji -T ss 4IV; 17STACL MET N—Aff I I 1 1 1lj QT PLIkIT 602Z, J F I G I 16B67AG8,09697 IAI--- - ---------- - PLATE 9 PART VEHICLE NO, 2 �J K:L FJ L.'*V-*A A Ll Ad A 1467 I PD EDMONDS E��w ',IjBA `'0�'2010 1�REZA 4 YES c. NONE HARBINSON. STEVEt,,] PART VEHICLE NO, 2 �J K:L FJ L.'*V-*A A Ll Ad A 1467 I PD EDMONDS E��w FATE Of VIN5 H IN 43TO M POLIC111TRAPPIC COLLISION RVPOAT N'6101i; iu,* t. HK9 1. T.AUAL0. MARCUS T 85645 CORRECTION REPORT NO. CA$EE # 12-2906 r1r7'142,5E Sa p4 'I 2t I 1:� j 24�-TH PL AWA 201 Kent. M030 eX16'1 1118-11 154 k1moDyy*?" - - w1TwF'c- (WIT a ScAf F(w-, AIRR�.(', P.,i r R. 4 F11 IF [ HStnnE C+ PIMFIES L -J-, COERF3ER, CHRISTOPHER D jLAS7, FIRIT, MED -F 'M70Q 12-�03 HARBOUR PTE BLVD EE -306 MUNIteo, WA 962762923 (426) 4 23 19 82 RV 01,111 0 1 2 F AT 3 AIHKA(i 2 �IkSJR 4 HF 7 1700PY KELLOGG, AARON M 1617 987 197H ST Snohoir�sh, WA 96290114421 425) 923-6799 E1-37�M 1-./] wmiEss n I Of-iff 2 .3FAT A IR&A(d 1 [;CST R E, t IEI;T 14� j F -,f I (,rP,,T FY tr,,Ff,'l AFF} I)NDFR PFNA 7? OF P--TI(JqY UNDPR TIAF IA!A(4 OFT -IF S,7.47- OF WK.3-IING7014 THAT -1-F FORFG0040 It TRUP M%Irj 0�!FIFIP77 IFIC'N qA.7;1.0R5J STEVENIHAR13,111SON 8/1112012 sG*r,:iE IJNI- Or, UST CIET DATEC. 1 iy Roth, Karl 886 FLAUSIG1,C0 L!! -!,E QR ID 0 146 f Rl W A 0 3 -102) n0 THE z0JIGE P*PATT3FIED 1 1, 01171 A fyj WOE :'4,0:11YED '11:01 A IV PART B PAOEF2 1OF 56-1 1511 F-1 2GLJ 21F] 2211 21-11 $UPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC POLICE 001-1-1$10M REPORT -CASE- Y-- 1 -1 1 2-2 1 OC4 1 3 It Fra r IN—BATATEI 1, UNIT 4 j wZcCT 10:1, if I VEI 41CLE -YPE I 1—tTYPE o pAlr7;y ST-,IEET ADORES-, I NAME 50L)HU � + H I W;TD=, U 1E UNIT # I I LJWj INKN I LA xTtJ;d.1E FIP57 '0ME .ti WX 1711 L' 01det...iLD AW A t 4 rlflrjca F IN 6- ST-,IEET IF4IF M N, Ury UNIT # IT 'VICUlt"Ll F 7 IP jv IMIMTZ 5R riD VE � I I 'FNSF LICE'NSI: A 'i [A- L r ---------- _--I -:LV-=T TLV71 IMURY 1[4ftJRY jq)I INES STATIJS Ail"'ILIAG "dRolf-5 :irS-rp. UWl' IdECT ulic I 1j,!p I I LA h ruF7E7z LICENbE L1CI NSE NA I'LAII, it PI ATF- a TR +IL FR TRAILEIR 7PI41LER TRAUR PLATE: tt PINTE at TA -F P -ATE 1; ST."Te VIEH 'vUR I tt,;,clz I P;CDEL I �-)r-E I vpj ce T 1 Wfo F ri D It I MIT NAMPomc .ti WX 1711 L' 01det...iLD AW A t 4 IN 6- ST-,IEET IF4IF M N, UNIT # 'VICUlt"Ll F 1EEI,11 �Yc-z F-1 jv IMIMTZ 5R riD VE � I MIT NAMPomc MIDL�s ST-,IEET LICE'NSI: A r ---------- _--I TLV71 1[4ftJRY STAI US Ail"'ILIAG UWl' ulic I I I I LICENbE I'LAII, it TR +IL FR 7PI41LER PLATE: tt P -ATF V STATL PEQISTERED,721NEF ff*a- -(T 74 SHIrfz ri c-1%1d1%1:i=jAf--E,11 z 1 -T 4 E 1 10 UND.R x-LPIA1.1" ":C 0�111-111Y of"A'11 Wf� LAW11� I P-, �VAIL ij♦111- 1 ftj 1HUtANJ WLIAO-?'�').,,q5v -STFVFN HARBINSON 811112012 ItNr I IGAI N`3 :1(q-4A'I-1f,, LAID ) (,X-: LWS I Om I D,,V L::: Y - .0k: 1: '3 "'i, ri b 1467 WA031020, 2 -TE PAGE �OF COLLI SfON LEVEL DESCRIPTICONS: [L,-)C,ATC-)N CHARWCTFR DF,5CRIFTION] - FERRY HOX-nING, LANE mmm� � 01 (ehicle 2 was stopped on SIR 104 near Pine Street due to a large volume of ferry traffic. Vehicle 1 wa! -aveling northbound on SR 104 in the outside lane. The driver of Vehicle 1 looked at his GPS and did iot notice Vehicle 2 was stopped for traffic. Vehicle I attempted to move left and slow in an attempt tc niss 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, Kepon NumDer: t'i nt4t) MMM�W MINIMUM SSD THRESHOLDS J QHDFA('f: nf:?I\/r-%A/AV P0 SIGHT LINE CLEAR ZONE F �,k�all Uffl,—� GIAI.AH, rc ". N0. — I o I— HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/4/2013 c Critical Lane Group 2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR ` NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r 1 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 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 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) 16.0 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: Dayton St & SR 104 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations 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 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 Lane Configurations 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 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 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) 16.9 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: Dayton St & SR 104 2/8/2013 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL i NBT '' NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations f tr f 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 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 Fit 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 1 Lane Configurations r r + r ft 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 1.00 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 TW LTL 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 €B 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 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 Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/7/2013 Movement EB WB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 66 4526 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 23 15 52 44 384 24 192 192 26 Volume Left 2/7/2013 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 15 52 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1700 Volume to Capacity r 0.02 0.08 r 0.23 f 0.11 0.11 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) Sign Control 1 Stop 3 0 Stop 0 0 Free Control Delay (s) 24.4 Free 11.3 Grade 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0% Lane LOS C 0% B A 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 TW LTL 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 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 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 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement 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) 3.4 2/7/2013 2015 PM Peak without project (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 2/7/2013 Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 Movement EB 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 2/5/2013 Lane Configurations Vi 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 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement 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 2/7/2013 2015 PM Peak with project (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/7/2013 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2/7/2013 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR 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 ShTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 2/7/2013 Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 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 BlkTime (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) StorageBay' 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' 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, di 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 Summary 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 q� 2/4/2013 I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' 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 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 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 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 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, d1 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 3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations Vi 11� Vi tT41 Vi 0 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBI Lane Configurations Vi 11� Vi tT41 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 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 3554 1787 3540 Fit 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, di 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 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 Movement EBIL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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) 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 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations Vi � 211 1302 273 721 244 0 v/s Ratio Prot Vi 0 c0.09 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 0.75 4.0 4.0 0.82 4.0 4.0 0.45 4.0 4.0 22.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 27.5 1.00 0.95 Progression Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 24.7 1.00 0.96 1.1 1.00 0.97 10.2 1.00 0.98 59.3 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 47.2 0.95 1.00 26.7 0.95 1.00 C 0.95 1.00 D Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3431 Approach Delay (s) 1770 3401 1770 3416 36.9 1770 3455 Approach LOS Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 C 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 SCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR ; NBL NBT NBR± SBC SBT SBR Lane Configurations fly 0 0 fl� 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, d1 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 Cr D C D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 25.5 39.8 33.7 Approach LOS C Cr 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: SR 104 & 100th Ave W µ 2/4/2013 I Lane Configurations fr+ tl lt+ 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, d1 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 NCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 1 00th Ave W 2/4/2013 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR` SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 Vi 0 Vi 0 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, d1 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