Loading...
1997, 10-02 Draft EIS Appendix B Traffic Impact AnalysisDraft Environmental Impact Statement MIRABEAU POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPENDIX B TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Lead Agency: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING Spokane. Washington Prepared by: RAMM ASSOCIATES, INC. Spokane, Washington October 2, 1997 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for MIRABEAU POINT PROJECT Spokane County, Washington September , 1997 Prepared by: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 707 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458 -6840 This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon. EXPIRES: 7714(Y9 l Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 77A - DOCUMENT SCOPE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Land Use 9 Existing Roadways 9 Interstate (SR) 90 11 Pines Road (SR 27) 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 Signalized Intersections 14 Unsignalized Intersections 15 Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis 15 Traffic Safety 20 Planned Transportation Improvements 20 Sullivan Road Evergreen Road Mission Avenue Indiana Avenue /Montgomery Mansfield Avenue /Houk Street Shannon Avenue /McDonald Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue (290) Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 21 ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES 21 Background Projects 22 Distribution of Background Trips 26 Project Trip Generation 30 Project Trip Distribution 33 BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE 43 Phase 1 With and Without Proposed Project 43 Phase 2 With and Without Proposed Project 49 Phase 3 With and Without Proposed Project 54 Key Intersection Configurations 58 Weaving Analysis with Evergreen Interchange 59 Percentage of Participation in Evergreen Interchange 61 CONCLUSIONS 62 RECOMMENDATIONS 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2 - Site Map 5 Figure 3 - Existing Zoning Map 10 Figure 4 - Existing (1996) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Evergreen Interchange 17 Figure 5 - Existing (1996) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 19 Figure 6 - PM Peak Hour Additional Background Projects Traffic Volumes Without Evergreen Interchange 28 Figure 7 - PM Peak Hour Additional Background Projects Traffic Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 29 Figure 8 - Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes Without Evergreen Interchange 39 Figure 9 - Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 40 Figure 10 - Phase 2 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 41 Figure 11 - Phase 3 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 42 Figure 12 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, Without Evergreen Interchange 45 Figure 13 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, Without Evergreen Interchange 46 Figure 14 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange 47 Figure 15 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Evergreen Interchange 48 Figure 16 - 2004 (Phase 2) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange 52 Figure 17 - 2004 (Phase 2) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Evergreen Interchange 53 Figure 18 - 2006 (Phase 3) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange 56 Figure 19 - 2006 (Phase 3) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Evergreen Interchange 57 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service Without Evergreen Interchange 16 Table 2 - Existing Levels of Service With Evergreen Interchange 18 Table 3 - Accident data for selected intersections within the study area 20 Table 4 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour 24 Table 5 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Project (Lawson /Gunning) - PM Peak Hour 25 Table 6 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Project (Full Build out of Spokane Valley Mall) - PM Peak Hour 25 Table 7 - Phase 1 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour 30 Table 8 - Phase 2 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour 32 Table 9 - Phase 3 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour 32 Table 10 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) Without Proposed Project 43 Table 11 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) With Proposed Project 44 Table 12 - 2004 Traffic (Phase 2) With and Without Proposed Project 50 Table 13 - 2006 Traffic (Phase 3) With and Without Proposed Project 54 Table 14 - Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges 60 Table 15 - Year 2006 Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges 60 Table 16 - Evergreen Interchange Project Cost Estimate 61 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables Background Trips from Other Traffic Studies Spreadsheets for Traffic Without Evergreen Interchange Spreadsheets for Traffic With Evergreen Interchange Documentation for Right Turns On Red (RTOR) Calculations for Existing Level of Service Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for Existing Level of Service With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service Without Project, Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service With Project, Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2004 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2004 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2006 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2006 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for Weaving Analysis With Evergreen Interchange INTRODUCTION TIA - DOCUMENT SCOPE This Traffic Impact Analysis is being provided to Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to document the analysis and findings of a traffic impact assessment conducted for the proposed development and rezone for the Mirabeau Point Project located within Spokane County east of the City of Spokane. This property lies east of Pines Road and north of Indiana Avenue encompassing the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo" as shown on Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop approximately 236 acres of land with varying topography. A significant part of this area is relatively flat, open former farmland. The central part of this area is a rocky, treed outcrop rising above the surrounding land. The existing zoning for this site is RR -10 zoning. The proposed zoning for this site is a combination of B -2 and B -3 zoning for various commercial uses with a potential for residential use north of Euclid. A portion of the land is currently zoned I -2 and will remain I -2 for the proposed uses. The rocky outcrop area will remain in it's natural state and in it's current RR -10 zoning. The purpose of this analysis is to review, assess and identify potential traffic related impacts which this development may have on the transportation system and where possible minimize these impacts. This TIA will be completed in accordance with the current traffic guidelines available from Spokane County, WSDOT and the Institute of Traffic Engineers (A Recommended Practice - Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development, 1991) . The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following existing intersections: • Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue • Pines Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & Indiana /Montgomery • Pines Road & Euclid Avenue • Pines Road & Trent Avenue • Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue • Sullivan Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Sullivan Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals WSDOT has requested that the Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue intersection also be included in 1.,r4-iithe scope of intersections to evaluate. However, as seen from the trip generation figures, this ti \intersection receives no additional traffic from phases 1 or 2 of the proposed project and only a x18) k.' minor amount of additional traffic from trips generated in phase 3. Therefore this intersection was not evaluated in this traffic impact analysis. k `x� 4') .c" k,u' Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Future intersections to consider include: • Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue • Mirabeau Parkway & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & the Eastbound 1-90 ramp terminals • Evergreen Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals Specific traffic impact related issues to be addressed within this report will include: • Existing traffic conditions within the project study area. • Trip generation characteristics related to the proposed development for the existing and future transportation system. • The anticipated trip distribution expected for the new trips from the site at each phase. • The affects of the trip generation and distribution to the existing and future transportation system. • Traffic impacts within the project study area due either to non - specific traffic growth or other background projects which are separate from the addition of the proposed Mirabeau Point development. • Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traffic from each phase of the proposed Mirabeau Point development. • Analyze future conditions with and without the proposed Evergreen Interchange. • Analysis, conclusions and recommended mitigation for the effects of the trips generated by the proposed Mirabeau Point development on the transportation system. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This property is located in eastern Spokane County, Washington, approximately 10 miles east of the City of Spokane central business district. The parcel lies east of Pines Road, north of I -90 and the Union Pacific Railroad, south of Burlington Northern - Santa Fe Railroad and west of the Spokane River. This area encompasses the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo". This land is primarily vacant with some structures related to the zoo still remaining. Some of the land has been used for agricultural purposes in the past. The proposed rezone will allow the proposed Mirabeau Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Point Project development to construct an ice arena, YMCA facilities, community center, business park, hotel, RV Park, and other land uses as detailed in this study. Primary ingress and egress for these land uses will be to a proposed Mirabeau Parkway using several local access roads at various locations throughout the development. The property is bordered by Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve and vacant land to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and the Spokane River and Centennial Trail to the east. The use of land in this area is a mix of open space, high density residential and commercial uses. The predominant land use in the area to the south of the site, on the south side of the railroad are commercial uses. To the west of the site along Pines Road, are apartments. Existing zoning of this land is a mixture of RR -10 and I -2. This parcel is surrounded by UR -22, I -2, B -2, B -3 and GA zoning to the south, I -2 and 1 -3 zoning across the Spokane River to the east and I -2 and RR -10 zoning to the west. Existing RR -10 land to the west of the project was purchased by the nature conservancy and deeded to the DNR to remain vacant since it is adjacent to land set aside by the Mirabeau Point Project to remain a natural area. A preliminary site and phasing plan of this development is shown in Figure 2. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 3 Mirabeau Point Project TIA AVE 'cEMTRA FRUIT HILL RD FRUIT Et liER 0 O ¢ FRAMCIS AVE Cj G SANSON IN,', SAMSON RD WELLESELY 1,1 AVE O cc W w CC CC tu W FORKER i CROWM 0 • •~i• EE Ev RETT f �DUEEN C4� 44. cc OIYY/ C r� •4�/11►K�lrir.. CAOwN et -' wAeAsti W&SAO c • sasN I ?East Y[Iley O' C rc I • Jr. M.$ QI fvy Trentwo00YE11CtE10 ? IOA0 < ben r p A0A0 � ., N ul cr O ¢ - O .. -a_JAG W' WELLES EY a: u ■ Q� LACAOSS HEROY e▪ IHEROY ~ ^� ONCFELLOW ° Qi i O RICH i Q • KWELL 0 t AVE ° J C' z I <I Fl Ar 4 AVE WALTON I 3 GARLAND' AVE OCKWELL z NICK ROCKWELL I I NI I I '1 I • •� EACr .n N.AOr °tNEA�Y:v � ?p ORIVE z z N LONGF LLOW C _ EONCtELLON 0 V CI �. 110 t cc t �• RICH I it ROCKWELL ° East Ya M.S. j 09\ O KIERNAH t1 !1 J ICKEYE O: VERY t J' rrl N' ¢ zl JI >a• FAIRYIEY GRACE u AVE DRIVE NONA Cl Fy AUGVSTA Arr c Q I F _ s " MAXWELL MAXWELL BUCKEYE •C SON o MARIE- NORA AVE AVE SIHTO < < ti o, BOONE AVE SNa�a ""4-11 CATALOO to sQI MALLON°,.+ • °I T � st � ° I a � Broadway Vern ELC S►AiNOCq Lo 2 O MAXWELL CATALDO 0IH ' Ya[w(tt 0 SINTO 1 VAllty 0ISINTO Medical 0 Center ;SHARP 0 BOONE ¢ BOONE 2 5 n DESMET DESMET i ¢ — CATALOO li = = W J c u MA LOr� Blatt i 31 CT Etem m t 'I f BROADWAY 0 0 Q! it AVE ,� SINTO SHAG �Z BOONE I,o OESUET CATALOO! • z YIItON NAL ON North P'nes r Jr M S M an i SA AIN(•l IELO Az! z w S ►l*GFI1iQ AVE r 5PR111GFIEL 1 INLAND pen= � PACIFIC ENGINEERING FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 1 INLAND laPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. • The signalized intersections within the study area are currently functioning at level of service D or better. The only unsignalized intersection considered in this study, (Pines Road and Euclid Avenue) is presently functioning at level of service C. • With or without the Evergreen Interchange, the increase m traffic over the next three years to 1999 will lower the level of service at two of the intersections on Sullivan Road to unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or lower) without the addition of the proposed phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. With WSDOT scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the LOS on Pines Road will remain at LOS D or better except for the Eastbound Ramp terminal intersection (LOS F) without the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. The level of service at Pines Road and Euclid Avenue during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS C without signal installation and without the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. • Without the Evergreen Interchange in 1999, but with the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines Road will lower to LOS E or lower for two of the intersections. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will also slip to LOS E under this same condition. The Mirabeau Parkway /Indiana intersection will require a signal because of the railroad crossing. • With the Evergreen Interchange operational in 1999 and with the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all of the intersections. Levels of service on Sullivan will remain the same as without project traffic under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS D or better under this condition with the intersections configured as listed in this report. Mirabeau Parkway /Indiana intersection will require a signal for this phase. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all intersections except for the Pines Road /EB Ramps and the Pines Road Trent Avenue intersections. Additional lanes and signal revisions at these intersections will improve the level of service to LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the phase 2 Mirabeau Point development Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Mirabeau Point Project TIA trips, levels of service at Pines Road/WB Ramps and Pines Road /Indiana Ave. will be at LOS D. The intersections on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, and Trent Avenue will require improvements. Signal revisions at the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. Addition of a northbound right turn lane and signal revisions at the Pines Road /EB Ramp intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. The Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection will require a signal for acceptable levels of service. The Pines Road /Trent Avenue intersection will require an additional northbound lane. There is no change in the level of service for the intersections on Sullivan Avenue under this condition from the without project traffic. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C or better under this condition except for the Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue intersection. A second westbound left turn lane will improve the level of service from LOS F to LOS C. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all intersections except for the Pines Road /Mission Avenue and Pines Road /EB Ramps intersections. Improvements stated previously under Phase 2 (2004) will bring the level of service into acceptable range. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will slip to LOS E under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the phase 3 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D for the westbound ramp terminal and Indiana Avenue intersections. At the Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, and Trent Avenue intersections on Pines Road, improvements constructed in Phase 2 will allow the level of service at these intersections to be at acceptable levels at LOS D or better. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will be at LOS E under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS D or better under this condition except for the Evergreen Avenue/Indiana intersection. A second westbound left turn lane to be constructed in Phase 2 will be required at this intersection. • In 1999 with the Evergreen Interchange, weaving levels of service between the Pines Road, Evergreen Road and Sullivan Road Interchanges will become congested and drop into unacceptable ranges, LOS E or lower. The construction of a third through lane on I- 90 for both directions or a C -D lane between Pines and Sullivan will improve the level of service, but will still be less than desirable. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Mirabeau Point project will have an impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area due to the number of trips generated by this development. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 7 Mirabeau Point Project TIA incorporated into the project: • Frontage improvements as required by the County. • Participation in construction of Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. • Participate in the funding of the Evergreen Interchange as part of the conditions '7{1' required4fs phase 1. • Revise the existing signal at the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected and permitted left turn movements as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Participate in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road /EB Ramps intersection to construct a northbound right turn lane and revise the existing signal to allow southbound protected and permitted left turn movement as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Participate in the funding of a signal at the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection as part of the conditions required for phase 2. This intersection will become a four -leg intersection with the school driveway and future development using the west leg. • Participate in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road /Trent Avenue intersection to construct another northbound lane as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Construct widening for a second westbound left turn lane at the Indiana Ave. /Evergreen Road intersection as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • No participation in improvements on Sullivan should be required. • Funds from the state and federal level should be sought to construct a third through lane in each direction from the Sprague Interchange to east of the Sullivan Interchange. Collector- Distributor (C -D) lanes should be constructed between Pines and Sullivan in conjunction with the construction of the Evergreen Interchange. • five Gym( �vvih ec /tM 1-a #4'1,)(0-b e� -w f�Kw� l �G.,.4,�;,Pa +e? Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 8 Mirabeau Point Project TIA EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use At the present time the land is primarily undeveloped except for a few remaining buildings associated with the former zoo. The land is currently zoned RR -10 and I -2. The area to the west of the proposed development is zoned both RR -10 and UR -22 to Pines Road. The area south of the site and the railroad is zoned I -2, B -2 and B -3 for industrial and business uses. An area directly west of the site is zoned RR -10 and has been dedicated as a "park area" to remain in it's current undisturbed state. To the east of the site across the Spokane River, the land is also zoned I -2 and I -3 and is used by Kaiser Aluminum. The Lawson/Gunning project is being proposed on adjacent land to the southwest of this development. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for this area. Based upon the existing zoning within the immediate area, the land uses generated by this proposed rezone will be consistent with these existing uses. Existing Roadways At the present time the existing roadways in the immediate area are in various stages of planning and completion. I -90, Pines Road and Sullivan Road are fully developed, multi -lane facilities. Shannon Avenue on the other hand is an existing narrow, unpaved road. Indiana Avenue is identified by the County as a minor arterial and has recently been constructed as a five -lane facility between Pines Road and Sullivan Road as part of development in the area. Another arterial in the area which has not been built to it's ultimate cross - section is Evergreen Road. Although Evergreen Road is shown on the County's Arterial Road Plan as a principal arterial, for the majority of it's length it is a two lane, two -way strip paved road with gravel or grassy shoulders. An Interchange with I -90 has been proposed and approved by the FHWA. However complete funding to construct this interchange has not yet been obtained. As part of this project Mirabeau Parkway has been proposed. This new roadway will connect Euclid Avenue to the north with Indiana Avenue at a new railroad crossing approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing Shannon Avenue crossing. The existing Shannon Avenue crossing will be removed. For this report and since much construction has taken place over the period with which this report has been prepared, existing traffic conditions are defined as 1996 traffic volumes prior to opening of Walmart and Spokane Valley Mall, but with improvements that have been constructed in 1997. These improvements are the construction of Indiana Avenue, improvements to the intersections at Indiana /Sullivan Road and Indiana Ave. /Pines Road, the addition of slip ramps at the Sullivan and Pines interchanges and elimination of right turns off the westbound off ramps, and the addition of WSDOT constructed improvements at Pines Road /EB Ramps and Pines Road /Mission Ave. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 9 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 1l'. INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 } FIGURE 3 ZONING MAP Interstate (SR) 90 is an east/west two -way, four lane, median separated limited access interstate freeway on the County, Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration transportation systems. This interstate facility is a principal arterial highway on the WSDOT highway plan. Access for this facility is considered full, or controlled, and is only allowed at controlled access points such as interchanges. As is typical with interstate freeways, all cross traffic is grade separated and the signed speed limit on I -90 within this area is 60 mph. This facility is responsible for carrying many of the inter -area commute trips, such as between the Spokane valley, Post Falls, Rathdrum commute trips and downtown Spokane. This facility also carries the majority of the inter -state freight and commercial vehicles with destinations east and west of Spokane and a large portion of the interstate personal vehicle trips such as for moving or vacationing. Pines Road (SR 27) within the project area is a principal arterial on both Spokane County's and the Washington State Department of Transportation arterial systems. It has a combination of five - lane and four -lane sections throughout the project area. As a north -south principal arterial, this facility is responsible for intra and inter -urban area trips. The inter -area trips are primarily those trips between communities lying north and south of the greater Spokane area, or a commuting route for those individuals living in the less urban areas of Spokane County. The intra area trips are those immediate area trips, and the facilitation of these through trips to the Sprague Avenue, Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue corridors. Pines Road within the urban area boundaries allows for the movement between arterials, such as Sprague; or collectors, such as Fourth Avenue and to access the I -90 corridor for commuting as well as commercial purposes. The general cross - section of this facility in the site vicinity is five lanes, with two -way left turns and dedicated left turn lanes at the intersections. The posted speed limit on Pines Road is 35 miles per hour (mph) in the project vicinity. Sullivan Road is a two -way, north/south principal arterial on the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It serves those adjacent land uses between it's northern terminus at Wellesley Avenue, and it's southern end at approximately 40th Avenue. It is a major commuter link for residential traffic south of I -90 wanting to access either Sprague Avenue or I- 90. Throughout it's length, it changes character several times, from residential uses south of 2nd Avenue, to commercial uses between 2nd Avenue and I -90, to industrial uses north of there, with some residential uses at it's northern end. North of I -90, Sullivan has two northbound and two southbound lanes with a two -way left turn lane. At the I -90 interchange, there are two left turn lanes for both northbound to westbound traffic and southbound to eastbound traffic along with two through lanes for northbound and southbound traffic. South of I -90, Sullivan has three through lanes for both northbound and southbound traffic and a two -way left turn lane. Evergreen Road is a principal arterial according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two - lane, two -way north -south arterial running between 32nd Avenue to the south and Mission Avenue to the north. The speed limit is posted at 35. At both Sprague Avenue and Broadway, Evergreen widens out. At Broadway, the cross - section changes to accommodate two lanes in each direction. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 11 Mirabeau Point Project TIA At Sprague Avenue, the widening accommodates a dedicated left turn lane for both north and south bound traffic. South of this left turn lane is a short section of two -way left turn lane to accommodate the new Target store and the Safeway store followed by a continuation of the two lane, two -way section it has along most of it's length. An interchange with I -90 is proposed for this road by extending Evergreen over I -90 to a future Indiana/Evergreen intersection. Evergreen would be widened to accommodate the additional traffic due to the new interchange. Mission Avenue is a minor east -west arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. It's ultimate cross section is a four -lane section with two lanes in each direction. Turn lanes will be added as needed at critical intersections such as the right turn lane for westbound traffic at Pines Road. For most of it's length, Mission Avenue is a two -lane, east -west arterial. The speed limit along it's length is 35 mph. Indiana Avenue /Montgomery is a minor east -west arterial according to the Spokane County <, Arterial Road Plan between Argonne Road and Pines Road. Currently it is a two -way, two lane ;(.�kd road. At the present time it is constructed to only about half a mile east from Pines Road. The remainder of this roadway to Sullivan Road is under construction in conjunction with the /6 -'3 a construction of the new mall in this area. A five -lane section will ultimately be constructed 1 between Pines Road and Sullivan Road with curbs and sidewalks. Shannon Avenue /McDonald Road are two lane, two -way, unpaved roadways. These roadways connect with Houk Street on the west end, turns into McDonald Road as it heads south, crosses the railroad tracks and terminates at Indiana Avenue. Shannon Avenue runs east /west parallel to the existing Union Pacific Railroad line. The railroad crossing is an unsignalized, unimproved, non -gated crossing. ADT on this roadway is currently less than 200 vpd. This intersection/crossing has been identified for closure by the WUTC and UPRR with the new connection to Indiana approximately 1,075 feet east of the existing. Due to some driver frustration at the Mansfield /Pines intersection, some vehicles were observed using this roadway to go to the Indiana /Pines intersection where it is signalized and therefore easier access to the arterials. Mirabeau Parkway is a future roadway that will be constructed by Spokane County in conjunction with the Mirabeau Point project. It is anticipated that this roadway will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Avenue to approximately 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue and a three lane section from 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. Trent Avenue (SR 290) is an east/west four lane principal arterial on both the Spokane County and Washington State Department of Transportation systems. It connects parts of the State of Idaho north of Post Falls with SR 2 and SR 395 within the City of Spokane. Trent Avenue has a combination of four and five lane sections in this area. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 12 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following existing intersections: • Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue • Pines Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & Indiana /Montgomery • Pines Road & Euclid Avenue • Pines Road & Trent Avenue • Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue • Sullivan Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Sullivan Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals Future intersections to consider include: • Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue • Mirabeau Parkway & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Evergreen Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals These intersections with one exception have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) for various conditions and form the basis of this document. The exception is the Pines Road /Mansfield intersection. As explained elsewhere in this report, Mirabeau Point traffic will generally not use this intersection. Therefore, no capacity analysis was performed for this intersection. This study was also scoped to look at the effects the proposed Evergreen Interchange would have on the transportation system in the area. Future intersections at this interchange were also included for analysis. The Pines Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections with the exception of Euclid Avenue. This is a stop sign controlled intersection with the east/west street yielding to Pines Road. The Sullivan Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections. The future intersections on Indiana Avenue will be signalized when they are constructed. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation Existing turning traffic movement volumes at the identified intersections were gathered from a variety of sources. The traffic counts on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramp Terminal, WB ramp terminal and Indiana Avenue intersections are based on counts taken by WSDOT in 1996. The traffic counts at the intersection of Pines Road /Trent Avenue are based on traffic counts taken Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 13 Mirabeau Point Project TIA by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) in 1997 and adjusted to 1996 traffic volumes. The traffic counts used for the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection are based on the northbound and southbound traffic on Pines Road with a minor amount of westbound traffic added since there is now no development on Euclid to attract traffic other than the centennial trail. On Sullivan Road, existing traffic counts at the EB and WB ramp terminal intersections are based on 1995 traffic counts taken by WSDOT. These counts were increased by a 6.5% growth rate to bring them up to 1996 levels. This high rate of growth is based on the fact that there has been a lot of development in this area recently. Also a widening project on Sullivan completed in 1994 gives reason for additional traffic to use Sullivan Road over Pines Road even if it does mean some backtracking. Existing traffic counts at the future intersection of Sullivan/Indiana are based on volumes at the WB ramp terminal intersection. The traffic counts at the Mission/Sullivan intersection are based on counts taken in 1995 by IPE. The County took some counts in 1996 at this intersection. However, these counts were taken on a day adjacent to a holiday and appear to be abnormally high. The 1995 counts taken by IPE were increased by a 6.5% growth rate to bring them up to 1996 levels for the same reasons as the ramp terminal intersections. The existing traffic counts at the Mission Avenue /Evergreen Road intersection are based on traffic counts IPE did for a previous study. These counts taken in 1995 were increased by a 3% growth rate to bring the volumes up to the 1996 levels. Since the weekday PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the greatest traffic demands are placed on the surrounding transportation system, this will be the time period utilized by this study for analyzing the proposed action. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into a range from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed capacity. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 14 Mirabeau Point Project TIA is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; level of service D is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections in an urban area such as this. Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an Unsignalized one /two -way stop - controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each movement within the intersection. The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual is based on the amount of time a vehicle mus! spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection. On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of service are assigned to individual movements within the intersection, and are based upon the delay experienced by each movement or approach. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one movement in the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimum acceptable level of service for this area. All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis As outlined above, the LOS techniques used for this study will follow those outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209. The scope of this study will include those intersections within the project study area as stated previously. These intersections were chosen Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Mirabeau Point Project TIA by Spokane County and WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from the proposed Mirabeau Point Project development. As determined during scoping of this TIA, the greatest impacts to the transportation system for this type of development, will occur during the PM peak hours as the work to home -base (PM) commuters are on the transportation system. Based upon requirements of Spokane County and WSDOT for this analysis, the lowest acceptable level of service for unsignalized intersections will be LOS of E. For a signalized intersection, LOS I) will be the minimum acceptable level of service. On occasion, an existing intersection which has not been analyzed in some time will, when examined in a report of this nature, appear with an existing unacceptable level of service. This may happen for an unsignalized intersection if the level of service is found to be at F or if a signalized intersection is working at level of service E or F. Intersections with levels of service which are currently this low, or which are brought into unacceptable levels of service during the build out of the project may be candidates for mitigation to provide acceptable levels of service or return them to their pre - project status. Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing PM peak hour 1; V/Z> at each identified intersection. These LOS results are from the traffic counts performed by IPE, tic) - fix Spokane County and WSDOT for this study. Highway Capacity Software with patch 2. lc (HCS) and Synchro Professional, version 2.0.7 were used to generate all levels of service shown in this c.. document and are provided in the Technical Appendix. Figure 4 shows the existing intersection •`' ji volumes counted by IPE staff, Spokane County and WSDOT which were used for Table 1. Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service - Without Evergreen Interchange INTERSECTION EXISTING PM TRAFFIC DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 28.6 sec. D Pines Rd./EB Ramps 31.1 sec. D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 21.6 sec. C Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 19.2 sec. C Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. ( *) 16.0 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 17.4 sec. C Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 8.8 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 11.8 sec. B Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 12.8 sec. B Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 16 Mirabeau Point Project TIA J MID ENVE Q wow dbkb »2—C. 4•e. 2SI. 40163 EUCLID AVENUE 1— w W 1- V) MANSFIELD AVENUE 0 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE N/A HANNON INDIANA — _ AVENUE �s^ • RgMP N/A 0 0 w MISSION AVENUE V) W Z EVERGREEN 0 0 ce 5J//J "imi INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844) MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 % FIGURE 4 EXISTING (1996) W/O EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES aml ( *) Denotes unsignalized intersection. For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement through the intersection. The overall intersection delay at this intersection is 0.1 seconds per vehicle. As can be seen from Table 1, the existing levels of service at all of the intersections within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized intersections for Spokane County. All intersections are operating at levels of service LOS D or better. Table 2, which follows, summarizes the levels of service for the existing PM peak hour at each identified intersection if Evergreen Interchange was constructed. Figure 5 shows the projected traffic volumes for existing traffic if Evergreen Interchange was constructed. Table 2 - Existing Levels of Service - With Evergreen Interchange INTERSECTION EXISTING PM TRAFFIC DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 23.3 sec. C Pines Rd./EB Ramps 20.8 sec. C Pines Rd. /WB Ramps 17.2 sec. C Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 17.8 sec. C Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. ( *) 16.0 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 17.4 sec. C Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 1-3./ sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 12.4 sec. B Sullivan Rd. /WB Ramps 11.9 sec. B Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 10.5 sec. B Evergreen Rd. /WB Ramps 5.4 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. 9.8 sec. 13 - As can be seen from Table 2, the existing levels of service with Evergreen Interchange will improve delay times and levels of service at many of the intersections, particularly on Pines Road. As with the existing traffic without Evergreen Interchange, all intersections within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized intersections for Spokane County. All intersections would operate at levels of service LOS C or better with the Evergreen Interchange. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 18 Mirabeau Point Project TIA CREN 0) b EUCLID AVENUE 1— W W (1) MANSFIELD AVENUE x 0 1.1-0 <3.••• a. 3071t, w ^ v NOT TO SCALE ,o SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENU a� eti 131.1° 'kw 3110 N Ri: �ND�gNq AVENUE ,0•p o-10 90 E.B. AMP 0 Ix MISSION AVENUE tn W z 1 'lam INLAND laPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7t1 • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 5 EXISTING (1996) WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic Safety Accident summaries available for the most recent four years were obtained from Spokane County and WSDOT for the intersections in the study area. Generally accidents are documented by type of occurrence, such as property damage or injury. Accidents are measured based on frequency per million entering vehicles. This ratio is a function of the average annual traffic entering the intersection and the annual frequency of accidents. No fatal accidents were recorded from 1992 to 1995 at any of these intersections. Table 3 - Accident data for selected intersections within the study area ACCIDENT STATISTICS Intersection 1992 1993 1994 1995 Per MEV PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO 1 INJ PDO INJ _ Pines & Mission 20 12 12 12 6 8 12 13 1.71 Pines & EB Ramps 0 0 1 5 2 2 5 2 0.29 Pines & WB Ramps 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 0.20 Pines & Indiana 1 1 3 2 3 2 5 1 0.54 Mission & Evergreen 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.36 Accident rates at these intersections are below 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles, the threshold for safety improvements. Therefore accident history should not be considered a problem at this time. Note that the intersection of Pines & Mission has an accident rate which is close to the 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles threshold. WSDOT is aware of the accident history at this intersection and is in the process of designing and constructing some safety improvements at this intersection. Because of safety issues, the intersection of Pines & Mission was "split- phased" for east -west traffic. As the accident trend shows, this change brought the intersection accident rate down in 1994, but increased back to former levels in 1995. A second southbound left turn lane is planned for this intersection in 1997. Planned Transportation Improvements The WSDOT has committed to two projects on Pines Road which will improve the safety and capacity of the roadway system in this area. The first project, scheduled for construction in 1997 will widen the eastbound off ramp to two right turn lanes, widen Pines Road at the Mission Avenue intersection for a second southbound left turn lane and restripe the Mission/Pines intersection for protected eastbound and westbound left turn movements. The second project, scheduled for construction in 1998 will widen Pines Road at the westbound ramp terminal intersection to accommodate a second left turn lane for the traffic going westbound on I -90. These were assumed to be "in place" for all future condition analysis. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 20 Mirabeau Point Project TIA FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES The proposed Evergreen interchange will have a significant impact on the transportation system in this area. For that reason phase 1 of the Mirabeau Point Project has been analyzed with and without Evergreen Interchange for both with and without the project. It is assumed that Evergreen Interchange must be in place for phases 2 and 3. Therefore phases 2 and 3 were only analyzed with Evergreen Interchange for the with and without project traffic conditions. The future year weekday PM peak hour impacts of the potential traffic generated by each phase of the proposed project were analyzed as follows: • Trip generation estimates of the future PM peak hour trips for the complete build out of the background and subject projects were assumed to follow the Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition or as updated. Those land uses not included in the manual, backup data was obtained to determine appropriate estimates of trip generation. • Traffic volumes on each transportation system element at build out were determined assuming the existing traffic would experience a 3% per year compounded growth rate due to unidentified sources. Identified background projects listed in this report were included above the 3% growth rate. • Trip assignments from the background projects are as shown in Figures 6 & 7. These projects are listed and detailed in the following sections of this study. For the phase 1 condition without the Evergreen Interchange, background projects include only those which are not conditioned to have the Evergreen Interchange constructed. In other words, the trips generated from the second and third phases of the Spokane Valley Mall and the Industrial Park were not included in the "Without Evergreen Interchange" scenario. For all scenarios with the Evergreen Interchange, all background trips were included. • Forecasted traffic volumes for the proposed development as generated from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition were then added to the background traffic to determine the cumulative traffic impacts. • Level of service analyses were then performed for the without the proposed project and with the proposed project traffic scenarios in order to identify any capacity or level of service deficiencies due to the development of the proposed project on either Pines Road, Sullivan Road or any of the other intersections of interest. • The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in three phases: phase 1, 1999; phase 2, 2004; and phase 3, 2006. Level of service analyses were performed for phase 1 with Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 21 Mirabeau Point Project TIA and without phase 1 development and with and without Evergreen Interchange constructed, for phase 2 with and without phase 2 development with Evergreen Interchange constructed, for phase 3 with and without phase 3 development with Evergreen Interchange constructed. • Improvements scheduled for Pines Road by WSDOT were assumed to be completed as part of improvements by others for all future year LOS calculations. Background Projects Additional trips from other proposed projects or projects in construction at the time of the traffic counts were taken were included as background projects. Trips from background projects were then distributed in the two different scenarios, with and without Evergreen Interchange constructed. One primary source for additional trips from other proposed projects is the information on background projects from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis. The other source for additional trips is from the traffic impact analysis dated January 1997 for the Lawson/Gunning development located adjacent and to the west of the Mirabeau Point Project. Other projects outside of those in these reports were also included and are listed below. The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis performed by IPE identified two projects for inclusion in this study as background projects. They are the Lawson Hotel /Office complex and the Wolff Commercial site. The Lawson Hotel /Office complex includes a proposed 200 room hotel and 20,000 square feet of office space located in the northeast quadrant of the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection. The Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers has land use category 710, General Office Building and land use category 312, Business Hotel which accurately model the proposed land uses of the Lawson site. The second project identified by the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis as a background project is the Wolff Commercial site located in the northwest quadrant of the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection. In discussions with Jamie Wolff, the following land uses were identified: The westernmost building on the site is a 9,000 sq. ft. building on each of two floors. The top (ground - level) floor will be retail, modeled using the Shopping Center ( #820) land use category in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition (TGM) . The bottom floor will have 6,000 sq. ft. of leasable area for office space, and 3,000 sq. ft. of storage area. The office space was modeled using the General Office Building ( #710) land use category. The storage area is not expected to generate any trips. Along the northern perimeter of Jamie Wolff's property, a three floor, 6,000 sq. ft. per floor office complex has been approved. This was also modeled using the General Office Building ( #710) land use category. At the northwest corner of Mission and Pines and the southeast corner Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 22 Mirabeau Point Project TIA of the site, a restaurant is proposed. This restaurant was modeled as a High - Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant; land use category #832. From the Lawson/Gunning development located adjacent to the Mirabeau Point Project, the following land uses were identified: 144 units of apartments, retirement community with 104 units, a 27,800 S.F. nursing home, 65,700 S.F. of mini- warehouse storage facilities, an RV Park with 117 units and an animal clinic. Other projects not included in the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community Traffic Impact Analysis but are included as background projects in this traffic study are: 1) The trips from Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community (Land Use 220); 2) A 72 unit Retirement Complex south of Mission Avenue between Evergreen Road and Mamer Road (Land Use 250); 3) Phase 1 and Phase 2 trips from the Inland Construction Business Park (Land Use 150 & 710); 4) Walmart Development (located southeast of Mission and Sullivan); 5) Hanson -Price Mall (Spokane Valley Mall) and Hotel per an August 1994 TIA for the scenario without Evergreen Interchange and per the EIS Supplement to Sullivan Park Center dated June 1985 for the scenario with the Evergreen Interchange; and 6) Spokane Industrial Park Expansion per a revised trip generation supplement dated December 10,1996. Both the Hanson -Price Mall (Spokane Valley Mall) and the Valley Plaza Mall (Walmart) traffic studies do not include any trip reductions due to two somewhat similar projects constructed close together. The amount of additional trips added to the transportation system by both of these projects will not equal the sum of the two projects individually. However, to be on the conservative side, additional trips that both these projects were projected to add to the system individually were added to the system as background projects. The trip generation rates and volumes for these land uses are shown in the following tables: • Table 4 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for all background trips except for the Lawson/Gunning development adjacent to Mirabeau Point and for the full build out of Spokane Valley Mall development. • Table 5 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for the background trips from the Lawson/Gunning development. • Table 6 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for the background trips from the full, approved build out of the Spokane Valley Mall development if the Evergreen interchange is constructed. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 23 Mirabeau Point Project TIA TA A tole 4 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Volume Entering Exiting Percent Volume Percent Volume Hotel(" 200 Rooms 0.62 124 60% 74 40% 50 Office Building"' 20 k.S.F. 2.92 58 17% 10 83% 48 Strip Mall 9 k.S.F. 15.14 136 50% k 68 50% 68 Office Building(7) + 24 k.S.F. 2.68 64 17% 11 83% 53 Restaurant 5.5 k.S.F. 12.92 71 56% 40 44% 31 Apartments') 317 0.63 200 68% 136 32% 64 Retirement 72 units 0.28 20 56% 11 44% 9 Business Park Various N/A 141 N/A 28 N/A 113 Apartments" ' 233 units 0.49 114 64% 73 36% 41 Walmart Various N/A 2,287 N/A 1,127 N/A 1,160 Valley Mall: Mall Hotel's' 715 k.S.F. G.L.A. 300 units 3.26 0.76 2,331 228 50% 54% 1,165 123 50% 46% 1,166 105 Industrial Park Expan. Various N/A 1,710 N/A 747 N/A 963 (1) - Lawson site (2) - Wolff site (3) - Ridgeview Estates Apartments (4) - Cherry Street Apartments (5) - Included in the Spokane Valley Mall project Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 24 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 5 - Trip Generation for Background Projects (Lawson /Gunning) - PM Peak Hour Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting % I Volume % Volume Apartments 144 units "0.49 64% 45 36% 25 Retirement Community 104 units 0.28 56% 16 44% 13 Nursing Home 27.8 k.S.F. 0.35 42% 4 58% 6 Mini- Warehouse 65.7 k.S.F. 0.26 52% 9 48% 8 RV Park 117 units 0.46 65% 35 35% 19 Animal Clinic N/A N/A 50% 4 50% 4 Table 6 - Trip Generation for Background Projects (Full Build out of Spokane Valley Mall) - PM Peak Hour ',y 'zc 7 7 1z Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Size PM Peak Hour Land Use Rate Entering Exiting % Volume % Volume Regional Center 1,030 k.S.F. 2.95 50% 1,519 50% 1,519 Other Commercial 318 k.S.F. 3.5 50% 557 50% 557 Hotel 300 rooms 0.76 54% 123 46% 105 Business Park 390 k.S.F. 1.48 22% 127 78% 450 Industrial Park 800 k.S.F. 0.91 21% 153 79% 575 ',y 'zc 7 7 1z Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Distribution of Background Trip Assumptions The background trips were distributed over the existing transportation system in two scenarios; 1) Without Evergreen Interchange constructed, but with Indiana Avenue constructed from Pines Road to Sullivan Road, with Shannon Avenue connected to Mirabeau Parkway, and with the existing railroad crossing at McDonald removed and relocated approximately 1,075 feet east to Mirabeau Parkway connection with Indiana Avenue; and 2) With Evergreen Interchange constructed along with the Indiana Avenue improvements and the above Mirabeau Parkway improvements. The following assumptions were used in distributing the background trips: Without Evergreen Interchange Scenario Cherry Street Apartments - These trips will exit/enter onto Pines Road at Mansfield Avenue since they are located near this intersection. There will be no direct impact to Sullivan Road. Inland Construction Traffic Study - Background trips from figures 5 and 6 of this study were used and are included in the appendix for reference. Walmart (Valley Plaza Mall) - The traffic study prepared by W & H Pacific in 1991 was the basis for additional trips from this project. To determine the new trips on Sullivan Road, Figure 4 (Projected PM Peak Hr. Traffic Volumes without Project) and Figure 5 ( Projected PM Peak Hr. Traffic Volumes With project) from this traffic study were used to calculate the difference for each turning movement at each intersection and are included in the appendix for reference. Hanson -Price Mall & Hotel (Spokane Valley Mall) - The traffic study prepared by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. (BAA) dated August 1994 for phase 1 was the basis for additional trips for this scenario. Also used was the gross leasable area approved by Spokane County (715,000 S.F.) and the approved size of the Hotel from the 1985 EIS (300 units). The BAA study used a slightly different number for size of the shopping center and therefore a different number of anticipated trips. Figure 7 from the BAA study of the project trip assignment was adjusted slightly to match the currently approved size and corresponding number of trips. The origin/destination percentages were kept the same as the BAA study presented them and are included in the appendix for reference. Spokane Industrial Park Expansion - The revised estimated trip generation plan dated December 10, 1996 from Taylor Engineering was used as the basis for additional trips from this project. No trip distribution information was included in the report. Therefore, for additional trips from this project the following assumption were made: 25% to /from areas north of the site, 35% to /from areas west of the Sullivan/I -90 Interchange, 15% to /from areas east of the Sullivan/I -90 Interchange, and 25% to /from areas south of I -90 on Sullivan. Lawson/Gunning Project (Shannon Avenue) - The site generation volumes from figures 7 and 8 of this study were used for background trips and are included in the appendix for reference. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 26 Mirabeau Point Project TIA With Evergreen Interchange Scenario Existing Traffic - The existing traffic was redistributed for the scenario with Evergreen Interchange in place. Approximately 20% of the eastbound to southbound and northbound to westbound traffic at the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges was assumed to use the new Evergreen Interchange facility. Also approximately 20% of the northbound to eastbound and westbound to southbound traffic at these interchanges was rerouted to use the Evergreen Interchange facility. Cherry Street Apartments - Used same trips and distributions as without Evergreen Interchange. Inland Construction Traffic Study - Used similar distribution as before with some slight adjustment for trips using Evergreen Interchange to access the freeway. Walmart (Valley Plaza Mall) - Used same trip distribution as the without Evergreen Interchange scenario. Evergreen Interchange will not be used by any of the traffic to travel to this development since it would result in longer travel times. Hanson -Price Mall & Hotel (Spokane Valley Mall) - The 1985 Supplement to the Sullivan Park Center, Table 1 was used as a basis for approved land uses with the Evergreen Interchange constructed. This includes all three phases of this project. Trips were generated using ITE's trip generation manual and distributed over the transportation system. Approximately 25% were assumed to come from areas west of the site, 15% from areas north of the site, 20% from areas east of the site, and 40% from areas south of the site. Spokane Industrial Park Expansion - Used same trip distribution as the without Evergreen Interchange scenario. Lawson/Gunning Project (Shannon Avenue) - The site generation volumes from figures 7 and 8 of this study were used for background trips and are included in the appendix for reference. Approximately one third of the southbound Pines traffic turning left onto Indiana Avenue was rerouted to go turn left at Euclid Avenue and onto Mirabeau Point Drive. They will follow that route to avoid congestion on Pines. Anticipated trip distribution characteristics for these background projects are shown on Figures 6 and 7 which follow. Included in the appendix are spreadsheets showing the cumulative trips of existing traffic, background traffic, and traffic from proposed development for each phase for the condition with Evergreen Interchange and the condition without Evergreen Interchange. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 27 Mirabeau Point Project TIA EUCLID AVENUE INDIANA AVENU r/e/4 ozo A/;e0 MANSFIELD AVENUE y 7/40# SHANNON ■•AVENUE NOT TO SCALE ��O 2 a) N5 ,aJ .). e• - <)=.• '7n iii *it sas iiiiiiiGCCii._ � IN tin E.B. pI4P 0 O MISSION AVENUE E 0 d O cr 1 -141 INLAND ECPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th ■ Suite 200 (509) 458 -5840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO, 96149 FIGURE 6 BACKGROUND TRIPS W/O EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES MANSFIELD AVENUE SHANNON AVENUE 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844j BACKGROUND TRIPS w/EvERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 } TRAFFIC VOLUMES Project Trip Generation Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, and other data gathered from similar facilities, the anticipated number of trips to be generated on adjacent streets by the proposed project was determined. The Trip Generation Manual (TGM) provides empirical data, based upon actual field observations for trip generation characteristic of similar projects throughout the United States. The TGM provides trip generation data for the Mirabeau Point Project development as shown in the following tables. Table 7 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 1 Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting % Volume % Volume Ice Arena 2 sheets 20 50% 20 50% 20 YMCA See Below N/A 50% 80 50% 80 Performing Arts See Below N/A 25 % 5 75 % 15 Educational See Below N/A 20% 80% 5 Planetarium See Below N/A 20% 1 80% 5 Senior Center See Below N/A 0% 0 100% 1 Retail Center 50 k.S.F. 4.93 57% 141 43% 106 Fitness Center 20 k.S.F. 4.3 60% 52 40% 34 Totals 300 266 The following land uses for phase 1 were either not found in the 11 E Trip Generation Manual or other specific information was used. The following is a list of these non - standard land uses and the assumptions used for trip generation: Ice Arena - It is assumed that junior hockey teams will use this facility during PM peak hours. Assume one changeover from one team practicing to another practicing during the PM peak hour per sheet of ice and that 10 vehicles per team will make the trip to the facility. This gives us two team entering, two teams exiting for a total of 20 trips entering and 20 trips exiting. `'-f, &Cr YMCA - The ITE manual list land use 495 as applicable to this land use. However, YMCA gave us some information on trips generated which was different than the value using the trip Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 30 Mirabeau Point Project TIA generation manual. There will be approximately 300 people using the facility during the period from 4 PM to 6 PM of which half will be children (will need rides). Approximately 2/3 of the people will come or go during the PM peak period for 200 trips. This value is decreased by one third of the children coming with another child (parent will bring 2 children) for 16 less. The value is further decreased by a quarter of the adults who come will also exercise when their children exercise for 25 less. This gives a total of 159 trips generated. sti'' ,e1 ,tPerforming Arts - The concerts and other events that will occur at this facility will be scheduled .(\```5 04 v' after the PM peak hour. Therefore PM peak hour trips will be generated from staff and • 5 ti 5 %, performers rehearsing. We assumed a total of 20 PM peak hour trips, 5 entering and 15 exiting. ,k0 wpt • b Educational Complex - The seminars and lectures will occur during off -peak hours. Only the administrative /staff people will generate PM peak hour trips. For the PM peak hour, we assumed 12 trips, 3 entering and 9 exiting. �� .s �1 {•w� <_ { Planetarium - The shows at this facility will occur during off peak hours and on the weekends. Operation will be similar to the Denver Planetarium. They have 7 full time employees and 4 part time employees. Volunteers leave the site before 4:00 PM. Hours vary greatly from employees, spreading out the trips. We assumed 6 PM peak hour trips, 1 entering and 5 exiting. Senior Center - The Valley Senior Center which may move into this facility closes generally by 3:30 PM on weekdays. We assumed 1 exiting PM peak hour trip for the one employee. (e `lV Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 31 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 8 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 2 Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting % I Volume % Volume Hotel (' ) 150 rooms 0.76 54% 49 46% 42 Business Park 250 k.S.F. 1.48 22% 81 78% 289 Office Park 100 k.S.F. 1.51 15% 23 85% 128 Specialty Retail 50 k.S.F. 4.93 ' 57% 141 43% 106 Library 15 k.S.F. 4.74 48% 34 52% 37 w% ���s - rs 7 Con'en. tore . 2 k.S.F. 53.73. 50% 54 50% 54 Bank, Drive -In 3 k.S.F. 43.63' 48% 63 52% 68 Fast Food Rest. 3 k.S.F. kg 52% 57 48% 53 Totals 502 777 Cumulative Totals 802 1 1,043 r � �1 to'-5 2 (�• }�L 3 � `7. occ P • (1) Assume 80% occupancy. �t ` clo s ^ iidt-N c k �'��' `� v� ' oc• d c.>hVA n.+ vH/ c�,ci(e o o.t Il..c h.icl.? Table 9 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 3 Land Use Size PM Pea k Hour Rate Entering _ Exiting % Volume % Volume Cojcial Area 50 k.S.F. ' 15% 11 85% 64 r 80 units 0.46 52% 19 48% 18 _ Residential, Apartments 230 units 0.49` 64% 72 36% 41 Totals 102 123 Cumulative Totals 904 1,166 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 32 Mirabeau Point Project TIA The RV Park land use for phase 3 is not found in the 11 E Trip Generation Manual. We used trip generation information from other traffic studies performed and accepted for other projects in Spokane County. t c Project Trip Distribution Based upon existing ADT's along the adjacent roadways, the peak hours' directional and turning volumes at each intersection and field observations of primary driver characteristics determined during actual field observations and intersection counts, the anticipated trip distribution and assignment within the general area was determined for the proposed project. The following assumptions were used in determining the distribution of the site generated trips. • • • In Phase 1 scenario without Evergreen Interchange, Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue will be constructed. A new railroad crossing will be constructed approximately 1,075 feet of the existing Shannon Avenue crossing as part of the Mirabeau Parkway connection to Indiana Avenue. Indiana Avenue will be constructed from Sullivan Road to Pines Road. Street improvements for the east -west route south of the YMCA facilities connecting into the Lawson/Gunning development will be constructed. s5t `.3k ovl In Phase 1 scenario with Evergreen Interchange, assume the above improvements plus a complete Evergreen Interchange in place. In Phase 2 and 3, only the scenario with Evergreen Interchange and the above improvements will be considered since traffic at Pines Road and Sullivan Road is below acceptable levels without the project if a complete Evergreen Interchange is not in place. PHASE 1 Ice Palace Without Evergreen Interchange • For trips associated with the ice palace, destinations will be residences located in the Spokane Valley, south City of Spokane area, north Spokane area, and Coeur D'Alene area. There is an ice rink in north Spokane and in the winter an ice rink at Riverfront Park. No other ice rinks exit in the region. Trip distribution will be based on where residences are located in the region. Some existing teams from the north side will want to use these new facilities. • 20% will come from areas north of the site. These trips will go north to Euclid Avenue, west to Pines Road, and north. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 33 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • 30% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and use the Pines Interchange to access the site. • 30% will come from areas south of the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges. Assume 25% will go through the Pines Interchange and 5% will go through the Sullivan Interchange heading south. • 20% will come from areas east of the Sullivan Interchange. These will exit at the Sullivan Interchange and use Indiana Avenue to access the site. With Evergreen Interchange • Those north of the site will use the same route as without Evergreen Interchange. • • • • 10% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and will use Pines Interchange to access the site. Assume 20% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and use the Evergreen Interchange to access the site. LO ��� `/ 4 -, 2 cfLJ �.._ 30% will come from areas south of the Pine Sullivan Interchanges. 15% will go through the Pines Interchange, 15% will go through the Evergreen Interchange and 0% will go through the Sullivan Interchange. i ', " 20% will come from areas east of the Sullivan Interchange. Three quarters of these will exit at the Evergreen Interchange and use Indiana Avenue to access the site. One quarter will use the slip ramp at the Pines Interchange. zc . Trips to the YMCA in the PM peak hour period will be 75% work to YMCA to home based trips and 25% home to YMCA to home base trips. The YMCA operates a day care facility/care-program for children after school and these children will be picked up by parents on the way home from work. Therefore, for the 75 %, the route used to enter the site will be different than the route exiting the site. Without Evergreen Interchange • For trips entering the site: - 60% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Pines Interchange to enter the site. - 15% will be WB on I -90 and exit at the Sullivan Interchange to enter the site. - 5% will come NB on Sullivan to Indiana to enter the site. - 15% will come NB on Pines to Indiana to enter the site. - 5% will come SB on Pines to Euclid to enter the site. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 34 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • For trips exiting the site: - 15% will go to Euclid to Pines and north. - 20% will go to Sullivan and EB on I -90. - 20% will go to Sullivan and SB on Sullivan. - 10% will go to Pines and WB on I -90. - 35 % will go to Pines and SB on Pines. With Evergreen Interchange • For trips entering the site: - 20% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Pines Interchange to enter the site. 3Z - 40% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Evergreen Interchange to enter the site. 12 - 15% will be WB on I -90 and of these 3/4 will exit at the Evergreen Interchange to enter the site, 1/4 will exit at the slip ramp at Pines Interchange. - 5% will come NB on Sullivan to Indiana to enter the site. cl - 5% will come NB on Pines to Indiana to enter the site. • - 5% will come SB on Pines to Euclid to enter the site. 10% will come NB on Evergreen to Indiana to enter the site. so y • For trips exiting the site: - 15% will go to Euclid to Pines and north. 20% will go to Evergreen and EB on I -90. -2- - 35% will go to Evergreen and SB to Sprague. �` - 10% will go to Evergreen and WB on I -90. 2- 15 % will go to Pines and SB on Pines. • - 5 % will go to Sullivan and SB on Sullivan. Performing Arts Building, Educational Complex, Planetarium, Senior Center, Specialty Retail cw«3 • Routes to the site will be the same route as from the site. Without Evergreen Interchange • 15% will come from areas north of the site and use Pines Road to Euclid to access the site. • 20% will come from areas east of the site and use I -90 WB to Sullivan exit to Indiana to access the site. • 20% will come from areas south of Sullivan Interchange and use Sullivan to access the site. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 35 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • 10% will come from areas west of the site on I -90 and exit at Pines to access the site. • 35% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Pines to access the site. With Evergreen Interchange 21, • 2° 15% will come from areas north of the site and use Pines Road to Euclid to access the site. �> a ti4 • 21 20% will come from areas east of the site and of these 3/4 will use to Evergreen exit to ii)/-i access the site and 1/4 will use the slip ramp at westbound off ramp at Pines Interchange. • 2'i 20% will come from areas south of Sullivan Interchange and use Evergreen to access the site. • 14 10% will come from areas west of the site on I -90 and exit at Evergreen to access the site. • Zo 15% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Pines to access the site. • It 20% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Evergreen to access the site. ►so t% Active Sport/Fitness Center • Use the same distribution as for the YMCA use since both will be primarily coming from work and going to home from within the valley. PHASE 2 Hotel • Trips to /from the Hotel will be linked to travel on I -90. • 70% will be coming from or will go toward City of Spokane. • 30% will be coming from or going to areas east of the site. Business Park • 10% will come from areas north of the site and use Euclid to access the site. • 30% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange. 10% will use the Pines Interchange to exit/enter the freeway and 20% will use Evergreen Interchange. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 36 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • 40% will come from areas south of the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges. Assume 15% will go through the Pines Interchange, 25% will go through the Evergreen Interchange and 0% will go through the Sullivan Interchange heading south. • 20% will come from areas east of Sullivan Interchange and will exit at Evergreen. Bank, Bowling Alley, Convenience Store, Library, Retail • Use same distribution as for Performing Arts Building, Educational Complex, Planetarium, Senior Center, Specialty Retail in Phase 1. Office Space • Use same distribution as for the Business Park. PHASE 3 Office Park • Use same distribution as for business park in phase 2. RV Park • Assume that trips to /from the RV Park will be linked to travel along I -90. • Assume 50% trips are westbound on I -90 and 50% are eastbound on I -90. Residential Area • Assume that 25% of the PM peak hour trips will go to /from the Spokane Industrial Park, Kaiser, or other job related activity north of the site. These will turn right onto Pines Road from Euclid Ave. • Assume that 10% will access I -90 at the Pines Interchange and 30% will access I -90 at the Evergreen Interchange to go westbound toward the City or eastbound home. • Assume that 10% will go eastbound toward Post Falls or westbound home using the Evergreen Interchange. • Assume that 25% are trip to /from areas south of I -90. Assume 15% will use Evergreen Road and 10% will use the Pines Road. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 37 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Site generated traffic volume assignments for both scenarios for phase 1 are shown in Figures 8 & 9. Site generated traffic volume assignments for phases 2 and 3 are shown in Figures 10 & 11. These figures show only the traffic generated for the specific phase and Evergreen condition shown on the figure. For the cumulative traffic effect, see the spreadsheets in the appendix. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 38 Mirabeau Point Project TIA R J EUCLID AVENUE H W W O_ (1) MANSFIELD AVENUE 0 2 INDIANA AVENUE4 RAMP '1j CS0 v S r lLvA-4 -S 2(°(O NOT TO SCALE ►A a SHANNON AVENU �d b I ND /ANA AVENUE 0 0 cr z J J 0 0 0- MISSION AVENUE 0 0 bb 1 -NM.. INLAND iniCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokone, WA 99204 (509) 455 -6840 FAX: (509) 455-6844j MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 8 SITE GENERATED -PHASE I W/O EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES J INLAND iiiCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Sulte 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 SITE GENERATED -PHASE I WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 } \ TRAFFIC VOLUMES i /di 2 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 SITE GENERATED —PHASE II WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES IRE" EUCLID AVENUE NOT TO SCALE `- tzt*` N MANSFIELD AVENUE db INDIANA AVENUE.w! 11 0 SHANNON A VENUE SULLIVAN ROAD i Mp E•8. RAMP 0 0 un w z 0 MISSION AVENUE 1 INLAND "ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 FAX: (509) 458 -6844] Spokone. WA 99204 1 W w 0: CD 0 w c bb MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 11 SITE GENERATED —PHASE II WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION Nn L.2 j .Sf -IEE r >> • P ` - ) 7 2 - TRE`'`4�%A)c-5 'enotes that the maximum signalized V/C ratio was exceeded and was too great to calculate iy time. u)tTrt '„,! 11 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) With Proposed Project rgreen Rd./Indiana Ave. ibeau Point/Indiana (Unsig.) 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITHOUT PROJECT Without Evergreen VC DELAY I LOS N/A 8.2 sec. N/A B With Evergreen I/C DELAY 21.2 sec. 11.2 sec C C INTERSECTION 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT Without Evergreen I/C With Evergreen I/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 44.5 sec. E 26.8 sec. D Pines Rd./EB Ramps ( *) F 28.1 sec. D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 26.1 sec. D 27.9 sec. D Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 14.7 sec. B 16.3 sec. C Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) 10.4 sec. C 12.2 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 28.2 sec. D 38.7 sec. D Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 13.1 sec. B 12.1 sec. B Sullivan Rd. /EB Ramps 43.5 sec. E 28.9 sec. D Sullivan Rd. /WB Ramps 64.6 sec. F 55.7 sec. E Sullivan Rd. /Indiana Ave. ( *) F ( *) F Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps N/A N/A 14.9 sec. B Evergreen Rd. /WB Ramps N/A N/A 7.5 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. N/A N/A 26.3 sec. D Mirabeau Point/Indiana (Signal) 6.8 sec. B 6.9 sec. B ( *) Denotes that the maximum signalized V/C ratio was exceeded and was too great to calculate a delay time. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 44 Mirabeau Point Project TIA BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service calculations were made for each phase and full build out of the proposed development, anticipated in 2006. Analyses for conditions both with and without the proposed phase 1 traffic were performed with both scenarios concerning Evergreen Interchange. Analyses for conditions with and without the proposed phase 2 and 3 traffic were performed with Evergreen Interchange. These analyses will show how the traffic volumes will be handled by the existing facility or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working at acceptable levels of service. Phase 1 Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project The background traffic volumes include the existing traffic, the previously mentioned background projects and a compounded growth rate of 3% per year on Pines Road, I -90 Ramps and Sullivan Road. See Figures 6 & 7 for the traffic volumes from the background projects, Figures 12 and 14 for total traffic volumes without phase 1 and Figures 13 & 15 for the total traffic volumes with phase 1 traffic. A summary of the LOS calculations are shown in Table 10 and 11 which follows. Table 10 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) Without Proposed Project Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 43 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION Without Evergreen VC With Evergreen IIC ' DELAY 1 LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 27.9 sec. D 26.2 sec. D Pines Rd.fEB Ramps 61.8 sec. F 26.1 sec. D Pines Rd. /WB Ramps 20.4 sec. C 20.7 sec. C Pines Rd.flndiana Ave. 14.8 sec. B 14.1 sec. B Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) 13.9 sec. C 11.2 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 25.3 sec. C 34.0 sec. D Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 14.0 sec. B 12.1 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 34.9 sec. D 28.5 sec. D Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 57.0 sec. E 55.1 sec. E Sullivan Rd./lndiana Ave. ( *) F ( *) F Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps N/A N/A 13.9 sec. B Evergreen Rd.IWB Ramps N/A N/A 7.1 sec. B Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 43 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 EUCLID AVENUE N5-0 4534 V sip MANSFIELD AVENUE INDIANA AVENU w w tf 0 SHANNON AVENUE MEMO NOT TO SCALE R bb 0 0 cc MISSION AVENUE 4 A 119 4c. ,. 704-0 o-,70 vjiiiiiiisimmat iS a; Qd4b 707 ♦ 44. 543 710-0 .0-...200 60'. d,N to w z w cc 0 0 0 A AVENUE SULLIVAN ROAD 3 416 0-0 00016 O O Aa. 132 0-0 4 -7U A M16��� 1 INLAND "ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Sults 200 Spokane. WA 99204 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (509) 455 -6840 FAX: (509) 455 -684 PROJECT NO. 96149 4 FIGURE 12 1999 (PHASE 1) W/O PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR J � TRAFFIC VOLUMES J � � h 1165 -A • ■ 3,34 EUCLID AVENUE w MANSFIELD AVENUE x o—, ent INKANA AVENU RAMP 0 SHANNON AVENUE , 1 ■�" ..■ ■...■ ■�Gii ■■ ■. ■. =.ii■ =C■C..■. =s�.as ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ NOT TO SCALE f9 764 —4 4-1 606 .P o••C> V35 .7it? �a= \b� Q t° o E RAMP 0 0 MISSION AVENUE E QQ 707 GP �s.] 7111..0. .0- 7» 601 C1 • 106 w z a EVERGREEN 0 0 INDI,1 NA AVENUE „7...ty SULLIVAN ROAD J 1 reim INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 • FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 13 1999 (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 ) \ TRAFFIC VOLUMES j A EUCLID AVENUE tby MI5 -.C> 4- 514 . ".1:7 4 pay '1 • OD 1- W w N MANSFIELD AVENUE x 5.54P 4442117 l5 ..-D 4- u 35, b ,.7 INDIANA AVENU 0 SHANNON. AVENUE �IIIIIIIIIIIIII, NOT TO SCALE '09 0 O' z -J tn J INDIANA RAMP A VENUE 703 -D 4-73. o—♦ , V 736 14 = E.B. p, AP 0 O MISSION AVENUE W W0 ix 13-4 o- It 1 IQj ids sip ,07 j 444.,03 7,11 -4> 4- 755 .0A Psae V) w z 0 1 --•° INLAND iCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th -Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAX: (509) 458 - 61344 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 14 1999 (PHASE 1) W/O PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 065-0 4-034 472‘ 4=063 ? EUCLID AVENUE F— w w cr r- to MANSFIELD AVENUE Y 2•a 35,9 35,9 °167 /237 b 1%4 I? INDIANA AVENU P 2,2 b 007 ," ` SOO 7.9-0 — 255 60 ,• '66 'A 6^ 0 NOT TO SCALE fSP'‘‘. ‘G ■su SHANNON AVENUE E RAMP 0 0 cc MISSION AVENUE / 41 qt. � 02 35, 103 - . a-23. k3 W z E. 0-0 017 Po 1 ND /ANA AVENUE 700 0-0 07.' 207 SULLIVAN ROAD i M1 'S 1 " /y i INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844/ MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 15 1999 (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 l TRAFFIC VOLUMES Without Phase 1 traffic and without Evergreen Interchange, the additional background trips added to the transportation system will not lower the level of service on Pines Road except for the intersection at Pines Road/EB Ramps. This intersection will lower to LOS F. The WSDOT improvements on Pines Road will enable traffic at the other intersections on Pines Road to remain at acceptable levels of service. If Evergreen Interchange is constructed, improvements in delay times and levels of service on Pines Road will be experienced. On Sullivan Road, two intersections, the westbound ramp terminal intersection and the Indiana Avenue intersection will experience levels of service that are unacceptable, LOS E or lower when all of the currently approved projects are built, without any additional trips from phase 1 of the proposed project with or without Evergreen Interchange. The other two intersections on Sullivan Road, the eastbound ramp terminal intersection and the Mission Avenue intersection will be at acceptable levels with the approved background trips with or without Evergreen Interchange. The intersections on Evergreen Road in the with Evergreen scenario will be at acceptable levels of service with the approved background trips. The Indiana Avenue /Mirabeau Parkway intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service with or without a signal with the approved background trips for either with or without Evergreen Interchange without additional Phase 1 trips. With Phase 1 traffic, the levels of service at two intersections on Pines Road will lower to unacceptable levels (LOS E or lower) without Evergreen Interchange. With Evergreen Interchange, the levels of service on Pines Road will be at acceptable levels (LOS D) or better. On Sullivan Road, the westbound ramp terminal intersection and the Indiana intersection will still be at LOS E or lower with or without Evergreen Interchange. The eastbound ramp terminal intersection will drop to LOS E without Evergreen Interchange. With the Evergreen Interchange, this intersection will remain at LOS B with phase 1 traffic. Mission Avenue /Sullivan Road intersection will remain at LOS B with or without Evergreen Interchange with phase 1 traffic. The intersections on Evergreen Road will be at acceptable levels of service with phase 1 traffic. Phase 2 (2004) Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Tables 6 & 7 and the estimated trip distributions shown on Figures 9 & 10 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at phase 2, year 2004 is obtained. See Figures 16 & 17 for the total traffic volumes with and without phase 2 traffic. Evergreen Interchange is assumed to be constructed by this phase. A summary of the LOS calculations is shown in Table 12 which follows. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 49 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 12 - 2004 Traffic (Phase 2) With and Without Proposed Project ( *) Denotes that the maximum signalized V/C ratio was exceeded and was too great to calculate a delay time. Without Phase 2 traffic in the year 2004, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other intersections on Pines will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan the Eastbound ramp Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 50 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 2004 TRAFFIC (PHASE 2) INTERSECTION Without Project With Project DELAY ] LOS DELAY _ LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. (With Signal Revisions) 38.2 sec. - D - 50.9 sec. 34.6 sec. E D Pines Rd./EB Ramps (With NB Rt. Turn Lane) 54.1 sec. E 75.3 sec. 31.9 sec. F D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 22.1 sec. C 29.2 sec. D Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 16.0 sec. C 30.8 sec. D Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) (Signalized) 18.1 sec. C 48.5 sec. 13.7 sec. F B Pines Rd./Trent Ave. (With added NB Lane) 70.7 sec. F ( *) 30.8 sec. F D Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 14.6 sec. B 14.6 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 39.7 sec. D 40.1 sec. D Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 74.3 sec. F 75.0 sec. F V" Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. ( *) F ( *) F V Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 14.1 sec. B 24.6 sec. C Evergreen Rd. /WB Ramps 7.5 sec. B 20.3 sec. C Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. (2nd WB Lt. Turn Lane) 21.2 sec. C 66.0 sec. 18.4 sec. F C Mirabeau Point/Indiana (Signal) 6.5 sec. B 16.0 sec. C ( *) Denotes that the maximum signalized V/C ratio was exceeded and was too great to calculate a delay time. Without Phase 2 traffic in the year 2004, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other intersections on Pines will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan the Eastbound ramp Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 50 Mirabeau Point Project TIA intersection will drop to LOS E and the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The other intersections on Sullivan Road and Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 2 traffic. With Phase 2 traffic in the year 2004, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections. For the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection, revised signal timing to provide protected plus permitted east and westbound left turning movement will bring the level of service to LOS D. At the Pines Road /Eastbound Ramp intersection, a northbound right turn lane and revising the southbound left turn movement to allow protected and permitted left turn movement will bring the level of service to LOS D. At the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection, a signal will be needed which will bring the level of service to LOS B. At the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection, an additional northbound lane to provide a northbound left only lane, a northbound left and through lane and a northbound right turn only lane along with split phasing for the northbound and southbound movements will bring the level of service to LOS D. The other intersections on Pines will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Road, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels except for the Evergreen Road /Indiana Avenue intersection. This intersection will require a second westbound left turn lane to bring the level service from LOS F to LOS C. The intersection at Indiana Avenue /Mirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 51 Mirabeau Point Project TIA IRE O 0 030 Qt 7,b �� N� sea o— 7s4 "-t, r 3 g4e W 0! cn MANSFIELD AVENUE 0 INDIANA AVENU g � E8 RAMP MP SHANNON AVENUE / elflOe NOT TO SCALE ‘C J+. —d ■].7 570. 40"7 e E 0 O ce MISSION AVENUE w z Po cr > O J' w o: P. i 4,bby 7Q7 ♦ ♦+f7 +e-0 d— 17 ,03 ♦ 4.56 a1 R J 1 'Imm INLAND MCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -68441 MIRABEAU POINT r FIGURE 16 2004 (PHASE 2) W/O PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES EUCLID AVENUE W w cc MANSFIELD AVENUE 7.1 .7,d 0-4 0311 Rx Qe 730 e9 � 4L54. 741-c .0-76• 67 - ,p,e3 Vjx ^a INDIANA AVENU O SHANNON AVENUE j ��. -;.. • NOT TO SCALE _LIPS) X % / /// l.ice'°' iimiiii i...�i ���- w z 0_ 0 O cr E. 505.1;‘ 3.0 4e o_ I ND /ANA �su a7 AVENUE 7.,.P o-4>. SULLIVAN ROAD d 233j At. 337 o ■4> o-,.a .b du, 410 1 INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokene, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 j FIGURE 17 2004 (PHASE 2) WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Phase 3 (2006) Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Tables 6, 7 & 8 and the estimated trip distributions shown on Figures 9, 10 & 11 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at phase 3, year 2006 is obtained. See Figures 18 & 19 for the total traffic volumes with and without phase 3 traffic. Evergreen Interchange is assumed to be constructed by this phase. A summary of the LOS calculations is shown in Table 13 which follows. Table 13 - 2006 Traffic (Phase 3) With and Without Proposed Project Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 54 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 2006 TRAFFIC (PHASE 3) INTERSECTION Without Project With Project DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. (With Phase 2 Improvements) 51.1 sec. E 75.6 sec. 39.4 sec. F D Pines Rd./EB Ramps (With Phase 2 Improvements) ( * *) F ( * *) 40.2 sec. F D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 29.2 sec. D 39.9 sec. D Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 16.5 sec. C 30.2 sec. D Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsignal.) (Signal) 25.2 sec. D ( *) 16.8 sec. F C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. (**) F cost) 39.8 sec. F D Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 18.4 sec. C 18.5 sec. C Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 46.6 sec. E 47.0 sec. E Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps ( * *) F ( *4) F Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. ( * *) F (4*) F Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 14.2 sec. B 28.4 sec. D Evergreen Rd./WB Ramps 7.6 sec. B 24.9 sec. C Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. (With Phase 2 Improvements) 21.2 sec. C 68.9 sec. 19.1 sec. F C Mirabeau Point/Indiana (Signal) 8.6 sec. B 17.4 sec. C Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 54 Mirabeau Point Project TIA ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. ( * *) Denotes that the maximum signalized V/C ratio was exceeded and was too great to calculate a delay time. Without Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Road, the Eastbound Ramp intersection will drop to LOS E and the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The other intersections on Sullivan Road and Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 3 traffic. With Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections unless Phase 2 improvements are in place. If phase 2 improvements are in place, all the intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Road, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels except for the Evergreen Road /Indiana Avenue intersection. If this intersection has the phase 2 improvements, the level of service will be LOS C. The intersection at Indiana Avenue /Mirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 55 Mirabeau Point Project TIA EUCLID AVENUE 7; .111 b b 5.P 064 -C> o-457 Ate W W 1- H NOT TO SCALE S) a MANSFIELD AVENUE x D 0 2 SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENU ‘G -4c IND /ANA AVENUE MP " o- d"' i';4+gW 314 o -c ove At :a Pt E. Pt. e 0 O cc MISSION AVENUE e s? F b 757 or o-fl IMO lty .••:4e • w z a i rim INLAND INCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT _} FIGURE 18 2006 (PHASE 3) W/O PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 } TRAFFIC VOLUMES 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 4Do —oo4u Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844) PHASE 3) WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Key Intersection Configurations The following is a list of key intersections with lane configurations and improvements recommended for each phase. • • • Pines Road /Mission Avenue - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a second southbound left turn lane and revise striping and signal phasing to allow protected eastbound and westbound left turn movements. For phase 2 traffic, revise eastbound and westbound left turn movements to protected plus permitted movement. Pines Road /Eastbound Ramps - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a second eastbound right turn lane at the off ramp. For phase 2 traffic, construct a northbound right turn lane and revise the southbound left turn movement to protected plus permitted movement. Pines Road /Euclid Avenue - Northbound and southbound left turn lanes will be required for a future four - legged intersection. Westbound will require one left turn lane and one right turn lane. ,�J s 15 ri Pines Road /Trent Avenue - Eastbound, westbound and southbound lane remain as configured. For phase 2 traffic, construct an additional northbound lane to provide for a northbound left turn only lane, a northbound left/through lane and a northbound right turn lane only lane. The signal phasing will need to be split phasing for northbound and southbound movements. i• -n i; Evergreen Road /EB Ramp Terminal - The current design which WSDOT has for this L, intersection will be adequate. Current design includes two eastbound left turn lanes, two 1 eastbound right turn lanes, four northbound through lanes of which two will turn left at the westbound ramp intersection, a northbound right turn lane, a southbound left turn lane and two southbound through lanes. tif r �, �, �• Evergreen Road /WB Ramp Terminal -The current design which WSDOT has for this intersection will be adequate. Current design includes two westbound left turn lanes, one 41/ ` westbound right turn lane, two northbound left turn lanes, two northbound through lanes, it,/, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right turn lane. • Evergreen Road /Indiana Avenue - The current design which WSDOT has for this intersection will be adequate for phase 1. Current design includes two eastbound and -�. westbound through lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one eastbound right turn lane, one northbound left only lane, one northbound left/right shared lane and one northbound right turn only lane. For phase 2 traffic, a second westbound left turn lane will be required. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 58 Mirabeau Point Project TIA V").. dr' 451 G • Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway - This intersection will have two eastbound and westbound through lanes with a eastbound left turn lane. For the southbound approach, there will be a' left turn only lane, a shared left turn/right turn lane .and a right turn only lane. (1- Some intersections on Sullivan Road will be at LOS F without the project traffic due to additional trips from approved projects. These intersections, notably the WB ramp terminal and Indiana intersections on Sullivan will still operate at LOS F, even with the Evergreen Interchange unless significant improvements are constructed at these intersections. This project however adds very little additional traffic onto Sullivan Road with the Evergreen Interchange constructed. Improvements Needed Within the Mirabeau Point Development Mirabeau Parkway will be constructed as a five lane roadway from Indiana Avenue to approximately 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue and a three lane section from 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. Left turn lanes will be constructed at the main intersection near the proposed YMCA site. A median will be constructed with breaks for access will be constructed throughout this roadway. To maintain adequate levels of service at the intersection near the proposed YMCA, a signal will need to be installed. The access road east from Mirabeau Parkway toward the proposed hotel and business park will be a four lane roadway, two lanes in each direction with a median. Other access roads will consist of a two lane section. Weaving Analysis With Evergreen Interchange A concern of the scenario with the Evergreen Interchange is whether the vehicles enter the freeway will conflict with vehicles desiring to exiting the freeway. Evergreen Interchange is proposed to be approximately half way between the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges at approximately a one mile spacing. A weaving analysis was performed for the four potential weaving areas that the Evergreen Interchange would create. Since design of the interchange is not complete, the following conservative assumptions were made: The weaving section was assumed to be 1,500 feet long, with two lanes on the mainline and one lane as a weave lane. The weaving analysis in the HCM has a maximum of 2,000 feet for weaving. Traffic volumes used in the analysis were from WSDOT I -90 mainline counts and from counts used in this report at the ramp terminal intersections. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 59 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 14 - Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges Note: Under level of service, the first character refers to weaving vehicles and the second character refers to nonweaving vehicles. ( *) Indicates that the operation of the weaving area is constrained and that the weaving volume and/or volume ratio figures have exceeded the maximum limits. Using the Ramp Analysis in the Highway Capacity Software, several conditions were used to attempt to bring the level of service in this area to within acceptable levels. The distance between the on -ramp and downstream off ramp was increased, but had little effect on LOS. An additional on -ramp improved the LOS only slightly. To improve levels of service in this section, a third mainline westbound lane on I -90 must be constructed or collector /distributor lanes. The following table shows the weaving levels of service for with and without project traffic in the year 2006. Table 15 - Year 2006 Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges Section of 1-90 LEVELS OF SERVICE Section of 1 -90 Existing Traffic If Evergreen VC Was "In Place" Now Year 1999 Without Project Year 1999 With Project Pines Road to Evergreen Road CB D/C D/C Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road C/B E/D ( *) E/D ( *) Sullivan Road to Evergreen Road C/C F/E ( *) F/E ( *) Evergreen Road to Pines Road B/B C/C C/C Note: Under level of service, the first character refers to weaving vehicles and the second character refers to nonweaving vehicles. ( *) Indicates that the operation of the weaving area is constrained and that the weaving volume and/or volume ratio figures have exceeded the maximum limits. Using the Ramp Analysis in the Highway Capacity Software, several conditions were used to attempt to bring the level of service in this area to within acceptable levels. The distance between the on -ramp and downstream off ramp was increased, but had little effect on LOS. An additional on -ramp improved the LOS only slightly. To improve levels of service in this section, a third mainline westbound lane on I -90 must be constructed or collector /distributor lanes. The following table shows the weaving levels of service for with and without project traffic in the year 2006. Table 15 - Year 2006 Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges Section of 1-90 LEVELS OF SERVICE Year 2006 Without Project Year 2006 With Project Pines Road to Evergreen Road D/C D/C Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road E/D ( *) E/D ( *) Sullivan Road to Evergreen Road E/D ( *) E/D ( *) Evergreen Road to Pines Road C/B D/C Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 60 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Percentage of Participation in Evergreen Interchange The new Evergreen Interchange is currently being designed by WSDOT. Two stages have been proposed. Stage 1 will construct the interchange and roadway from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Avenue with a connection to Mission Avenue. Stage 2 will construct the roadway improvements from Sprague Avenue to Sharp Avenue. Recent estimates from the County (May 19, 1997) have the total project cost of Stage 1 at $21.0 million and the cost of Stage 2 at $3.3 million. Stage 2 will be funded by County and TIB sources. WSDOT and TIB have committed to fund a portion of Stage 1. The remaining amount to be provided is currently $15.7 million. Additional cost increases to Stage 1 as well as construction overruns will also need to be funded. Developers of property in the surrounding area will need to contribute funds. The following table shows the existing project cost estimate. Table 16 - Preliminary Evergreen Interchange Project Cost Estimate Evergreen I/C Project Cost Estimate Full Diamond I/C with Connection to Mission Avenue Phase Project Cost (In Millions) Comments Preliminary Engineering 1.3 By WSDOT Right -of -Way 4.7 $2.7 mil. donated by developers north of I -90 Construction 15.0 Total 21.0 Design of the transportation system in this area is based on the PM peak hour period. By constructing the Evergreen Interchange, Pines Road will realize improvement in level of service. This will benefit the WSDOT by not having to construct expensive improvements in the future to improve Pines Road to acceptable levels of service. The first phase of the Spokane Valley Mall and other developments which are already approved will add a significant number of trips to the interchange. The trips from approved pro'ects cannot be • , ted as the responsibility the developer to mitigate, own y unappr• p es or pro = ts. Therefore participation in funding of the Evergreen Interchange should -be -based on the - number of PM peak hour trips each source generates for unapproved phases or projects. It should be noted that the mechanism for providing the private funding of the interchange is unclear. While the developments are spread out over several phases, the Evergreen Interchange is needed for any development to proceed and to reduce existing impacts on Pines Road and Sullivan Road. Also it should be noted that other developments will contribute to an increase in traffic within the area from Pines Road to Sullivan Road near I -90. These projects should also contribute to the funding of the Evergreen Interchange based on PM peak hour trips generated. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 61 Mirabeau Point Project TIA CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. • The signalized intersections within the study area are currently functioning at level of service D or better. The only unsignalized intersection considered in this study, (Pines Road and Euclid Avenue) is presently functioning at level of service C. • With or without the Evergreen Interchange, the increase in traffic over the next three years to 1999 will lower the level of service at two of the intersections on Sullivan Road to unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or lower) without the addition of the proposed phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. With WSDOT scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the LOS on Pines Road will remain at LOS D or better except for the Eastbound Ramp terminal intersection (LOS F) without the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. The level of service at Pines Road and Euclid Avenue during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS C without signal installation and without the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips. • Without the Evergreen Interchange in 1999, but with the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines Road will lower to LOS E or lower for two of the intersections. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will also slip to LOS E under this same condition. The Mirabeau Parkway /Indiana intersection will require a signal because of the railroad crossing. • With the Evergreen Interchange operational in 1999 and with the phase 1 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all of the intersections. Levels of service on Sullivan will remain the same as without project traffic under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS D or better under this condition with the intersections configured as listed in this report. Mirabeau Parkway /Indiana intersection will require a signal for this phase. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all intersections except for the Pines Road /EB Ramps and the Pines Road Trent Avenue intersections. Additional lanes and signal revisions at these intersections will improve the level of service to LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the phase 2 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service at Pines Road /WB Ramps and Pines Road /Indiana Ave. will be at LOS D. The intersections on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 62 Mirabeau Point Project TIA and Trent Avenue will require improvements. Signal revisions at the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. Addition of a northbound right turn lane and signal revisions at the Pines Road /EB Ramp intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. The Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection will require a signal for acceptable levels of service. The Pines Road /Trent Avenue intersection will require an additional northbound lane. There is no change in the level of service for the intersections on Sullivan Avenue under this condition from the without project traffic. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C or better under this condition except for the Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue intersection. A second westbound left turn lane will improve the level of service from LOS F to LOS C. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D or better for all intersections except for the Pines Road /Mission Avenue and Pines Road /EB Ramps intersections. Improvements stated previously under Phase 2 (2004) will bring the level of service into acceptable range. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will slip to LOS E under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the phase 3 Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will remain at LOS D for the westbound ramp terminal and Indiana Avenue intersections. At the Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, and Trent Avenue intersections on Pines Road, improvements constructed in Phase 2 will allow the level of service at these intersections to be at acceptable levels at LOS D or better. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will be at LOS E under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS D or better under this condition except for the Evergreen Avenue/Indiana intersection. A second westbound left turn lane to be constructed in Phase 2 will be required at this intersection. • In 1999 with the Evergreen Interchange, weaving levels of service between the Pines Road, Evergreen Road and Sullivan Road Interchanges will become congested and drop into unacceptable ranges, LOS E or lower. The construction of a third through lane on I- 90 for both directions or a C -D lane between Pines and Sullivan will improve the level of service, but will still be less than desirable. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Mirabeau Point project will have an impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area due to the number of trips generated by this development. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 63 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • Frontage improvements as required by the County. • Participation in construction of Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. • Participate in the funding of the Evergreen Interchange as part of the conditions required for phase 1. • Revise the existing signal at the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected and permitted left turn movements as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Participate in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road /EB Ramps intersection to construct a northbound right turn lane and revise the existing signal to allow southbound protected and permitted left turn movement as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Participate in the funding of a signal at the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection as part of the conditions required for phase 2. This intersection will become a four -leg intersection with the school driveway and future development using the p west leg. (�( v �� (���s +v 11c1 C L-1 i - -v rJ iLi�n rt5) W li t '4.,e . • Participate in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road /Trent Avenue intersection to construct another northbound lane as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • Construct widening for a second westbound left turn lane at the Indiana Ave. /Evergreen Road intersection as part of the conditions required for phase 2. • No participation in improvements on Sullivan should be required. • Funds from the state and federal level should be sought to construct a third through lane in each direction from the Sprague Interchange to east of the Sullivan Interchange. Collector- Distributor (C -D) lanes should be constructed between Pines and Sullivan in conjunction with the construction of the Evergreen Interchange. P 5146-414Q" 12-j evCc1t01 la I44W b,(C--14 • 5��N� -I Pkw1, w� cA OA we-5.ce--14. f k4,1. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 64 Mirabeau Point Project TIA LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS, CRITERIA AND TABLES LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into a range from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed capacity. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; level of service D is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections in an urban area such as this. Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one /two -way stop - controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each movement within the intersection. The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection. On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of service are assigned to individual movements within the intersection, and are based upon the delay experienced by each movement or approach. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one movement in the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimum acceptable level of service for this area. All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIO 22L. - �% :: {i' +�v. {`,••r :r 4:•'-.:,,,z, xs. ::•.:•::.: '••: :: ••: i.:: :. -:. ::.i:.�:•::} f: {- .;,- ::.:.•r.,.{..:•r/:{- M•::.:%}::•T::tcn.; : : }. }: {':'': .' .• {.: �i �f:.•Jpx{.'.••fA.•;•`1.;V :....�r}:.•h :.• rkf. •, • - - y� :•- { • : 0 ;r1/4 �: ;nY.n::!r r . ti .,,r r, A - More than adequate gaps available to proceed. - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B - Little delay encountered with adequate gaps available. - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue. C - Delays are short but persistent as the number of gaps reduce and driver comfort drops. - Usually there is more than one vehicle in the queue. D - Always at least one vehicle in the queue. - Drivers feel quite restricted due to the few gaps available in which to make a safe turning movement. E - Delays are long and at this los drivers may begin looking for alternative routes rior to entering the queue. - Represents a condition in which the demand equals or exceeds the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection. - Always more than one vehicle in the queue. F - Delays are long, driver frustration is high and it is not i unusual to see drivers n the queue turn around to find alternative routes. - - Forced flow; little to no available gaps. - Represents an intersection at failure condition. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA < =5 5 -10 > 10 -20 > 20 -30 > 30 -45 > 45 A B C D E F 'red Delay to NL1ino' Street • Traffic Little of No Delay Short Traffic Delays Average Traffic Delays Long Traffic Delays Very Long Traffic Delays Progression Breakdown Stopped Condition SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS :Level: of >- Service ..:..:Tr;c:; mw. ctstics::::. A Little to no average stopped delay, average is less than five seconds per vehicle. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Most, if not all, vehicles stop. This is considere dpto be the limit of acceptable delay. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This condition often occurs with over saturation of the intersection. It may also occur with volume/capacity ratios of 1.0 or above. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle (sec) A <= 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.0 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Source: Transportation Research Board; "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report 209 (1994) . BACKGROUND TRIPS FROM OTHER TRAFFIC STUDIES 16 INDIANA /MONTGOM 'Y r 15 W. BOUND RAMPS 0 0 W z E. BOUND RAMPS ( „.7 t, 19 4t V V 64 4 89 78 •=J 69 21 4:334 \ O) MISSION AVENUE NORA AVENUE 0 O L.L. o CQ 8 2 59 • «43 M cDON ALD ROAD . NOT TO SCALE 40 •J 23 . =' 28 0 Lv w' 0 LJ 1 liell111.1 INLAND miCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 FIGURE 5 BACKGROUND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES J 1 INLAND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96215 J INDIANA /MONTGOM 'Y W. BOUND RAMPS 0 ce - cn z 0 E. BOUND RAMPS 10 56 z, MISSION AVENUE NORA AVENUE 17 - G= 24 5 McDONALD ROAD 18 0 ce c w N 3 NOT TO SCALE 4 5 a 2 0 ce z• w' 0 ce w 1 INLAND � ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 We3t 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 FIGURE 6 SITE GENERATED W 0 EVERGREEN I/O �M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INLAND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 PROJECT NO. 96215 1 INDIANA /MONTGOM "Y W. BOUND RAMPS 0 �/ z E. BOUND RAMPS 28 24 MISSION AVENUE NORA AVENUE 10 11 NOT TO SCALE O 0 J O NOTE: LEFT TURN A DV AND MISSION MAMER ROAD AVENUE ALLOWED • 1 rim INLAND 010 PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 FIGURE 7 SITE GENERATED WITH EVERGREEN I /C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INLAND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96215 r— 210 INDIANA 11 L. V.16 AS. NO 4 it 7 (r -4— 133 294 163— 90 {j et rl z Hotel Site Shopping Center Site INrrt ;S TAT E 90 CPI ILI 211 646 —4 ttl c 1101 10 SCALE -4-- 265 trt ui 201 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT [}3art.on-- Aschran Associates, Inc. [1. FlruREI LI 7 INTERSTATE 90 MISSION BROADWAY O N LC) N- (.. 4.) if 33 f g 2l1CCa91 ?28 ♦" 231 14.0 59 inN- SPRAGUE EVERGREEN u':r :ONc N ►'r) N r ' "t 23 6 }79"), I( 1 RED UCH MN t 170 Proposed Valley Plaza 2 ACC'3 ON - • 7.4 377% 0 LC) N CO N :.c VI 00 vt. 159 k 517 J d1 260 223 --) 4— 156 —� 4-- 559 r-38 "),, 1r 379 = - =:*)r 223 tr* z • C•1 p 00C CC ''' N - J CO 0 CC D r '`) J 0) ll. Figure 5: Projected PM Peak Traffic Volumes 1 995 with Development Source: W & H Pacific 34 ti INTERSTATE 90 MISSION BROADWAY SPRAGUE EVERGREEN CD %.o ch 200) zs 80� � 12 (N1 LC) f- 33 j' 295 —� 4— g93 140 .; 2 1 11) N N C rr) .N _ 1,59 j t38 218— 4-80 68 � .1( g cO (.0 tO (* ACCESS 1 '7// RE) UC#i INN / Proposed /Valley Plaza �j 44-) 4-)°c- 1 ACCESS 2 SULLIVAN him t_ITh N C ACCESS 3 CD N O c r G'\ tf ) — 279J t240 564 —* 4-- 559 242 223 st < I co in co o Figure 4: Projected PM Peak Traffic Volumes-1995 Source: W & H Pacific 33 N 1 b ,o rr EUCLID AVENUE o MANSFIELD AVENUE jJ o /, sl, N \ INDIANA AVENUE +++++++++++f+++++1+ +►+ +4-+++ +1 MIRABEAU POINT u—t .3— III NOT TO SCALE W. `RAMP in 0 MISSION AVENUE (1) w z n. EVERGREEN 0 AVENUE we. iztM,o I 117a INLAND PACIFlC ENOINEERVIo 707 W.si Ten • 19.114. 200 (505) 499-9140 Spokane. VOA 992011 FM: (309) 459 -044 SITE GENERATED W/O EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Vnl_IJLIFS LAWSON / GUNNING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT N0. 95551 1 EUCLID AVENUE IY N MANSFIELD AVENUE 1 D INDIANA AVENUE RAMP 0 H$ H+ ++S+++H++ Ft F I fl f+1-H I I 111114 I r MIRABEAU POINT 1L 0.3 uiuu.0u2ui811 21 E.B. AMP 0 0 cc MISSION AVENUE In w z z w w cr 0 cr o O er �g. bb AVENUE 0 0 cc z J J we. /Nip RA . MP fig 17n7 W.., 71 M, WA 45.3 - Imeml INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 1 SITE GENERATED WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M 'NC- TRA. L AWSON / GUNNING PROJ 95! SPREADSHEET FOR TRAFFIC WITHOUT EVERGREEN INTERCHANGE PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & WB RAMPS PM PEAK HOUR Counted by WSDOT INITIAL COUNT DATE 4/11/96 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9427 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 N/S ENV PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT WIPRJCT 242 20 570 882 927 119 EBLT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 242 0 Slip ramp 570 882 0 0 927 119 17 145 341 144 82 52 24 23 0 0 0 0 281 0 0 768 1357 0 0 1181 235 178 91 31 0 0 0 0 281 0 0 768 1535 0 0 1272 266 0 0 281 0 0 768 1357 0 0 1181 0 0 281 0 0 768 1535 0 0 1272 235 266 EXISTING LOS= ( 1 1 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & INDIANA PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE N/S COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9218 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen WC YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 N/S 1 E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 50 14 307 81 44 125 129 799 13 9 667 21 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 50 14 307 81 44 125 129 799 13 9 667 21 16 130 58 122 240 44 80 10 12 46 6 37 55 15 351 229 48 207 141 1041 260 54 846 23 55 15 351 229 48 207 141 1041 260 54 846 23 122 178 55 15 351 351 48 207 141 1041 438 54 846 23 55 15 351 351 48 207 141 1041 438 54 846 23 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & EUCLID PM PEAK HOUR Counts based on traffic at Pines & Mansfield Intersection INITIAL COUNT DATE WS COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% NIS GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9345 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO BUILDOUT 29- Aug -97 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE 1 W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT WIO PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASEI WIPRJCT BUILD OUT WIPRJCT 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 749 0 0 558 0 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 749 0 0 558 0 20 115 20 106 8 11 0 0 5 0 25 0 941 0 20 727 0 0 0 5 0 25 0 941 0 20 727 0 41 33 0 0 0 5 0 66 0 941 0 53 727 0 0 0 0 5 0 66 0 941 0 53 727 0 EXISTING LOS= f FUTURE LOS = WS ENV PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE 1 W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT WIO PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASEI WIPRJCT BUILD OUT WIPRJCT 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 749 0 0 558 0 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 749 0 0 558 0 20 115 20 106 8 11 0 0 5 0 25 0 941 0 20 727 0 0 0 5 0 25 0 941 0 20 727 0 41 33 0 0 0 5 0 66 0 941 0 53 727 0 0 0 0 5 0 66 0 941 0 53 727 0 EXISTING LOS= f FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & EB RAMPS PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE N/S COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9370 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT N/S 1 E/W PHASE 1 GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 243 EB LT 243 204 - 38 508 508 100 608 608 EB TH 0 0 0 0 0 940 EB RT 940 108 1135 1135 1135 1135 WB LT 0 0 0 0 0 WB TH 0 0 0 0 0 WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 NB LT 0 0 0 0 0 1383 NB TH 1383 273 14 1798 1798 78 1876 1876 271 NB RT 271 34 330 330 330 330 157 SB LT 157 8 13 193 193 0 193 193 984 SB TH 984 154 11 1240 1240 91 1331 1331 SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = [ I 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & MISSION PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE N/S COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR BUILD OUT 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen IIC YEARS TO PHASE 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON - PROJEC Lawson PHASE I BUILD OUT PHASE 1 PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC Traffic W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC W /PRJCT W /PRJCT 131 EB LT 131 64 207 207 207 207 129 EB TH 129 78 219 219 219 219 36 EB RT 36 21 60 60 60 60 99 WB LT 99 58 166 166 166 166 170 WB TH 170 69 255 255 255 255 415 WB RT 415 89 542 542 542 542 20 NB LT 20 9 31 31 31 31 977 NB TH 977 84 14 1166 1166 78 1244 1244 45 NB RT 45 46 95 95 95 95 348 SB LT 348 135 515 515 515 515 1272 SB TH 1272 73 11 1474 1474 91 1565 1565 167 SB RT 167 55 237 237 237 237 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = 1 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and Indiana 29- Aug -97 PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE from 96 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR BUILD OUT WITHOUT Evergreen WC YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL N/S 1 E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL MOVEMENT CURRENT NON - PROJEC Lawson PHASE I BUILD OUT PHASE 1 PHASE I BUILD OUT COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC Traffic W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC W /PRJCT W /PRJCT 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 694 0 0 1509 0 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 694 0 0 1509 0 194 592 243 112 542 630 873 194 1 2 195 0 592 0 243 232 542 1388 0 0 2522 196 195 0 592 0 243 232 542 1388 0 0 2522 196 EXISTING LOS= 103 53 36 0 695 0 296 232 578 1388 0 0 2522 196 0 695 0 296 232 578 1388 0 0 2522 196 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and WB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 29- Aug -97 INITIAL COUNT N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT 0 EBLT 0 0 0 0 EB TH 0 0 0 0 EB RT 0 0 0 191 WB LT 203 60 282 282 1 WB TH 1 1 1 103 WB RT Slip ramp 0 0 356 NB LT 379 550 964 964 652 NB TH 694 1060 1819 1819 0 NB RT 0 0 0 0 SB LT 0 0 0 876 SB TH 933 1128 2147 2147 541 SB RT 576 337 967 967 EXISTING LOS= ( 1 PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 36 103 0 0 0 282 1 0 964 1855 0 0 2250 967 0 0 0 282 1 0 964 1855 0 0 2250 967 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and EB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR 29- Aug -97 Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 666 0 1000 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 189 0 522 N/S E/W PHASE 1 GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 189 0 522 EB LT EB TH EB RT 20T 0 556 446 393 666 0 1000 666 0 1000 666 0 1000 666 0 1000 0 WB LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB TH 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB LT 0 0 0 0 0 775 NB TH 825 1164 2066 2066 36 2102 2102 227 NB RT 242 70 334 334 334 334 140 SB LT 149 380 543 543 53 596 596 886 SB TH 944 808 1839 1839 50 1889 1889 0 SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and Mission 29- Aug -97 PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR BUILD OUT W /PRJCT WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson - Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 161 13 76 41 16 83 38 688 37 92 1172 258 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 171 14 81 44 17 88 40 733 39 98 1248 275 1234 1210 187 15 88 48 19 97 44 2035 43 107 2574 300 187 15 88 48 19 97 44 2035 43 107 2574 300 36 50 187 15 88 48 19 97 44 2071 43 107 2624 300 187 15 88 48 19 97 44 2071 43 107 2624 300 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Evergreen and Indiana PM PEAK HOUR New Intersection, No existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE N/S 1 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT N/S 1 E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT E BLT 0 0 0 0 0 EB TH 0 340 13 353 353 103 456 456 EB RT 0 0 0 0 0 WB LT 0 0 0 0 0 WB TH 0 198 19 217 217 89 306 306 WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 NB LT 0 0 0 0 0 NB TH 0 0 0 0 0 NB RT 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT 0 0 0 0 0 SB TH 0 0 0 0 0 SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = 1 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Indiana & Mirabeau Point Drive PM PEAK HOUR New Intersection, No existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE N/S COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO _ NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE 1 W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 178 20 20 18 19 13 10 18 284 0 0 178 39 0 0 0 33 0 10 18 284 0 0 178 39 0 0 0 33 0 10 178 89 103 122 196 284 0 0 178 128 0 0 0 136 0 132 196 284 0 0 178 128 0 0 0 136 0 132 EXISTING LOS= 1 FUTURE LOS = N/S 1 E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO _ NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE 1 W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 178 20 20 18 19 13 10 18 284 0 0 178 39 0 0 0 33 0 10 18 284 0 0 178 39 0 0 0 33 0 10 178 89 103 122 196 284 0 0 178 128 0 0 0 136 0 132 196 284 0 0 178 128 0 0 0 136 0 132 EXISTING LOS= 1 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Pines Road and Trent Ave. PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE 08/20/97 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG -3.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9000 29- Aug -97 WITHOUT Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE! 3 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 INITIAL COUNT N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON - PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT 4 EB -LT 4 4 4 816 EB TH 792 865 865 277 EB RT 269 91 8 393 393 271 WB LT 263 35 3 325 325 504 WB TH 489 534 534 12 WB RT 12 13 13 297 NB LT 288 71 4 390 390 40 NB TH 39 42 42 337 NB RT 327 72 4 433 433 20 SB LT 19 21 21 36 SB TH 35 i 38 38 8 SBRT 8 8 8 EXISTING LOS= 1 I PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE I W /PRJCT BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 23 10 20 21 4 865 416 335 534 13 410 42 454 21 38 8 4 865 416 335 534 13 410 42 454 21 38 8 FUTURE LOS = SPREADSHEET FOR TRAFFIC WITH EVERGREEN INTERCHANGE PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & WB RAMPS PM PEAK HOUR Counted by WSDOT INITIAL COUNT DATE 4/11/96 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9427 WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 02- Sep -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.344 1.344 1 v • v v 1 1 - - 1 1 • I _ .. • Lawson • • . . • . : 1 9 1 1 .. • • 1 • .. • .. • • • • : a a COUNT TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC Traffic W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC W /PRJCT W /PRJCT W /PRJCT EB TH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 WB LT 194 212 246 261 212 246 261 1 WB TH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 WB RT slip ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 456 NB LT 456 108 606 686 721 606 686 721 882 NB TH 882 174 50 1188 1341 1409 60 86 26 1248 1487 1581 NB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 917 SB TH 917 169 10 1181 1341 1411 40 . 111 14 1221 1492 1576 119 SB RT 119 16 22 168 189 198 5 37 14 173 231 254 EXISTING LOS= 1 1 FUTURE LOS = 1 [ PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & INDIANA INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% EIW GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9218 COUNT ou 14 307 71 44 120 129 804 8 9 667 21 PM PEAK HOUR EE3 LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= 50 14 307 71 44 120 129 804 8 9 667 21 16 111 136 93 96 96 35 Lawson t o i 1 . 2 Traffic W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT WITH Evergreen IIC YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 YEARS TO BUILDOUT PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 8 10 02- Sep -97 N/S EIW BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 1.267 1.267 1.344 1.344 3 44 9 32 bb 15 351 192 48 267 141 1016 114 106 796 23 18 405 204 56 288 163 1155 115 107 912 27 67 19 429 209 59 297 173 1218 116 108 963 28 45 60 148 86 10 36 28 FUTURE LOS = T WIPRJCT WIPRJCT WIPRJCT 55 15 351 237 48 267 141 1016 174 106 796 23 133 18 405 397 56 288 163 1155 261 107 912 27 tit 19 429 402 59 307 173 1254 262 108 991 28 J INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% EM! GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9345 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & EB RAMPS PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9370 C'+J 752 1269 217 147 936 MD L I EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= L4.3 0 752 0 0 0 0 1269 217 147 936 0 29 85 245 20 8 173 Lawson Traffic 12 0 10 A W/O PRJCT JJJ 0 907 0 0 0 0 1644 257 169 1206 0 A 2 W/O PRJCT 0 1038 0 0 0 0 1865 295 194 1369 0 WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 29- Aug -97 3 8 10 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR L W/O PRJCT 1 • A 1 TRAFFIC • TRAFFIC W /PRJCT 1.093 1.267 1.344 A 2 W /PRJCT 1 1.093 1.267 1.344 T W /PRJCT 394 0 1096 0 0 0 0 1962 312 206 1441 0 Ltf 32 40 ItS 68 111 11 9 14 3b1 0 907 0 0 0 0 1676 257 169 1246 0 4L1 0 1038 0 0 0 0 1965 295 194 1520 0 4b1 0 1096 0 0 0 0 2071 312 206 1606 0 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: PINES & MISSION PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR .�. COUNT 131 129 36 99 170 395 20 883 45 278 1106 167 EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= I.. TRAFFIC VO 131 129 36 99 170 395 20 883 45 278 1106 167 �•� - "• TRAFFIC 64 78 21 58 69 68 9 92 46 106 98 55 Lawson Traffic 12 10 WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/VV PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR .■. :1 . • A 1.344 1.34.4 • ■. W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT LU/ 219 60 166 255 500 31 1069 95 410 1317 237 Lsu 241 67 183 284 568 34 1223 103 458 1509 267 W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC 240 251 69 191 297 599 36 1291 106 480 1594 279 32 40 TRAFFIC 68 111 TRAFFIC 9 14 FUTURE LOS = W /PRJCT • 219 60 166 255 500 31 1101 95 410 1357 237 W /PRJCT 230 241 67 183 284 568 34 1323 103 458 1660 267 T W /PRJCT 251 69 191 297 599 36 1400 106 480 1759 279 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and Indiana PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE from 96 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR WITH Evergreen IIC YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 INITIAL COUNT MOVEMENT U 0 0 0 0 110 0 694 0 0 1509 0 EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= CURRENT TRAFFIC VO 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 694 0 0 1509 0 NON- PROJEC TRAFFIC LL3 420 431 168 198 453 560 84 23 851 212 Lawson Traffic 1 2 PHASE I W/O PRJCT 23U 0 420 431 168 318 453 1318 84 23 2500 214 PHASE 2 W/O PRJCT 230 0 420 431 168 337 453 1439 84 23 2763 214 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR BUILD OUT PHASE 1 PHASE 2 W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC TRAFFIC Z 0 420 431 168 346 453 1493 84 23 2879 214 PHASE 3 TRAFFIC PHASE 1 W /PRJCT 1.344 1.344 PHASE 2 BUIL15-0-UT W /PRJCT W /PRJCT 6 6 LJU 0 426 431 168 318 459 1318 84 23 2500 214 FUTURE LOS = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and WB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR COUNT 0 V • V I 1•• TRAFFIC VO 0 0 0 0 0 153 1 103 284 652 0 0 876 541 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= 163 1 Slip ramp 302 694 0 0 933 576 TRAFFIC 60 550 985 1175 337 Lawson Traffic W/O PRJCT • ■. WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR :1 . •1 • ■. • ■. 1.344 1.344 :1 i • - 0 0 0 238 1 0 881 1744 0 0 2194 967 W/O PRJCT 0 0 0 266 1 0 933 1865 0 0 2357 1067 W/O PRJCT 0 0 0 279 1 0 956 1918 0 0 2429 1111 TRAFFIC 6 6 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC FUTURE LOS = W /PRJCT W /PRJCT W /PRJCT 0 0 238 1 0 881 1750 0 0 2200 967 0 0 266 1 0 933 1871 0 0 2363 1067 1111 0 0 279 1 0 956 1924 0 0 2435 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Sullivan and EB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR ROWTH FACTOR -. _ COUNT 1 -- TRAFFIC VO ••• TRAFFIC 189 0 417 0 0 0 0 703 182 140 848 0 EB L1 EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= fi 0 444 0 0 0 0 749 194 149 903 0 4&i 393 1049 70 421 836 Lawson ' El Traffic W/O PRJCT WITH Evergreen I/C 29- Aug -97 YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO B PHASE I GRO PHASE 2 GR BUILD OUT G 706 0 878 0 0 0 0 1868 282 584 1823 0 :1 W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT /41 0 956 0 0 0 0 1998 316 610 1980 0 751 0 990 0 0 0 0 2056 330 621 2050 0 10 N/S E/W WTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 )WTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 ROWTH FACTOR -. _ 1.344 1.344 _ ; TRAFFIC :. TRAFFIC ... TRAFFIC .. , W /PRJCT ... W /PRJCT : 1 1 • W /PRJCT •. 0 0 0 878 956 990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1874 2004 2062 282 316 330 584 610 621 6 1829 1986 2056 ■ 0 0 0 FUTURE LOS = 1 I PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA 29- Aug -97 INTERSECTION: Sullivan and Mission PM PEAK HOUR Based on WSDOT counts taken 2/28/95 at the Sullivan /I -90 WB ramp intersection. INITIAL COUNT DATE 2/28/95 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 6.50% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 COUNT r •, WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 8 10 PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR N/S 1.093 E/W 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1-- TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic W/O PRJCT 150 13 76 41 16 83 38 583 37 92 1030 258 EB LT EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= 159 14 81 44 17 88 40 621 39 98 1096 275 1119 1238 174 15 88 48 19 97 44 1797 43 107 2436 300 ••1 W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT 18 103 55 22 112 51 1906 50 124 2627 348 214 19 109 59 23 119 54 1953 53 132 2711 369 1.344 TRAFFIC 6 6 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC W /PRJCT 174 15 88 48 19 97 44 1803 43 107 2442 300 WIPRJCT 1.344 1TILD OUT W /PRJCT 202 18 103 55 22 112 51 1912 50 124 2633 348 214 19 109 59 23 119 54 1959 53 132 2717 369 FUTURE L os = PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Evergreen and EB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR New Intersection, No existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR COUNT TRAFFIC VO 308 EB TH EB RT 0 0 308 TRAFFIC 351 -50 Lawson P E Traffic W/O PRJCT WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 8 10 29- Aug -97 PHASE 1 GROWTH FACTOR N/S E/W 1.093' 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR W/O PRJCT I 0 287 351 0 340 351 0 364 TRAFFIC —7 TRAFFIC oz TRAFFIC W /PRJCT 24 1.344 .• _ 2 W /PRJCT 505 0 287 0 340 1.344 .I •IT W /PRJCT 529 0 364 WB LT WB TH WB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 106 NB LT NB TH NB RT 0 196 106 583 3 11 0 800 127 0 834 145 0 849 153 76 166 13 0 876 127 0 1076 145 0 1104 153 10 92 SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= 10 92 0 374 646 13 2 398 749 0 400 765 0 400 772 0 53 159 26 95 231 22 FUTURE LOS = 451 844 0 612 1091 0 638 1120 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Evergreen and WB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR New Intersection, No existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE "-MOVEMENT` COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR PHASE 2 TRAFFIC WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE I YEARS TO PHASE 2 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 3 8 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.344 1.344 —INITIAL COUNT "-MOVEMENT` CURRENT TRAFFIC VO NON- PROJEC TRAFFIC Lawson Traffic PHASE r W/O PRJCT PrIASE 2 W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC PHASE 2 TRAFFIC PHASE 3 TRAFFIC Pi-(ASE f W /PRJCT PHASE 2 W /PRJCT BUILb OUT W /PRJCT EB LT 0 -- — ----- EB TH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 WB LT 92 -30 71 87 94 71 87 94 WB TH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 WB RT 10 310 21 342 344 344 40 79 9 382 463 472 196 NB LT 196 40 254 288 303 254 288 303 NB TH 0 894 3 897 897 897 148 248 37 1045 1293 1330 NB RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 SB TH 10 1014 15 1040 1042 1042 148 390 48 1188 1580 1628 SB RT 0 430 430 430 430 26 149 30 456 605 635 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Evergreen and Indiana Ave. PM PEAK HOUR WITH Evergreen I/C New Interesection, No existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% ENV GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR YEARS TO PHASE I 3 YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 COUNT 1-: N TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC Lawson P E P Traffic W/O PRJCT W/O PRJCT BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1 • 1 Pi-iASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 1 W/O PRJCT TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC W /PRJCT 10 E EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT 10 NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT 301 547 897 268 0 314 575 897 287 0 u 314 575 897 287 0 342 0 899 342 0 899 EXISTING LOS= 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 174 6 188 539 327 78 46 FUTURE LOS = u 320 747 897 293 0 528 0 899 0 0 0 1.344 PHASE 2 W!PRJCT 320 1288 897 293 0 857 0 899 0 0 0 1.344 BUILb OUT W /PRJCT 0 320 1366 897 293 0 903 0 899 0 0 0 1 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Indiana and Mirabeau Point Drive PM PEAK HOUR New Intersection, no existing counts INITIAL COUNT DATE • VEM COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG 0.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR Pi`IASE3 TRAFFIC 327 539 148 WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE 1 3 YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 1.344 1.344 1NI • COUNT • VEM - - - IT—N-014:15-R6JEt TRAFFIC VO TRAFFIC .......__ Lawson Traffic PHASE I W/O PRJCT PHASE 2 W/O PRJCT ,'0 -_--_ _ BUILD OUT W/O PRJCT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC 194 180 45 Pi`IASE3 TRAFFIC 327 539 148 PHASE Trirgri TRAFFIC 46 78 W /PRJCT 82 203 0 0 234 351 0 0 0 305 0 45 PHASE 2 W /PRJCT 195 BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 135 10 10 EB LT 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 223 114 97 9 43 28 9� 203 0 0 234 157 0 0 0 125 0 0 205 0 0 236 157 0 0 0 125 0 0 205 0 0 236 157 0 0 0 125 0 0 EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH 205 0 0 236 678 0 0 0 844 0 205 0 0 236 724 0 0 0 922 0 SB RT 193 193 EXISTING LOS= FUTURE LOS = [ I I [ PROJECT NUMBER: 96149 Project Name: Mirabeau Point TIA INTERSECTION: Pines Road and Trent Ave. PM PEAK HOUR INITIAL COUNT DATE 08/20/97 COUNT RATE TO EXSTNG -3.00% N/S GROWTH RATE 3.00% E/W GROWTH RATE 3.00% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 4 816 277 271 504 12 297 40 337 20 36 8 EB LI EB TH EB RT WB LT WB TH WB RT NB LT NB TH NB RT SB LT SB TH SB RT EXISTING LOS= 4 792 269 263 489 12 288 39 327 19 35 8 147 63 134 134 8 3 4 4 4 865 449 353 534 13 453 42 495 21 38 8 5 1003 495 399 619 15 503 49 552 25 44 10 WITH Evergreen I/C YEARS TO PHASE 1 YEARS TO PHASE 2 8 YEARS TO BUILDOUT 10 29- Aug -97 N/S E/W PHASE I GROWTH FACTOR 1.093 1.093 PHASE 2 GROWTH FACTOR 1.267 1.267 BUILD OUT GROWTH FACTOR 5 1064 516 419 657 16 525 52 577 26 47 10 23 10 20 21 43 19 45 45 TRAFFIC W!PRJCT 14 6 8 9 FUTURE LOS = 4 865 472 363 534 13 473 42 516 21 38 8 1.344 SE 2 W /PRJCT 5 1003 561 428 619 15 568 49 618 25 44 10 1.344 BUILD OUT W /PRJCT 5 1064 596 454 657 16 598 52 652 26 47 10 1 1 1 1 DOCUMENTATION FOR RIGHT TURNS ON RED (RTOR) Right Turn on Red Documentation The number of right turns on red (RTOR) that occur at a signalized intersection depend on a number of variables. They include the following: • The number of vehicles wanting to turn right. If no vehicles are waiting to turn right, • • • there is no RTOR. Lane configuration affects RTOR. If a right turn movement has a right turn only lane, this will allow more right turns than a shared right/through lane. Those wanting to go through will block those wanting to turn right and thus will have to wait for a green light. The percentage of vehicles turning right vs. those going through affects the RTOR. If the percentage of through vehicles is low, there is a higher possibility that a vehicle wanting to turn right will be stopped for a red light and be available to turn right when a gap permits it. The number of vehicles from conflicting movements that the right turning vehicle must compete with. In other words are there gaps in the conflicting traffic which the vehicles wanting to turn right can use. • The signal phasing can create opportunities for vehicles to take advantage of RTOR. For instance, a protected left turn movement allows Field Counts A count of right turns on the red signal was performed during the PM peak traffic period on August 21, 1997 for several intersections and right turning movements on Pines Road. The following is a summary of the data taken: • • • Pines Road /EB Ramps intersection, eastbound to southbound right turns. 49 RTOR were counted in a 15 minute period. This equates to 196 RTOR during a 1 hour period. Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection, westbound to northbound right turns. 44 RTOR were counted in a 15 minute period. This equates to 176 RTOR during a 1 hour period. There were many opportunities for turning on red that were not used due to vehicles not waiting. The protected SB to EB turning movement provides a significant amount of time for RTOR for this movement. Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection, eastbound to southbound right turns. 2 RTOR were counted in a 10 minute period. This equates to 12 RTOR during a 1 hour period. A shared right /through lane prevented more RTOR. Mirabeau Point TIA Appendix Right Turns On Red Page 2 • • • Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection, northbound to eastbound right turns. 0 RTOR were counted in a 10 minute period. The percentage of through traffic in the shared right/through lane was high. Pines Road /Indian Avenue intersection, westbound to northbound. This movement is currently signed as a yield condition. 20 RTOR were counted in a 10 minute period. This equates to 120 vehicles during a 1 hour period. Pines Road /Indian Avenue intersection, eastbound to southbound. 20 RTOR were counted in a 10 minute period. This equates to 120 vehicles during a 1 hour period. The pavement is wide enough to allow right turning vehicles to go to the right of those through or left turning vehicles. Right Turns on Red Deductions Used The following RTOR deductions were used in calculating level of service for this project: Pines Road /Mission Avenue Intersection: EB Rt. - 5 WB Rt. - Phase 1 & 2 - 150, Phase 3 - 250 Pines Road /EB Ramps Intersection: EB Rt. - Existing - 150, Phase 1 -3, 200 NB Rt. - 20 for shared lane, 200 with Right turn lane Pines Road /WB Ramps Intersection: SB Rt. - 25 Pines Road /Indiana Avenue Intersection: EB Rt. - 80 WB Rt. - 100 NB Rt. - Phase 1 - 50, Phase 2 & 3 - 100 Pines Road /Trent Avenue Intersection: NB Rt. -100 EB Rt. - 100 1 Mirabeau Point TIA Appendix Right Turns On Red Page 3 Sullivan Road /Mission Avenue Intersection: WB Rt. - 40 EB Rt. - 40 NB Rt. -10 SB Rt. - 20 Sullivan Road /EB Ramps Intersection: EB Rt. - Free right turn NB Rt. - 20 Sullivan Road/WB Ramps Intersection: SB Rt. - 100 Sullivan Road /Indiana Avenue Intersection: WB Rt. - decrease by half EB Rt. - 100 SB Rt. - 50 Evergreen Road /EB Ramps Intersection: EB Rt. - 100 NB Rt. - Free right turn Evergreen Road /WB Ramps Intersection: WB Rt. - Free right turn SB Rt. - 100 Evergreen Road /Indiana Avenue Intersection: EB Rt. - 150 NB Rt. - 200 No DtS��aJ.� a� LLLV44 -' /NTSZS #GTr �ocvMGr��_ EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C 1 Mission & Pines September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service ±IEIflE1 EBL EBT EBR 131 129 0 323 0 2 3582 3582 Split 1 1 20 20 4.0 0.53 1.00 29 D 4.0 36 0 0 WBL WBT 99 0 0 6 Yes 20 4.0 170 294 2 3662 3662 Split 6 Yes 20 4.0 0.47 1.00 29 D LJEJH 0 0 o NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 265 /" 20 977 276 21 1118 1 1 2 1583 1770 3703 1583 1770 3703 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 35 4.0 4.0 0.45 0.24 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 35 36 B D D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 60 (60 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 77% Intersection Delay: 28.6 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 45 0 0 348 1272 362 1574 1 2 1770 3662 1770 3662 Prot 3 8 Yes 25 52 4.0 4.0 0.93 0.88 0.97 1.05 49 22 E C EIIMMINIME 3 6 MUNI 4 • 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 167 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 323 102 169 1060 16% WBT 294 92 135 1080 13% Q WBR 276 88 137 1080 13% NBL 21 14 18 600 3% Q NBT 1118 378 504 600 84% SBL 362 246 309 470 66% Q SBT 1574 494 672 470 143% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 J:\ DOCUMENT \96149\,TRAFFIC\PINE_EX.SY4 EB Ramps & Pines September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? EBL 243 0 1 1770 1770 EBT 0 1066 1 1632 1632 Split 4 4 Current Split (s.) 38 38 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.90 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 37 Level of Service D E- R WBL ,790 0 0 0 0 0 ©© a WBT WBR NBL NBT 0 0 0 1383 0 0 0 1751 0 0 0 2 3644 3644 Perm Perm 6 Yes 50 4.0 1.02 0.65 35 D A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 97% Intersection Delay: 31.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines ©oa SBL SBT SBR 157 984 0 160 1054 0 1 2 0 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 12 62 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.48 1.16 0.84 96 8 F B �2 I5lti6 ■ • Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 1066 1751 160 1054 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 370 324 111 108 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 482 755 143 140 Link Length (ft.) 1050 470 760 760 of Link Used 46 %' (161W 19% 18% Blocks Upstream? Yes Q EBT NBT SBL SBT Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\PINE_EX.SY4 Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 WB Ramps & Pines September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service L±BEI a o o O o o LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 242 1 0 0 261 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 22 4.0 22 4.0 0.77 1.00 36 D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 49 (49 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 89% Intersection Delay: 21.6 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 570 869 0 613 981 0 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 8 4 40 4.0 0.94 1.05 39 D 78 4.0 0.35 2.22 7 B 13 14 1 1583 1583 0.01 1.78 0 A Lfl4 1 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 927 94 0 1153 0 0 2 0 3677 3677 Perm 7 Yes 38 4.0 0.90 0.66 21 C Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft) of storage Used Fills Storage? Q WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT 261 172 292 1110 26% 613 420 532 760 70% 981 195 251 760 33% 14 0 0 760 0% 1153 388 520 140 371 % Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\PINE_EX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service a ;I E is EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 50 0 0 14 309 1 1468 1425 Perm 4 51 4.0 0.45 1.00 13 B 227 0 0 81 86 1 1770 674 44 47 1 1863 1863 Perm 4 25 27 1 1583 1583 51 4.0 0.27 0.05 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 11 8 B B B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 94 (94 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 55% Intersection Delay: 19.2 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines Efi 11 EJ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 129 799 137 935 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 41 4.0 4.0 0.65 0.66 1.11 0.76 40 16 D C 13 15 1 1583 1583 0.02 0.77 11 B 9 667 10 768 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 34 4.0 4.0 0.11 0.67 1.00 1.00 35 24 D C F 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 21 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 309 142 263 1050 25% WBL 86 35 71 1110 6% Q WBT 47 17 31 1110 3% Q WBR 27 8 15 1110 1% at NBL 137 89 121 140 86% NBT 935 240 375 140 268% Yes NBR 15 5 6 140 4% SBL 10 6 9 1250 1% Q SBT 768 232 349 1250 28% Synchro 2.0 Report Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC J:\D000MENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINEEX.SY4 Page 4 1 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCLEX.HCO Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 1/8/97 Other Information Existing (1996) Traffic PM Peak Hour Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (o ) SU /RV's ( %) CV's (a) PCE' s Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 749 5 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 5 558 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 1 > 1 < 0 5 0 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t f ) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL_EX.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 396 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 872 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 872 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 793 643 643 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1382 170 0.99 168 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1382 138 0.99 0.99 0.99 137 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 137 > WB T 0 168 > 237 16.0 0.0 C 16.0 WB R 6 872 > SB L 6 643 5.7 0.0 B Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec /veh 0.1 3 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 4 4 1 1770 1770 EBT 792 924 2 3725 3725 Prot 7 4 Yes 18 30 4.0 4.0 0.01 0.73 0.85 0.85 17 17 C C EBR 269 299 1 1583 1583 0.33 0.85 3 A tI WBL WBT 263 489 292 584 1 2 1770 3714 1770 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 20 32 4.0 4.0 0.78 0.43 0.85 0.85 26 13 D B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 75% Intersection Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Q WBR 12 0 0 as NBL 288 320 1 1770 1770 2 Yes 22 4.0 0.76 0.85 24 C NBT 39 295 1 1624 1624 Split 2 Yes 22 4.0 0.76 0.85 24 C NBR 227 0 0 Q SBL SBT 19 35 0 69 0 1 1618 1618 Split 6 6 8 8 4.0 0.68 0.85 35 D 4.0 6 2 ism 7 4 ■ 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 4 1 2 2000 0% EBT 924 225 334 2000 17% EBR 299 58 83 2000 4% ra WBL 292 152 223 2290 10% WBT 584 122 182 2290 8% NBL 320 165 257 1321 19% NBT 295 152 236 1321 18% Q SBT 69 37 89 1559 6% SBR 8 0 0 ' - L , ' / . 4 ' . . / A-4, no 1E Va le = AS 7fft�[J 6,it IT /M5; 13 Et:4 R. i R #-) 4,: Synchro 2.0 Report J: IDOCUMENT196 1491TRAFFIC\TRENPMEX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Volume (vph.) 171 14 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 178 58 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1656 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1473 1656 Left Turn Type Perm Phase Number 1 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 34 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.39 0.11 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 21 19 Level of Service C C a NBL NBT NBR 41 44 17 48 40 733 0 0 64 50 42 873 0 0 1 1 1 3 1798 1583 1770 5560 1568 1583 1770 5560 Perm Prot 6 7 4 Yes 34 8 47 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.13 0.07 0.47 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 10 38 14 C BD B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 72 (72 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 51% Intersection Delay: 8.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan L1IJ SBL SBT SBR 29 98 1248 0 102 1722 0 1 3 1770 5460 1770 5460 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 58 4.0 4.0 0.36 0.57 1.33 0.13 38 2 D A 1 3 1j7 11 18 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 255 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 178 96 175 1060 17% EBT 58 28 48 1060 5% WBT 64 31 64 1080 6% is WBR 50 17 35 1080 3% NBL 42 28 38 600 6% 11 NBT 873 134 192 600 32% SBL 102 57 73 500 15% SBT 1722 81 135 500 27% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \SULL_EX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EIE!o ©o©©©© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 825 222 149 944 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 884 227 157 1011 0 Lanes 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1583 3725 1583 3536 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1583 3725 1583 3536 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 36 36 52 12 64 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.18 0.48 0.29 0.49 0.44 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.15 1.21 1.04 0.41 Average Delay (s.) 18 15 14 35 3 Level of Service C B B D A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 38% Intersection Delay: 11.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 211 52 92 1050 9% Q NBT 884 164 216 500 43% NBR 227 83 109 500 22% SBL SBT 157 1011 50 157 66 252 800 800 8% 32% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \SULL_EX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 2, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary 11 El IMI IS M 13 al II IE al Ill El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 203 1 0 379 694 0 0 933 576 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 225 0 411 767 0 0 1031 606 Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1779 3540 3725 3725 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1779 3540 3725 3725 1583 Left Turn Type Perm Split Prot Perm Phase Number 5 5 7 4 8 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 21 21 19 79 60 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.35 0.73 0.27 0.49 0.67 Platoon Factor 1.00 0.94 0.67 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 29 32 2 10 13 Level of Service D D A B B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 23 (23 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 62% Intersection Delay: 12.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 225 411 767 1031 606 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 73 129 92 212 292 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 130 180 140 293 433 Link Length (ft.) 1110 800 800 1010 1010 % of Link Used 12% 23% 18% 29% 43% Q WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft . ) of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL_EX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EVERGREEN INTERCHANGE Mission & Pines September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service 00000000000 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 131 129 31 99 170 245 20 883 0 318 0 0 294 255 21 1015 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 3593 3662 1583 1770 3699 3593 3662 1583 1770 3699 Split Split Prot 1 1 6 6 7 4 Yes Yes Yes 20 20 20 20 8 35 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.52 0.47 0.41 0.24 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 29 9 35 29 D D B D D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 60 (60 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 69% Intersection Delay: 23.3 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 45 278 1106 167 0 290 1393 0 0 1 2 0 1770 3655 1770 3655 Prot 3 8 Yes 25 52 4.0 4.0 0.74 0.78 1.01 0.98 33 17 D C Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? © Q II 21 al EBT 318 100 166 1060 16% Q WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT 294 92 136 1080 13% 255 80 124 1080 11% 21 14 18 600 3% 1015 330 463 600 77% 290 187 245 470 52% 1393 393 584 470 124% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\PINEEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page I EB Ramps & Pines September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary-19 Ld 000000000 Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 243 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 874 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1644 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1644 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 38 38 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.73 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 31 Level of Service D 602 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 85% Intersection Delay: 20.8 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1269 1571 2 3655 3655 Perm 6 Yes 50 4.0 0.91 0.68 18 C 197 0 0 147 936 150 1003 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 12 4.0 0.94 1.18 80 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 62 4.0 0.46 0.78 7 B 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? 111 Q EBT NBT SBL SBT 874 303 405 1050 39% 1571 258 685 470 146% Yes 150 1003 104 93 135 121 760 760 18% 16% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINEEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary al o 0 0 o p o in LlIJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 194 1 0 456 874 8 0 917 94 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 210 0 490 987 9 0 1141 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1775 1770 3725 1583 3677 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1775 1770 3725 1583 3677 Left Turn Type Perm Split Prot Perm Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 22 22 40 78 38 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.62 0.75 0.35 0.01 0.89 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.03 2.18 1.80 0.64 Average Delay (s.) 31 25 7 0 20 Level of Service D C B A C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 49 (49 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 78% Intersection Delay: 17.2 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 210 490 987 9 1141 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 133 323 194 0 382 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 245 424 254 0 514 Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 760 140 % of Link Used 22% 56% 33% 0% 367% Blocks Upstream? Yes Q WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:I DOCUMENT 1961491TRAFFICIPINEEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary /c" © © IN El © © © © © © © EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 50 14 227 71 44 20 129 804 8 9 667 21 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 309 0 45 85 22 137 941 9 10 768 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1468 1770 1825 1583 1770 3725 1583 1770 3711 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1383 669 1248 1583 1770 3725 1583 1770 3711 Left Tum Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Phase Number 4 4 5 2 1 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 48 48 16 44 8 36 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.50 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.60 0.62 0.01 0.11 0.63 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.70 0.71 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 15 12 12 9 37 13 9 35 22 Level of Service B B B B D B B D C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 94 (94 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 56% Intersection Delay: 17.8 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 309 45 85 22 137 941 9 10 768 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 151 18 34 7 87 223 2 6 225 Queue Length 95% (ft) 283 35 67 13 119 348 3 9 339 Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 1110 1110 140 140 140 1250 1250 % of Link Used 27% 3% 6% 1% 85% 249% 2% 1% 27% Blocks Upstream? Yes El IS 0 o a o o Q EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report 1:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINEEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL_EX.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 1/8/97 Other Information Existing (1996) Traffic PM Peak Hour Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (:) SU /RV's (%) CV's (o) PCE's Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 749 5 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 5 558 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 1 > 1 < 0 5 0 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL_EX.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 396 872 872 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 793 643 643 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1382 170 0.99 168 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1382 138 0.99 0.99 0.99 137 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 137 > WB T 0 168 > 237 16.0 0.0 C 16.0 WB R 6 872 > SB L 6 643 5.7 0.0 B 0.1 Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec /veh Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EI;' ©©© © Q © LE1IJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 4 792 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 4 924 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 18 30 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.01 0.73 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 17 17 Level of Service C C 269 299 1 1583 1583 0.33 0.85 3 A 263 489 292 584 1 2 1770 3714 1770 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 20 32 4.0 4.0 0.78 0.43 0.85 0.85 26 13 D B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 75% Intersection Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines 12 0 0 288 320 1 1770 1770 2 Yes 22 4.0 0.76 0.85 24 C 39 295 1 1624 1624 Split 2 Yes 22 4.0 0.76 0.85 24 C 227 0 0 19 35 0 69 0 1 1618 1618 Split 6 6 8 8 4.0 0.68 0.85 35 D 4.0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 8 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 4 1 2 2000 0% EBT 924 225 334 2000 17% EBR 299 58 83 2000 4% 11 WBL 292 152 223 2290 10% WBT 584 122 182 2290 8% NBL 320 165 257 1321 19% Q NBT 295 152 236 1321 18% Q SBT 69 37 89 1559 6% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \TRENPMEX.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- 00000000000 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Volume (vph.) 159 14 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 166 58 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1656 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1470 1656 Left Tum Type Perm Phase Number 1 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 34 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.36 0.11 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 21 19 Level of Service C C 41 44 17 48 40 621 0 0 65 52 42 745 0 0 1 1 1 3 1799 1583 1770 5555 1572 1583 1770 5555 Perm Prot 6 7 4 Yes 34 8 47 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.13 0.07 0.47 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 10 38 14 C BD B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 72 (72 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 46% Intersection Delay: 8.4 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan SBL SBT SBR 29 98 1096 0 102 1548 0 1 3 1770 5443 1770 5443 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 58 4.0 4.0 0.36 0.52 1.36 0.07 39 1 D A L 3 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 255 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 166 89 162 1060 15% EBT 58 28 48 1060 5% WBT 65 32 65 1080 6% Q WBR 52 18 37 1080 3% NBL 42 28 38 600 6% NBT 745 111 161 600 27% SBL 102 57 73 500 15% 0 SBT 1548 46 76 500 15% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT1961491TRAFFIC \SULLEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Q ©© ©© © © ©© El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 749 174 149 903 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 802 178 157 968 0 Lanes 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1583 3725 1583 3536 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1583 3725 1583 3536 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 38 38 50 12 62 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.17 0.46 0.24 0.49 0.44 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.23 1.28 1.04 0.39 Average Delay (s.) 17 17 15 35 3 Level of Service C C B D A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 34% Intersection Delay: 12.4 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 211 802 178 157 968 Queue Length 50% (ft) 50 166 73 50 155 Queue Length 95% (ft) 89 222 97 67 250 Link Length (ft.) 1050 500 500 800 800 % of Link Used 8% 44% 19% 8% 31% Q EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \SULLEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service r; is EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 163 1 0 0 181 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 21 21 4.0 0.28 1.00 28 D 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 23 (23 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 58% Intersection Delay: 11.9 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 302 694 0 327 767 0 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 7 4 19 4.0 0.58 0.93 28 D 79 4.0 0.27 0.69 2 A 0 0 0 © ©a SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 5 Q 4 • • 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 933 1031 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 60 4.0 0.49 1.04 10 B 576 606 1 1583 1583 0.67 1.05 13 B Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume 181 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 57 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 109 Link Length (ft.) 1110 % of Link Used 10% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? NBL NBT 327 767 98 95 136 148 800 800 17% 19% Q SBT 1031 221 307 340 90% SBR 606 308 455 340 134% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC \SULLEXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Es ri la 11 a 1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 92 0 0 0 102 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 10 11 1 1583 1583 196 0 213 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 20 20 20 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.10 0.02 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.15 12 12 2 B B A Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 11% Intersection Delay 5.4 Intersection LOSc A Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 20 4.0 0.01 0.14 2 A Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Q 0 0 1 1583 1583 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q WBT 102 16 39 1110 4% WBR 11 3 7 1110 1% as NBL SBT 213 11 26 0 65 4 800 780 8% 1% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \EVEREXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EJL± IN Q ©©© © LHJ Ej EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 0 0 308 0 0 0 0 196 106 10 92 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 121 0 209 0 0 0 0 230 108 10 99 0 Lanes 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3167 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3167 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 28 28 20 12 32 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.24 0.04 0.05 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.86 Average Delay (s.) 8 8 12 13 14 12 Level of Service B B B B B B Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 42 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 16% Intersection Delay: 10.5 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems dnLJ; ,. t. Lane Group Lane Group Volume 121 209 230 108 10 99 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 15 27 17 34 4 19 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 27 49 31 63 9 42 Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 500 500 800 800 % of Link Used 3% 5% 6% 13% 1% 5% Q Q EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TR.AFFIC \EVEREXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EJ O o o El o O O o O o El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 508 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 1025 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1700 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1700 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 32 32 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.02 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 59 Level of Service E 885 467 1 1583 1583 1.02 1.00 64 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 110% Intersection Delay: 61.8 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1798 2172 2 3666 3666 Perm 6 Yes 55 4.0 1.14 1.09 92 F 230 0 0 193 1240 197 1329 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 68 4.0 4.0 1.11 0.55 1.05 0.42 133 3 F A Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? © Q EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT 1025 355 449 1050 43% 467 324 409 1050 39% 2172 754 918 470 195% Yes 197 136 172 760 23% 1329 336 494 760 65% ID f_rr SlROI-0 dos eb4L.s H o ce.) g 12 — pflc _ Los = —/DD /OZ.? 1-2 0 0 0 Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\PINE1OWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service ©©113 © ©Q ©©© EBL EBT EBR 207 219 108- 440 ,1. 2 1770 3607 499 2242 Perm 1 35 4.0 0.68 0.61 1.00 1.00 30 23 D C 55 0 0 WBL WBT WBR 166 130 1 1770 563 255 392 362 436 (1)L 1 1850 1583 1485 1583 Perm 5 35 4.0 0.72 0.76 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 32 28 13 D D B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 85% Intersection Delay: 27.9 Intersection LOS: D \ Splits and Phases: (N- O i ey Mission & Pines NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 31 1166 32 1379 1 2 1770 3685 1770 3685 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 45 4.0 4.0 0.36 0.89 1.00 1.00 36 25 D C 95 515 1474 237 0 553 1871 0 0 2 2 0 3536 3651 3536 3651 Prot 3 8 Yes 20 57 4.0 4.0 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.29 44 29 E D F 5 E1 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Ea a EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT 108 65 107 1060 10% 440 129 209 1060 20% 130 79 117 1070 11% 362 225 334 1070 31% 436 200 303 1070 28% 32 21 27 600 5% 1379 443 607 600 101% Yes 553 189 231 470 49% 1871 649 783 470 167% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC\PINEIOWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 1999 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C Indiana & Evergreen September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EIEEJ as EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 12 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3211 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3211 Left Turn Type Perm Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 2 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3167 1770 3725 1770 3167 Perm 4 2 Current Split (s.) 31 31 29 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.01 0.01 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.83 Average Delay (s.) 7 13 Level of Service B B Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 43 (72 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 1 Intersection Delay: 9.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 12 11 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 1 4 Queue Length 95% (ft) 6 22 Link Length (ft.) 970 780 %of Link Used 1% 3% ay EBT NBL Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \EVEREXWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 WB Ramps & Pines September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary —26 7 ill El EBL EBT Volume (vph.) 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 Lanes 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Perm Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBR G WBL 0 281 O 302 O 1 1770 1770 E IJH el © 0 J WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1 0 768 1097 260 0 1181 210 1 0 851 1239 280 0 1570 0 0 0 L_2) 2 1 0 2 0 3540 3725 1583 3644 3540 3725 1583 3644 Split Prot Perm 5 5 8 4 7 Yes 23 23 28 77 49 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.85 0.00 0.96 0.45 0.19 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.29 1.01 0.80 42 0 42 1 0 23 E A E A A C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 78% Intersection Delay: 20.4 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems --t•- -p(N e.. EVI- c? A 5 J- Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft. ) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q WBL 302 202 328 1110 30% WBT 1 0 0 NBL 851 288 356 1110 760 0% 47% 11 NBT 1239 121 185 760 24% NBR SBT 280 1570 11 525 15 684 760 140 2% 489% Ye Synchro 2.0 Report 3:1 DOCUMENT1961491TRAFFIC IPINEICWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service � O o IN 0 LIJH 0 [IJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 55 0 0 15 162 1 1708 1588 Perm 4 37 4.0 0.30 1.00 19 C 271 217 1 1583 1583 0.29 1.00 11 B 229 244 1 1770 1060 0.68 1.00 25 C 48 51 1 1863 1863 Perm 4 37 4.0 0.08 1.00 17 C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 63% Intersection Delay: 14.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines 107 114 1 1583 1583 0.18 1.00 14 B 141 1041 150 1163 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 17 55 4.0 4.0 0.61 0.60 1.19 0.61 40 8 D B 260 277 1 1583 1583 0.34 0.63 7 B 54 846 57 971 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 46 4.0 4.0 0.64 0.61 1.00 1.00 45 17 E C Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 23 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? El © © Q IS Q Q Q [9 Q EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 162 82 133 1050 13% 217 85 141 1050 13% 244 145 252 1110 23% 51 114 24 49 36 76 1110 1110 3% 7% 150 1163 95 207 123 318 140 140 88% 227% Yes 277 74 101 140 72% 57 38 51 1250 4% 971 259 385 1250 31% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINE1OWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL10WO.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/3/97 Other Information Phase 1 (1996) Traffic Without Project Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's (%) CV's ( %) PCE' s Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 941 0 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 20 727 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 5 0 25 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t f ) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1OWO.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 496 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 776 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 776 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.96 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 991 504 504 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1777 100 0.95 95 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1777 77 0.95 0.95 0.95 73 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 7 3 > WB T 0 95 > 293 13.9 0.4 C 13.9 WB R 29 776 > SE L 23 504 7.5 0.0 B Intersection Delay = 0.3 sec /veh 0.2 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary -- 2:] D o o O o a o o LEflJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 4 865 293 325 534 13 390 42 333 21 38 8 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 4 1009 326 361 638 0 433 417 0 0 74 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1615 1622 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1615 1622 Left Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Phase Number 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 9 26 21 38 25 25 8 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.03 0.94 0.37 0.91 0.39 0.89 0.94 0.73 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 22 29 4 36 10 31 39 39 Level of Service C D A D B D D D Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 92% Intersection Delay: 25.3 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 4 1009 326 361 638 433 417 74 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 2 273 68 195 120 230 226 40 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 2 366 97 271 176 332 319 93 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 2000 2290 2290 1321 1321 1559 % of Link Used 0% 18% 5% 12% 8% 25% 24% 6% 11 Q Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \TREN 1 OWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_.: © ©o ©©©© ©©©© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 187 15 48 48 19 57 44 2035 33 107 2574 280 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 195 66 0 50 82 0 46 2370 0 111 3270 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1650 1770 1662 1770 5577 1770 5516 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1317 1650 1432 1662 1770 5577 1770 5516 Left Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Phase Number 1 6 7 4 3 8 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 23 23 8 65 12 69 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.74 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.52 0.69 0.70 0.90 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.07 Average Delay (s.) 36 25 25 26 39 10 33 14 Level of Service D C C D D B D B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 84% Intersection Delay: 14.0 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan L 3 T 4 F 6 E1 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 195 127 218 1060 21% EBT 66 38 62 1060 6% WBL 50 28 55 1080 WBT 82 47 93 1080 5% 9% NBL 46 31 38 600 6% NBT 2370 362 519 600 87% [1 Q SBL SBT 111 3270 73 411 88 891 500 500 18% 178% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT1961491TRAFFIC\SULL 1 OWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EJEJ I n ! © © © © IC 13 vs EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1583 Left Turn Type Split Perm Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.99 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 54 Level of Service E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 105% Intersection Delay: 34.9 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 2068 2216 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 59 4.0 1.06 0.81 48 E 314 320 1 1583 1583 0.36 0.54 5 A 543 1839 571 1970 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 5 2 18 77 4.0 4.0 1.08 0.71 1.25 0.00 96 1 F A Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? LEI Q EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 700 242 335 1050 32% 2216 769 923 500 185% Yes 320 571 1970 108 198 0 141 238 725 500 800 800 28% 30% 91% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULLIOWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service O D 1E1 LLJ El 11 0 Ea 0 Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 282 1 0 0 313 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 13 13 4.0 0.88 1.00 51 E 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 112% Intersection Delay: 57.0 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 964 1819 0 1045 2010 0 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 7 4 28 87 4.0 4.0 1.18 0.64 0.90 2.25 127 5 F A 0 0 2147 0 0 2373 0 0 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 59 4.0 1.14 0.51 78 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 867 913 1 1583 1583 1.03 0.46 39 D Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 313 108 171 1110 15% NBL 1045 362 429 800 54% NBT 2010 480 770 800 96% Yes a SBT SBR 2373 913 823 633 968 745 350 350 277% 213% Yes Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULLIOWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 IimQ e4 • n 8 Indiana & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary— EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Volume (vph.) 195 0 542 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 223 0 681 Lanes 2 0 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 3167 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 3167 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 11 11 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.79 0.93 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 44 42 Level of Service E E 0 0 2 3539 3539 8 243 284 2 3725 3725 Split 8 116 129 1 1583 1583 11 11 4.0 4.0 0.95 0.63 1.00 1.00 64 27 F D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 127% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 11 NBL NBT NBR 542 1388 620 1619 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 18 70 4.0 4.0 1.17 0.65 1.13 0.59 136 5 F A SBL SBT SBR 0 0 2522 0 0 2942 0 0 2 3725 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 60 4.0 4.0 1.39 Error Error F 5 6 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 146 162 1 1583 1583 0.16 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL 223 75 104 1050 10% Es EBR 681 231 318 1050 30% WBT 284 98 147 1120 13% WBR 129 71 132 1120 12% Q NBL 620 215 261 350 75% Q 11 NBT SBT 1619 2942 235 1021 370 1207 350 660 106% 183% Yes Yes SBR 162 26 31 660 5% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL1OWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INMIIOWO.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Mirabeau Point Dr. (E -W) Indiana Ave. Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 12/13/96 Other Information Phase 1 (1999) Traffic Without Project, Without Evergreen I/C Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC' s ( %) SU /RV's 0'0 CV's ( %) PCE' s Eastbound L T R 1 2 0 N 18 284 .95 .95 0 1.10 Westbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 178 39 .95 .95 0 Northbound L T R 0 0 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 1 33 10 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INMIIOWO.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 114 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1212 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1212 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 228 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1293 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1293 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 526 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 488 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 480 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) SB L 39 480 8.2 0.2 B SB R 12 1212 3.0 0.0 A EB L 21 1293 2.8 0.0 A Intersection Delay = 0.6 sec /veh 7.0 0.2 1999 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C 1 1 A Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Q o v o Q o o Q o p EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 207 219 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 216 300 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3617 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 17 21 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.87 0.46 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 51 28 Level of Service E D 55 166 255 0 184 283 0 1 1 1770 1863 1770 1863 Prot 2 5 Yes 17 21 4.0 4.0 0.74 0.84 1.00 1.00 39 42 D E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 27 (27 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 94% Intersection Delay: 44.5 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 392 436 1 1583 1583 0.81 1.00 28 D 31 1244 32 1465 1 2 1770 3688 1770 3688 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 43 4.0 4.0 0.36 0.99 1.00 1.00 36 39 D D 95 515 1565 0 553 1971 0 2 2 3536 3655 3536 3655 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 54 4.0 4.0 0.98 1.06 1.00 0.98 56 52 E E Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 237 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EA EBL 216 146 216 1060 20% EBT 300 93 139 1060 13% r; WBL 184 122 169 1070 16% WBT 283 189 261 1070 24% WBR 436 275 402 1070 38% NBL 32 21 26 600 4% Q NBT 1465 506 642 600 107% Yes SBL 553 190 230 470 49% Q SBT 1971 684 822 470 175% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT196149\TRAFFIC\PINE1WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- a el II MI ©© ©© [I EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 608 0 935 0 0 0 0 1876 230 193 1331 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 620 0_, 0 0 0 0 2256 0 197 1426 0 Lanes 1 () (2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3666 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3666 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 33 33 54 13 67 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.17 1.13 1.21 1.11 0.60 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Error 1.00 0.68 Average Delay (s.) 127 101 Error 131 6 Level of Service F F F F B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 117% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT 620 1078 2256 197 1426 430 374 783 136 405 538 467 950 171 568 1050 1050 70 760 760 51% 44% ( 202% 23% 75% Yes\ Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE 1 WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s. ) Level of Service D D 4 D EJII G7 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 281 1 0 0 303 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 23 23 4.0 0.85 1.00 42 E 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 97% Intersection Delay: 26.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 768 1097 0 851 1239 0 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 8 4 438 471 1 1583 1583 28 77 4.0 4.0 0.96 0.45 0.32 0.93 0.29 1.10 42 1 0 E A A 4 tin Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 1272 1708 2 3640 3640 Perm 7 Yes 49 4.0 1.02 0.91 41 E 241 0 0 sF_ E uJ z �( S r Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume 303 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 202 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 329 Link Length (ft.) 1110 % of Link Used 30% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 0 NBL NBT 851 1239 289 119 354 177 760 760 47% 23% NBR 471 25 36 760 5% 11 SBT 1708 593 738 140 527% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT\96149 \TRAFFIC\PINE1 WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service II a Fl 21 II E EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 55 0 0 15 138 1 1731 1269 Perm 4 271 241 1 1583 1583 351 216 1 1770 1153 48 232 1 1801 1226 Perm 4 107 120 1 1583 1583 37 37 4.0 4.0 0.32 0.32 0.55 0.56 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 11 22 22 14 C B C C B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 61% Intersection Delay: 14.7 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines 141 1041 150 1259 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 17 55 4.0 4.0 0.61 0.65 1.19 0.61 40 9 D B NBR SBL SBT 388 413 1 1583 1583 0.50 0.62 8 B 54 846 57 971 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 46 4.0 4.0 0.64 0.61 1.00 1.00 45 17 E C Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 23 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 138 70 115 1050 11% es EBR 241 96 161 1050 15% Q WBL 216 121 192 1110 17% Q WBT 232 131 207 1110 19% WBR 120 52 77 1110 7% NBL 150 95 122 140 87% Q NBT 1259 239 373 140 266% Yes NBR 413 131 188 140 134% Yes SBL 57 38 51 1250 4% Q SBT 971 259 385 1250 31% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT\96149\TRAFFICTINEIWW0.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1WWO.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/3/97 Other Information Phase 1 (1996) Traffic With Project Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (o) SU /RV's (o) CV's (%) PCE's Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 941 0 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 53 727 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 5 0 66 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) Follow -up Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1WWO.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 496 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 776 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 776 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.90 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Pot.ential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 991 504 504 0.88 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1812 95 0.88 83 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1812 73 0.88 0.88 0.88 64 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 64 > WB T 0 83 > 428 10.4 0.7 C 10.4 WB R 76 776 > SB L 62 504 8.1 0.4 B Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec /veh 0.6 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- — 1' Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 4 4 1 1770 1770 EBT 865 1009 2 3725 3725 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 25 4.0 4.0 0.04 0.98 0.85 0.85 23 37 C D is EBR WBL WBT WBR 316 335 534 13 351 372 638 0 1 1 2 0 1583 1770 3714 1583 1770 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 21 38 4.0 4.0 0.39 0.93 0.39 0.85 0.85 0.85 4 41 10 A E B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 94% Intersection Delay: 28.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Q NBL NBT NBR SBL 410 42 354 21 456 440 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1770 1613 1622 1770 1613 1622 Split Split 2 2 6 6 Yes Yes 26 26 8 8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.90 0.95 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.85 31 39 39 D D D Q SBT 38 74 4 2 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 8 0 0 Lane Group EBL EBT Lane Group Volume 4 1009 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 2 278 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 2 365 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 % of Link Used 0% 18% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBR 351 75 107 2000 5% WBL 372 202 279 2290 12% WBT 638 120 175 2290 8% as NBL 456 242 346 1321 26% Q NBT 440 239 335 1321 25% Q SBT 74 40 93 1559 6% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \TREN1 WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_ .., Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Ei El ©v ©© © ©©© Ej EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 187 15 48 48 19 57 44 2071 33 107 2624 280 195 66 0 50 79 0 46 2411 0 111 3328 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1770 1650 1770 1654 1770 5577 1770 5516 1317 1650 1421 1654 1770 5577 1770 5516 Perm Perm Prot Prot 1 6 7 4 3 8 Yes Yes 20 20 8 68 12 72 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.87 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.52 0.67 0.70 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.14 51 27 27 28 39 9 33 12 E D D D D B D B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 85% Intersection Delay: 13.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 195 131 218 1060 21% El IS © Q lil 3 11 EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT 66 39 65 1060 6% 50 29 57 1080 5% 79 47 93 1080 9% 46 31 38 600 6% 2411 343 494 600 82% 111 73 88 500 18% 3328 385 906 500 181% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULLI WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering. IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - EI 1151 E] ID LEI Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 666 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 700 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 Left Turn Type Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.99 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 54 Level of Service E 0 0 0 Split 4 23 4.0 0 0 1 1583 1583 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 108% Intersection Delay: 43.5 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 0 0 0 0 0 0 2102 2252 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 59 4.0 1.08 0.83 56 E 314 320 1 1583 1583 0.36 0.58 5 A 596 1889 626 2024 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 18 4.0 1.18 1.23 146 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 77 4.0 0.73 0.00 1 A 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? A EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 700 242 335 1050 32% 2252 782 938 500 188% Yes 320 626 2024 111 217 0 144 260 747 500 800 800 29% 33% 93% Synchro 2.0 Report Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC J: \DOCUMENT\ 96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL 1 WWO.SY4 Page 2 7 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary —1 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 Perm EBR 0 0 0 WBL 282 0 1 1770 1770 WBT 1 313 1 1779 1779 Split 5 5 12 4.0 12 4.0 0.98 1.00 70 F Q WBR 0 0 0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 115% Intersection Delay: 64.6 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan NBL 964 1045 2 3540 3540 NBT 1855 2050 2 3725 3725 Prot 7 4 28 4.0 1.18 0.90 127 F 88 4.0 0.65 2.36 5 A NBR 0 0 0 3 SBL SBT 0 2250 0 2487 0 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 60 4.0 1.17 1.01 0.57 0.50 98 34 F D 11 n5 Q 4 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 867 913 1 1583 1583 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft .) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 313 108 171 1110 15% Q NBL 1045 362 428 800 54% Q NBT 2050 492 783 800 98% Yes SBT 2487 863 1012 350 289% Yes SBR 913 634 743 350 212% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \SULL1WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 3, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Q o Si o o a v o p 0 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 195 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 223 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 13 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.63 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 35 Level of Service D 0 0 0 Split 4 4 13 4.0 595 747 2 3167 3167 0.91 1.00 34 D 0 0 2 3539 3539 8 Yes 14 4.0 296 345 2 3725 3725 Split 8 Yes 14 4.0 0.84 1.00 43 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 134% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 232 258 1 1583 1583 1.02 1.00 69 F 578 661 2 3540 3540 5 19 4.0 1.17 1.11 134 F 1388 1619 2 3725 3725 Prot 2 Yes 58 4.0 0.79 0.83 13 B 0 0 2522 0 0 2942 0 0 2 3725 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 47 4.0 4.0 1.79 Error Error F IWQ 2 5 6 4 • 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 146 162 1 1583 1583 0.19 1.00 5 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 223 74 101 1050 10% EBR 747 251 345 1050 33% WBT 345 117 168 1120 15% sa WBR 258 179 252 1120 23% NBL 661 229 278 350 79% Q NBT 1619 405 631 350 180% Yes Q SBT 2942 1021 1207 660 183% Yes SBR 162 36 43 660 7% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL1 WWO.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -10 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI1WWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -4 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 1 (1999) Traffic With Project, Without Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 196 284 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 178 128 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 136 132 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 25.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 5 6 7 8 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 25.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 410 911 0.503 0.450 8.4 B 7.2 B T 1676 3725 0.187 0.450 6.4 B WB TR 1571 3491 0.215 0.450 6.5 B 6.5 B SB L 1593 3539 0.092 0.450 6.1 B 6.3 B R 712 1583 0.195 0.450 6.4 B Intersection Delay = 6.8 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.349 1999 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C Mission & Pines September 4. 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary El II III ID [3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Q Volume (vph.) 207 219 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 145 403 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3614 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3614 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 13 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.82 0.83 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 50 39 Level of Service E D 55 166 255 0 194 298 0 1 1 1765 1863 1765 1863 Prot 2 5 15 22 4.0 4.0 0.92 0.84 1.00 1.00 61 41 F E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 82% Intersection Delay: 26.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 350 389 1 1583 1583 0.70 1.00 16 C 31 32 1 1770 1770 7 8 4.0 0.36 1.00 36 D 1069 1273 2 3681 3681 Prot 4 Yes 46 4.0 0.80 1.00 21 C 95 410 1317 0 440 1677 0 2 2 3536 3651 3536 3651 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 57 4.0 4.0 0.78 0.85 0.95 1.06 34 18 D C Q Q 217 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 145 98 145 1060 14% EBT 403 136 202 1060 19% 0 WBL 194 133 180 1070 17% WBT 298 199 277 1070 26% la WBR 389 175 350 1070 33% NBL 32 21 27 600 5% a NBT 1273 384 565 600 94% L SBL 440 146 184 470 39% SBT 1677 506 710 470 151% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service 00000000 Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 333 340 1 1770 1770 0 707 0 815 0 2 3167 3167 Split 4 4 29 4.0 0.74 1.00 30 D 29 4.0 0.99 1.00 50 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 26.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1644 2015 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 58 4.0 1.00 0.58 26 D 237 0 0 169 1206 172 1292 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 4.0 0.97 1.04 79 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 71 4.0 0.51 0.56 4 A 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 340 216 303 1050 29% Q EBR 815 281 368 1050 35% Q NBT 2015 699 857 470 182% Yes SBL 172 118 151 760 20% Q SBT 1292 359 502 760 66% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 1961491TRAFFICIPINE1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 Perm is EBR 0 0 0 ti WBL WBT 212 1 0 229 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 26 26 4.0 0.56 1.00 27 D 4.0 WBR Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 80% Intersection Delay: 20.7 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 11 NBL NBT 606 1074 671 1213 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 8 4 NBR 114 123 1 1583 1583 30 74 4.0 4.0 0.70 0.46 0.08 0.86 0.39 0.95 23 2 0 C A A SBL 0 0 0 18 1 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Q SBT 1181 1494 0 2 0 3670 3670 Perm 7 Yes 44 4.0 0.99 0.86 36 SBR 143 Fic 1111 1 s8, Orr- Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 229 140 257 1110 23% NBL NBT 671 1213 193 155 260 243 760 760 34% 32% NBR 123 4 5 760 1% SBT 1494 514 654 140 467% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID000MENT\961491TRAFFIC\PINE l OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 55 0 0 © ! tit E la El EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 15 271 192 48 133 141 1016 127 252 204 86 117 150 1189 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1743 1583 1770 1785 1583 1770 3725 1485 1583 1127 1785 1583 1770 3725 Perm Perm Prot 4 4 5 2 Yes 24 24 21 62 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.41 0.41 0.86 0.23 0.23 0.47 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.29 0.35 26 15 47 25 17 37 3 D B E C C D A A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 62% Intersection Delay: 14.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines NBR 74 87 SBL SBT 106 796 113 915 1 1 2 1583 1770 3711 1583 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 14 55 4.0 4.0 0.09 0.58 0.47 0.40 1.00 1.00 3 35 12 A D B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 23 0 0 Lane Group EBT Lane Group Volume 127 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 76 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 121 Link Length (ft.) 1050 of Link Used 12% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBR 252 120 203 1050 19% WBL 204 136 211 1110 19% WBT 86 49 76 1110 WBR 117 56 88 1110 7% 8% 11 NBL NBT 150 1189 89 126 116 207 140 140 83% 148% Yes NBR 87 11 14 140 10% SBL 113 74 100 1250 8% Q SBT 915 202 296 1250 24% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized. Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1OWE.HCC Pace I Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/4/97 Other Information Phase 1 (1999) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE' s Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 980 5 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 102 734 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 5 0 119 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t f ) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsianalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1OWE.HCO Pace Worksheet for TWSC Intersection. Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 518 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 757 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 757 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.82 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1037 476 476 0.75 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1914 83 0.75 62 G 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1914 63 0.75 0.75 0.75 47 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 47 > WB T 0 62 > 465 11.2 1.4 C 11.2 WB R 138 757 > SB L 118 476 10.0 1.0 C 1.2 Intersection Delay = 1.2 sec /veh Trent Ave. & Pines September 11. 199^ Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 4 4 1 1770 1770 EBT 865 1009 2 3725 3725 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 25 4.0 4.0 0.04 0.98 0.85 0.85 23 37 C D Q EBR 349 388 1 1583 1583 0.43 0.85 4 A r; WBL 353 392 1 1770 1770 sa WBT WBR 534 13 638 0 2 0 3714 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 20 37 4.0 4.0 1.04 0.40 0.85 0.85 69 10 F B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 34.0 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines NBL 453 503 1 1770 1770 2 Yes 27 4.0 0.95 0.85 37 D NBT NBR 42 395 486 0 1 0 1611 1611 Split 2 Yes 27 4.0 1.01 0.85 51 E Q SBL SBT 21 38 0 74 0 1 1622 1622 Split 6 6 8 8 4.0 4.0 0.73 0.85 39 D Z 6 MI IN v o Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 8 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 4 2 2 2000 0% EBT 1009 278 364 2000 18% EBR 388 81 118 2000 6% WBL 392 217 293 2290 13% WBT 638 122 179 2290 8% NBL 503 273 377 1321 29% NBT 486 270 365 1321 28% Q SBT 74 40 93 1559 6% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC,TREN 1 OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page I Trent Ave. & Pines September 4. 199- Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary— Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 4 4 EBT 865 1009 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 26 4.0 4.0 0.04 0.94 0.85 0.85 23 29 C D Q EBR 349 388 1 1583 1583 0.85 0.85 27 D Q WBL 353 392 1 1770 1770 WBT 534 638 2 3714 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 21 39 4.0 4.0 0.98 0.38 0.85 0.85 51 10 E B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- NB -SB, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 95% Intersection Delay: 26.8 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines is WBR 13 0 0 NBL 453 503 1 1770 1425 Q NBT 42 395 486 0 1 0 1611 1611 Perm 2 NBR 33 4.0 0.94 0.80 0.85 0.85 34 20 D C SBL 21 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Q SBT 38 74 1 1622 1042 Perm 2 33 4.0 0.19 0.85 11 B SBR 8 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 4 2 2 2000 0% EBT 1009 273 364 2000 18% EBR 388 203 280 2000 14% Q WBL 392 216 293 2290 13% WBT 638 117 171 2290 7% NBL 503 269 377 1321 29% 0 NBT 486 241 365 1321 28% 0 SBT 74 27 69 1559 4% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT\96149\TRAFFIC\TREN1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering. IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary-40 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service 4n —lo - LC, Q Q Q le 1111 v Q 3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 15 48 48 19 57 44 1797 33 107 2436 66 0 50 79 0 46 2097 0 111 3112 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 1650 1770 1654 1770 5577 1770 5510 1650 1421 1654 1770 5577 1770 5510 Perm Perm Prot Prot 1 6 7 4 3 8 Yes Yes 20 20 8 67 13 72 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.52 0.59 0.63 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.20 27 27 28 39 8 28 11 D D D D B D B Q 174 181 1 1770 1317 0.81 1.00 43 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 80% Intersection Delay: 12.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 280 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 181 120 204 1060 19% EBT 66 39 66 1060 6% WBL 50 29 57 1080 WBT 79 47 93 1080 5% 9% NBL 46 31 38 600 6% Q NBT 2097 279 395 600 66% SBL 111 72 87 500 17% Q SBT 3112 350 491 500 98% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\SULLIOWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 199, Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EBL Volume (vph.) 706 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 742 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3536 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3536 Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 25 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.95 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 45 Level of Service E EBT EBR 0 0 0 0 0 1 1583 1583 Split 4 4 25 4.0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 101% Intersection Delay: 28.5 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan WBR 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 1868 2001 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 55 4.0 1.03 0.79 39 D NBR 262 267 1 1583 1583 0.32 0.59 6 B 0 SBL SBT 584 1823 614 1953 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 20 4.0 1.02 1.22 72 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 75 4.0 0.73 0.00 1 A SBR 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 742 254 352 1050 34% 2001 694 842 500 168% Yes 267 614 1953 95 213 0 123 255 0 500 800 800 25% 32% 0% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULLIOWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 4. 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 Perm EBR 0 0 0 WBL 238 0 1 1770 1770 WBT 1 264 1 1779 1779 Split 5 5 12 12 4.0 0.83 1.00 47 E 4.0 WBR 0 0 0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 109% Intersection Delay: 55.1 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan NBL 881 955 2 3540 3540 v NBT 1744 1928 2 3725 3725 Prot 7 4 27 4.0 1.12 0.91 96 F 88 4.0 0.61 2.41 5 A NBR 0 0 0 Q SBL SBT 0 2194 0 2425 0 2 1 3725 1583 3725 1583 Perm 8 Yes 61 4.0 1.12 1.11 0.68 0.68 73 73 F F SBR 967 1018 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume 264 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 91 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 148 Link Length (ft.) 1110 of Link Used 13% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? NBL 955 331 394 800 49% NBT 1928 457 757 800 95% vs SBT 2425 841 986 350 282% Yes SBR 1018 707 828 350 237% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149'\TRAFFIC \SULL1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 5. 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 Perm rs EBR 0 0 0 r; is Q Q ES WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 71 0 0 254 897 0 0 1040 78 0 0 275 991 0 0 1149 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 3533 1583 3540 3725 3725 3533 1583 3540 3725 3725 Split Prot Perm 5 5 7 4 8 Yes 20 20 21 60 39 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.10 0.35 0.37 0.69 0.49 1.00 1.38 1.03 0.34 0.35 19 27 4 5 5 C D A A A Q SBR 330 347 1 1583 1583 Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 42% Intersection Delay: 7.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group WBL Lane Group Volume 78 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 17 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 40 Link Length (ft.) 1110 % of Link Used 4% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q NBL 275 76 100 800 13% NBT 991 75 99 800 12% Q SBT 1149 141 282 780 36% SBR 347 62 100 780 13% Svnchro 2.0 Report J : \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER 1 OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 Indiana & Evergreen September 5. 1 Q97 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary El EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 314 0 897 287 340 697 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 366 0 997 335 494 774 Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3462 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3462 1583 Left Turn Type Perm Prot Phase Number 4 3 8 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 48 60 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.87 1.00 0.13 0.67 0.63 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.94 Average Delay (s.) 39 36 3 17 5 Level of Service D D A C A es as Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 91% Intersection Delay: 21.2 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group EBT Lane Group Volume 366 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 100 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 161 Link Length (ft.) 970 % of Link Used 17% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? WBL WBT 997 335 553 29 723 39 1050 1050 69% 4% Q NBL 494 129 181 780 23% Q NBR 774 218 290 780 37% Synchro 2.0 Report 1: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER1OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 4. 199 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary 150 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 230 263 2 3540 3540 EBT 0 88 1 1637 1637 Prot 7 4 Yes 14 8 4.0 4.0 0.68 1.08 1.00 1.00 36 144 D F EBR 320 285 1 1583 1583 1.06 1.00 93 F rg WBL 431 493 2 3540 3540 3 15 4.0 1.16 1.00 133 F WBT 168 196 2 3725 3725 Prot 8 Yes 9 4.0 0.88 1.00 56 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 131% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan u WBR 160 178 1 1583 1583 1.02 1.00 92 F NBL 453 490 2 3539 3539 NBT 1318 1871 2 3696 3696 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 69 4.0 4.0 1.15 1.16 1.14 0.60 134 86 F F NBR 84 0 0 Q 4-D SBL SBT SBR 23 2500 214 28 3056 238 1 2 1 1761 3725 1583 1761 3725 1583 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 62 4.0 4.0 0.32 1.39 0.21 1.00 Error 1.00 36 Error 3 D F A 2 3 Pi NI • III III • Q 7 0 6 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 263 87 126 1050 12% EBT 88 61 85 1050 8% EBR 285 197 277 1050 26% WBL 493 171 229 1120 20% WBT 196 67 91 1120 8% sa WBR 178 123 165 1120 15% as NBL 490 170 207 350 59% Q NBT 1871 649 791 350 226% Yes SBL 28 18 22 660 3% SBT 3056 1061 1251 660 190% Yes SBR 238 52 64 660 10% Synchro 2.0 Report Inland Pacific Engineering. IPEC Page 4 J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL 1 OWE.SY4 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 5. 199 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary-- EBL EBT Volume (vph.) 351 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 369 0 Lanes 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3536 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3536 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.42 0.25 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 19 18 Level of Service C C EBR 187 200 2 3167 3167 WBL 0 0 0 WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 52% Intersection Delay: 13.9 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen NBL 0 0 0 Q NBT NBR SBL 800 0 398 939 0 406 4 1 1 7451 1583 1770 7451 1583 1770 Perm 6 5 Yes 28 29 57 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.40 0.71 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.92 16 13 8 C B B Q SBT 749 802 2 3725 3725 Prot 2 T16 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 0 0 0 ta Lane Group EBL Lane Group Volume 369 Queue Length 50% (ft) 85 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 133 Link Length (ft.) 1050 % of Link Used 13% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBR 200 44 67 1050 6% Q NBT 939 102 150 500 30% SBL 406 218 296 800 37% Q SBT 802 208 280 800 35% Synchro 2.0 Report J:` \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER 1 OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INMIlOWE.HCC Pace = Center For Microcomputers In Transportation_ University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Mirabeau Point Dr. (E -W) Indiana Ave. Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 12/13/96 Other Information Phase 1 (1999) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen I/C Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's (%) CV's ( %) PCE's Eastbound T R 1 2 0 N 9 203 .95 .95 0 1.10 Westbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 234 157 .95 .95 0 Northbound L T R 0 0 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 1 125 0 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t f ) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c INMI1OWE.HCO Page Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 206 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1089 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1089 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 411 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1031 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1031 Prob. of Queue -Free State: C.99 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 552 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 470 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 465 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) SB L 145 465 11.2 1.4 C SB R 0 1089 3.3 0.0 A EB L 10 1031 3.5 0.0 A Intersection Delay = 2.0 sec /veh 11.2 0.1 1999 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C T R F ►�-f i tJrNF -5 Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary JL±IE! o O o p o o LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 207 219 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 109 439 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3614 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3614 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 13 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.62 0.90 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 37 46 Level of Service D E 55 0 0 166 194 1 255 298 1 1765 1863 1765 1863 Prot 2 5 350 389 1 1583 1583 15 22 4.0 4.0 0.92 0.84 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 61 41 16 F E C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 84% Intersection Delay: 26.8 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 31 1101 32 1308 1 2 1770 3685 1770 3685 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 46 4.0 4.0 0.36 0.83 1.00 1.00 36 22 D C 95 410 1357 0 440 1721 0 2 2 3536 3651 3536 3651 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 57 4.0 4.0 0.78 0.87 0.96 1.05 34 19 D C 1; 2 1 3 6 Q 4 • 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 217 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 109 72 107 1060 10% EBT 439 149 220 1060 21% 1 WBL 194 133 180 1070 17% WBT 298 199 277 1070 26% is WBR 389 175 350 1070 33% NBL 32 21 27 600 5% Q NBT 1308 401 579 600 97% SBL 440 146 184 470 39% SBT 1721 527 727 470 155% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J : \DOCUM ENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE 1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary ljal O D O O El O D Q 0 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 361 0 707 0 0 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 368 0 815 0 0 0 0 Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 Left Turn Type Split Perm Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 29 29 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.80 0.99 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 33 50 Level of Service D E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 101% Intersection Delay: 28.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 1676 2050 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 58 4.0 1.02 0.58 30 D 237 0 0 169 1246 172 1335 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 4.0 0.97 1.04 79 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 71 4.0 0.53 0.62 4 A 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? es EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT 368 238 332 1050 32% 815 281 368 1050 35% 2050 711 871 470 185% Yes 172 1335 118 395 150 526 760 760 20% 69% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149\TRAFFIC\PINE1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EI 111 MI El El ii ic H© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 212 1 0 0 229 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 26 26 4.0 0.56 1.00 27 D 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 82% Intersection Delay: 27.9 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 606 1074 0 671 1213 0 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 8 4 174 187 1 1583 1583 30 74 4.0 4.0 0.70 0.46 0.13 0.87 0.38 0.96 23 2 0 C A A 0 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1221 1574 2 3658 3658 Perm 7 Yes 44 4.0 1.05 0.93 53 E 173 0 0 Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume 229 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 140 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 Link Length (ft) 1110 % of Link Used 23% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? NBL NBT 671 1213 193 152 259 236 760 760 34% 31% NBR 187 7 9 760 1% Q SBT 1574 546 686 140 490% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE1 WWE.SY4 Page 3 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service JL± o 0 0 o p o o p o p EBL EBT EBR WBL 55 0 0 15 125 1 1745 1445 Perm 4 25 4.0 0.39 1.00 26 D 271 254 1 1583 1583 237 252 1 1770 1166 0.40 0.98 1.00 1.00 15 68 B F WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 48 102 1 1757 1757 Perm 4 25 4.0 0.26 1.00 25 C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 66% Intersection Delay: 16.3 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines 167 139 1 1583 1583 0.27 1.00 17 C 141 1016 150 1202 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 21 61 4.0 4.0 0.47 0.56 1.29 0.39 37 4 D A 124 132 1 1583 1583 0.14 0.44 3 A 106 796 113 915 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 14 54 4.0 4.0 0.58 0.48 1.00 1.00 35 12 D B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 23 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 125 74 118 1050 11% EBR 254 119 201 1050 19% WBL 252 174 254 1110 23% WBT 102 58 87 1110 8% Q WBR 139 67 102 1110 9% NBL 150 89 116 140 83% NBT 1202 139 228 140 163% Yes NBR 132 18 24 140 17% [1 SBL 113 74 100 1250 8% Q SBT 915 206 303 1250 24% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE1WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1WWE.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/4/97 Other Information Phase 1 (1996) Traffic With Project, Wi th Evergreen Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 980 5 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 135 734 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 5 0 160 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Vehicle Maneuver Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) Follow -up Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL1WWE.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 518 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 757 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 757 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.76 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1037 476 476 0.67 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1950 79 0.67 53 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1950 60 0.67 0.67 0.67 40 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95, Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 6 40 > WB T 0 53 > 484 12.2 2.0 C 12.2 WB R 185 757 > SB L 156 476 11.2 1.5 C Intersection Delay = 1.7 sec /veh 1.7 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary al © © © © © © © © II El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 4 865 373 363 534 13 473 42 416 21 38 8 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 4 1009 414 403 638 0 526 509 0 0 74 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1609 1622 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1609 1622 Left Tum Type Prot Prot Split Split Phase Number 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 8 25 20 37 27 27 8 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.04 0.98 0.45 1.07 0.40 0.99 1.05 0.73 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 23 37 4 80 10 46 66 39 Level of Service CD A F B E F D Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 101% Intersection Delay: 38.7 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft .) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 4 2 2 2000 0% EBT 1009 278 363 2000 18% EBR 414 89 129 2000 6% WBL 403 223 301 2290 13% WBT 638 122 178 2290 8% NBL 526 290 392 1321 30% NBT 509 282 380 1321 29% SBT 74 40 93 1559 6% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC\TREN 1 W WE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary-11 ©EI © ©Q 21 © A LtIJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 15 48 48 19 57 44 1803 33 107 2442 280 66 0 50 79 0 46 2104 0 111 3119 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1650 1770 1654 1770 5577 1770 5510 1650 1421 1654 1770 5577 1770 5510 Perm Perm Prot Prot 1 6 7 4 3 8 Yes Yes 20 20 8 67 13 72 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.81 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.52 0.59 0.63 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.20 43 27 27 28 39 8 28 11 E D D D D B D B Volume (vph.) 174 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 181 Lanes 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1317 Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 80% Intersection Delay: 12.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group EBL Lane Group Volume 181 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 120 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 204 Link Length (ft.) 1060 of Link Used 19% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? r; EBT WBL WBT 66 50 79 39 29 47 66 57 93 1060 1080 1080 6% 5% 9% NBL 46 31 38 600 6% Q NBT 2104 281 398 600 66% SBL 111 72 87 500 17% SBT 3119 350 502 500 100% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering. IPEC Page I EB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary— B7P Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 706 742 2 3536 3536 EBT 0 0 0 Split 4 4 25 25 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 45 E EBR 0 0 1 1583 1583 EJLJIJH WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 2 3725 3725 Perm Perm 6 Yes 55 4.0 1.04 0.79 40 D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 101% Intersection Delay: 28.9 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan NBR 262 267 1 1583 1583 0.32 0.58 6 B SBL SBT 584 1829 614 1960 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 20 4.0 1.02 1.20 72 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 75 4.0 0.73 0.00 1 A SBR 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 742 254 352 1050 34% Q NBT 2008 697 845 500 169% Yes NBR 267 94 122 500 24% SBL 614 213 255 800 32% Q SBT 1960 0 0 800 0% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULLI WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service [2:1 El O D D O Q D D LEBJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 238 1 0 881 1750 0 0 0 0 0 264 0 955 1934 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1770 1779 3540 3725 1770 1779 3540 3725 Perm Split Prot 5 5 7 4 12 12 27 88 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.83 1.12 0.61 1.00 0.91 2.43 47 96 5 E F A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 110% Intersection Delay: 55.7 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 0 0 i 5 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 2200 2432 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 61 4.0 1.13 0.69 74 F 967 1018 1 1583 1583 1.11 0.68 73 F Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume 264 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 91 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 148 Link Length (ft.) 1110 % of Link Used 13% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? NBL 955 331 393 800 49% NBT 1934 459 764 800 96% 11 SBT 2432 844 989 350 283% Yes Yes cut SBR 1018 707 828 350 237% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT\96149\TRAFF1C\SULL1WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary El II 11 21 in 13 EBL EBT EBR WBL Volume (vph.) 230 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 263 90 Lanes 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1639 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1639 Left Tum Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 14 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.68 1.10 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 36 156 Level of Service D F 326 290 1 1583 1583 431 493 2 3540 3540 3 15 4.0 1.08 1.16 1.00 1.00 100 133 F F WBT WBR 168 196 2 3725 3725 Prot 8 Yes 9 4.0 0.88 1.00 56 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 132% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 160 178 1 1583 1583 1.02 1.00 92 F NBL NBT NBR SBL 459 1318 340 2028 2 2 3539 3696 3539 3696 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 69 4.0 4.0 0.80 1.25 1.13 Error 44 Error E F 84 0 0 23 28 1 1761 1761 SBT SBR 2500 3056 2 3725 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 62 4.0 1.39 Error Error F 8 4.0 0.32 1.00 36 D Iuu at 2 5 Ell 6 3 MO L.! 7 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 214 238 1 1583 1583 0.21 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 263 87 126 1050 12% EBT 90 62 87 1050 8% EBR 290 201 281 1050 27% WBL 493 171 229 1120 20% WBT 196 67 91 1120 8% is WBR 178 123 165 1120 15% NBL 340 114 143 350 41% NBT 2028 704 857 350 245% Yes SBL 28 18 22 660 3% Q SBT 3056 1061 1251 660 190% Yes SBR 238 52 64 660 10% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL 1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -10 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI1WWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -4 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 1 (1999) Traffic With Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 82 203 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 234 351 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 305 45 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left * Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 25.OA Green 25.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 223 495 0.386 0.450 7.7 B 6.6 B T 1676 3725 0.134 0.450 6.2 B WB TR 1526 3390 0.423 0.450 7 4 B 7.4 B SB L 1593 3539 0.208 0.450 6 5 B 6.4 B R 712 1583 0.066 0.450 6 0 B Intersection Delay = 6.9 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B = 0.316 Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) Indiana & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings SLigrlirnary EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 320 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 373 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 Left Turn Type Perm Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.89 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 41 Level of Service E 0 0 1 1583 1583 897 293 528 799 997 342 734 888 1 2 2 1 1770 3725 3476 1583 1770 3725 3476 1583 Prot 3 8 2 48 60 20 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.13 0.99 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.86 36 3 41 6 D A E B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 26.3 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen ma 3 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft . ) Link Length (ft .) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 373 102 164 970 17% WBL 997 553 722 1050 69% WBT 342 30 40 1050 4% NBL 734 203 262 780 34% NBR 888 250 323 780 41% Synchro 2.0 Report 1: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \EVER1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 423 445 2 3540 3540 EBT 0 187 0 200 0 2 3167 3167 r; sa EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Split 4 4 23 23 4.0 4.0 0.50 1.00 20 C 0.25 1.00 18 C Perm Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 59% Intersection Delay: 14.9 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen NBL 0 0 0 Q NBT NBR 876 1028 4 7451 7451 Perm 6 Yes 28 4.0 0.44 1.00 17 C 0 0 1 1583 1583 3 El El SBL SBT SBR 451 844 0 460 904 0 1 2 0 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 29 4.0 0.80 0.58 16 C 2 IN 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 57 4.0 0.36 2.06 9 B Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 445 105 163 1050 16% Q EBR 200 44 66 1050 6% NBT 1028 113 165 500 33% SBL 460 250 333 800 42% SBT 904 237 316 800 40% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\961491TRAFFIC\EVER 1 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service El E El El rs EBL EBT EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 0 0 A WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 71 78 2 3533 3533 0 0 0 Split 5 5 20 20 4.0 4.0 0.10 1.00 19 C Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 47% Intersection Delay: 7.5 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen 0 0 1 1583 1583 254 1045 275 1155 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 7 4 21 4.0 0.35 1.35 27 D 60 4.0 0.44 1.08 4 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1188 1313 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 39 4.0 0.78 0.34 7 B 356 375 1 1583 1583 0.53 0.34 5 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft .) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? ra WBL 78 17 40 1110 4% NBL 275 76 99 800 12% Q NBT 1155 94 122 800 15% Q SBT 1313 195 460 780 59% SBR 375 71 114 780 15% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\EVERI WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 2004 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- —/50 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 230 240 1 1770 1770 17 4.0 0.97 1.00 68 F EBT 241 332 2 3617 3617 Prot 1 Yes 17 4.0 0.66 1.00 33 D 0 EBR 62 0 0 r; WBL 183 203 1 1770 1770 WBT 284 316 1 1863 1863 Prot 2 5 Yes 19 19 4.0 4.0 0.72 1.06 1.00 1.00 36 92 D F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 97% Intersection Delay: 38.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines sa WBR 418 464 1 1583 1583 0.92 1.00 39 D A NBL NBT 34 1223 35 1451 1 2 1770 3685 1770 3685 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 45 4.0 4.0 0.40 0.94 1.00 1.00 37 29 D D NBR 103 0 0 © ©a SBL SBT SBR 458 1509 247 491 1920 0 2 2 0 3540 3651 3540 3651 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 56 4.0 4.0 0.87 0.99 0.92 1.08 38 33 D D Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 240 165 236 1060 22% EBT 332 109 161 1060 15% WBL 203 133 183 1070 17% WBT 316 219 288 1070 27% sa WBR 464 309 423 1070 40% NBL 35 23 29 600 5% Q NBT 1451 481 636 600 106% Yes SBL 491 166 205 470 44% Q SBT 1920 662 804 470 171% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \PINE2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - al EBL EBT Volume (vph.) 375 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 872 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1689 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1689 Left Tum Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 27 27 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.05 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 72 Level of Service F rm E±JIJ NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 838 428 1 1583 1583 1.13 1.00 113 F Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 111% Intersection Delay: 54.1 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines A NBT NBR 1865 2293 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 1.10 0.57 60 E 275 0 0 LHJ SBL SBT SBR 194 1369 0 198 1467 0 1 2 0 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 4.0 1.12 0.98 133 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 73 4.0 0.56 1.15 7 B Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EJ LS Q EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT 872 302 387 1050 37% 428 2293 297 796 380 964 1050 470 36% 205% Yes 198 137 171 760 23% 1467 431 599 760 79% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC\PINE2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Ei © El Q Q © © ID 13 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 246 1 0 0 266 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 24 24 4.0 0.71 1.00 32 D 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection VIC Ratio: 91% Intersection Delay: 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 686 1226 115 0 760 1384 124 0 2 2 1 3540 3725 1583 3540 3725 1583 Prot 8 4 26 76 4.0 4.0 0.93 0.51 0.08 0.97 0.32 0.93 41 2 0 E A A 0 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1341 1699 2 3666 3666 Perm 7 Yes 50 4.0 0.99 0.84 31 D 164 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream'? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 266 171 296 1110 27% Q NBL NBT 760 1384 255 160 319 260 760 760 42% 34% NBR 124 4 5 760 1% SBT 1699 579 735 140 525% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96 149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EJ! I a LJJH © LiiJ El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 63 0 0 18 146 1 1736 1406 Perm 4 325 304 1 1583 1583 204 217 1 1770 1056 56 115 1 1758 1758 Perm 4 188 158 1 1583 1583 24 24 4.0 4.0 0.49 0.49 0.98 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28 16 70 26 18 D C F D C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 70% Intersection Delay: 16.0 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 163 1155 173 1352 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 21 62 4.0 4.0 0.54 0.62 1.25 0.37 37 4 D A 65 76 1 1583 1583 0.08 0.41 3 A 107 912 114 1049 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 14 55 4.0 4.0 0.59 0.54 1.00 1.00 35 12 D B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 27 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 146 89 139 1050 13% A EBR 304 151 265 1050 25% Q WBL 217 149 218 1110 20% WBT 115 67 101 1110 9% sa WBR 158 79 121 1110 11% NBL 173 104 136 140 97% NBT 1352 178 301 140 215% Yes NBR 76 10 13 140 9% [=9 SBL 114 75 99 1250 8% Q SBT 1049 243 357 1250 29% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT ■96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL2OWE.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/4/97 Other Information Phase 2 (2004) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU /RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE' s Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 1111 6 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 103 831 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 6 0 120 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) Follow -up Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL2OWE.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 588 697 697 0.80 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1175 401 401 0.70 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 2155 60 0.70 42 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 2155 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 44 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.70 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.70 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.70 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 31 Movement WB L WB T WB R SB L Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) 7 0 139 31 > 42 > 343 697 > 119 401 18.1 2.1 C 12.7 1.3 C Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec /veh 18.1 1.4 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary.= Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL 5 6 1 1770 1770 7 8 4.0 0.05 0.85 23 C 1E1 EBT 1003 1170 2 3725 3725 Prot 4 Yes 25 4.0 1.14 0.85 96 F EBR 395 439 1 1583 1583 0.48 0.85 4 A WBL 399 443 1 WBT 619 740 2 1770 3714 1770 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 20 37 4.0 4.0 1.18 0.47 0.85 0.85 132 11 F B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 113% Intersection Delay: 70.7 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines WBR 15 0 0 NBL 503 559 1 1770 1770 2 Yes 27 4.0 1.05 0.85 64 F NBT 49 556 1 1611 1611 Split 2 Yes 27 4.0 1.15 0.85 110 F NBR 452 0 0 3 SBL 25 0 0 E1 SBT 44 88 1 1618 1618 Split 6 6 8 8 4.0 0.87 0.85 59 E 4.0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 10 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 6 3 4 2000 0% EBT 1170 325 416 2000 21% EBR 439 96 138 2000 7% r; WBL 443 246 326 2290 14% WBT 740 147 213 2290 9'c /m NBL 559 310 413 1321 31% NBT 556 308 411 1321 31% SBT 88 48 106 1559 7% Synchro 2.0 Report J:1 DOCUMENT l961491TRAFFICITREN2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- ., Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service El El EBL EBT EBR 202 210 1 1770 1250 18 85 1 1647 1647 Perm 1 20 4.0 0.99 0.30 1.00 1.00 76 28 F D 63 0 0 sa WBL WBT WBR 55 57 1 1770 1272 22 88 1 1656 1656 Perm 6 20 4.0 0.26 0.31 1.00 1.00 28 28 D D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51°/0), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 89% Intersection Delay: 14.6 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan 3 NBL NBT NBR 62 51 1906 0 53 2230 0 1 3 1770 5571 1770 5571 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 67 4.0 4.0 0.60 0.63 1.00 1.00 43 8 E B 40 0 0 LJ1IJ SBL SBT SBR 124 2627 129 3386 1 3 1770 5504 1770 5504 Prot 3 8 Yes 13 72 4.0 4.0 0.73 0.89 0.73 1.12 34 13 D B UJ 4 6 ±111 7 Lit e Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 210 145 229 1060 22% [1 EBT 85 51 84 1060 8% ra WBL WBT 57 88 34 53 65 102 1080 1080 6% 9% NBL 53 36 44 600 7% NBT 2230 309 441 600 74% SBL 129 85 102 500 20% 11 SBT 3386 391 920 500 184% Yes 328 0 0 D� P4Cv M E Ni74T,pN . ( -4 o WS R . 7 - 0 iz- /A .7 4h or So Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \SULL2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering. IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Leff Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service la ijE II El Id El la © LHJ ej EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 741 779 2 3536 3536 0 0 0 0 0 1 1583 1583 Split 4 4 23 23 4.0 4.0 1.10 1.00 92 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 107% Intersection Delay: 39.7 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 2141 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 57 4.0 1.06 0.81 50 E 296 302 1 1583 1583 610 1980 641 2121 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 5 2 20 77 4.0 4.0 0.35 1.07 0.77 0.59 1.19 0.00 6 87 1 B F A Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL 779 270 367 1050 35% NBT 2141 743 895 500 179% Yes NBR 302 107 139 500 28% SBL 641 222 265 800 33% SBT 2121 0 789 800 99% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Ei 0 151 El 0 as Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 266 1 0 0 295 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 11 11 4.0 4.0 1.04 1.00 90 F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 117% Intersection Delay: 74.3 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 933 1865 0 1012 2061 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 27 89 4.0 4.0 1.19 0.64 0.94 2.38 136 4 F A 0 0 0 OoO SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 5 114 7 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 2358 2606 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 62 4.0 1.19 0.66 108 F 967 1018 1 1583 1583 1.09 0.63 63 F Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 295 102 162 1110 15% as NBL 1012 351 415 800 52% 11 NBT 2061 493 811 800 101% Yes Q SBT 2606 904 1056 350 302% Yes SBR 1018 707 825 350 236% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_ © © © © © Q © Q © Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 230 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 263 88 Lanes 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1637 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1637 Left Tum Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 14 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.68 1.08 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 36 144 Level of Service D F 320 285 1 1583 1583 1.06 1.00 93 F 431 168 493 196 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 3 8 Yes 15 9 4.0 4.0 1.16 0.88 1.00 1.00 133 56 F E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 143% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 1 T 170 189 1 1583 1583 1.09 1.00 117 F 453 1439 358 2158 2 2 3539 3699 3539 3699 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 69 4.0 4.0 0.84 1.33 1.12 Error 46 Error E F 2 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 84 0 0 23 28 1 1761 1761 2763 3377 2 3725 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 62 4.0 1.54 Error Error F 8 4.0 0.32 1.00 36 D 214 238 1 1583 1583 0.21 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft) Vo of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL 263 87 126 1050 12% EBT 88 61 85 1050 8% EBR 285 197 277 1050 26% WBL 493 171 229 1120 20% WBT 196 67 90 1120 8% Q WBR 189 131 175 1120 16% NBL 358 121 150 350 43% Q NBT 2158 749 907 350 259% Yes SBL 28 18 22 660 3% SBT 3377 1172 1373 660 208% Yes SBR 238 52 63 660 10% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC\SULL2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -10 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI2OWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 1 -13 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 2 (2004) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 9 205 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 236 157 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 125 1 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left * Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 25.OA Green 25.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 341 758 0.026 0.450 5.9 B 6.2 B T 1676 3725 0.135 0.450 6.2 B WB TR 1576 3502 0.275 0.450 6.7 B 6.7 B SB L 1593 3539 0.085 0.450 6.1 B 6.1 B R 712 1583 0.001 0.450 5.9 B Intersection Delay = 6.5 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.180 Indiana & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary El El II El EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 314 0 897 287 342 699 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 366 0 997 335 495 777 Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3462 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3462 1583 Left Turn Type Perm Prot Phase Number 4 3 8 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 48 60 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.87 1.00 0.13 0.67 0.63 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.94 Average Delay (s.) 39 36 3 17 5 Level of Service D D A C A Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 91% Intersection Delay: 21.2 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen 412 3 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems a Lane Group EBT Lane Group Volume 366 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 100 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 161 Link Length (ft.) 970 % of Link Used 17% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 1; WBL 997 553 723 1050 69% WBT 335 29 39 1050 4% Q NBL 495 129 182 780 23% NBR 777 219 291 780 37% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \EVER2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_ 000000000 11 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 351 0 240 0 0 0 0 834 0 400 765 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 381 0 245 0 0 0 0 979 0 408 820 0 Lanes 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3526 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3526 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 23 23 28 29 57 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.43 0.31 0.42 0.71 0.33 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.90 Average Delay (s.) 19 19 17 13 8 Level of Service C C C B B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 53% Intersection Delay: 14.1 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen 5 T 6 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 381 245 979 408 820 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 88 55 107 218 210 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 136 83 157 297 282 Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 500 800 800 % of Link Used 13% 8% 31% 37% 35% es Q EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 1961491TRAFFIC \EVER2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary — 311 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service ©© ©©© © © © ©Q© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 2 3533 3533 Perm 0 0 288 897 0 0 1042 330 0 0 312 991 0 0 1152 347 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 1583 3540 3725 3725 1583 1583 3540 3725 3725 1583 Split Prot Perm 5 5 7 4 8 Yes 20 20 21 60 39 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.13 0.39 0.37 0.69 0.49 1.00 1.39 1.00 0.34 0.35 19 28 3 5 5 C D A A A Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 43% Intersection Delay: 7.5 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 96 312 991 1152 347 Queue Length 50% (ft) 21 86 73 141 62 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 48 113 96 284 100 Link Length (ft.) 1110 800 800 780 780 % of Link Used 4% 14% 12% 36% 13% Q WBL NBL NBT SBT SBR Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER2OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 2004 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EJEI 1 JL1J EBL EBT EBR Volume (vph.) 230 241 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 240 332 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3617 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 16 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.04 0.54 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 93 30 Level of Service F D 62 0 0 WBL WBT WBR 183 284 203 316 1 1 1770 1863 1770 1863 Prot 2 5 Yes 16 20 4.0 4.0 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 54 70 E F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 102% Intersection Delay: 50.9 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 418 464 1 1583 1583 0.95 1.00 44 E NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 34 1323 35 1560 1 2 1770 3688 1770 3688 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 47 4.0 4.0 0.40 0.96 1.00 1.00 37 31 D D 103 458 1680 0 491 2108 0 2 2 3540 3658 3540 3658 Prot 3 8 Yes 17 56 4.0 4.0 0.99 1.09 1.03 0.81 62 60 F E Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 247 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 240 166 236 1060 22% EBT 332 105 156 1060 15% r; WBL 203 138 185 1070 17% WBT 316 219 288 1070 27% is WBR 464 314 423 1070 40% NBL 35 23 29 600 5% NBT 1560 525 679 600 113% Yes SBL 491 170 204 470 43% Q SBT 2108 732 877 470 187% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - ® ©© ©a© ©111 :1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 421 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 921 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1693 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1693 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 27 27 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.11 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 96 Level of Service F 838 428 1 1583 1583 1.13 1.00 113 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 114% Intersection Delay: 75.3 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1965 2400 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 1.15 1.32 101 F 275 194 1520 0 198 1629 0 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 73 4.0 4.0 1.12 0.62 0.96 1.49 132 9 F B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? © Q Q al Q EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT 921 319 407 1050 39% 428 297 379 1050 36% 2400 833 1005 470 214% Yes 198 137 169 760 22% 1629 513 699 760 92% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - 2.64 +Z6I Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL EBT EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm ©©©© LI!1LJ WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 246 1 0 0 266 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 22 22 4.0 0.79 1.00 37 D 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 98% Intersection Delay: 29.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 686 760 2 3540 3540 8 25 4.0 0.98 1.01 49 E 1226 1384 2 3725 3725 Prot 4 78 4.0 0.50 0.25 1 A 261 0 1492 281 0 1918 1 0 2 1583 3662 1583 3662 Perm 7 Yes 53 4.0 0.19 1.05 0.98 0.77 0 45 A E Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 206 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT 266 760 1384 281 1918 175 260 127 11 665 296 318 200 14 820 1110 760 760 760 140 27% 42% 26% 2% 586% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EA ©© ©© ©a© ©©©© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 63 0 0 7 28 4.0 18 216 1 1692 1692 Prot 4 Yes 20 4.0 0.51 1.00 25 C 325 234 1 1583 1583 0.51 1.00 21 C 397 56 422 120 1 1 1770 1753 1770 1753 Prot 3 8 Yes 28 20 4.0 4.0 0.95 0.40 1.00 1.00 51 29 E D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 86% Intersection Delay: 30.8 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines 188 153 1 1583 1583 0.40 1.00 23 C NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 163 1155 173 1369 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 42 4.0 4.0 0.81 0.94 1.20 0.87 53 29 E D 161 171 1 1583 1583 0.17 0.14 1 A 107 912 114 1049 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 10 37 4.0 4.0 0.92 0.83 1.00 1.00 75 27 F D Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 27 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 216 128 204 1050 19% EBR 234 129 218 1050 21% Q WBL 422 288 404 1110 36% WBT 120 74 105 1110 9% WBR 153 85 123 1110 11% NBL 173 116 150 140 107% Yes NBT 1369 446 594 140 424% Yes NBR 171 18 23 140 16% SBL 114 78 102 1250 8% SBT 1049 335 472 1250 38% Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96 1 49 \TRAFFIC \PINE2 W WE. SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL2WWE.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 9/4/97 Other Information Phase 2 (2004) Traffic With Project, Wi th Evergreen Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU /RV's (o) CV's (%) PCE' s Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 1111 6 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 198 831 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 6 0 251 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) Follow -up Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL2WWE.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 588 697 697 0.58 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1175 401 401 0.43 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 2255 52 0.43 22 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 2255 38 0.43 0.43 0.43 16 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 7 16 > WB T 0 22 > 348 48.5 7.1 F 48.5 WB R 290 697 > SB L 229 401 20.3 3.4 D 3.9 Intersection Delay = 6.9 sec /veh Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - Q © © G E] 1121 El El ID CE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 5 1003 461 428 619 15 568 49 518 25 44 10 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 6 1170 512 476 740 0 631 630 0 0 88 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1608 1618 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1608 1618 Left Tum Type Prot Prot Split Split Phase Number 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 8 23 19 34 30 30 8 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.05 1.26 0.55 1.34 0.51 1.06 1.16 0.87 Platoon Factor 0.85 Error 0.85 Error 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 23 Error 4 Error 12 63 113 59 Level of Service C F A F B F F E Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 121% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines uZ 6 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group EBL EBT Lane Group Volume 6 1170 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 3 325 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 4 413 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 % of Link Used 0% 21% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBR 512 115 169 2000 8% G WBL 476 264 349 2290 15% WBT 740 156 225 2290 10% NBL 631 350 460 1321 35% NBT 630 350 458 1321 35% SBT 88 48 106 1559 7% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT1961491TRAFFIC \TREN2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary . EJEIE GJLtJLHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 202 18 63 55 22 62 51 1912 40 124 2633 328 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 210 85 0 57 88 0 53 2237 0 129 3393 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1647 1770 1656 1770 5571 1770 5504 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1250 1647 1272 1656 1770 5571 1770 5504 Left Tum Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Phase Number 1 6 7 4 3 8 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 20 20 8 67 13 72 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.99 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.60 0.63 0.73 0.89 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.11 Average Delay (s.) 76 28 28 28 43 8 34 13 Level of Service F D D D E B D B �j v./ Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 89% Intersection Delay: 14.6 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan 1 3 1 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems _sv Lane Group Lane Group Volume 210 85 57 88 53 2237 129 3393 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 145 51 34 53 36 311 85 392 Queue Length 95% (ft) 229 84 65 102 43 442 102 922 Link Length (ft.) 1060 1060 1080 1080 600 600 500 500 % of Link Used 22% 8% 6% 9% 7% 74% 20% 184% Blocks Upstream? Yes IS al EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary � O o o El:11E1111E13 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 741 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 779 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3536 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3536 1583 Left Turn Type Split Perm Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.10 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 92 Level of Service F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 107% Intersection Delay: 40.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 2004 2147 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 57 4.0 1.07 0.81 51 E 296 302 1 1583 1583 0.35 0.59 6 B 610 1986 641 2128 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 5 2 20 4.0 1.07 1.19 87 F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 77 4.0 0.77 0.00 1 A 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 779 270 367 1050 35% 2147 745 897 500 179% Yes 302 641 2128 107 222 0 139 265 791 500 800 800 28% 33% 99% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 1 1 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service O O o 0 0 0 JLJLHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 266 1 0 0 295 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 11 4.0 11 4.0 1.04 1.00 90 F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 118% Intersection Delay: 75.0 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 933 1871 0 1012 2068 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 27 89 4.0 4.0 1.19 0.65 0.94 2.40 136 4 F A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 2363 2612 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 62 4.0 1.19 0.67 110 F 967 1018 1 1583 1583 1.09 0.63 63 F Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q Q WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR 295 102 162 1110 15% 1012 351 415 800 52% 2068 495 814 800 102% Yes 2612 906 1058 350 302% Yes 1018 706 824 350 235% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96 149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 2 6 Indiana & Sullivan September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary — / ; EBL EBT EBR WBL Volume (vph.) 230 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 263 90 Lanes 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1639 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1639 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 14 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.68 1.10 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 36 156 Level of Service D F 326 290 1 1583 1583 431 493 2 3540 3540 3 15 4.0 1.08 1.16 1.00 1.00 100 133 F F WBT WBR 168 196 2 3725 3725 Prot 8 Yes 9 4.0 0.88 1.00 56 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 141% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 170 189 1 1583 1583 1.09 1.00 117 F NBL NBT NBR 459 1439 84 510 2013 0 2 2 0 3539 3699 3539 3699 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 69 4.0 4.0 1.20 0.82 Error 0.65 Error 8 F B a SBL SBT SBR 23 2763 28 3377 1 2 1761 3725 1761 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 62 4.0 4.0 0.32 1.54 1.00 Error 36 Error D F �.Q Q 5 3 Q 7 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 214 238 1 1583 1583 0.21 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume 263 90 - 290 493 196 189 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 87 62 201 171 67 131 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 126 87 281 229 90 175 Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 1050 1120 1120 1120 % of Link Used 12% 8% 27% 20% 8% 16% Blocks Upstream? EJ Q © © Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Q Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 510 177 214 350 61% 2013 442 841 350 240% Yes 28 3377 18 1172 22 1373 660 660 3% 208% Yes 238 52 63 660 10% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -04 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI2WWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -4 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 2 (2004) Traffic With Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 195 205 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 236 678 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 844 193 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 2 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left * Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 20.OP Green 20.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 327 1770 0.627 0.185 18.5 C 10.9 B T 2120 3725 0.107 0.569 4.1 A WB TR 1121 3311 0.901 0.338 20.5 C 20.5 C SB L 1198 3539 0.764 0.338 14.5 B 13.8 B R 536 1583 0.379 0.338 10.8 B Intersection Delay = 16.0 sec /veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.789 Indiana & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings SufnTnary - al in r; [Ei E1 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 320 0 897 293 857 699 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 373 0 997 342 1124 777 Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3491 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3491 1583 Left Tum Type Perm Prot Phase Number 4 3 8 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 10 45 55 25 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.14 1.07 0.14 1.17 0.61 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.91 Average Delay (s.) 124 61 4 113 4 Level of Service F F A F A Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 111 Intersection Delay: 66.0 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 373 997 342 1124 777 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 103 553 36 312 204 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 164 722 49 395 258 Link Length (ft.) 970 1050 1050 780 780 % of Link Used 17% 69% 5% 51% 33% EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 i 1 1 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EJEIE ]LULHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 505 0 240 0 0 0 0 1076 0 612 1091 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 543 0 245 0 0 0 0 1263 0 624 1169 0 Lanes 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3529 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3529 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 23 23 28 29 57 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.62 0.31 0.54 1.08 0.46 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.31 Average Delay (s.) 21 19 18 70 11 Level of Service C C C F B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 76% Intersection Delay: 24.6 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 543 133 201 1050 19% EBR 245 55 80 1050 8% NBT 1263 145 207 500 41% SBL 624 346 438 800 55% SBT 1169 313 406 800 51% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC\EVER2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 4, 1 997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EBL EBT EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 0 0 ® © JHL1IJ El ka WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 87 96 2 3533 3533 0 0 0 Split 5 5 20 20 4.0 4.0 0.13 1.00 19 C Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 60% Intersection Delay: 20.3 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen 0 0 1 1583 1583 288 1293 312 1429 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 7 4 21 4.0 0.39 1.36 27 D 60 4.0 0.54 0.99 4 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1580 1746 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 39 4.0 1.04 0.44 36 D 505 532 1 1583 1583 0.75 0.41 9 B Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 11 Q WBL NBL NBT SBT SBR 96 21 48 1110 4% 312 86 110 800 14% 1429 114 343 800 43% 1746 485 599 780 77% 532 116 249 780 32% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT ■96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER2WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 1 1 1 1 Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - EJE! EIJH LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 230 241 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 240 332 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 438 3617 Left Turn Type P/P Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.97 0.54 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 58 30 Level of Service E D 62 0 0 183 284 203 316 1 1 1770 1863 438 1863 P/P 2 5 Yes 12 20 4.0 4.0 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 33 70 D F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 95% Intersection Delay: 34.6 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 418 464 1 1583 1583 0.92 1.00 39 D 34 1323 35 1560 1 2 1770 3688 1770 3688 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 50 4.0 4.0 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 37 23 D C 103 0 0 458 1680 491 2108 2 2 3540 3658 3540 3658 Prot 3 8 Yes 18 60 4.0 4.0 0.92 1.01 1.01 0.85 48 32 E D Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 247 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 240 160 236 1060 22% EBT 332 105 156 1060 15% WBL 203 108 185 1070 17% Kt.111`1.1 WBT 316 219 288 1070 27% WBR 464 309 423 1070 40% NBL 35 23 29 600 5% 11 NBT 1560 497 679 600 113% Yes Fr , wl; Tim Id4 - -1, 7=c1E;,.� SBL 491 168 204 470 43% 0 SBT 2108 731 877 470 187% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINE2WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- O O O D Q O Q O D Q D Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 421 0 838 0 0 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 473 0 855 0 0 0 0 Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1758 3167 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1758 3167 Left Tum Type Split Perm Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 30 30 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.00 1.00 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 59 51 Level of Service E E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 31.9 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 1965 2105 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 0.99 1.30 34 D 195 199 1 1583 1583 0.22 1.27 10 B 194 1520 198 1629 1 2 1770 3725 125 3725 P/P 5 2 10 70 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.65 1.02 1.23 64 10 F B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? o 0 o EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 473 327 419 1050 40% 855 296 378 1050 36% 2105 726 885 470 188% Yes 199 92 111 470 24% 198 137 169 760 22% 1629 513 699 760 92% C-r jr'-/ A(7. - i 71, TLS n64z AA (74,i - Yr.91-<<-+� LnU Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE2WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -04 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Euclid Avenue (N -S) Pines Road (SR 27) Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: EUCL2WWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -4 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 2 (2004) Traffic With Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade 'Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R > 1 < 10 1 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) Y 17.5 s 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R 1 1 < 6 1 251 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 10 1111 6 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 198 831 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 12.OA Green 12.OA 21.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 5.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 266 1140 0.086 0.233 11.6 B 11.6 B WB L 382 1639 0.016 0.233 11.4 B 18.0 C TR 370 1584 0.717 0.233 18.2 C NB L 413 1770 0.027 0.233 11.5 B 15.1 C TR 1427 3723 0.865 0.383 15.2 C SB L 413 1770 0.504 0.233 13.8 B 11.2 B TR 1426 3719 0.652 0.383 10.6 B Intersection Delay = 13.7 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.725 _l4 iJ4.. W T 4 Trent Ave. & Pines September 4, 1997 ,t. Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_ ©a ©©© ©©© © LtIJ El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 5 1003 461 428 619 15 568 49 518 25 44 10 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 6 1170 512 476 740 0 0 720 576 0 88 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1785 1583 1618 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1785 1583 1618 Left Tum Type Prot Prot Split Split Phase Number 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 8 27 25 44 20 20 8 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.05 1.05 0.63 0.98 0.39 0.95 0.75 0.87 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 23 52 7 45 8 39 12 59 Level of Service C E B E B D B E Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 30.8 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 6 1170 512 476 740 720 576 88 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 3 325 146 262 125 200 257 48 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 4 413 215 349 179 262 411 106 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 2000 2290 2290 1321 1321 1559 % of Link Used 0% 21% 11% 15% 8% 20% 31% 7% 11 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Ar 7,7% A PV--top'tc N L LANE. Id: `-r At) t_. J /.. 1/ oB / PE I. C :U 7' ' v 1-41)F ..dY1f7 11E ('= Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \TREN2WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Indiana & Evergreen September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 320 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 373 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 Left Tum Type Perm Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 14 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.73 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 29 Level of Service D 0 0 1 1583 1583 897 293 1027 342 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 3 8 2 857 1124 2 3491 3491 35 49 4.0 4.0 0.73 0.16 1.00 1.00 17 6 C B 31 4.0 0.92 1.10 29 D Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 80% Intersection Delay: 18.4 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen 699 777 1 1583 1583 0.65 1.82 6 B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 373 99 164 970 17% WBL 1027 241 359 1050 34% WBT 342 44 59 1050 6% NBL 1124 312 395 780 51% NBR 777 234 297 780 38% t Z ND L-r Tu RN `ANE Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC \EVER2WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 2006 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN VC Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary © © ® © © © L1IJQ al El Ei EBL EBT EBR Volume (vph.) 240 251 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 250 345 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3617 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 17 19 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.01 0.60 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 79 31 Level of Service F D 64 0 0 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 191 297 212 330 1 1 1770 1863 1770 1863 Prot 2 5 Yes 18 20 4.0 4.0 0.80 1.04 1.00 1.00 42 83 E F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 102% Intersection Delay: 51.1 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 449 499 1 1583 1583 0.96 1.00 45 E 36 1291 38 1528 1 2 1770 3685 1770 3685 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 44 4.0 4.0 0.43 1.01 1.00 1.00 37 43 D E NBR SBL SBT SBR 106 0 0 480 1594 515 2026 2 2 3540 3651 3540 3651 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 55 4.0 4.0 0.91 1.07 0.92 1.07 42 57 E E 2 .`4 IA Q 1 3 5 4 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 259 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? © Q I I I L E J LE EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT 250 173 245 1060 23% 345 111 164 1060 15% 212 142 192 1070 18% 330 229 299 1070 28% 499 338 452 1070 42% 38 25 32 600 5% 1528 530 666 600 111% Yes 515 176 214 470 46% 2026 703 844 470 180% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary oon0000a0000 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 394 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 402 Lanes 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 Left Tum Type Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 27 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.95 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 50 Level of Service E 0 485 1 1609 1609 Split 4 896 475 1 1583 1583 27 4.0 1.26 1.25 Error Error Error Error F F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 119% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 1962 2415 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 1.16 0.58 91 F 292 0 0 206 1441 210 1544 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 73 4.0 4.0 1.19 0.59 0.98 1.21 171 7 F B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? LEI Q EBL EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT 402 274 355 1050 34% 485 336 428 1050 41% .475 329 420 1050 40% 2415 838 1011 470 215% Yes 210 145 181 760 24% 1544 463 645 760 85% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC\PINE3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service O O o 0 EILlJH o LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 261 1 0 721 1293 0 0 282 0 799 1460 0 0 1 0 2 2 1775 3536 3725 1775 3536 3725 Split Prot 5 5 8 4 24 24 26 76 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.76 0.98 0.54 1.00 0.97 0.33 34 49 2 D E A Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 96% Intersection Delay: 29.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 116 125 1 1583 1583 0.08 0.94 0 A 0 0 0 Ill 5 5 id 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1411 1788 2 3666 3666 Perm 7 Yes 50 4.0 1.04 0.85 44 E 173 0 0 Q Lane Group WBT Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q NBL NBT 282 799 1460 183 274 181 311 334 302 1110 760 760 28% 44% 40% NBR 125 4 5 760 1% SBT 1788 620 770 140 550% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINE3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service © ©© ©©63 ©©©©© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 67 0 0 19 155 1 1743 1383 Perm 4 349 327 1 1583 1583 209 222 1 1770 1052 59 121 1 1758 1758 Perm 4 197 165 1 1583 1583 24 24 4.0 4.0 0.53 0.53 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28 17 78 26 18 D C F D C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 72% Intersection Delay: 16.5 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 173 1218 184 1425 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 21 62 4.0 4.0 0.58 0.65 1.25 0.37 37 4 D A 96 112 1 1583 1583 0.12 0.41 3 A 108 963 115 1107 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 14 55 4.0 4.0 0.59 0.57 1.00 1.00 36 13 D B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 28 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft) Queue Length 95% (ft . ) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? O D O O El O D Q Q EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 155 327 222 121 95 165 154 71 148 289 222 106 1050 1050 1110 1110 14% 28% 20% 10% 165 83 126 1110 11% 184 112 146 140 104% Yes 1425 199 342 140 244% Yes 112 16 21 140 15% 115 75 99 1250 8% 1107 262 385 1250 31% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL3OWE.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2083 Ph: (904) 392 -0378 Streets: (N -S) Pines Road (E -W) Euclid Ave. Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab Date of Analysis 1/13/97 Other Information Phase 3 (2006) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection _= No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's (%) CV's ( %) PCE's Northbound L T R 0 2 < 0 N 1168 7 .95 .95 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 N 104 874 .95 .95 0 1.10 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 > 1 < 0 7 0 121 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) Follow -up Time (t f ) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c EUCL3OWE.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 618 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 673 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 673 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.79 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1236 372 372 0.68 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -Free State: 2262 52 0.68 35 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 2262 38 0.68 0.68 0.68 26 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95%- Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WB L 8 26 > WB T 0 35 > 287 25.2 2.7 D 25.2 WB R 140 673 > SB L 120 372 14.2 1.4 C 1.5 Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec /veh Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_10 , ©© © Q © © ©o ©© El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 5 1064 416 419 657 16 525 52 477 26 47 10 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 6 1241 462 466 785 0 583 588 0 0 92 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1611 1620 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 1583 1770 3714 1770 1611 1620 Left Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Phase Number 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 8 24 20 36 28 28 8 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.05 1.27 0.51 1.24 0.51 1.05 1.17 0.91 Platoon Factor 0.85 Error 0.85 Error 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 23 Error 4 Error 12 64 119 67 Level of Service C F A F B F F F Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 120% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 6 1241 462 466 785 583 588 92 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 3 344 103 258 162 323 326 50 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 4 438 149 341 233 428 432 110 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 2000 2290 2290 1321 1321 1559 of Link Used 0% 22% 7% 15% 10% 32% 33% 7% Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \TREN3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Q D D D D O Q O D LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 214 223 1 1770 1121 19 92 1 1645 1645 Perm 1 20 4.0 1.17 0.33 1.00 1.00 157 28 F D 69 0 0 59 61 1 1770 1220 23 106 1 1647 1647 Perm 6 20 4.0 0.29 0.38 1.00 1.00 28 28 D D 79 54 1953 0 56 2287 0 1 3 1770 5571 1770 5571 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 67 4.0 4.0 0.63 0.64 1.00 1.00 45 9 E B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 95% Intersection Delay: 18.4 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan 43 132 2711 0 138 3506 0 1 3 1770 5499 1770 5499 Prot 3 8 Yes 13 72 4.0 4.0 0.78 0.92 0.74 1.07 38 14 D B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 349 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 223 154 241 1060 23% EBT 92 56 90 1060 8% WBL 61 36 68 1080 6% WBT 106 65 121 1080 11% NBL 56 38 46 600 8% Q NBT 2287 322 460 600 77% SBL 138 92 111 500 22% Q SBT 3506 405 950 500 190% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT■96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary, O o o D O O O o O o O EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 757 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 796 0 0 Lanes 2 0 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3536 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3536 1583 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.13 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 103 Level of Service F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 110% Intersection Delay: 46.6 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 0 0 2056 0 0 2203 0 0 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 57 4.0 1.10 0.81 63 F 310 316 1 1583 1583 621 2050 653 2196 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 20 4.0 0.37 1.09 0.59 1.19 6 94 B F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 77 4.0 0.80 0.00 1 A 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q lEl EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 796 276 375 1050 36% 2203 764 918 500 184% Yes 316 113 147 500 29% 653 226 269 800 34% 2196 0 907 800 113% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT■96 149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service O 4 o JUL!ILJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 1 1770 1770 5 11 4.0 1 309 1 1779 1779 Split 5 11 4.0 1.09 1.00 109 F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 121% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 956 1918 0 1037 2120 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 27 89 4.0 4.0 1.22 0.66 Error 2.48 Error 5 F A 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 ue Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 2429 2685 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 62 4.0 1.22 Error Error F 1011 1064 1 1583 1583 1.14 0.70 88 F Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 11 WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR 309 107 169 1110 15% 1037 360 424 800 53% 2120 508 833 800 104% Yes 2685 932 1085 350 310% Yes 1064 738 860 350 246% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 1961491TRAFFIC\SULL3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary_ 1 /2 El a 101 rg Li] © ©Q© EBL EBT EBR WBL Volume (vph.) 230 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 263 88 Lanes 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 1637 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 1637 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 8 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.83 1.08 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 45 144 Level of Service E F 320 285 1 1583 1583 431 493 2 3540 3540 3 13 4.0 1.06 1.39 1.00 Error 93 Error F F WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 168 196 2 3725 3725 Prot 8 Yes 9 4.0 0.88 1.00 56 E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 148% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 170 189 1 1583 1583 1.09 1.00 117 F 453 1493 359 2226 2 2 3539 3699 3539 3699 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 71 4.0 4.0 0.85 1.34 1.12 Error 47 Error E F 84 0 0 SBL SBT SBR 23 2879 28 3519 1 2 1761 3725 1761 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 8 64 4.0 4.0 0.32 1.55 1.00 Error 36 Error D F 2 Q 5 © 6 3 7 M 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 164 182 1 1583 1583 0.16 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 263 89 127 1050 12% EBT 88 61 85 1050 8% Q EBR 285 197 277 1050 26% Q WBL 493 171 229 1120 20% WBT 196 67 90 1120 8% Q WBR 189 131 175 1120 16% NBL 359 121 150 350 43% NBT 2226 772 933 350 267% Yes SBL 28 3519 18 1221 22 1429 660 660 3% 217% Yes SBT SBR 182 38 46 660 7% Synchro 2.0 Report 1: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -05 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI3OWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -5 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 3 (2006) Traffic Without Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 9 205 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 236 157 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 125 1 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 2 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left * Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 20.OP Green 20.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 65 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 327 1770 0.028 0.185 14.0 B 4.5 A T 2120 3725 0.107 0.569 4.1 A WB TR 1185 3502 0.366 0.338 10.6 B 10.6 B SB L 1198 3539 0.114 0.338 9.6 B 9.6 B R 536 1583 0.002 0.338 9.2 B Intersection Delay = 8.6 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.194 Indiana & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 314 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 366 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 Left Turn Type Perm Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 12 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.87 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 39 Level of Service D 0 0 1 1583 1583 897 287 342 699 997 335 495 777 1 2 2 1 1770 3725 3462 1583 1770 3725 3462 1583 Prot 3 8 2 48 60 20 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.13 0.67 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.94 36 3 17 5 D A C A Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 91% Intersection Delay: 21.2 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 366 100 161 970 17% Q WBL 997 553 723 1050 69% WBT 335 29 39 1050 4% NBL 495 129 182 780 23% NBR 777 219 291 780 37% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT1961491TRAFFIC \EVER3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 3 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary( - Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service 1E1 la El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 351 0 264 0 0 0 0 849 0 383 0 269 0 0 0 0 996 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 3522 3167 7451 1583 3522 3167 7451 1583 Split Perm Perm 4 4 6 Yes 23 23 28 29 57 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.43 0.34 0.43 0.71 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.88 19 19 17 13 8 C C C B B NBR LJPIEJ SBL SBT SBR 400 772 0 408 827 0 1 2 0 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 53% Intersection Delay: 14.2 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 383 89 136 1050 13% EBR 269 61 92 1050 9% 11 NBT 996 109 160 500 32% Q SBL SBT 408 827 217 210 296 284 800 800 37% 36% Synchro 2.0 Report J:I DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFICIEVER3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary 1 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service Q©© ©©© © ©A© EBL EBT EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 0 0 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 94 104 2 3533 3533 0 0 0 Split 5 5 20 20 4.0 4.0 0.14 1.00 19 C Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 43% Intersection Delay: 7.6 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen 0 0 1 1583 1583 303 897 329 991 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 21 4.0 0.41 1.39 28 D 60 4.0 0.37 0.98 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Q 4 7 Q ■ 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 1042 1152 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 39 4.0 0.69 0.34 5 A 330 347 1 1583 1583 0.49 0.35 5 A Q Lane Group WBL Lane Group Volume 104 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 23 Queue Length 95% (ft .) 51 Link Length (ft.) 1110 % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? 5% NBL 329 91 119 800 15% 11 NBT 991 72 95 800 12% Q SBT 1152 141 284 780 36% SBR 347 62 100 780 13% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \961491TRAFFIC \EVER3OWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 2006 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- - EBL EBT EBR Volume (vph.) 240 251 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 250 345 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3617 Left Tum Type Prot Phase Number 6 1 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 17 19 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.01 0.60 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 79 31 Level of Service F D WBL WBT WBR 64 191 297 0 212 330 0 1 1 1770 1863 1770 1863 Prot 2 5 Yes 18 20 4.0 4.0 0.80 1.04 1.00 1.00 42 83 E F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 107% Intersection Delay: 75.6 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 449 499 1 1583 1583 0.96 1.00 45 E NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 36 1400 38 1647 1 2 1770 3688 1770 3688 Prot 7 4 Yes 8 44 4.0 4.0 0.43 1.09 1.00 1.00 37 71 D F 106 480 1759 0 515 2207 0 2 2 3540 3658 3540 3658 Prot 3 8 Yes 19 55 4.0 4.0 0.91 1.16 0.94 1.05 43 103 E F Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 259 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 250 173 245 1060 23% EBT 345 111 164 1060 15% r; WBL 212 142 192 1070 18% WBT 330 229 299 1070 28% is WBR 499 338 452 1070 42% NBL 38 25 31 600 5% NBT 1647 571 713 600 119% Yes SBL 515 175 213 470 45% SBT 2207 766 915 470 195% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary -2_ 12=1 EI © ©©©© El EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 457 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 466 485 Lanes 1 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1609 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1609 Left Turn Type Split Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 27 27 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.10 1.26 Platoon Factor 1.00 Error Average Delay (s.) 97 Error Level of Service F F 896 475 1 1583 1583 1.25 Error Error F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 122% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2071 2532 2 3658 3658 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 1.21 Error Error F 292 0 0 206 1606 210 1721 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 13 73 4.0 4.0 1.19 0.66 0.95 1.66 170 11 F B Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? El a 3 Q EBL EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT 466 485 323 336 409 426 1050 1050 39% 41% 475 329 418 1050 40% 2532 879 1056 470 225% Yes 210 145 179 760 24% 1721 561 735 760 97% Synchro 2.0 Report J : \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Pines Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary —262- September 4, 1997 Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service El El n E3 11 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 261 1 0 0 282 0 0 1 1775 1775 Split 5 5 21 21 4.0 0.88 1.00 47 E 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 5 (5 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 104% Intersection Delay: 39.9 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines 0 721 1319 0 799 1489 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 8 4 116 125 1 1583 1583 24 79 4.0 4.0 1.08 0.53 0.08 1.03 0.22 0.94 81 1 0 F A A 0 1576 229 0 2038 0 0 2 0 3658 3658 Perm 7 Yes 55 4.0 1.07 0.82 54 E Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? WBT 282 190 311 1110 28% Q NBL NBT 799 1489 277 130 334 218 760 760 44% 29% NBR 125 4 5 760 1% Q SBT 2038 707 866 140 619% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service E!JLEIE! 1 LJJ EBL EBT EBR WBL 67 0 0 19 177 1 1723 1400 Perm 4 40 4.0 0.34 1.00 17 C 349 305 1 1583 1583 402 428 1 1770 1043 0.35 1.11 1.00 1.00 8 100 B F WBT WBR NBL NBT 59 136 1 1742 1742 Perm 4 40 4.0 0.21 1.00 16 C Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 40 (40 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 96% Intersection Delay: 30.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines 207 161 1 1583 1583 0.21 1.00 10 B 173 1254 184 1489 1 2 1770 3725 1770 3725 Prot 5 2 Yes 21 46 4.0 4.0 0.58 0.93 1.20 0.82 36 24 D C NBR 212 226 1 1583 1583 0.33 0.83 12 B 191 EJ SBL SBT SBR 108 991 115 1138 1 2 1770 3711 1770 3711 Prot 1 6 Yes 14 39 4.0 4.0 0.59 0.85 1.00 1.00 36 26 D D Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 28 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 177 88 139 1050 13% EBR 305 110 180 1050 17% WBL 428 297 407 1110 37% WBT 136 64 91 1110 8% WBR 161 60 87 1110 8% NBL 184 112 144 140 103% Yes NBT 1489 473 639 140 456% Yes NBR 226 83 109 140 78% SBL 115 75 99 1250 8% vm SBT 1138 364 508 1250 41% Synchro 2.0 Report l: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -05 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Euclid Avenue (N -S) Pines Road (SR 27) Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: EUCL3WWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -5 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 3 (2006) Traffic With Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R > 1 < 10 1 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) Y 17.5 s 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R 1 1 < 35 1 269 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 10 1169 43 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 219 874 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 12.OA Green 12.OA 21.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 5.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 261 1117 0.088 0.233 11.6 B 11.6 B WB L 382 1639 0.097 0.233 11.7 B 19.3 C TR 370 1584 0.768 0.233 20.3 C NB L 413 1770 0.027 0.233 11.5 B 20.8 C TR 1421 3706 0.943 0.383 20.9 C SB L 413 1770 0.559 0.233 14.4 B 11.6 B TR 1426 3719 0.686 0.383 11.0 B Intersection Delay = 16.8 sec /veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.790 Trent Ave. & Pines September 11, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - 2.0o —(00 a El IN CZ Id 3 El el 13 Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 5 1064 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 6 1241 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 Left Tum Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 15 20 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.02 1.57 Platoon Factor 0.85 Error Average Delay (s.) 19 Error Level of Service C F 396 440 1 1583 1583 0.53 0.85 5 A 454 657 504 785 1 2 1770 3714 1770 3714 Prot 3 8 Yes 24 29 4.0 4.0 1.08 0.65 0.85 0.85 80 16 F C Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 128% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines 16 0 0 598 664 1 1770 1770 2 Yes 28 4.0 1.20 Error Error F 52 671 1 1608 1608 Split 2 Yes 28 4.0 1.34 Error Error F 552 0 0 26 47 10 0 92 0 0 1 0 1620 1620 Split 6 6 8 8 4.0 0.91 0.85 67 F 4.0 4 2 3 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL 6 2 3 2000 0% EBT 1241 344 439 2000 22% EBR 440 113 162 2000 8% r; WBL 504 280 367 2290 16% WBT 785 186 267 2290 12% NBL 664 368 480 1321 36% 11 NBT 671 372 485 1321 37% SBT 92 50 110 1559 7% Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID000MENT196149 \TRAFFIC\TREN3 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Mission & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary 10 © © ©a ©©©© LFIJ EJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 214 19 69 59 23 79 54 1959 43 132 2717 349 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 223 92 0 61 106 0 56 2294 — 0 138 3513 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1645 1770 1647 1770 5571 1770 5499 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1121 1645 1220 1647 1770 5571 1770 5499 Left Tum Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Phase Number 1 6 7 4 3 8 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 20 20 8 67 13 72 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.17 0.33 0.29 0.38 0.63 0.64 0.78 0.93 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.07 Average Delay (s.) 157 28 28 28 45 9 38 14 Level of Service F D D D E B D B Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 51 (51%), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 96% Intersection Delay: 18.5 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Mission & Sullivan IA 3 III 4 7 J$ Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft .) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL 223 154 241 1060 23% EBT 92 56 90 1060 8% Q WBL 61 36 68 1080 6% a: WBT 106 65 121 1080 11% NBL 56 38 46 600 8% NBT 2294 324 463 600 77% Q SBL SBT 138 3513 92 406 110 952 500 500 22% 190% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 EB Ramps & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary ©©© © ©®©© © ©Q© EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 757 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 796 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3536 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3536 1583 Left Turn Type Split Perm Phase Number 4 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 23 23 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.13 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 103 Level of Service F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 110% Intersection Delay: 47.0 Intersection LOS: E Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Sullivan 2062 2209 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 57 4.0 1.10 0.81 64 F 310 316 1 1583 1583 0.37 0.60 6 B 621 2056 653 2203 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 5 2 20 77 4.0 4.0 1.09 0.80 1.19 0.00 94 1 F A Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? is EBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 796 276 375 1050 36% 2209 767 921 500 184% Yes 316 113 147 500 29% 653 2203 226 0 269 909 800 800 34% 114% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT 196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 WB Ramps & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Turn Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service 0 ta EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm 0 279 1 0 0 309 0 1 1 1770 1779 1770 1779 Split 5 5 11 4.0 11 4.0 1.09 1.00 109 F Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 44 (44 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 121% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Sullivan 0 956 1924 0 1037 2127 0 2 2 3536 3725 3536 3725 Prot 7 4 27 89 4.0 4.0 1.22 0.66 Error 2.49 Error 5 F A 0 0 0 LEIEIJ El SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 IT 4 5 ±1_17 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 2435 2691 2 3725 3725 Perm 8 Yes 62 4.0 1.22 Error Error F 1011 1064 1 1583 1583 1.14 0.70 88 F Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? Q WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR 309 107 169 1110 15% 1037 360 424 800 53% 2127 510 835 800 104% Yes 2691 934 1087 350 311% Yes 1064 738 860 350 246% Yes Synchro 2.0 Report J: \DOCUMENT196149 \TRAFFIC \SULL3 WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 Indiana & Sullivan September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary © ©o©© ©© ©©©© EBL EBT EBR Volume (vph.) 230 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 263 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3540 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3540 Left Turn Type Phase Number 7 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 12 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.83 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 45 Level of Service E 0 90 1 1639 1639 Prot 4 Yes 8 4.0 1.10 1.00 156 F 326 290 1 1583 1583 1.08 1.00 100 F WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 431 168 493 196 2 2 3540 3725 3540 3725 Prot 3 8 Yes 13 9 4.0 4.0 1.39 0.88 Error 1.00 Error 56 F E Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 70 (70 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 146% Intersection Delay: Error Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Sullivan 170 189 1 1583 1583 1.09 1.00 117 F 459 1493 510 2082 2 2 3539 3699 3539 3699 Prot 5 2 Yes 15 71 4.0 4.0 1.20 0.83 Error 0.60 Error 7 F B 84 0 0 SBL SBT SBR 23 28 1 1761 1761 2879 3519 2 3725 3725 Prot 1 6 Yes 64 4.0 1.55 Error Error F 8 4.0 0.32 1.00 36 D 2 Q 5 Q 3 [11 L. ^yam F, MI 7 6 8 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems 164 182 1 1583 1583 0.16 1.00 3 A Lane Group Lane Group Volume 263 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 89 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 127 Link Length (ft.) 1050 % of Link Used 12% Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBL Q EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR 90 62 87 1050 8% 290 201 281 1050 27% 493 171 229 1120 20% 196 67 90 1120 8% 189 131 175 1120 16% 510 177 213 350 61% 2082 437 873 350 249% Yes 28 18 22 660 3% 3519 1221 1429 660 217% Yes 182 38 46 660 7% Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT\96149\TRAFFIC\SULL3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 09 -10 -1997 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) Indiana Avenue (N -S) Mirabeau Point Analyst: Tim Schwab File Name: INMI3WWE.HC9 Area Type: Other 9 -5 -97 PM Peak Comment: Phase 3 (2006) Traffic With Project, With Evergreen I/C No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane W (ft) Grade % 'Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Lost Time Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Eastbound L T R 1 2 195 205 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N (Y /N) N 3 3 3.00 3.00 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 2 < 236 724 0.95 0.95 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 0 3.00 3.00 Northbound L T R 0 Southbound L T R 2 1 922 193 0.95 0.95 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 (Y /N) N 0 0 (Y /N) N 3 3 0 3.00 3.00 0 20 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left * Thru * Thru Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 28.OP Green 27.OA Yellow /AR 5.0 5.0 Yellow /AR 5.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 266 1770 0.772 0.150 30.0 D 17.0 C T 2095 3725 0.108 0.563 5.3 B WB TR 1239 3304 0.856 0.375 19.2 C 19.2 C SB L 1283 3539 0.779 0.363 16.8 C 16.1 C R 574 1583 0.354 0.363 12.2 B Intersection Delay = 17.4 sec /veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.810 Indiana & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 320 0 897 293 903 699 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 373 0 997 342 1181 777 Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3491 1583 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 1583 1770 3725 3491 1583 Left Tum Type Perm Prot Phase Number 4 3 8 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 11 43 54 26 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.00 1.13 0.14 1.18 0.62 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.89 Average Delay (s.) 64 87 4 117 4 Level of Service F F A F A Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 113% Intersection Delay: 68.9 Intersection LOS: F Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 373 997 342 1181 777 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 103 553 37 327 211 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 164 722 50 414 267 Link Length (ft.) 970 1050 1050 780 780 cYo of Link Used 17% 69% 5% 53% 34% 11 EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT\96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3 EB Ramps & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary 10 ©© © ©© ©o © LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 529 0 264 0 0 0 0 1104 0 638 1120 0 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 570 0 269 0 0 0 0 1296 0 651 1200 0 Lanes 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3529 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3529 3167 7451 1583 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 23 23 28 29 57 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.56 1.13 0.48 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 2.32 Average Delay (s.) 22 19 18 92 11 Level of Service C C C F B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 79% Intersection Delay: 28.4 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 570 269 1296 651 1200 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 141 61 149 361 322 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 212 88 214 456 416 Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 500 800 800 % of Link Used 20% 8% 43% 57% 52% Fs 11 EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\EVER3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 WB Ramps & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary Volume (vph.) Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. Lanes Satd. Flow (Prot.) Satd. Flow (Perm.) Left Tum Type Phase Number Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) Yellow Time (s.) V/C Ratio Platoon Factor Average Delay (s.) Level of Service EA EIE! !LJJH LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 2 3533 3533 Perm 0 0 303 1330 0 0 1628 535 0 0 329 1470 0 0 1799 563 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 1583 3536 3725 3725 1583 1583 3536 3725 3725 1583 Split Prot Perm 5 5 7 4 8 Yes 20 20 21 60 39 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.14 0.41 0.55 1.07 0.79 1.00 1.36 0.99 0.40 0.36 19 28 4 46 9 C D A E B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2- Unused, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 62% Intersection Delay: 24.9 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 104 329 1470 1799 563 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 23 91 119 499 107 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 51 115 349 615 311 Link Length (ft.) 1110 800 800 780 780 % of Link Used 5% 14% 44% 79% 40% r; WBL •NBL NBT SBT SBR Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\EVER3WWE.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 Mission & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary - 2v 000eoaa0000 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 240 251 64 191 297 349 36 1400 106 480 1759 259 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 250 345 0 212 330 388 38 1647 0 515 2207 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3617 1770 1863 1583 1770 3688 3540 3658 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 466 3617 466 1863 1583 1770 3688 3540 3658 Left Turn Type P/P P/P Prot Prot Phase Number 6 1 2 5 7 4 3 8 Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes Current Split (s.) 11 19 11 19 7 49 21 63 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 1.09 0.60 0.92 1.11 0.72 0.54 0.97 0.81 1.01 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.02 Average Delay (s.) 101 31 49 112 24 42 32 35 32 Level of Service F D E F C E D D D Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 53 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2 -WBL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 99% Intersection Delay: 39.4 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines 3 Lti• Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 250 345 212 330 388 38 1647 515 2207 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 173 111 136 229 235 25 557 175 766 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 245 164 195 303 348 32 713 211 915 Link Length (ft.) 1060 1060 1070 1070 1070 600 600 470 470 % of Link Used 23% 15% 18% 28% 33% 5% 119% 45% 195% Blocks Upstream? Yes Yes El EI II CZ Id 01 13 Q EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? 14-vi5t� 'moo -rce 1(p F tAJ ? I ,i 4 'tom Pre 44A tt�D Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC\PINE3WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 el� ° w` `Lc0 ck'" • C) v' EB Ramps & Pines September 4, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary- . co -Zo � 0 0 o O O D o o LHJ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Volume (vph.) 457 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 466 Lanes 1 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 Left Turn Type Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Current Split (s.) 31 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.94 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 46 Level of Service E 0 896 0 484 476 0 (41)0 ( ' 1609 1583 1609 1583 Split 4 31 4.0 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.00 85 85 F F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 89 (89 %), Referenced to phase 2 -SBT, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 103% Intersection Delay: 40.2 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 2071 2219 2 3725 3725 Perm 6 Yes 60 4.0 1.05 0.62 38 D 292 298 1 1583 1583 0.33 0.74 7 B SBL SBT 206 1606 210 1721 1 2 1770 3725 125 3725 P/P 5 2 9 69 4.0 4.0 1.16 0.70 1.20 1.29 133 11 2 6 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems SBR 0 0 0 Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) % of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? Q EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 466 484 316 336 409 425 1050 1050 39% 40% 476 330 418 1050 40% 2219 770 925 470 197% Yes 298 71 87 470 19% 210 145 179 760 24% 1721 561 735 760 97% 'J10 L7 To r220 c rc Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT ■96149 \TRAFFIC \PINE3WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2 Indiana & Evergreen September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph.) 320 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 373 Lanes 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3725 Left Tum Type Perm Phase Number 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 15 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.67 Platoon Factor 1.00 Average Delay (s.) 27 Level of Service D 0 897 293 903 699 0 1027 342 1181 777 1 2 2 2 1 1583 3540 3725 3491 1583 1583 3540 3725 3491 1583 Prot 3 8 2 32 47 33 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.80 0.17 0.90 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.19 1.79 20 7 28 7 C BD B Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 82% Intersection Delay: 19.1 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Indiana & Evergreen Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume Queue Length 50% (ft.) Queue Length 95% (ft.) Link Length (ft.) of Link Used Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) of storage Used Fills Storage? EBT 373 97 164 970 17% ri WBL 1027 256 372 1050 35% WBT 342 47 63 1050 6% NBL 1181 327 414 780 53% Q NBR 777 242 305 780 39% I.I 'JP ll W i i Z W G7 7 r i L A JJ�. Synchro 2.0 Report J:\ DOCUMENT \96149 \TRAFFIC \EVER3WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 Trent Ave. & Pines September 5, 1997 Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary _700 ]EJI IN a o o p o p EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph.) 5 1064 Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 6 1241 Lanes 1 2 Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3725 Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3725 Left Turn Type Prot Phase Number 7 4 Phase Lagging? Yes Current Split (s.) 8 29 Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 V/C Ratio 0.06 1.09 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 Average Delay (s.) 24 69 Level of Service C F 496 454 551 504 1 1 1583 1770 1583 1770 0.63 0.85 6 B 657 16 598 52 552 26 47 10 785 0 0 793 613 0 92 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3714 1770 1788 1583 1620 3714 1770 1788 1583 1620 Prot Split Split 3 8 2 2 6 6 Yes Yes Yes 46 24 24 8 8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.42 0.90 0.77 0.97 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 9 33 13 85 F B D B F 25 4.0 1.10 0.85 88 Cycle Length: 85 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2 -NBTL, Begin Of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 105% Intersection Delay: 39.8 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: Trent Ave. & Pines JZ Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems Lane Group Lane Group Volume 6 1241 551 504 785 793 613 92 Queue Length 50% (ft.) 3 366 158 297 145 234 291 54 Queue Length 95% (ft.) 4 460 230 387 205 302 463 115 Link Length (ft.) 2000 2000 2000 2290 2290 1321 1321 1559 % of Link Used 0% 23% 12% 17% 9% 23% 35% 7% El Q EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT Blocks Upstream? Storage Length (ft.) % of storage Used Fills Storage? PPEU ritT'c#' - L1,4E PcrvutDr vijcY 640-if ,A t-JE liJtu f-+-Pr A l'J V �T r� (,Y t %I✓( uI %E N./ - r / ' l r �•. I/� NE/f. Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D000MENT196149 \TRAFFIC \TREN3 WWI.SY4 Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Ever. On -ramp - Sul. Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1996 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATIONExisting traffic with Evergreen in plac e A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,635 2,773 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 645 678 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 116 122 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 0 0 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 47 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES B 54 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 801 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.22 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.15 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Pines EB On -ramp - Evergreen EB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1996 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09- 08-*97 OTHER INFORMATIONExisting traffic with Evergreen in plac e A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,635 2,773 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 308 324 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 364 383 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 47 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES B 54 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 707 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.20 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.46 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Sul. WB On -ramp - Ever. WB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1996 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATIONExisting traffic with Evergreen in plac e A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,070 2,178 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 102 107 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 878 924 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 0 0 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 46 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,031 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.32 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.10 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Ever. WB On -ramp - Pines WB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1996 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATIONExisting traffic with Evergreen in plac e A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,070 2,178 ✓ 2 204 214 ✓ 3 196 206 ✓ 4 0 0 D) ANALYSIS RESULTS DESCRIPTION ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway is the down weaving vehicles is the up weaving vehicles is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 3 1500 2 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES B 51 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES B 58 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 421 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.16 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.49 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Pines EB On -ramp - Evergreen EB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION1999 Traffic Without Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 638 671 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 426 448 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES D 44 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 50 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,120 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.27 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.40 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Evergreen On -ramp - Sullivan off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION1999 Traffic Without Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 2,920 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 1,574 1,574 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 515 515 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 3 1500 2 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 36 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 45 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,089 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.42 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.25 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Sullivan On -ramp - Evergreen Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION1999 Traffic Without Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,295 2,415 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 413 434 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 2,135 2,247 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES F 34 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES E 41 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,682 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.53 0.45 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.16 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Evergreen On -ramp - Pines Off -ramp Tim Schwab 1999 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 1999 Traffic Without Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T E B 1.7 1.5 E f f f R HV w p 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,295 2,415 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 267 281 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 684 720 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 3 1500 2 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 46 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,001 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.29 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.28 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *s FACILITY SECTION Pines EB On -ramp - Evergreen EB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION1999 Traffic With Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 700 736 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 416 437 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES D 43 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 50 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,174 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.28 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.37 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Evergreen On -ramp - Sullivan off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION• 1999 Traffic With Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T E B 1.7 1.5 E f f f R HV w p 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 1,574 1,656 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 568 597 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 3 1500 2 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 35 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 44 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,254 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.42 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.27 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Sullivan On -ramp - Evergreen Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 1999 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION1999 Traffic With Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,295 2,415 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 443 466 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 2,125 2,236 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 3 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 2 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES F 34 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES E 41 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,703 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.53 0.45 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.17 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Evergreen On -ramp - Pines Off -ramp Tim Schwab 1999 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 1999 Traffic With Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,295 2,415 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 252 265 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 700 736 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 3 1500 2 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 46 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS UNCONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,002 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.29 0.45 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.26 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Pines EB On -ramp - Evergreen EB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 2006 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION• 2006 Traffic Without Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 3,720 3,915 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 705 742 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 508 534 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 4 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 3 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES D 42 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,276 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.25 0.35 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.42 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Evergreen On -ramp - Sullivan off -ramp Tim Schwab 2006 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 2006 Traffic Without Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 3,720 3,915 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 1,737 1,828 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 543 571 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 4 1500 3 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 37 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 46 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,400 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.38 0.35 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.24 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Sullivan On -ramp - Evergreen Off -ramp Tim Schwab 2006 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 2006 Traffic Without Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 428 450 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 2,354 2,477 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 4 1500 3 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 36 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 43 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,928 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.49 0.35 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.15 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS Evergreen On -ramp - Pines Off -ramp Tim Schwab 2006 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2006 Traffic Without Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T 1.7 E E f f f B R HV w p 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 291 306 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 733 771 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 4 1500 3 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES C 45 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES B 54 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,077 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.26 0.35 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.28 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Pines EB On -ramp - Evergreen EB Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 2006 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION2006 Traffic With Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 3,720 3,915 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 883 929 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 508 534 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 4 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 3 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES D 42 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,464 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.27 0.35 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.37 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Evergreen On -ramp - Sullivan off -ramp Tim Schwab 2006 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 2006 Traffic With Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T E B 1.7 1.5 E f f f R HV w p 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 3,720 3,915 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 1,737 1,828 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 781 822 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 4 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 3 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 36 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 45 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 2,650 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.40 0.35 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.31 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION Sullivan On -ramp - Evergreen Off -ramp ANALYST Tim Schwab TIME OF ANALYSIS 2006 PM Peak DATE OF ANALYSIS 09 -08 -1997 OTHER INFORMATION2006 Traffic With Project A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E E E f f f T B R HV w p 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 556 585 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 2,344 2,467 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE A NO. OF LANES 4 LENGTH OF SECTION 1500 NO. OF MAINLINE LANES 3 (Upstream of Weave Section) LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES E 35 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES D 43 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 3,052 1,800 * ** EXCEEDS MAX VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.50 0.35 * ** EXCEEDS MAX WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.19 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 1985 HCM: WEAVING AREAS PAGE 1 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY SECTION ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Evergreen On -ramp - Pines Off -ramp Tim Schwab 2006 PM Peak 09 -08 -1997 2006 Traffic With Project PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 0 (TYPICAL - 200 # /HP) PERCENTAGE OF BUSES 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 DRIVER POPULATION FACTOR 1 (WEEKDAY /COMMUTER) LANE WIDTH (FT) 12 OBSTRUCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY EDGE (FT) 6 B) CORRECTION FACTORS TERRAIN TYPE LEVEL C) INPUT VOLUMES E T E B 1.7 1.5 E f f f R HV w p 1.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL (vph) (pcph) DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ✓ 1 2,920 3,073 is the nonweaving vehicles on the freeway ✓ 2 315 331 is the down weaving vehicles ✓ 3 928 976 is the up weaving vehicles ✓ 4 10 10 is the ramp -to -ramp nonweaving vehicles D) ANALYSIS RESULTS WEAVE TYPE NO. OF LANES LENGTH OF SECTION NO. OF MAINLINE LANES (Upstream of Weave Section) A 4 1500 3 LOS SPEED * ** * * * * ** WEAVING VEHICLES D 43 mph NONWEAVING VEHICLES C 52 mph OPERATION OF WEAVING AREA IS CONSTRAINED ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ANALYZED MAXIMUM * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** WEAVING VOLUME (VW).. 1,308 1,800 VOLUME RATIO (VR).... 0.30 0.35 WEAVING RATIO (R).... 0.25 0.50 WEAVING LENGTH (L)... 1,500 2,000 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Sandy STR Parcel 7/9/2003 n fieNui ber � ` , i P ? f, w, , I , ' Pr£ iNams ei , ' t M21=1 SiteAddre ssz- , , 1 . = LaLocation n -€ - - _ r ; B70304 i 11 ! STORAGE BLDG 10 25 4 0 EUCLID E 12600 B70270 ❑ ;MATTHEWS REST ADD 10 25 4 0 PINES N 2104 B70205 j U ❑ ADD MFG BLDG 10 10 25 25 4 4 3 3 INDIANA E 12822 _ _ INDIANA E 12410 _ _ _ N 1 90,E PINES B70_229 i CENTRAL 4 WHEEL DR RETAIL WHSE B01119 I ❑ IMIRABEAU POINT MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION PARKWAY 10 10 25 25 4 4 2 4 MIRABEAU N 2900 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01155 El WSDOT OFFICE WHSE MAMER N 1620 W EVERGREEN, S 1 90, E MAMER, N MISSION B89113 i ❑ ❑- ❑HERTEN, ❑ STORAGE BLDG 10 25 4 0 EUCLID E 12600 B70311 ADD WHSE 10 25 4 '0 INDIANA E 13110 B90094 ED OFFICE WHSE 10 25 4 ,4 INDIANA E 12710 690105 OXYFRESH INTERIOR REMODEL OFFICE 10 25 4 0 INDIANA E 12926 B90144 ❑ BATTERY TECH CHG OF USE BATTERY SALES & SER 10 25 4 0 INDIANA E 12926 B90008 ❑ ,SCIENCE CTR DISPLAY BLDG 10125 4 0 EUCLID E 12600 B91041 ❑ IEDWARD ENGINES ADD 101'25 10_125 10 125 4 ;0 INDIANA E 12918 B91111 ❑ 892106 ❑ MATTHEWS RESTAURANT - ADD 4 4 [0 0 PINES N 2104 ;OFFICE BLDG PINES N 2510 B94061 ❑ ❑ 'MCCOLOSKEY ERB APT 48 UNIT 10 25 4 2 PINES N 2612 N CHERRY, S MARIETTA B94082 1CLS MORTAGE BLDG ADD 10 25 4 3 NORA E 12904 W MCDONALD B94021 ❑ (VICEROY HOMES INC MODEL HOME 10 '25 4 3 NORA E 13022 W MCDONALD B94150 ❑ 0 ❑ IVALLEYCREST CONVALESCENT CTR - UNICARE 10 25 4 3 MISSION E 12701 E SR 27 B94191 !CENTRAL 4 WHEEL ADD SPEC WHSE 10 25 4 4 INDIANA E 12410 N 190, E PINES B95134 !SPOKANE VALLEY MALL SULLIVAN PK CTR INDIANA RD 10 25 4 4 INDIANA E 14700 W SULLIVAN B95147 ❑ JINLAND CONST OFFICE BLDG A OF PHASE #1 !CHERRY RIDGE APTS APT 36 UNIT 3 BLDGS BED 60 ASSISTED LIVING 10 10 10 25 25 25 4 4 MAMER N 1628 4 2 CHERRY N 2415 4 3 MISSION E 12903 W EVERGREEN, N MISSION B95041 Ii- E SR 27 W MCDONALD, E PINES B95062 ETIVALLEYCREST B95134 1 r 1 El SPOKANE VALLEY MALL SULLIVAN PK CTR INDIANA RD 10 10 25 25 4 4 4 3 ,4 INDIANA E 14700 W SULLIVAN B96042 RIDGEVIEW EST APT 269 UNITS WOLFF _ MISSION E 13303 W EVERGREEN, W MAMER, E MCDONALD B98163 ! ❑ 1TORQUE A MATIC ADD PARKING IMPROVEMENTS 10 25 3 INDIANA E 12822 N 190, S INDIANA, E PINES B99095 ❑ MIRABEAU POINT CENTENNIAL TRAIL TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT 10 25 4 4 MIRABEAU S EUCLID, N INDIANA, E MIRABEAU B00037 ❑ ❑ ! E j ❑ MIRABEAU POINT PICNIC SHELTERS MIRABEAU SPRINGS COM 10 25 4 4 MIRABEAU E 13504 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B00037 IMIRABEAU POINT PICNIC SHELTERS MIRABEAU SPRINGS COM 10 25 4 1 MIRABEAU E 13504 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B00156 'PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK ADD PHASE III OFFICE 10 10 25 25 4 2 MIRABEAU E 12610 N GRACE LN, S MIRABEAU, E PINES, W SULLIVAN B01028 MIRABEAU POINT ADD PHASE II TRAIL SYSTEM GRADING 4 1 MIRABEAU E 13504 S EUCLID, N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01028 U MIRABEAU POINT ADD PHASE II TRAIL SYSTEM GRADING 10 25 4 4 MIRABEAU E 13504 S EUCLID, N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01073 ❑ IRVIN WATER KIST #6 WATER TANK 875000 GAL 10 25 4 2 PINES N 2720 S BUCKEYE, N MANSFIELD, E PINES B01100 • SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY PARK & RIDE W/ RESTROOM 10 10 25 4 4_4INDIANA 4 3 4 1 E 13209 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01100 0-SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY PARK & RIDE W/ RESTROOM 10 10 10 25 25 INDIANA E 13209 IN INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01131 ❑F MIRABEAU POINT PARK MIRABEAU MEADOWS MIRABEAU E 13504 __ N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES B01159 EDMO DISTRIBUTORS INC FLIGHT JACKETS AIRPLANE PTS &* E 10 25 10 25 4 2 4 2 MIRABEAU E 12830 N GRACE, S MIRABEAU, E PINES, W SULLIVAN B02013 ' 1PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK SPEC OFFICE WHSE PHASE V BLD MIRABEAU E 12710 N GRACE, S MIRABEAU, E PINES B02014 I v PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK SPEC OFFICE WHSE PHASE VI BL 10 25 4 2 MIRABEAU E 12730 �N GRACE, S MIRABEAU, E PINES Sandy STR Parcel 7/9/2003 �ileN.,tit pi S umtier, t ` _( j `,-,' yx w.t7,' ;. { 6 E M r 3� i t .u, Eng t � �-.- = � �-� � � h�.�r���r� � t � � � _ - �� Pr�Narne��t_ � � �� - - _' � 4 11 � t:E� � t Et . ►� � � �� k i fi Y � ., -4 ;, �,t rSiteA►ddress;�� s � -�"i ,_ 3 F } .b§ E � r � t, � f LaLocatNon ,e ��'�f - -'�� �;�. B02102 j ❑ SPOKANE VALLEY YMCA ADD GRADING FOR SKATE PARK 10 25 4 ;1 DISCOVERY PLACE N 2421 E DISCOVERY PLACE, N INDIANA B02121 1 11 1PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK SPEC WHSE OFFICE PHASE VII 10 25 4 12 MIRABEAU E 12810 N GRACE, S MIRABEAU, E PINES B03013 _ 803016 L1 l❑_ � BEACU CREDIT UNION IMPROVEMENTS 10 10 25 25 4 2 44 MIRABEAU E 12810 N GRACE, S MIRABEAU, E PINES CHILDRENS HOME SOCIETY OFFICE COUNSELING CTR DISCOVERY PLACE N 2323 W DISCOVERY PLACE, N INDIANA, S MIRABEAU, E B94080 ❑ ❑ MODEL HOME OFFICE 10 25 4 4 NORA E 13412 E MCDONALD Y B95173 LATAH CREEK WINERY ADD OFFICE 10 25 4 3 INDIANA E 13030 _ E SR 27 B95179 1 ❑ BEST WESTERN MOTEL 105 UNIT 3 STORY PHASE! 10 25 4 3 MISSION E 12415 E PINES B96053 t El PINE RIDGE APT 104 UNIT 10 25 4 3 2 MANSFIELD E 12423 E CHERRY, E PINES B96124 ❑ ❑ CHERRY BLUFF APT 24 UNITS 2 BLDGS 10 125 4 CHERRY N 2406 N MANSFIELD, E SR 27 697140 WONG MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG 2 STORY 10 25 10 25 4 L3 4 2 MISSION E 12409 W HOULK, W 1 90, E PINES CHERRY N 2424 N MANSFIELD, E PINES B97147 ; ❑ EAGLE ROCK APT 104 UNITS 6 BLDGS PINERIDGE PHASE II B97159 ❑ QUALCHAN INVESTMENT APT 317 UNIT W MGR UNIT & REC BLD 10 25 4 2 3 CHERRY N 2800 S GRACE LN, W PINES B97162 LY TOMLINSON GARAGE 2 BAY 10 10 10 25 4 MANSFIELD E 12411 E CHERRY, E PINES B98033 El El ❑ 1SPOKANE VALLEY YMCA ACTIVITY CENTER 25 25 4 '1 4 2 DISCOVERY PLACE N 2421 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES, S SULLIVAN_ B98179 898215 ' PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1 RETAIL OFFICE BLDG EUCLID E 12310 _ S EUCLID, E PINES HAMILTON A & A CONST ADD 152 APT 10 25 4 2 PINES N 2702 N CHERRY, S EUCLID, E PINES 899049 j L HARKEN DENTAL OFFICE PHASE 1 10 25 4 ,4 NORA E 13314 W BLAKE, E MCDONALD, N MISSION, S NORA B99092 ' ❑ PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK ADD PHASE 11 SPEC OFFICE BLDG 10 25 4 22 MIRABEAU E 12410 S EUCLID, N MARIETTA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES BSP- 0007 -85 J ❑ ❑ j ❑ INDUSTRIAL 1 -2 10 25 4 '3 N 1 90, S INDIANA, E PINES BSP- 0007A -8 INDUSTRIAL 1 -2 ALTERED TRACT 2 10 25 4 13 N 1 90, S INDINA, E PINES BSP- 0065 -98 BONUCCELLIS PINES & MISSION B -2 10 25 4 13 W HOUK, S 190, N MISSION, E PINES BSP- 0078 -01 j d PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK PHASE II 10 25 4 11 N GRACE, W MIRABEAU, S MIRABEAU, E PINES BSP- 0078 -01 d 1PINECROFT BUSINESS PARK PHASE II 10 25 4 12 N GRACE, W MIRABEAU, S MIRABEAU, E PINES P -- j CTIVERA 10 25 4 '4 P -- L1 j ❑ -❑ ; PINECROFT 02ND ADD 10 10 25 25 4 0 4 10 P -- !ASSESSORS PLAT # 06 P- 1163 -77 ' MEADOWS END ADD 10 25 4 13 _ P- 1359 -79 ❑ ;PINES NORTH OFFICE PARK 10 25 4 i2 P- 1415 -81 1 ❑ ;PINES NORTH OFFICE PARK REPLAT NO1 10 10 25 25 4 2 4 13 P- 1478 -84 i ❑ 'HEATHER WOOD ADD P- 1504 -85 ! ❑ ;SULLIVAN PARK CENTER ADD 10 25 4 N 190, S SPOKANE RIVER, W SULLIVAN PUD- 0003 -86 ❑ j 10 25 4 10 4 10 N MISSION, E PINES N 190, E PINES - 0003A -73 ' L ' 10 25 -0003B-87 i ❑ 1AG TO 1 -2 jUR -3 5 & RR -10 TO 1 -1 PINECROFT BUSINESS CTR DIVCON 10 10 25 25 4 4 10 12 '3 13 190, INDIANA S EUCLID, N GRACE, E PINES - 0005 -98 j l_f 1 LI 1 ❑ _ - 0006 -99 A - - 000769 IRR_ -10 TO UR-22 & 1 -2 APT 222_ UNIT - APT 184 UNIT RETIRE & C_ T_ 10 10 25 25 4 4 S EUCLID, E HOULK, E PINES, N SHANNON jUR -22 CHG OF COND _ _ E HOUK, S 190, N MISSION, W WOODLAWN -0007-96 j ❑ 1 ❑ !UR jUR -3 5 TO UR -22 OFFICE 10 25 4 4 1,4 MAMER, N MISSION, S NORA - 0007A -96 -22 CHG OF COND 10 25 1,4 t,E MAMER N 1618 W EVERGREEN, S 190, E MAMER, N MISSION - 0009 -98 ; ❑ 1UR -3 5 TO UR -22 APT 270 UNITS MAPPING ERROR 10 125 4 2 S GRACE LN, N MARIETTA, E PINES, W SULLIVAN Sandy STR Parcel 7/9/2003 -: FuleNumber. En 9 ' r` ' :Pr 1 Name t Q F SiteAddress ` ri M , a Lofi c ation , ben. - 0017A -71 I ❑ 1 T❑1 10 25 4 10 (MISSION - 0023 -95 1UR -3 5 TO B -3 MOTEL REST OFICE BLDG 200 UNIT 10 25 4 13 W HOUK, S 1 90, N MISSION, E PINES - 0031 -84 ; I ❑ 1TO ❑ 1UR ❑ ❑ UR -22 10 10 25 25 25 4 13 4 10 N MANSFIELD, W MARIETTA, E PINES - 0031A -84 - - -22 CHG OF COND _ -� ` - - 0036 -97 ; 1 rRR -10 TO UR -22 APT 888 UNITS 10 4 13 S EUCLID, E HOUK, E PINES, N SHANNON - 0037 -96 [RR -10 TO 1 -2 MIRABEAU POINT REC & BUSINESS PK 10 25 4 11 N 1 90, N INDIANA, E PINES, W SULLIVAN, S TRENT - 0037 -96 1 ❑ 1RR -10 TO 1 -2 MIRABEAU POINT REC & BUSINESS PK 10 25 4 ;4 'N 190, N INDIANA, E PINES, W SULLIVAN, S TRENT -0037A-96 ❑ ;1 121 11-2 ❑ 1 -2 CHG OF COND PLANNING COND #10 HABITAT EVAULUATION 10 25 4 11 - N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES - 0037A -96 CHG OF COND PLANNING COND #10 HABITAT EVAULUATION 10 25 4 14 N INDIANA, W MIRABEAU, E PINES Z- 0039 -85 10 25 4 v4 - 0039 -95 ❑ 1UR -3 5 TO UR -22 APT 316 UNIT RIDGEVIEW EST 10 10 25 ;4 2514 13 W MAMER, E MCDONALD, N MISSION - 0042 -90 ❑ !MFS TO UR -22 ' MCDONALD, NORA - 0053 -89 1 El AG TO UR -22 10 25 4 3 - 0061 -81 - 0066 -82 ❑ - fi-- ❑ - - - - -- 10 10 25 25 4 10 40 - -0076-82 (❑ 10 25 4 0 - 0078 -78 ❑ 10 25 4 0 N MANSFIELD, E PINES - 0078A -78 ( ❑ UR -22 RES 48 MULTI 10 25 4 2 S MARIETTA, E PINES - 0084 -81 _0 1 -2 10 25 4 4 E MAMER, N MISSION - 0084B -81 j ❑ ❑ I -2 CHG OF COND DELETE #3 & #5 10 25 4 4 E MAMER, N MISSION - 0084C -81 1 -2 CHG OF COND SQ FT FROM 19,900 TO 64,867 & 8,100 TO 32,9 10 25 4 14 W EVERGREEN, E MAMER, N MISSION - 0096 -84 i ❑ AG TO MULTI RES APT 176 UNIT 10 25 4 '4 S MARIETTA, E PINES, N SHANNON - 0101 -85 ❑ UR -3 5 TO UR -22 10 25 4 ',3 N MISSION, E PINES - 0103 -80 1 El 10 25 4 :0 INDIANA, E PINES - 0103A -80 -__ ❑ - ❑ ❑ 10 10 [ 25 25 4 0 4 0 INDIANA - 0116 -79 ,NORA, E PINES - 0116 -81 - 10 25 4 '0 - 0116A -81 1 ❑ 10 25 4 4 - 0120 -84 ❑ 10 25 4 ,2 10 '0 0 10 S GRACE, N MARIETTA, E PINES, W SULLIVAN - 0125 -80 El 10,25 10 25 4 4 14 4 - 0141 -77 i ❑ j ❑ TL I - 0189 -79 10 25 10 25 NORA, E PINES 190, E MAMER, N MISSION - 0197 -78 - 0231 -79 1 r 10 25 4 0 W MAMER, NORA P- 0013 -92 1 1SP -0692 ALTERATION CORRECTION OF SURVEY 10 25 4 3 N INDIANA, E PINES F- 0070 -98 F- 0072 -99 j ❑ 1 El LE 1 ❑ 1MIRABEAU POINT MANSFIELD HORIZONTAL CURVEDISCOVERY 10 25 10 �25 4 4 3 3 N 190, N MANSFIELD, E MIRABEAU, E PINES 1MIRABEAU POINT MANSFIELD EXTSION EAST _ N INDIANA, E MIRABEAU, W SULLIVAN SP- 0216 -82 FOUR -PLEX 10 25 4 3 SP- 0301 -84 I MULTI RES 10 25 4 3 HOULK LN SP- 0659 -90 1 El I OFFICE 10 25 4 3 Sandy STR Parcel 7/9/2003 j) �[ ,,. ,., ,., F3 1 r} k 1 1 � ..� f v Y 3 5 3 1 I'` P tS.� r W l}d� � �3 ! ...,... 3 P 3...z� Hm i � t',;,', ( T � S h f f `i`,� ' y Fil @Number , En9 , �' _ L. �_��,: E P � Pr�Name,, a _ , � a „- ri - r • 13 a. �` Z° i • Q', -{ r SitiAddress _ � y. " � '^� �l I z � I S 3 "` 3 1{7 1 , t} ,,r, _ ,' i � , LaLocation , �l � �, �, ��,� , SP- 0682 -91 (❑ 1UR -3 5 SINGLE RES 10 10 25 25 4 12 414 4 3 4 i2 SP- 0682 -91 i EUR -3 5 SINGLE RES SP-0692-91_ !❑ 11 -2 WHSE 10 10 10 25 25 254 S INDIANA, E PINES _ SP- 0707 -91 1 ❑ ,UR -22 MULTI RES OFFICE E CHERRY, N MAMER SP- 0882 -93 j ❑ BUR -22 OFFICE 3 S NORA, E PINES SP- 0950 -94 L❑ BUSINESS 10 25 4 j3 W MCDONALD, S NORA SP- 1188 -98 i ❑ !UR -3 5 SINGLE RES 10 25 4 12 S EUCLID, N GRACE LN, E PINES CU- 0027 -92 ; ❑ j 10 25 25 4 ;0 4 2 4 0 -0005-00 ❑ WATER RESERVOIR & TRANSMISSION MAIN 85' CODE 50' IRVIN 10 N CHERRY, S MIRABEAU, E PINES, W SULLIVAN - 0021- 83 111 10 25 - 0030 -90 i ❑ 1 10 25 4 10 - 0126 -85 ❑ 10 25 4 10 V- 0213 -84 i ❑ 10 25 4 10 - 0228 -84 j El ! 10 25 k lo