Loading...
Transportation Report.pdfa'07 1 2 0 15 MEMORANDUM aE°i4!'*,1 Cr G;f: I I:, IIAIIFIPI ,PO,J 13,P, 1p LD 40 1 4f)S_()6 Date: July 20, 2015 TG: 15033.00 To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds From: Mike Swenson and Alex Atchison, Transpo Group cc: Glenn Goodman, Merlone Geier Partners Subject: Edmond Retail Pad — Traffic Impact Analysis This memorandum summarizes potential traffic -related impacts associated with the proposed retail development located at the existing Top Food & Drug shopping center in Edmonds, Washington. . Based on the overall trip generation associated with the project and review of the City TIA guidelines, the scope of the analysis was limited to a Level I analysis. The scope of a Level I analysis includes estimate of the anticipated trip generation for the project and a review of the level of service (LOS) impacts at the 220th Street SW and SR 99 access points. Project Description The proposed project includes approximately 6,000 square -feet of new retail space located in the southern end of the existing Top Food & Drug shopping center at the corner of Highway 99 and 220th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity. A site plan showing the location of the retail pad is included as Figure 2. 11730 118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600, Kirkland, WA 98034 1 425.821.3665 1 tranSpo , I Com ke"', �' ° VSa':SV dot N f'hi0 VII'K"' FS„VIV i Y)OD A , I':dRiIJ'G „ Nf,)� A, 'J",@;JPNW "i VRISIf;V S W Study Scope The analysis includes an evaluation of the trip generation and LOS at the site access driveways for the existing and future conditions. As shown on the site plan, two driveways are located on both SR 99 and 220th Street SW. Based on the trip generation increases associated with the project and the City of Edmonds TIA guidelines, no analysis of off-site intersections was required and the analysis is limited to an evaluation of the driveway operations only. Future with -project conditions are evaluated by adding site -generation traffic to future without - project conditions. Future with -project conditions are then compared to future without -project conditions to identify the relative impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system. This study evaluates the weekday PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) driveway operations of the site. A horizon year of 2016 was assumed for the analysis based on the anticipated completion of the project. Roadway Network The project is located in the existing Top Food & Drug shopping center at the corner of Highway 99 and 220th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, Highway 99 is a seven -lane roadway classified as a principal arterial. 2201h Street SW is a five -lane roadway currently classified as a minor arterial. bf' 2 Traffic Volumes Existing turning movement counts at the existing driveways were conducted in January 2015. The intersection turning movement count worksheets are provided in Attachment A. Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the four existing site driveways are summarized in Figure 3. Forecast (2016) without -project traffic volumes were forecast by applying a 1.5 percent annual growth rate in the project vicinity, per discussion with City staff. Figure 3 also shows 2016 without - project traffic volumes. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1. Estimates for project -generated vehicle trips were calculated using average peak hour trip rates for a Shopping Center (Land Use No. 820) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012). As described previously, the proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 square -feet of new retail space. Forecast daily and weekday PM peak hour trips are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Estimated Project Trip Generation Weekday PM Peak Hour Gross Land Use' Size Daily Trips Rate Trips Pass -by' Total In Out Shopping Center (LU #820) 6.00 ksf' 256 42.70 22 -8 14 7 7 1, ksf = one thousand square -feet 2„ Trip generation estimates based on size and average daily and peak hour trip rates from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012) 3, Pass -by of 35 percent based per City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Fee Table. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project would, generate approximately 256 daily trips. During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 14 new primary trips (non - pass -by trips) with 7 inbound and 7 outbound. The analysis did not account for trips internal to the existing shopping center in order to provide a conservative estimate of the future driveway operations. Project Trip Distribution & Assignment Project trips were distribute6to the network based on the existing traffic counts at the individual driveways shown in Figure 4. Weekday PM peak hour project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the distribution patterns and are shown in Figure 3. DRIVEWAY A T SW DRIVEWAY B TH STREET SW PACDRIVEWAY HWAY PACIFIC HIG @ DRIVEWAY DHWAY 2 2 1 T 2 2 (2) 21 Jll 4 TRIP GENERATION IN OUT TOTAL IMMMMMWMMMMMWW A& 7 7 14 PM (4) (4) (B) NOT TO SCALE LEGEND PERCENTTRIP DISTRIBUTION X _ PRIMARYPMPEAK A l% HOUR TRIPS (X = PASS-BYTRIPS "pb DRIVEWAY A T SW DRIVEWAY B TH STREET SW PACDRIVEWAY HWAY PACIFIC HIG @ DRIVEWAY DHWAY 2 2 1 T 2 2 (2) 21 Jll 4 Site Access Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are evaluated by calculating the intersection level of service (LOS). Traffic operations were evaluated based on the procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010), and evaluated using Synchro version 8.0. At signalized and unsignalized intersections, LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is reported using the intersection delay. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Attachment B contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. Table 2 summarizes the weekday PM peak hour LOS at the existing site driveways for existing and future conditions. In addition to operations at the driveways, operations at the worst operating movement are reported for each location. Detailed LOS worksheets are included in Attachment C. Table 2. 2017 Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Future Without- Project Future With -Project Intersection LOS Delay Mvmnt LOS Delay Mvmnt 2201h Street SW/ Driveway "A" B 10.4 SB B 10.4 SB (Northbound approach) B 10.6 NB B 10.6 NB 2201h Street SW/ Driveway "B" B 13.1 SB B 13.1 SB Highway 99/ Driveway "C" B 11.6 EB B 11.6 EB (Westbound approach) C 23.6 EB C 23.7 EB Highway 99/ Driveway "D" C 18.0 EB C 18.5 EB Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 and Transpo Group, 2014 1, Level of service (LOS), based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2, Average delay in seconds per vehicle. Delay is provided for the worse movement at side -street stop controlled intersections,. 3, Worst movement reported for side -street stop controlled intersections where WB = westbound approach, NB = northbound approach„ As shown in Table 2, the site access driveways are operating at LOS C or better under existing conditions and are anticipated to continue doing so in the future without the addition of -project related traffic. The project is not expected to increase delay at the site access driveways and LOS is expected to be the same under future -with project conditions as under future without -project conditions. Impact Fee Calculations To mitigate transportation impacts of the proposal on the surrounding transportation system, the developer would be required to pay traffic impact fees to the City of Edmonds. Traffic impact fees are set forth in the 2009 Impact Fee Rate Table of the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements, and are estimated to be $8,040, as calculated in Table 3. The City's impact fee analysis takes into account new off-site and pass -by trips. In addition to pass -by trips, this project will likely also generate internal trips within the exiting development given its proximity to the existing Top Food & Drugs grocery store. Using methodologies set from the of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (9th Edition) and Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition), the proposed project is expected to have 9 percent of the trips internally captured Accounting for this internalization of project trips, transportation impact fees for the City of Edmonds are estimate to be $7,316. These fees will be reviewed and finalized by the City of Edmonds. Table 3. Estimated Impact Fee Impact Fee Proposed Land Use Size' Rate' Total Fee Shopping Center (LU #820) 6,000 gsf 1.34 per square foot $8,040 Percent internal trips 9% -$724 Total Impact Fee $7,316 1. gsf = gross square -feet, 2,. Impact fee rates are based on the 2009 Impact Fee Rate Table (City of Edmonds, 2010),. Summary & Conclusions • The project includes the construction of approximately 6,000 square -feet of new retail space is proposed at the existing Top Food & Drug shopping center at the corner of Highway 99 and 2201h Street S.W. in Edmonds, Washington. • The proposed project would generate a total of 14 new primary (non -pass -by) weekday PM peak hour trips (7 inbound and 7 outbound). • Site access driveways are expected to operate at LOS C or better under future 2016 with -project conditions. This represents no change in the LOS and only a minor increase in the delay for any one movement. • Transportation impact fees for the City of Edmonds are estimated to be $7,316 after accounting for internally captured trips. This is a preliminary estimate of traffic impact fees and the final fees will be calculated by the City of Edmonds. Attachment A: Intersection Turning Movement Counts lYf 'au, f www.idaxdata.com DRIVEWAY A 220TH ST SW,, Date: Tue, Feb 03, 2015 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM a + 10 w ❑ c4 0 Lo 220TH ST SW 4 645 0 644 1 + E- 0 TEV: 1,163 640Aho + o ca � 487PHF: 0.98 4 0 491 4 510 �O 0� ` 220TH 1 HV %: PHF EB 2.9% 0.89 j WB + 0.9% 0.95 of NB IQ 0.0% 0.65to 04 SB 0.0% 0.50 TOTAL 1,7% 0.98 Two -Hour Count Summaries 220TH ST SW 220TH ST SW DRIVEWAY A DRIVEWAY A Interval 15 -min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 119 2 1 156 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 281 4:15 PM 0 116 0 2 165 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 291 d,3b PIfA J l ��fill // a 1 %, /. / �a ✓iii MIKE, � 4:45 PM 0 116 0 0 170 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 293 1,163 5:00 PM 0 118 0 1 140 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 268 1,150 5:15 PM 0 122 0 3 166 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 299 1,158 5:30 PM 0 116 0 0 178 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 298 1,158 5:45 PM 0 114 0 0 136 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 255 1,120 Count Total 0 957 4 8 1,260 1 6 0 44 0 0 3 21283 Peak Hr 0 487 4 4 640 0 3 0 23 0 0 2 1,163 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Lep) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 6 3 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 4:15 PM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 PM, / /, �0/ 0 4�/ , 0 ��� ,0, A �.A ✓ // / 6 � „ ,�2 ,/ , 4:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 5:00 PM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 5:15 PM 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5:45 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Count Total 20 12 1 0 33 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 7 6 14 Peak Hr 14 6 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 6 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com DRIVEWAY B IN 220TH ST SWf�aL Date: Tue, Feb 03, 2015 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM M + QQ w > o 220TH ST SW 3 676 22 684 ; 0 ' 17 TEV: 1,241 a 651 IE ' > 482 PHF: 0,97 11 g .;., 502 3 512 010 0. , V 220TH3 HV %: PHF Q EB 1.0% 0,97 j WB 0.7% 0.95 0 NB 0.0% 0.63 O� SB 0.0% 0.87 TOTAL 0,8% 0.97 Two -Hour Count Summaries 220TH ST SW 220TH ST SW DRIVEWAY B DRIVEWAY B Interval 15 -min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 3 118 0 5 147 9 1 0 4 5 0 9 301 4:15 PM 0 127 0 3 154 6 0 0 3 7 0 6 306 4:30 PM 5 133 2 1 150 7 1 0 3 3 0 2 307 4:45 PM 4 118 2 1 166 7 0 0 1 6 0 2 307 1,221 5:00 PM 4 125 0 7 153 5 0 0 3 6 0 6 309 1,229 5:15 PM 3 122 0 2 160 3 1 0 3 5 0 7 306 1,229 i i... ,101 ��� / 1 241 5:45 PM 3 107 2 3 143 10 1 0 5 I 5 0 4 283 1,217 Count Total 28 967 7 23 1,245 54 6 0 22 43 0 43 2,438 Peak Hr 17 482 3 11 651 22 3 0 7 23 0 22 1,241 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Len) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 5 4 0 1 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 4:15 PM 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4:30 PM 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 / 0,., 0. /0..% 2i,,, /i/ . �, i„ _ a.Oi�r r,. 0 i/ 0 //%i 1 1, /0 /// � �� i �� v � �� �, WIN %/i //, / / ,io/ , %i /,0 // i// 0 /, 2/. / / / ,ii.2,.,,,,, � iii � / ii/ ,, i ,/ ,,..i4 ,, i ,, . � ,, �� . � / /i� . 5:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Count Total 21 11 0 1 33 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 4 5 11 1 Peak Hr 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 6 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com n e HWY 99 DRIVEWAY C Peak Hour 3 0 0 15 15 TEV: 2,877 PHF: 0,96 12 13 0 �- s 4p DRiV_, A C Date: Tue, Feb 03, 2015 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM 40 EB WB NB 12 13 0 �- s 4p DRiV_, A C Bicycles da H-11 k.�€.0 Start EB WB NB n rn Total HV %: PHF Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 0 0 11 EB 0.0% 0.63 0 1 0 1 1 7 0 0 8 = WB 0.0% 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 NB 2.3% 0.97 20 0 0 0 0 0 N r 1n r SB 2.3% 0.90 TOTAL 2.3% 0.96 ,,,,, Two -Hour Count Summaries 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 DRIVEWAY C DRIVEWAY C 0 0 8 HWY 99 14 0 HWY 99 0 Interval 0 1 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 4 6 10 0 0 0 0 Start Eastbound Westbound 0 0 0 1 Northbound 0 0 6 2 Southbound 0 0 0 1 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 9 1 0 2 1 383 0 0 286 2 4:15 PM 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 380 1 0 317 3 4:30 PM 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 397 1 0 308 0 / o r / r� � � //// r/ i 11" 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 377 3 0 307 1 5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 406 1 0 300 1 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 361 2 1 253 1 5:45 PM 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 370 2 0 272 0 Count Total 0 0 35 2 0 20 1 3,068 11 1 2,394 9 Peak Hr 0 0 15 1 0 12 0 1,574 6 0 1,266 3 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count o 15 -min Rolling Tota I One Hour 684 708 713 i!/11%% 2,858 697 2,871 714 2,877 620 2,784 652 2,683 5,541 2,877 Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 0 0 11 8 19 0 0 1 0 1 1 7 0 0 8 4:15 PM 0 0 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4:30 PM 0 0 14 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 ,,,,, 5:00 PM 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5:15 PM 0 0 8 6 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 4 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 6 2 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 Count Total 0 0 66 54 120 0 0 1 1 2 11 14 0 0 25 Peak Hr 0 0 36 29 65 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 11 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com HWY 99 DRIVEWAY D�,,, Date: Tue, Feb 03, 2015 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM A 040 55 TEV: 2,869 E 20 PHF: 0.95 .. 44 24 V'� 0�t,.e a EWAIrLk 0 rn HV %: PHF LO EB 0.0% 0.85 0 = NB 2.0% 0.95 9 SB 1,8% 0.89 A cv r" TOTAL 1.9% 0,95 Two -Hour Count Summaries DRIVEWAY D DRIVEWAY D HWY 99 HWY 99 Rolling Interval 15 -min Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Hour 4:00 PM 7 0 5 0 0 0 10 369 0 0 283 11 685 4:15 PM 5 0 6 0 0 0 7 359 0 0 315 8 700 4:30 PM 5 0 6 0 0 0 7 377 0 0 301 5 701 ar % 2,838 5:00 PM 5 0 7 0 0 0 8 376 0 0 297 7 700 2,853 5:15 PM 4 0 4 0 0 0 5 405 0 0 288 10 716 2,869 5:30 PM 8 0 1 0 0 0 5 366 0 0 245 6 631 2,799 5:45 PM 3 0 5 0 0 0 1 383 0 0 271 8 671 2,718 Count Total 43 0 41 0 0 0 50 3,011 0 0 2,350 61 5,556 Peak Hr 20 0 24 0 0 0 27 1,534 0 0 1,236 28 2,869 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 0 0 12 6 18 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 4:15 PM 0 0 7 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 13 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 ,a,,,,i ,, ,, i� �,-, ,, .,, �,,, ✓iiiiiueid/,,.,, ,. c,,. i,, ,,,,iii /l!/1.,, ,,,, .../,,,�Oi,..� ,i, /mi/ „f �iiiii„%�1.,�%��,. ii��ii�/„�,«�e.ii.,iiuGlJUi�///���i�,.,,,, is .. ,,oavG ii;;, 5:00 PM 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 8 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 7 5 12 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 Count Total 0 0 65 44 109 0 0 1 3 4 0 12 0 0 12 Peak Hr 0 0 32 23 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Attachment B: LOS Criteria & Definitions Highway Capacity Manual 2010 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manua! 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (seconds/vehicle) General Description A <10 Free Flow >10-20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 — 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 — 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 — 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F' >80 Forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010, 1, If the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0 LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group LOS for overall approach or intersection is determined solely by the control delay, Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all -way stop and two-way stop control. All -way stop control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach. Two-way stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left -turns. This approach is because major -street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, a weighted average of all movements results in very low overall average delay, and this calculated low delay could mask deficiencies of minor movements. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsi realized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A 0-10 B >10 —15 C,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.5..�..25.................--------- D >25 — 35 E>35 ........................................................ F' >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 1. If the volume -to- capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections, or minor street approach at two-way stop -controlled intersections. Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay, Attachment C: LOS Worksheets 1 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 220th Street SW & Driveway A --,, --* ~ t 1I2/18/2015 i Lane Configurations 0 tt r *T+ Volume (veh/h) 0 485 5 5 640 0 5 0 25 0 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 495 5 5 653 0 5 0 26 0 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 602 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 653 500 839 1161 250 936 1163 327 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 497 497 663 663 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 342 663 273 500 vCu, unblocked vol 653 500 839 1161 250 936 1163 327 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7,5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 100 97 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 923 1060 457 386 756 386 385 675 Volume Total 330 170 223 435 0 31 0 5 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 0 26 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1060 1700 1700 682 1700 675 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.4 Lane LOS A B A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 10.5 10.4 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 220th Street SW & Driveway B 2/18/2015 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 2 Lane Configurations f ++T 41� Volume (veh/h) 15 480 5 10 650 22 5 0 5 25 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0,.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 495 5 10 670 23 5 0 5 26 0 21 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 392 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 693 500 793 1242 250 986 1233 235 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 528 528 702 702 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 265 713 284 531 vCu, unblocked vol 693 500 793 1242 250 986 1233 235 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 99 93 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 905 1067 449 354 756 366 362 773 Volume Total 263 253 178 335 190 10 26 21 Volume Left 15 0 10 0 0 5 26 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 23 5 0 21 cSH 905 1700 1067 1700 1700 564 366 773 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 0 1 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 15.6 9.8 Lane LOS A A B C A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 11.5 13.0 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 a Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Highway 99 & Driveway C 2/18/2015 Lane Configurations ttt tt Volume (veh/h) 0 0 15 5 0 10 0 1575 5 0 1265 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 16 5 0 10 0 1641 5 0 1318 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1878 2966 442 2098 2966 549 1323 1646 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1320 1320 1643 1643 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 557 1646 455 1323 vCu, unblocked vol 1878 2966 442 2098 2966 549 1323 1646 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 97 95 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 157 125 569 102 125 484 518 389 Volume Total 16 16 656 656 333 527 527 269 Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 16 10 0 0 5 0 0 5 cSH 569 215 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.5 23.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Highway 99 & Driveway D 2/18/2015 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 4 t 4 Lane Configurations Of ++T+ Volume (veh/h) 20 25 25 1560 1235 25 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 26 26 1642 1300 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 626 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1913 446 1326 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1313 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 600 vCu, unblocked vol 1913 446 1326 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 95 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 200 565 517 Volume Total 21 26 26 547 547 547 520 520 286 Volume Left 21 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 cSH 200 565 517 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 25.1 11.7 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B Approach Delay (s) 17.7 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Drivewav A 2/18/2015 Lane Configurations tt r 41� 1� Volume (veh/h) 0 490 5 5 650 5 5 0 25 0 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 500 5 5 663 5 5 0 26 0 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 602 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 668 505 849 1181 253 949 1179 332 vC1, stage 1 cont vol 503 503 673 673 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 347 679 276 505 vCu, unblocked vol 668 505 849 1181 253 949 1179 332 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 100 97 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 911 1056 453 381 753 381 380 670 Volume Total 333 172 226 442 5 31 0 5 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 5 26 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1056 1700 1700 678 1700 670 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 10.4 Lane LOS A B A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 10.6 10.4 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Driveway B 2/18/2015 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 2 Lane Configurations 0 tt *T* Volume (veh/h) 15 485 5 10 660 20 5 0 5 25 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 500 5 10 680 21 5 0 5 26 0 21 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 392 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 701 505 802 1255 253 997 1247 237 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 534 534 711 711 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 268 722 286 536 vCu, unblocked vol 701 505 802 1255 253 997 1247 237 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 99 93 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 899 1063 446 351 753 361 358 770 Volume Total 265 255 180 340 191 10 26 21 Volume Left 15 0 10 0 0 5 26 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 21 5 0 21 cSH 899 1700 1063 1700 1700 560 361 770 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 0 1 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 15.7 9.8 Lane LOS A A B C A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 11.5 13.1 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Highway 99 & Driveway C 2/18/2015 , Lane Configurations ttt tT Volume (veh/h) 0 0 15 5 0 10 0 1600 5 0 1285 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 16 5 0 10 0 1667 5 0 1339 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1907 3013 449 2131 3013 558 1344 1672 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1341 1341 1669 1669 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 566 1672 462 1344 vCu, unblocked vol 1907 3013 449 2131 3013 558 1344 1672 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 97 95 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 153 121 563 98 121 478 509 380 Volume Total 16 16 667 667 339 535 535 273 Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 16 10 0 0 5 0 0 5 cSH 563 209 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.6 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.6 23.6 0.0 0,0 Approach LOS B C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Driveway D & Highway 99 2/18/2015 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 4 �i I i Lane Configurations e ttt t t Volume (veh/h) 20 25 25 1585 1255 25 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 26 26 1668 1321 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 626 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1943 454 1347 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1334 vC2, stage 2 cont vol 609 vCu, unblocked vol 1943 454 1347 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 95 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 195 559 507 Volume Total 21 26 26 556 556 556 528 528 291 Volume Left 21 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 cSH 195 559 507 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 25.7 11.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B Approach Delay (s) 18.0 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 Baseline PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 220th Street SW & Drivewav A 2/18/2015 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 With Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 1 --� *-- 4- 4% t . Lane Configurations tt r 41 Volume (veh/h) 0 492 5 5 652 0 5 0 25 0 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 502 5 5 665 0 5 0 26 0 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 602 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 665 507 853 1180 254 952 1183 333 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 505 505 676 676 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 348 676 277 507 vCu, unblocked vol 665 507 853 1180 254 952 1183 333 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 100 97 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 913 1054 452 381 752 380 379 669 Volume Total 335 172 227 444 0 31 0 5 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 0 26 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1054 1700 1700 677 1700 669 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 10.4 Lane LOS A B A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 10.6 10.4 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 With Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 220th Street SW & Driveway B ---* --,, ---* t N 1I2/18/2015 i Lane Configurations 0 tt *T* I "+ Volume (veh/h) 17 485 5 10 660 21 5 0 5 26 0 22 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 500 5 10 680 22 5 0 5 27 0 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 392 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 702 505 808 1260 253 1002 1252 238 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 538 538 712 712 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 270 723 290 540 vCu, unblocked vol 702 505 808 1260 253 1002 1252 238 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 99 93 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 898 1063 442 349 753 360 357 770 Volume Total 268 255 180 340 192 10 27 23 Volume Left 18 0 10 0 0 5 27 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 22 5 0 23 cSH 898 1700 1063 1700 1700 557 360 770 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 0 1 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 11.6 15.8 9.8 Lane LOS A A B C A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 11.6 13.1 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 With Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Highway 99 & Driveway C 211812015 -,* --*� --v 'r *-- 4- 4% l Lane Configurations r +fit t Volume (vehlh) 0 0 16 5 0 10 0 1602 5 0 1286 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 17 5 0 10 0 1669 5 0 1340 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1909 3016 449 2135 3016 559 1345 1674 vC1, stage 1 cont vol 1342 1342 1671 1671 vC2, stage 2 cont vol 567 1674 463 1345 vCu, unblocked vol 1909 3016 449 2135 3016 559 1345 1674 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 97 95 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 152 121 563 98 121 478 508 379 Imm Volume Total 17 16 668 668 339 536 536 273 Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 17 10 0 0 5 0 0 5 cSH 563 209 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.6 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.6 23.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 213/2015 With Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Driveway D & Highway 99 2/18/2015 � � 4% T t -V Lane Configurations r ttt tt Volume (vehlh) 24 28 29 1583 1253 29 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 29 31 1666 1319 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 626 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1951 455 1349 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1334 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 616 vCu, unblocked vol 1951 455 1349 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 95 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 194 558 506 Volume Total 25 29 31 555 555 555 528 528 294 Volume Left 25 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 cSH 194 558 506 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 26.3 11.8 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B Approach Delay (s) 18.5 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Edmonds Retail Pad 12:00 pm 2/3/2015 With Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Report Transpo Group Page 4