ZE-0084C-81
. '
Cxncelod File ENGINEER' S REVMW SHEET
~led
Date As Buiit Ptm Rmived
Date RcuW Plans Appcoved ~WNE FME#ZE-0084C-81 -a1
Nea Road Stanfards 5-15-95 Mytu N:
Companion Fle ZE-0Od7A-96
Hearing Date: 11119/ 1997 H Time: Q 1:30 ! I Number: i ZE-W84-81'~~7-96
Technical Review Datc: TR Time: Huilding Dept
Review Date: R T'ime: R Number: TECH RE'VEEW # -
Date Rtxtived: I0127/1997 Revicw Type: Large w Ll Bldg. Squarc Fac:
No. Lo~ No. Acre 0
Project Name: COC SQ FT FROM 19,900 TO 64,867 d~ 8,100 TO 32,996 Rangt.T0wMu0-sC,cfin: qq- 25 - i0
Site Address: E MAMER/N MiSS14N/W EVERGREEN PAscEL(S): (first 20)
Applicanc Name: INLAND CONST-SWECIZER, JOHr1 Phone (509) 747-0999 45104.0202 45104.02ui 43104.0210
Applicaru Address: 107 S HOWARD STE 300 Pho°e z#
SPUKANE. WA 99204
Date Con~fi~iUns A~iailcd:
Flood Z.one Wacer 5ewer School Fire Phone
Billing Owntr: Ci.EMsoN. TOM Engineer
Addresc: Address 102 E SPRAGUE Corinpany
SPOKnNE, wA 9I204 Address:
Ptjune: Phone: Phone:
Fax:
Signeci Name
Hui[dinu # 456-3675 l Planninit # 456-2205 Contact: LOUIS WEBSTER
T~nta Ghrniftwti i
DATE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE
DATE NOT TECHN1CALt,Y COMPI.ETE
.
DATE PAY FEES FtECENCD
DATE PRIORITY FEFS RECEIVED COPY TO ACCOUNTIlVG
. •
FIIVAL PLAT FEES COMPLETED AND C4PY TO ACCOUNTING
~
I ! NOTICE TO PUBLIC 1 NOTICE TQ PUBLiC * 1 3 a 6 COMPLETED - OR NEEDS TO BE SiGNED
ln-Out 01 In-Out A'Z la-Ourt #3 .
UE.SIGN DEVIATION DATES IN-0UT
In•Out a4 ln-Out NS In-0ut +16
/ I BOND QUANTITIES FOR DRA.TNAGE ITEM C4LCULATED ~
DATE BOND RECEIVED BOND AMOUNT RECENED
DA'IEBQND RL•:LEASL' - DA'i'C BONU REDCiCED H()NI) BALANCE
Hcuring Dute Dxiswa J1pproved Denicd Continucd Appcalai BCC Appmved Dettied
Appealcd w Caurt Jlpproved Denied Continued Fitmt Projxt Staws
I / STAMPED MYLARS TO PE:RMIT TECHNICIAIV (SYL)
/ ! STAMPED 208 LOT PLANS TO SECRETARY (SANDY)
E+ ~
l
. . - - • i
~
1._ I STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
File#: ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
SPOKAI,M COUNn DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
HEARING DATE: November 19, 1997 FILE ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
PROJECT PLANNER: Louis Webster, A1CP Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a Change of Conditions to an existing Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) zone (file no. ZE-7-96) to allow an increase
in building square footage from 8,100 square feet to 32,996 square
feet, and to an existing Light Industrial (I-2) zone (file no. ZE-84B-
81) to allow an increase in buifding square footage from 19,900
square feet to 64,867 square feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Change of Conditions. •
. . . . . . . . - . . - - - - . - . .
0
Proiect Data
Project Location: Generally located east of and adjacent to Mamer
Road, south of I-90, and north of Mission Avenue in
the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 25 N, Range 44
• EWM.
Parcei Number(s) ~ 45104.0201, 45104 0202, 45104.0210
Owner: Inland Construc#ion Company
clo Tom Clemson
102 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202
Agent: John Sweitzer
107 S. Howard, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99204
509-747-0999
Comprehensive Plan Designation: ~ Urban
Existing Zoning: Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) and
Light Industrial (I-2)
Existing Land Use: Existing single family residence and commercial /
industrial
Surroundinq Zoninq and Land Uses:
• North: Light Industnal (I-2), Community Business (B-2) and
I-90 Freeway
• South: Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3 5) and single family
residential
• East: Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3.5) and public utility well
and storage tank, and undeveloped
• West: Urban Residential-3 5(UR-3.5) and single family
residential.
ZE-84C-81 b ZE-iA-96
Staff Repcrt - November 19, 1997 Heanng
1 of 5
r
'
~
Known Land Use Proposals and ZE-4813-81
Recent Project Approvals in the ZE-7-96
Area of this Project
Land Division Status: Ali three parcels are legal lots of record (see Plat
Book °Op Page 30) and were established in 1911
Shoreline Designation: Not Applicable
Water Purveyor: Vera Water and Power
Sewage Disposal: On-site septic system
Fire District Spokane County Fire Distnct #1
School District Central Valley #356
Nearest Arterial and Oistance: Mamer Road is designated as a Local Access Street
by the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. Mission
Avenue is designated as a Minor Arterial by the
Spokane County Arterial Road Plan and is located
approximately 200 feet south of the subject property
Nearest Parks and Distance: Mission Park is located approximately two miles west
of the subject property
Neighborhood Associa'on: None identified.
• This proposal is located inside the IUGA.
• This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA).
• This proposal is located outside the 1000' notification boundary of designated Natural
Resource Lands.
GMA/Critical Areas
Aquifer Recharge Area (PSSA / ASA): Subject property is located inside the
Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) and
within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)
Overlay Zone.
Fish &WiIdlife Habitat Conservation Areas: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps
Floodplain: Not Applicable
Geologically Hazardous Areas: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Critical Area Maps. However the SEPA
Checklist (at 6.1.b, Page 2) indicates
slopes of approximately 50%. It was
suggested to the applicant's agent on 10-
22-97 that a Geo-Hazard report should be
prepared.
WeUands: None illustrated on the Spokane County
Cntical Area Maps. Staff inspection of the
subject property confirmed no wetlands on
the site.
SEPA
• DNS issued October 24, 1997 • Comment period ended November 17, 1997
ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
Staff Report - Navember 19, 1997 Heartng
2of5
~ 1 \
~
IVOtlCinQ
Published: Spokesman Review on Oct r 7, ~997.
~1laifing Deadline. C~c#ober 7;77, 1~9 ll
Posting Deadline, Octobe7.
E
1 724 Compiiance Dates
Application Accepted {Counter Camplete} July 9, 1997
Tech~ir-ally Complete ! Determination of Gornpleteness issued September 22, 1997
Date Notice of Decision is Que January 19, 1998
Reviewinq Aqencies
13 Agenci~s wete notif eti on 12-1 0-9G and 0-24-97 Comments were due an 1-16-97 and 11-5-97.
Agencies Notified Response ❑a#e Agencies Notified Respvnse Date
Received Received - Recexved Received
Spakane Courtty Division Yes 11-6-97 Spokane Caun#y Na
of Engineerang and Parks, Recreatian &
Roads, Transportation Faif
Spoficarte Caunty Division Yes 7 2-10-96 11Vashingtan State Yes 1-18-97 -
af Engineering and Department of 15-4-97
Roads, Drainage Transpar#ation
(WSDOT)
Spokane County Division Yes 10-27-97 Spakane Regional Na
of Long Range Planning Transpartation
r I Council
Spokane Caunty Division Yes 1-16-97 Spakane Transit Na
of U#ilities¢Sewer Authority
Spokane County aivis3on No Fire District N0. 1 No ~
of Lltilities-Stormwater
Spokane Regional Heaith `fes 1-15-97 Spokane County No
District 8oundary Review
4 Baacd
Central Valley School No 11efa Water and Na
District #356 Pawer
.
Respanses from the Public:
There are na respanses from the public in the €ile regarding this proposed change of conditions
Backaround:
The subaect properky consists of three separate parcels which were subject ta aprevious zone
reclassification (ZE-7-96) from UR-3 5 to UR-22 on approxima#ely 2 92 acres for development of an 8,1 a~
square foot offce building arad a change of cvnditions (ZE-848-81 ) to an exiskNng Light Industrial (I-2) zone
orr appraximately 6 36 acres to aflow revision to the original 1981 site pian by reducing the square foatage
of buildable area byr 8,100 square feek, reloca#ing the afificelwarehvuse structures an site, and eliminating a
6foot high fencing requiremant on the north proper#y Iine. The above actions were considered by the
Spokane Caunty Hearing Examiner on Aprif 18, 1996 and the Hearing Examiraer approved both land use
activns (see Findings, Concluszons & ❑ecisian dated May 3 and 7, 199€, respectirrely) The Hearing
Examiner decisions allawed for a site pCan which unified the tvva actions (ZE-7-96 and ZE-84B-81) and in
effect shifted 8,100 squate feet of offxce usage from the sou#herly parcel (ZE-84-81) to the northerly parcel
{ZE-7-96) In addit~on, the unifed site plan ~dmited impac#s of the overall development to those
carnmensurate with the site plan Xapproved in 1981 for ZE-84-89 which limited overafl developmen# to
25,000 square feet and prauided far improved access to the site from N1amer Rd
ZE4&4G,81 & ZE-7A-96
5taff Report • November 19. 1997 Hearing
3af5
> •
In approving the previous zone reclassification and change of conditions, the Hearing Examiner found that
the proposed use (office, storage facilities, business park) appears more compatible with single family uses
to the west, the combined traffic impact from the development is projected to be no greater than the
combined impacts from development of the sites under the existing zoning. The Hearing Examiner also
found that no opposition to the land use actions in ZE-7-96 and ZE-846-81 was expressed by area
residents, adequate infrastructure exists to support development of the site, and that more intense Use of the
site would require a traffic study and appropnate mitigation
From review of tfie original 1981 zone reclassification of the southerly 6 36 acres from Agnculture (A) to
Restncted Industrial (RI) (ZE-84-81), the Hearing Examiner concluded that the original zoning approval was
conditioned and tied to a specific site development plan which proposed three officelwarehouse structures
with a total building area of 28,000 square feet area and for "future development" which would require review
by a hearing body before such area could be developed The 1981 rezone action contemplated a tool
manufacturing operation on the site and the general storage/office uses proposed by the applicant through
the previous actions (ZE-7-96 and ZE-8413-81) are more consistent with the Urban category of the Comp
Plan and more compatible with the office uses along Nora Avenue to the west; and the office uses and multi-
family residential development along Mission Avenue to the south
Description of the Proposal:
The proposal is a revision to the site plan approved in the previous change of conditions to increase the square
footage of the allowed buildings on both parcels. In the case of the northern parcel (2.92 acres) zoned Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22), the applicant proposes to increase building square footage from 8,100 square feet to
32,996 square feet or an increase of 300% For the southern parcel (6 36 acres) zoned Light Industnal (I-2), the
applicant proposes to increase building coverage from 19,900 square feet to 64,867 square feet or an increase
of 225% The site plan of record, received and stamped May 19, 1997, demonstrates compliance with the
Spokane County Zoning Code with minor exceptions Under the data section where setbacks are detailed, the
setbacks shown are incorrect The front yard setback is correct only with regard to the Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) property The side yard setback is not correct but the rear yard setback is correct only with regard to
the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) zone. Site plan revisions are necessary to demonstrate complete compliance
with the Spokane County Zoning Code A traffic study was requested and accepted by the County Engineer for
this proposal and is a part of the record The traffic study concluded that impact of the proposed change of
conditions and increased development will be minimal on the transportation system in the vicinity of the project
Staff Analysis: .
The Comprehensive Plan Category of the subject property is Urban which is intended to provide the
opportunity for development of a"citylike" environment which includes various land uses Urban areas will
be the most intensely developed of all the categories and will include multifamily, commercial and light
industrial uses. Major commercial and heavy industnaf uses are not compatible in the Urban Category.
Goal 1.1 states "Encourage a variety of housing types and densities " Objective 1 1 a states "Promote fill-in
within established development areas and existing outlying communities where utilities, arterials, schools
and community facilities have already been established " Decision Guideline 1 1.1 states uUrban
development will be approved in areas having adequate power supplies, water, sanitary and storm sewers,
and school and fire services provided that such development meets the intent of other Objectives and
Decision Guidelines of this section." Goal 1 5 states "Encourage a healthful and pleasing environment in the
county's residenbal areas " Objective 1 5 d states "Residential areas should be discouraged within high
noise level zones such as in the vicinity of airports, railroads and freeways." The Goals, Objectives and
Decision Guidelines of the Urban Category are summanzed by saying that fill-in should be encouraged in
areas having adequate infrastructure and that residences should not be located proximate to freeways The
proposed Change of Conditions implements the majonty of the Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines of
the Urban Comprehensive Plan Category. A change of conditions does not change the zone of the site
involved and is not a zone reclassification However, the goals, obJectives and decision guidelines of the
Comprehensive Plan category are applicable and the existing I-2 and UR-22 zones are considered
consistent with the Urban Comprehensive Plan category The change of conditions process is not intended
to determine if the existing zones are appropriate but is rather a review of the specific site plans to determine
ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
Staff Report - November 19, 1997 Heanng
4of5
i i ■ corrtpliance with the develaprnent standards of the Zoning Code and previausly impased conditivns of
approval.
The applicant has developed the subject properly pursuant to the Hearing Exarnirier decisions signed May 3and
7, 1997 for- fle #'s ZE-848-81 &ZE-7A-96 The approval ofZE-848-81 aRtECipated that the vxrestern portion of
4he subject property would be further developed iri the fu#ure ~See #op of page 3, HE Findings, Conclusrons arid
Decision ZE-8413-81} It is noted that the development to da#e has not been done ifl conformance with the site
plans of recard The existing 8,296 square foat office building, exceeds the 8,100 square foot building sppraved
and straddles a lat Iine separating two parcels and the two zones. Regulations in square footage fram the
original site plan are permitfied by Section 14 504 000 of the Spokane Cour~ty Zanirig Code provided the
deviation does rtot increase the flovr area by mnre than 10°Ia. Presumabzy, the appraved 8,100 square foot
building was moved south to facElitate dedication of right of way tv the VOlashington State aepartment of
Transportation for the Evergreenl1-90 interchange. Minor lat Gne adaustrnents may be rrecessary and
appropriate #o demonstrate compCiance with the Spokane Cvunty Zoning Code and to correct the setback issue
referenr-ed above. Nqthing in thte Staff Repart or in the HE Findings, CancZusians and Dec«ion (ZE-7A-98)
dated 5-3-96 indicates that fhe northern parcel adjacent I-90 zoned Urban Residen#ia1-22 (UR-22) wauid be
furkher developed The Comprehensive Plan and #he Zoning Code seem tn suppar# mvre inten~e development
provided the necessary infrastructure to accomrnodate the increased intensity of the deveiopment
Staff Recamrnendatian:
7he Divtston of Buifding and Planning recommends approval of the prapased change of canditians.
Attaohments:
A. Maps
q B. Agency and Public Cornrnents
C Conditions of Approval
.
•
LG-444'81 P LC-M'.TV
Staff Report - November 19, 1397 Heanng
6 af 5
• ♦ j 1
A. Maps
,
~
VPf16v0
\ ~ I
.
\ ~ ~j~l~ • . r
/
N
~ ~ '+~r ~ ,~„r i ~
. ~
I ~ i ~tcr~1 ' ~
I 1 A7MI ..►MI.I ~~L-' ~ ~ p~q'h+~ ~ r' ' 't 1
Vlcinlty Mep
/ ~ i I~~ ~A~1 ~ _i~ _ ~'~~I:• / ~ ~~~5
h'
~ r~ •11. ~ ~t'xt 1 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ^
Au r
. Change olCondltlona
I I: ~ ~ / \ I ~IIM/w~~lM+r
T--;;j r.; .....ll . ~ ~m.. ZE • 84C ind ZE • TA • 98
,y p1y~ ~ ~
~i I ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ i 6w~r ~ / ~ /y! :1+/~~
/ ' ~,1M1M~ ; i ~ y~ I IwM41 'lI0~lA1
/ . ~ r IIMIAI
~Iqy
• ~ I W
I~ ~ i' • ~ ~ . Y/.ft I yrw~ w.+t t,
I 0 111 111 111111 I. ^
I ~ M Mer.r q1 1M0 11 lfa~I
~ ~ ~ ♦ ~ ~ ~ . Ip ~~r.v In~u~l~ro~~l
.n+«y• ~~-h~ -b `r ~ i ri~n.~~n«.~
I
~ ` r L i , ~ ~
-D
~ = M~ - nw,• ~ 1~+►~~ n~n.~w..wrrow
I rtiw~r Ip~sC
I I J~ ~W1 _~M I' IY,hytiy hM i~f~~ NM IpM
Ir_ iM 11111/( 1~ .~1~ tr1 IIYIr
a.i..M• u~o0....~ ~u,~~.M~ .
J ~ „~,~.,..M.~,.~.....
0- Vft.
~~yy _ ~ ~ ^ MH ~.w~d 04N~IM11/IF I •I41pcw
MIWmIl• Isy.an
IU .~Ulpe~
M M
IyAnl hl~ya
j I ~ ` ~ : ~ ~ `J - " ~ .,.•u.a.,..~..
i. _ ~ ~ aw.rw.n
U - ....~Y
I I I j / " ' ~ tt!~J' 1 w. u..
Or
NE C, E ,UE:1)
I
I I ~ nrrrw•.. V`POKANE CQUNTY
I ` ~~JR - - - - , _ , ,l i r~ Wj1 7
. ~
~ polth
, Sito Plan ".,o, DIUIaION QF 113UII,01NO QNp PLp,NNING
' iY;
? ~ r l
i
ZE-48C-81 & ZE-7A-96
' . : - ; : ~ _ - ~.~I~~~I~~~~~~~i~1~1'~~~I;~I~~= ~ ~
- -M~ ~r-~ ~~r~• • ~ - ~z~
- - , ~ ~•~c' - 5. ~ h 'r J. b ri'&.Y~r- '4~t rF,''"~•, 3 ~
'ti~
1..~ rX <F_' _ t~a . -.:-~i~-.w' va'.~! ~r' y`~y'' s`l,i'''U°'i~' t= '~s'c^"~rr~k"k--•~`-`'~•i'a~•,, - ~
J~p ISV' Sa - ~i'L~'.~'f~~~i5t' r' ~ ~ h~~~'S.i ti'Jr.K fS rrSi-^• _A~`'~i ~-r'~JA ~'k .~~l~~44'v~G~w"'x, i S~s.. _ti.p~ti ~i
w~Ni
• ~ . r~ f - a~ _ ~~J Y I ~~A _ -.ML~ .f5 ~1^ r ~1~.i~_
. Pu.bfic-Wbrk.~i lnqu-ity . p
~I~ \TS..
~ rY'Y .~-./'i ~Y3~ti '-4ti~F~e fs,~' •
• t1r' ~ y r
Mdp,P43TCBl FaUrI~ 45104yRQI
~r?er;.~~1 ` _ ' _ z ~i^. E~~.. 'Cw~ f,~~'+~•+• '
vti u _
~y Y ~ + .iSi~~,'~' •r y~ e j ~~y~ •
~F _ . " ` j 'Y` ' ' ~c~ ; ~ ~ ~~g,~'Y ~ ~ ' ~ W L~ S
. Y$AT 19, 4 3 _
f Qxear QwM~flN. TFiaMdS E - C~
cccwnec _ , - ; ` J aY~~.x~trf ' • ~il `J
I ~ Omw Addreu
PO BE~'i ~~77F SF~KAHE W113'~3fir4PZJ' yw - , ~d ~ _ „r~k .-+c ~ ~e r,
_ .•-k ~
~ltb A[fdicss r F'iT. 7 - ~ ` .C;ci_ d , - •r. '
50{,
• i_i''~~{ Y:~ ~i s ii ` v^~ n,?`'~r~ '
R4 Pf d°l ,[C $d'r5 f7 SJBJ In Sf'0#
SMF r7~. H1YY ~ .
i K r - -~`r+`r ' ' ~
r P5
~t~ 5~ ~ • ti { i
'Z°." ~ W i•~ ~r ~ f_ Y~s'. ~+L•~ ~ ' '7c - 'L •
~ N- vr~ a L = F .r'~a'i, ~ - . - __r r _ _ _sx- ~ R . 4'r ~ Y ~ ~ } .+""_,-'_p.•i'r'!~:P~' °z:: f: ~ts='., ,r_ . ~
:-'T
~ i-
~
-
o -#ast Ait=.Opp7LNCOdi p[t~L i~'1ed ~6d 5[eld t - '_rn !i'1Jh1 ~'cn ~y~ s
~+Rf,~'r`=w,.•RC:~c,.~_~x"L. ti
5tart~ ~1n1~~c= W~ `r' I~Vehster, uMicto Pub I ie l~13j)~ • 2:0 4 PV ~
,
7-1 1 x
~
~Map" Layer.Pfan'-`-
-~.3;~~ - , y i~•.-,}A ~q,~ _ ~ ~ ~ -
J~r{ r
~ • t^ r5~ • _ a,~r ~ ~ ~ - a H< i _ 'p
- - ~ a,~F-~ +yti ~rx
xEAT~GORY
t ~ Y s ~'r'i .
t 'c- _ ~ 1~ _ •
~
V ye
~
F14J~
,5--,-
URgAN
_ rY
' _ SfY _ _ - _ • _
6M.'iE'R4rIAL'
~
ENDUSTRIAL`
i T~ r •nw~ e_ ~ c y
Comprehensive Plan Map
~
~
Not to Scale 11/03/97
~ .
ZE-48C-81 & ZE-7A-96
. blic W_
w q• U _ ~
i r c:+~:q- ' ~ ' ~ ",_:a + '_c , j : fi!...' ••7 }~V~ -;1_'n• • -~•c', .p r ,r,~ i '
I~ :i iZ. ~'e~~_,j i.'3 _ r~~-'• ..:y ~f + ~ • ` . ..r~~~_ • h _ T ` - v ' _ _ ' ~
Fit.
. ~ c ~'f_.- '_f~,- ~+S'7 ~ _ . , • . . r. J •..t _ -'7- ' . . ~ - ..i t~ ~
~ PublieWaiks Inquiry . p
J .nj J R ; c" ( -Pi `q( q1 J ~ A ~ - - • ~-4r' r'..=r~'': -Y'` _ 21 • •
Map PerCel Fonnd 45104_0201
_ _ • y , ~ . a :
`l ~`~~9'WFy w~'~ ~ y~~~+A~,.^S~
,~4~~
. r: - L _ t~a2L~ w~• ^a'~~w:~(j ..y ~ A ~ ~~~y•~,~'^'{~~y~~'r~ ~
~.~S~k
. ~ ~ ~ . .~S,~.a?~~'.'.al~'7_'+ia'.~f~'~.e. _fi
Yenr: i 998 'Roll
~ r ~ii': ,!`Y~.. ; s h~ n°' ~ ~,a,~.C,t~~~'Y~.'~.~' ~ ' • ~0^1_~`~"'+- ~C 4
Y, PsulFwmd • J , ~<`j=.~E-~~•~, ~;~1 ~i~;~,ja,~~ ~"`r~".~^ ,:.~;~~o~~ -~'..Cfn`'~~~•'r~f~~:r~~'i.
~ ~~O"-~.~'%~~'i-„`~,Tt~i~.'~ '•~~-~y~-1-~:
~ ~
Pmat `45SOlOZD1 ' 4
~ ' ,4~~" , . G`....~~%a~i ~ ~ r. s +
' Ownor. CLEMSON.?HOlWSF
„
CoO.Wtt7f`V
r-~y - M ^ • i' ~ • ~~_i'!''',~ '
O~GSN[N■u
1
, PO BtD(14T1T SWrANE WA 90 14T27 ' ~ ~ ti r ` ` ` ' ' ` w •1,^ ~;P'r'T%•
• ~ .f~. `I '~~-r+:t7.~`.~. _.`ail.
. SReAd~e
Sub ect Pro N;4,
. 1618 N►lA1QR f~ ~ ~Y hq;~~D',~:y~i'~
= ~t,~, Jr.
' ~cga! Usttt~pboa 3 t;,.t~ • , - ~ c~
~~.1 Pi OF 897 EtC S475 FT SUBJ TO S?f7t ~
; ~SMi~HWY i ~
~ ~ .
1
: .~.-_.~-~A,..~
10
+ '-r .,~r ,.t ✓ • ..Mp~- ~ 1^S J
, .'4 'j.:Y' ~F~ L~ • ~ ~ ~
~ •~,^~..~s: ~,ryF F-~ T 4..c~ 1 _ _ o' Y~ ~ _ _ , 1~~~~11 1-.
4'i~P' - 5=~i11. ^ i_ YiI 14~...~. f•~~~w~ ~ u ' - - xFs ♦ +-.l~ ~ r ~4°1-- ^ ~ 1 ~
~~r)~~' /~Va~~~/y~q,q7~~~~~wyJ~^~~~yy~ /~U6l J~ry.~yJ ~ t~ ♦ i ~•'44 111Y 1^
~/'uTtl~ tG-tY .I~fl. ~"Y~ •L~ - ia• I Y ' ~I.~~. u~~.:~~ ~ ~ ^ • _ ~ ~w.~-~ 1 _
jt_ -~.~:.Z ~ - . -2 ~ . f~.+.-v.~ ~ ~ [.1 r 1 ~ _ ♦ ~ ~'i~~~ r~'?~ ~ ~ . - ~
~ Statt f ~Inbox =.Mi: ~Webste~; ~ ~Microsoft 0 Public - 2•06 PM
~
77 ~
W-
ap -L,apet: 'Zoning
' ^ ~5 : ~ ^ - " ' ` ~ • '
, ` __l• • c~~, '1~ - ~'•i; - i -
ZONEC `Li4J.7
' • - ~ " 5 ~ • . - ' r
Value tDIQiT Y~i•
_ y~. ' • y . ~
RR-10~ 1^$e~L':~R'~.~w~ -
- ~}Y~CV ^ n`C- ~J r r j~~n.~' 1_
, I v L~ . _
U R -22 t,-
UR-3 .5 4;
- ` - -
I-2
- - - -
- " ~ " ~ _ • - _
B'2
• ' L `t s ; . , _ . _ _ _ _
Zoning Map
rlot to Scale 11/03/97 N
f
r , ,
tA.~ .
i 1~ 14~~~~ ~u.l.a P .
p
rt A"11
O r
~Vr,
~ ' a ~ p~riGS ~n QD
n
cu w~~ u f
r~H J~2 ti>
1-1
~
,i ,
~ N 0 HOUN ~ 0 l 1 ~
•1 , f~ ` ` r ~ O h~ ~ i ~ I 1
«r• 4 • , ~ ~ ' ) m HOUK
1 < n ~
~ n J.. +1{ I C
~ n p Vl4llEN ROAD
. ~ r
0~ 0 ` t v~w~~i► v 9
~ ~ ~ • ' 4~a I
1 i "~a..~, • : ' u~+ ~G~
~ 0°
i
~ i I~ M
i
~ < I, ~ ~ ~ - I I I f , I
T e~.■~ ~ ~ ~i , p~ j,~ ,
f { < ~
~ ~1 < ►1 tA qOAD ~
~ 1 < ; j
{i:i u %//////~//////~rIS
\ ~ , s ~ e ~ ~p ~I t_ .~11;.. M i n ~ ~ u"'~ t; H rr i,
~ ~ ~ i o ~ I p~ •'V
~ ~ , Iv~~ ( • lj ~ ` ~
~ ~ t ~ ' tr fff)111 ' ~ ~ I ri I ~ O
~l~~IV~~ C I V' 4wMlY O• ~ I~ r + I i '
" ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ►?y
D I ~ ~ ~j I
~ EUANS
t ~ H ~
I ~ p R
L-'l • ` ~~i '~,1 I c
~ - ~n...,.....:a~.~~ y~,a ~ < < ~ E ~ n ~ • ~ r
, ~ • t. ~ ~a ~~q • r e
~ , ~ - o ~ . ~ ► ~
,.+.~a n
0
I NN ~il~~~e T77'n
i
z I ~1►~a ' UII~V ~ RD Z ~ _ . • ~ ' .
1
~
O
B. Agency/Public Comments
. . SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: November 4, 1997
TO: John Pederson, Senior Planner, Spokane County Building and Plannin
9
Division
FROM: Donald T. Lynch, EHS II - EHD, SRHD ~
SUBJECT: Change of Conditions ZE-84C-81 / ZE-7A-96
The Spokane Regional Heaith District has reviewed the above mention action.
All original SRHD conditions will remain. We offer no additional comments.
planning IV1 ze-84c-818ze-7a-961 pa
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" ZONE
TO: Spokane County Planning Departmen# FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads )
Cc-~ J
DATE: Novernber 6, 1997
PROJECT: C O C SQ FT 19,900 TO 64,867 & 81100 TO 32,996
FILE : ZE-0084C-81 (ZE-0007A-96) / Hearing: 11/09/1997 @ 1:30 #1
Review Date: @ #
Sponsor/Applicant: JOHN SWEITZER
Section Township Range: 10-25-44
Planner: LOUIS WEBSTER
Technical Review Date : ( @ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings oi Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
1. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this proposal, the
applicant shall participate in 30 of the cost for the installation of
a traff ic signal located at Mission Avenue and McDonald Road. Prior
' to the release of a building permit the applicant shall enter into a
developer's agreement with Spokane County to determine the required
cost. All previous zone change conditions are applicable.
CC: Applicant JOHN SWEITZER
Engineer/Surveyor
Planner LOUIS WEBSTER
, r .
~
Washington State Eastern Region
Department of Transportation 2714 N Mayfair Street
Spokane, WA 99207-2090
Sid Morrison
Secretary of TransportaUon (509) 324-6000
RECEIVED
~~OK;aNE COI.~NTY
November 4, 1997
C, 11 0 6 1997
Mr. Louis Webster
Spokane County Planning UIViS1JN OF BUILDINt°, AjyD PL4M'1?4(;
B
West 1026 Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re: Inland Construction Mamer Road
Change of Conditions
Dear Mr. Webster:
In regard to the above zone change request, the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) met with the applicant on October 28, 1997, to discuss needed
' conditions of approval for this development. Based on this meeting, agreement was
reached on the necessary mitigation for traffic impacts to the State Highway and to provide
, for the future viability of the Evergreen Interchange. In exchange for any monetary
contribution to the State System the applicant has agreed to the following conditions on this
rezone. These conditions of approval are in addition to the future acquisition area that was
provided for in the previous zone change. As a result of this we request that the following
conditions of approval be applied to this development:
• The applicant shall provide to WSDOT cnzd/or Spokane County slope and consiruction
easements •along this sites frontage at no charge to WSDOT. This easement will be
used by WSDOT to re grade the site's landscape area on the site's I-90 frontage.
• On the site's northern boundary with I-90 the grading and landscaping of this area
shall be coordinated with WSDOT and Spokane County to minimize ihe impact to both
parties as it relates to the Evergreen Interchange.
• Drainage plcros for this site will need to be reviewed by WSDOT to ensure drainage
areas adjacent to I-90 are adequate.
• Signage visible to I-90 will need to be reviewed by WSDOT for conformance to the
Federal and State Scenic Vista's Act.
' .
.
Mr. Webster
November 4, 1997
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the above conditions, please feel free to contact either
Greg Figg or myself in our Reg-ional Planning Office at (509) 324-6199(7).
Sincerely,
KEITH MARTIN, P.E.
Development Services Engineer
By: Greg Figg
Transportation Planner
GF:
.
cc: John Sweitzer, Auble and Associates
Gary Bruner, Real Estate Services
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
. ,
•
MEMORARIDUM
DATE: November 3, 1997
TO: Louis Webster, Division of Building and Planning
FROM: Brenda Sims and Katig"iller, Water Resources
RE: ZE-84C-81/ZE-7A-96; DNS
CC: FII,E
Comments on the SEPA Checklist that was submitted:
Page 3 B. h. The applicant proposes to use "208 swales" as a one of the measures to control
erosion. Typically grassed percolation areas "swales" are used to handle stormwater quantity
and quality and not for erosion control. Erosion and sediment control usually is placed in front
of drainage facilities to ensure that they do not get clogged. Allowing sediment to get into the
swale reduces capacity as well as the life of the swale. We recommend the applicant use
appropriate best management practices (BMP's ) to handle the erosion and sedimentation
during and after site development.
K1StormIKATHRINE\0ESIGN1ze7a96 doc
. . . ,
POP no~ : ~ ~~1
- x ~ L.• P
Spakane County Public Works Departrnent
Divis~on ofLong Ran~e Plan~ing OCT 2 l 1997
DIVJa~0,~' Cy C'u'I~:?
interoffi~c memo
~
I~
Date: 10/27/96
Tfl: Lo,.tiis Webster
CC: John Mercer, AICP
Frvm: Allan N. deLaubenfels, Planner
RE: ZE-84C-8fZE-7.A-96
Thanlc }rou for the opportunity ta respond to the abave proposal. The Divisian of Long Ran~e Planning ~nds the fo]lo~ving:
The proposal is located in the Urban category of the Spokane Caunty Caranpr~ehensive Plan.
The proposa1 is located inside the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) bQUndary.
The DESCFJPTION OF PROPOSAL indicates a proposed intensification of the use of
the land inta mvre than three times the extent of that which had been permitted earlier.
This raises concem ahout ifis campatibility with the surraunding CJrbatY cat~~or-y of the
Comprehensive Plan. To illustrate €his concem, it is our conclusion tha~ if this were a new
proposal rather than the expansion of an existing use, it might have been diff cult to
describe the proposal as consistent with the Cornprehensive Plan. W'hile it is nat our
puapose to address questions regardirig zoning, we do recognize that Light Yndustriat
Zoning does exist for the subject parcel. We note, also, that light industrial uses are
anticipated by the Cvmprehensive Plan in the Urban category. Further, there is sharp
topographical chance ~~tween this and the Urban category to the south. Still further, the
property is vriented rnore #o the freeway (I-90) to the north than ather Urban category
areas Finaliy, the pattem of land use along Nora Ave. just snuth of the freeway (1-90) and
west to Pines Rd, is part of a similar type of land use (no longer primarily residential) and
an area which is apso defned by a sharp break in topolcrraphy.
Accordin~ly, it is our conclusiar~ that the proposal appears to be ~consistent vvith the
Carnprehensive Plan.
I
5994596828 `APCA 793 P01i08 OCT 28 '97 11:01
. • • • i
1 . ■
sPOKaNE couNn
(Uflt,o,AM AIR POLLUTIO!'i
S P O K A N E CONTROt QU1'NORITY
WEST 1101 COLLEGE, SUITE 403 • SPOKAN s, WA 99201 •(509) 456-4727 Fax (509) 459-6628
Date: October 27, 1997
To: John Pedersoiii
Spokane Coun~ty Division of Buiidings & Planning
1026 W. BroacDway Ave.
Spokane, WA 99260
Ftom: Mr. Charles E. 134tuder
Re: SCAPCA REQLIiREMENTS FOR:
Fiie No. ZE-84(:-81/ZE-71-96
Proponent: Joh-n Sweitzer for lnland Construction Co. @ East of
Mamer Rd., Sotith of I-90, & North of Miss'ton Ave. *
Date Received: 10124197 .
lComments on Dyrtermination of Nonsiqnificance bv 11117l97)
The Spokane County Air Pollution Conhij! Authonty (SCAPCA) was formed under the aufhority of fhe 9967 Clean A►r Act of
WasAmgfon (RCVV). Thaf Acf requlred ccunties, like Spokane Caunty, to acfivate local air poNufion control agencies. To meet
the requiremenfs of that Act, SCAPCA Fidopted regulations to control lhe emissions of eir contaminanfs from seurces within
Spokane County.
Portrons of Spokane County fail to meEit federal heelth slandards for paticu/afe emissions (dusf and smoke) and cartion
monoxide. Numerous strategies heve bEten implemented to reduce eir pollution emissions so that we can Jmprove air quality
and meet health standards.
Followrng !s e list of concemsfissues thai; at a mrnimum, need to be addressed fnr proposad projects. Additional comments
may resulf after more detailed intarmatiart of the project is supplied. SCAPCA encaurages proponenfs to contact their offices
et 1101 West College, Spokane, WA 992 91 far addltionel information.
The following comments are relewni to submitted Environrnental Checktist.
Section B 2.a. SCAPCA Regula2ion Article V{, and SCAPCA Regulation 11, Article IV, address air
poflution emission standards A!l emission standards must be met.
All solid fue) burning devices (fireplaces wood stoves, pelfet stoves, etc...) must comply
with local, state, ;and federal rules and regulations. Fireplace emission standards go
into effect Januar;t 1, 1997. New fireplaces must be tested and labeled in accordance
with procedures aid criter+a specified in the UBC Standard 31-2.
Hanresting of tirnber creates silvicultural debris. This debris must be removed by
methods other th an burning to the greatest extent possibie. lf buming is the only
reasonable dispoi5al option available, then it must be done in accordance with all
E%8Fta1qff9lC4mmenulSEPA1ZC-84G81 Z:-7A-99 dac
1NLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. @ EAST OF MAMER RD„ SOUTH OF 1-90, & NORTH OF MlSSION AVE.
October 27, 1997
Page 1
' PrmtvO on Fo:y:fed Payei
509459682E ;APCA ?93 P08i08 OCT 26 197 11:04
. . .
.
~
~
as Low NOx burners and source testing may be requtred depending upon the size of
the unit,
❑ One or mcre Stand by Generators. SCAPCA requires a Notice of Construction for al!
Siand by Generators that are raEed greater than or equal to 500 mechanical hocsepower
' (375 Kilowatfs).
~ There are numerous businesscs that are allowed in a commercial and industrfal Zoning that are 2ir
I
• pollution sources. BEfore any bu:iness is established at the sife, SCaPCA"sfiould be contacted to
determfne if a Notice of Constr1ction is reqvired. A COPY OF THIS LETTER SHoULD BE G1VEN TO.
EACH NEW TENANT.
• Ail a(r polluiian regufaiions must be mei.
• Air po(lution reguiatfons require that dust emfsslons during demolitlon, construction and excavatfon projects be
coniroi{ed. This may raquite the use of water sprGys, tarps, sprinkiers or suspension of aciiviiy during certain
wearher conditions. Haut roads s:aould be irested and emissions from the iransfer of e2rthen maierisl must be
' controlled as we11 as emissions from 211 other construction related activiiies.
I
. SCAPCA sirongly recommends thai el) traveled suriaces (i.e. ingress, egress, p2rking 2reas, access roads)
should be paved and kept clean i+) minimize emissions,
• NSeasures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved sur`aces onto paved sur;zces.
If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immedistely to clean these surfaces.
- SCAPCA Regu(ation 1, Artlcle V/ may tequire regfsiration wlih this agency depending uport the type of
business that may be esiablished at the siie. An approved No:ice of Construction suffices to meet this
requirement.
• SCAPCA Reguiat;on I, Article V1, and SCAPCA Regulaiion II, Arilcle !V, address air pollution emission
siandards. All emission standard5 must be met.
• Debris generated as a result of thls project must be disposed of by means other ihan burning (i.e, construction
was:e, vegelaiive wasis e(c.),
• Demolition and renovation projecis must comply wilh the requiremenis of CFR 40, Part 61, Subpart M and
SCAPCA Regulation I, Artlcle 1X. lnieni to Demolish forms are avaifable at the SCAPCA of ice.
• Dependfng upon the type of bus(rless ot equ;pment esiabiished on sife, some obJectlonable odors m2y result .
from this proJect. SCAFCA's regu,'atlons state ihat etfectfve control apparatus and measures must be used to
reduce odors io a m►nimum.
• AIf solld tuel burning devices (firaplaces wood sioves, pellei stoves, eic.,.) must comply with focal, siate, and
federal rules and regulations. F(ri:pface emission siandards go inio effect Janu2ry 1. 1°97. New firepl2ces
must be tested and (abeled in accardance with procedures and criteria specifted fn the U6C Standard 31•2.
- tf the proponent or anyone else hos questtons concerning the above, p(ease contact Charles E. siuder (509)
458-4727 ext, 107, April Miller ext. 105, or Kelle Vgeland ext.106 at SCAPCA's offTce during the hours of 8:00
am & 4:30 pm, Monday ihrough Fdday.
Falture fo meet SCaPCa reau.fat/ons mav result in delaVs, closure and clvlt and/or crlminal
sancfions.
CLF!:AN AIR (S UP 1"o ALL OF US
PAGE 2 '
d ~
•
`
MEMORANDUM
,
DATE: January 13, 1997 ~
TO: Pat Harper ~ j
~
CC: Tim Schwab, Iniand Pacific Engineering "
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
FROM: Steve Stairs -
SUBJECT: Inland Construction Business Park Traffic ImPact AnalYsis sPawf WwY
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have noted the following comments-
1. Figures 4&12 show NBR volumes at the intersection of Pines and the WB ramps where they
should be NBT. Likewise, figures 9, 10 & 11 show NBL and NBT volumes at the intersection
of Pines and the EB ramps where they should be NBT and NBR respectively. All of the
volumes were correctly applied in the capacity ana(yses with the exception of the NBR at the
intersection of Pines and the EB ramps. The capacity analysis print-out for Pines and the
EB ramps shows 196 NBR rather than the 296 assumed in Figure 9.
2. It appears that the 3% general growth rate that was to be applied before adding the
background project and business park traffic, as stated in the "Analysis, Assumption and
Methodologies° section, was not done. All 1995 and 1996 turn movement volumes should
be compounded for 2 and 1 years~growth respectively.
3. Table 3 lists the background projects and their associated trip generation volumes. Why
was the business park information so vague? ITE provides information for business parks in
land use code #770. I assume the business park referenced in Table 3 is phase 1 of the
, Inland Construction Business Park and that the floor areas would be avaiiable for trip
generation calculations.
4 This traffic study did not include, as stated on page 17, the Lawson/Gunning project,
Mirabeau Point and the Su(livan Park Mall projects because they will be completed after the
phase II of the Inland Construction Business Park. This may be true, however, given that
there is a finite capacity on the road system and longer term projects have committed to use
a portion or, perhaps, even the remaining capacity, we cannot allow the quicker constructed
projects to undercut the longer term projects capacity needs The traffic volumes for these
three projects need to be included.
Based on the comments listed above, I would recommend that any further action on this project
be deferred until these issues have been appropriately addressed. If you have any questions or
comments regarding my review, please feel free to stop by
~
1 I
Gi~ ~
. ~
.
C. Conditions of Approvai
Conditions of Approval: Attachment C.
1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant", which
term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors.
2. The Change of Conditions applies to the following real property: N 1618-1628 Mamer
Road; Tract 97, Vera, except all that part lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with a
distance 100 ft southerly when measured at right angles from the center line of PSH No.
2, and except that portion lying southwest of the northwest line of Corbin Ditch R/W, in
Spokane County, Washington
3 The proposal shall comply with the Urban Residential-22 (UR-22) and Light Industrial (I-2)
zones, as amended.
4. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept
presented to the Hearing Examiner. Variations, when approved by the Division
Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location,
landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must
conform to regulations set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code, and the original
intent of the development plans shall be maintained.
' S. The applicant is required to aggregate parcels or apply for and receive lot line adjustments
so that buildings are set back the required distances from property lines.
6. The applicant is required to develop subject property in conformance with Hearing
Examiner decisions of record with the exception of the amount of building square footage •
allowed per this application.
' . .
~
4 C, -ZA
~
~
c~~~ ~ ►
<< ~ ~
•
~ .
~
s. ~ . ~ . .
~ iJ' " r /(~t/~ ~R,.,~L~l,/~`'i v ~f ~ O ~ ~ It •
~
r
. ~
.
OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0170 (509)456-3600 Fax 324-3478
"ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" ZONE
TO: Spokane County Planning Departmen
FROM: Division of Engineering & Roads
DATE : November 6, 1997
PROJECT: C O C SQ FT 19,900 TO 64,867 & 8,100 TO 32,996
FILE ZE-0084C-81 (ZE-0007A-96) /
Hearing: 11/09/1997 @ 1:30 #1
Review Date: @ #
Sponsor/Applicant: JOHN SWEITZER
Section Township Range: 10-25-44
Planner: LOUIS WEBSTER
Technical Review Date: ( @ )
The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the
Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved.
Prior to release of a building permit or use of property as proposed:
1. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this proposal, the
applicant shall participate in 30 of the cost for the installation of
a traffic signal located at Mission Avenue and McDonald Road. Prior
to the release of a building permit the applicant shall enter into a
developer's agreement with Spokane County to determine the required
cost. All previous zone change conditions are applicable.
CC: Applicant JOHN SWEITZER
Engineer/Surveyor
Planner LOUIS WEBSTER
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 1997
~
TO: Pat Harper
CC: John Pederson, Spokane County Planning I„ I
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc.
Mark Rohwer, W ' ton State Department of Transportation
~
FROM: Steve Stairs
SUBJECT: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Inland Construction 5poKxf COURTY
Business Park
I have completed the review of the above referenced traffic study and although there are still
several errors, I believe they are minor in nature and should not affect the conclusions stated in
the report. Therefore, I would recommend that we accept this study as complete upon receipt of
the following:
1. Updated figures 6, 7& 8 showing the site generated volumes assigned to the network using
the corrected trip generation of Table 4. In the original report, the areas for each land use,
office and warehouse, were transposed. The corrected areas show that an additional 18
trips would be generated. The updated volume assignment should also be incorporated in
the background traffic for future projects like the Mirabeau Point and Lawson/Gunning
projects.
2. LOS sheets or a statement indicating that at build-out of this project and with the additional
traffic added above, acceptable levels of service will be maintained within the study area.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding my review of this traffic study report, please
feel free to bring them to my attention.
r
. ~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 27, 1997 ~
TO: Scott Engelhard CC: John Pederson, Spokane County Planning
Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
FROM: Steve Stairs SPw4cC)U1ljTY
SUBJECT: Inland Construction Business Park Traffic Study
After review of the additional information provided by Tim Schwab of Inland Pacific Engineering
in a letter to Pat Harper, dated August 25, 1997, I recommend that we accept this traffic study
report.
If you have any questions with respect to this traffic study, please feel free to see me.
r
M E M O R A N D U M
DA.TE: November 3, 1997
TO: Louis Webster, Division of Building and Planning
FROM: Brenda Sims and Katherine Miller, Water Resources
RE: ZE-84C-81/ZE-7A-96; DNS
CC: FILE
Comments on the SEPA Checklist that was submitted:
Page 3 B. h. The applicant proposes to use "208 swales" as a one of the measures to control
erosion. Typically grassed percolation areas "swales" are used to handle stormwater quantity
and quality and not for erosion control. Erosion and sediment control usually is placed in front
of drainage facilities to ensure that they do not get clogged. Allowing sediment to get into the
swale reduces capacity as well as the life of the swale. We recommend the applicant use
appropriate best management practices (BMP's ) to handle the erosion and sedimentation
during and after site development.
C 1WIND0WSITEMP1ze7a96 doc
. . Kimball, Sandy
From: Hemmings, Bill
Sent: Monday, October 27, 1997 3:21 PM
To: Pederson, John
Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean, Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott
Subject: ZE-84C-81/ZE-7A-96 - Change of Conditions
Importance: High
Oct. 23, 1997
I received a"DNS" for the above referenced project on Oct. 23, 1997.
The SCS Soils Map identifies this area as being Garrison Gravely Loam soils The soil survey in this area is
known to be accurate. Therefore, since this is an approved soil for stormwater disposal, no concept drainage plan
is required We have no information that says there are any critical areas on this site.
I consider this proposal to be technically complete.
~lll s'~euwyrtKgo
Page 1
im f
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
August 14, 1997
W . O . No. 96215
Pat Harper
Spokane County Engineers
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
RE: Address County Comments
Inland Construction Business Park Phase 2 Project
Dear Pat:
The purpose of this letter is to address the County comments regarding the Inland Construction
Business Park Phase 2 Project in a Memorandum to Pat Harper dated January 13, 1997. The
following is a listing of the County Comment and our response:
1. Figures 4& 12 show NBR volumes at the intersection of Pines and the WB ramps where
they should be 1VBT. Likewise, figures 9, 10 & 11 show NBL and 1VBT volumes at the
intersection of Pines and the EB ramps where they should be NBT and NBR
respectively. All of the volumes were correctly applied in the capacity analyses with the
exception of the NBR at the intersection of Pines and the EB ramps. The capacity
analysis print-out for Pines and the EB ramps shows 1961VBR rather than the 296
assumed in Figure 9. ,
We have revised the figures as noted above to show correct directions. Regarding the
right turn volumes, the Synchro program does not allow for any reductions due to right
turns on red except by reducing the right turn volume. This was done for these right
turns.
2. It appears that the 3% general growth rate that was to be applied before adding the
background project and business park traff'ic, as stated in the "Analysis, Assumption
and Methodologies " section, was not done. All 1995 artd 1996 turn movement volumes
should be compounded for 2 and 1 years growth respectively.
This was an oversight on our part. We have revised the volumes accordingly.
3. Table 3 lists the background projects and their associated trip generation volumes.
Why was the business park information so vague ? ITE provides information for
business parks in land use code # 770. I assume the business park referenced in Table
3 is phase 1 of the Inland Construction Business Park and that the floor areas would be
available for trip generation calculations.
707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205
Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
509-458-6840 • FAX 509-458-6844 208-765-7784 0 FAX 208-769-7277
4 f
Inland Construction Business Park - County Comments
August 12, 1997
Page 2
It was not our intention to be vague. However, 30,000 s.f. were approved for
construction for phase 1. Using the ITE PM peak hour rate for Business Parks, Land
Use 770, Page 1088 - rate = 1.48. The volume equals 44 trips and distribution is also
approximately the same as in Table 3. This has been changed in the updated report.
4. This tra, ffic study did not include, as stated on page 17, the Lawson/Gunning project,
Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Park Mall projects because they will be completed
after the phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park. This may be true, however,
given that there is a finite capacity on the road system and longer term projects have
committed to use a portion or, perhaps, even the remaining capacity, we cannot allow
the quicker constructed projects to undercut the longer term projects capacity needs.
The traffic volumes for these three projects need to be included..
These three projects are located on the north side of I-90 between Pines Road and
Sullivan Road whereas the Inland Construction Business Park project is located on the
south side of I-90. Inland Construction Business Park project will primarily affect the
intersections located to the south of I-90 and to a lessor degree the intersections north of
I-90. For any of the above mentioned three projects north of I-90 to be constructed,
Evergreen Interchange will have to be constructed as part of traffic mitigation. When
Evergreen Interchange is constructed, traffic will shift from Pines Road to Evergreen
Road and traffic conditions will improve. Therefore, if or when the three above
projects are constructed, traffic congestion will be lessened by Evergreen Interchange.
We have revised the calculations and figures. Attached are two revised copies of the traffic
impact analysis. I trust this letter answers your questions regarding the traffic study. If you
have any further questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO.7 INC.
_ d.'Jda'o~
~
Timothy A. Schwab
TAS/tas
Attachments
c: John Sweitzer
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 13, 1997 ~
TO: Pat Harper
CC: Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT Q-
FROM: Steve Stairs S t?~
SPO~~Cov~~
SUBJECT: Inland Construction Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have noted the following comments'
1. Figures 4&12 show NBR volumes at the intersection of Pines and the WB ramps where they
should be NBT. Likewise, figures 9, 10 & 11 show NBL and NBT volumes at the intersection
of Pines and the EB ramps where they should be NBT and NBR respectively. All of the
volumes were correctly applied in the capacity analyses with the exception of the NBR at the
intersection of Pines and the EB ramps. The capacity analysis print-out for Pines and the
EB ramps shows 196 NBR rather than the 296 assumed in Figure 9.
2. It appears that the 3% general growth rate that was to be applied before adding the
background project and business park traffic, as stated in the "Analysis, Assumption and
Methodologies" section, was not done. All 1995 and 1996 turn movement volumes should
be compounded for 2 and 1 years growth respectively
3. Table 3 lists the background projects and their associated trip generation volumes. Why
was the business park information so vague? ITE provides information for business parks in
land use code #770. I assume the business park referenced in Table 3 is phase 1 of the
Inland Construction Business Park and that the floor areas would be available for trip
generation calculations.
4. This traffic study did not include, as stated on page 17, the Lawson/Gunning project,
Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Park Mall projects because they will be completed after the
phase II of the Inland Construction Business Park. This may be true, however, given that
there is a finite capacity on the road system and longer term projects have committed to use
a portion or, perhaps, even the remaining capacity, we cannot allow the quicker constructed
projects to undercut the longer term projects capacity needs. The traffic volumes for these
three projects need to be included.
Based on the comments listed above, I would recommend that any further action on this project
be deferred until these issues have been appropriately addressed. If you have any questions or
comments regarding my review, please feel free to stop by.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 13, 1997 ~
TO: Pat Harper
CC: Tim Schwab, inland Pacific Engineering
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT
FROM: Steve Stairs
Cot~
SUBJECT: Inland Construction Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis SP
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have noted the following comments:
1 Figures 4&12 show NBR volumes at the intersection of Pines and the WB ramps where they
should be NBT Likewise, figures 9, 10 & 11 show NBL and NBT volumes at the intersection
of Pines and the EB ramps where they should be NBT and NBR respectively. All of the
volumes were correctly applied in the capacity analyses with the exception of the NBR at the
intersection of Pines and the EB ramps. The capacity analysis print-out for Pines and the
EB ramps shows 196 NBR rather than the 296 assumed in Figure 9.
2. It appears that the 3% general growth rate that was to be applied before adding the
background project and business park traffic, as stated in the "Analysis, Assumption and
Methodologies" section, was not done. All 1995 and 1996 turn movement volumes should
be compounded for 2 and 1 years growth respectively.
3 Table 3 lists the background projects and their associated trip generation volumes. Why
was the business park information so vague? ITE provides information for business parks in
land use code #770 I assume the business park referenced in Table 3 is phase 1 of the
Inland Construction Business Park and that the floor areas would be available for trip
generation calculations
4. This traffic study did not include, as stated on page 17, the Lawson/Gunning project,
Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Park Mall projects because they will be completed after the
phase II of the Inland Construction Business Park. This may be true, however, given that
there is a finite capacity on the road system and longer term projects have committed to use
a portion or, perhaps, even the remaining capacity, we cannot allow the quicker constructed
projects to undercut the longer term projects capacity needs. The traffic volumes for these
three projects need to be included.
Based on the comments listed above, I would recommend that any further action on this project
be deferred until these issues have been appropriately addressed. If you have any questions or
comments regarding my review, please feel free to stop by.
~
RECEVED
i' 'i r`'•`~+ ~
ocT27 V;
C O U
jy~ -
.r _ ~ • ~ . mrtY Er!~`
liiPll.l)IN(: AtiU Pl_AhNlNc; • A DIVISii):ti7 UE= THE PUHI_1C WURKS DEI'Ak17rtl:°.
r• r,., , .
S()ul.aite l.uwnty Uivtsfull c>t iLlig1t1CCf'111g; l~at I liii I)l:l
E)okane Cotinty Division of Utilities; Jiiit ftecl
liokane Regional I-lealtlz DistriCt; Steve Flalderby
pokane Courity Division of I3clilding arld 1'lanning; Je1'f Forrv
iormwater Utility; Steve Worley
)eve(opment Fngineering Services; Bill Hemminbs,
1wkane Cotinty Air Poifutinn Control Authority
Ong Range Planning Division; Joiin Niercer
ire Protectio» District No. i
cntra) Vallev School District No. 356
era Water k ('ower
A)okane Cotinty [3oundary Rcview E3uar,l; Su,.►n Windiell
I)okane Cotinty Divisian of Parks, Recreatirni ancl F:i ;i 11-, ~.~i-~, i
~j)okane Regional 1'ransportation Council;
pokane "Cransit Authority; Christine Fuest,
.VA State Departmeiit of Transportation; M 1.1!
'.1'A Statc Department of Lcolog~ ,l, r,;;; tiheriff's Deparimeni; Greg Snycicr John Pederson, Senior P1ani1ern1~A:4
\Tr: October 24, 1997
Fi.IFCT: Review and comments for be(u%v listc:d t iles t'or tiie iieii ring ot'Noveinbc.r 111, I~y' ~2ase review and retuni any comments for the followinc filcs by Nove;mber 5, 1997. 11' `~km eomments regarding roads ati(i eireulation in your rLSpoilae;, 1flease fortvarcl tli<<t respcmsc.~ al.; Spokane Countt T',•,~•~c•~_~r'~- ~11_ti;_e l'l~~:t~e~ fc►►•~~,1r~l ~~~,tlr ~•~~~i~ir~ents t~~ thr :►tt~~iitinn ~►f tl~~
:1'-signccl planncr.
! E-S4C-B I /LL-; A-'
~ 'Iianbe of Conditio~~~
)vc. 10-25-44
`-;ponsor: inland Consti tictiol►
t~• , -.,",-;~(.-'t(,,'~, • 1'E~
' ~ .
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
August 25, 1997
W.O. No. 96215
Pat Harper
Spokane County Engineers
1026 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
RE: Address County Comments
Inland Construction Business Park Phase 2 Project
Dear Pat:
The purpose of this letter is to address the Counry comments regarding the Inland Construction
Business Park Phase 2 Project in a Memorandum to Pat Harper dated August 22, 1997 from
Steve Stairs. The following is a listing of what the County needs to accept the study as
complete and our response to the comment:
1. Updated figures 6, 7& 8 showing the sfte generated volumes assigned to the network
using the corrected trip generation of Table 4. In the original report, the areas for
each land use, office and warehouse, were transposed. The corrected areas show that
an additional 18 trips would be generated. The updated volume assignment should also
be incorporated in the background traffic for future projects like the Mirabeau Point
and Lawson/Gunning projects.
We have revised the figures as requested to show the corrected trip generation and
distribution. We will revise other traff'ic studies in review that use this project as a
background project.
2. LOS sheets or a statement indicating that at build-out of this project and with the
additional traffic added above, acceptable levels of service will be maintained within
the study area.
Level of service calculations were performed for the condition with the proposed
project, without Evergreen Interchange and with the proposed improvements as listed
previously in the report. This is the worst condition, since the condition with the
Evergreen Interchange will shift some traffic currently on Pines Road to Evergreen
Road. With the additional traffic from this project and proposed improvements,
acceptable levels of service will be maintained within the study area.
707 West 7th • Suite 200
Spokane, Washington 99204
509-458-6840
FAX• 509-458-6844
a
Inland Construction Business Park - County Comments
August 25, 1997
Page 2
We have revised the calculations and figures. These are attached as requested. I trust this
letter answers your questions regarding the traffic study. If you have any further questions,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING CO., INC.
a ` - I/V Timothy A. Schwab
TAS/tas
Attachments
c: John Sweitzer
~
N ~
~
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
NOT TO SCALE
4t ~ Cf
CO rn
W. BOUND RAMPS
0
Q ~
o ~
x 90
cn ,o~
z
~
E. BOUND RAMPS
^ NORA AVENUE
~
~ 56
~ , ~ r ,S ~S ~
i~ • f ~
L,J
~ N ~ G
18 ~ ~ 3
17 24 4 2
~ 24 ~ 5 Q 5~ ~
MM ^ O ~ O
MISSION AVENUE o W.
Q ~
z 0
o lx
o >
wJ
INLAND FlGURE 6 INLANO CONSTRUCTION ~
PAC;IFIC SI TE GEN ERATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERING W 0 EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th •sulte 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-68440,f ` TR AFFI C. VOLU MES PROJECT N0. 96215 o/
.
, • 1
0*011
N ~
V
4 ~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
N
NoT To scALE
3k5
~Q
W. BOUND RAMPS
0
Q N
90
W 5 ~
Z 4
CL Go
N
- E. BOUND RAMPS
NORA AVENUE ~
~ r
~ zs '
. Q
M ~
W .
. ~
Q
n N N ~
t
~1 J, ~8
10==> 24
24 ~ 5 ~
; Q
Q O
M M ~ O ~
Z
~ MiSSION AVENUE o W ~
Q ~
; Z C~
€ 0 NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD ~
~ U AND MISSION VENUE ALLOWED ~
_ \ ~ 'i' J
~
FIGURE 7
I NLAND ~ INLAND CONSTRUC110N
` - PACIFIC ' SI TE GEN ER A1rED BUSINESS PARK '
~ ENCiINEERINQ WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 west 7th •suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokcne, WA 99204 FAX• (509) 458-6844~ ` TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 /
~
.
. • .
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM N
o(n
NOT TO SCALE
cf~~
Go 0
W. BOUND RAMPS
0
Q ~
o ~
w 90
W 5cz~\7
Z
~
E. BOUND RAMPS
qtl NORA AVENUE ~
56
~o~cx w
(_7 AA,0;5 A cr_
w
co Q
12-=J J2 <-24 13 8
~ 24 14, 0
Q Q
M ~ r O ~
z
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q ~
z ~
0 NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD AND ~
0
u MISSION AVE E NOT ALLOWED ~
~ :2 w/
INLAND \ ~ FlGURE 8 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC SI TE 'GEN ER ATED BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING WI TH EVERGREEN I/C
707 we9c 7th •suite Zoo (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAfFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844., ` TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
~
• • , , ~tTl~ ~~oJEGT ~ tit/rtt~ ~~nf~~overvtCN-rs
, .
1Nt~d+r~ ~~~~r~~
Mission & Pines August 25, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
L y ~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT a45 NBL NBT' NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 160 244 o 30 1011 92 493 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 472 500 31 1207 0 529 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3585 3655 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3655 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Left Turn Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 43 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 -20 24 24 8 37 19 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.85 0.35 0.96 0.93 1.02
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.89 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.93
Average Delay (s.) 38 25 20 36 38 50 43
Level of Service D C C D D E E
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 91 %
Intersection Delay: 37.8
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
1 3 4
6 E1 7 ~ 8 ,
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
~ ~ ~ cl TI `l $1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 472 500 31 1207 529 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft ) 172 144 228 20 411 180 583
Queue Length 95% (ft ) 257 202 458 26 539 223 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1790 1790 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 11 % 26% 4% 90% 47% 151 % ~
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.) ~ ~A
% of storage Used
Fills Storage? ~S ' --~Qn2
!h
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN'I196215\IMPRB0WE SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
EB Ramps & Pines August 25, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~I Ll y I ci 1.
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 250 0 ~o& 25~ 0 0 0 0 1618 3137 162 1095 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 255 0 1182 0 0 0 0 1734 319 165 1173 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.38 0.98 1.06 0.46 1.04 0.56
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.78 1.76
Average Delay (s.) 17 40 56 14 94 19
Level of Service C D E B F C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begm Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 102%
Intersection Delay: 39.5
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
2 J_tA 4
~
~
5 J 6
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 255 1182 1734 319 165 1173
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 128 405 602 180 114 294
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 171 522 736 230 146 375
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 470 760 760
% of Link Used 16% 50% 157% 49% 19% 49%
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:00CUMENT196215\IMPRBOWE SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
'
WB Ramps & Pines August 25, 1997
fiZ
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph ) 0 0 0 266 1 21 732 966 0 0 1018" 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 310 0 811 1091 0 0 1288 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Left Turn Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 31 74 43
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.85 0.82 0 41 0.88
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.45 0.89 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 40 41 4 22
Level of Service D E A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio 85%
Intersection Delay: 22.3
Intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
T 4 ~
• 5 Ih s y 7
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
~ . T. -
Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 310 811 1091 1288
Queue Length 50% (ft ) 206 281 93 397
Queue Length 95% (ft ) 336 346 118 573
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% Of Link Used 30% 46% 16% 409%
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN'I1962151IMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
. yh
.
kk • ~
a ~
Indiana & Pines _ja ,~i ~ ~ ~ August 25, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
a'
L
EBL EBT EBR WBL eWBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 831 45 115 133 900 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 AAI 99 2 141 1028 0 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 17 1822 1 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm ) 1397 564 1200 1583 311 3714 184 3711
Left Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0 33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 20 13 13 13 35 4 10 12
Level of Service C B B B D A B B
Cycle Length, 100
Offset- 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio. 80% ~
Intersection Delay: 11.7 a
Intersection LOS: B
54`
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
IT 2 30 4
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
- ~ ~ I t-I ~ . T I `4 I .
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 44 99 122 141 1028 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 239 18 42 52 77 170 3 186
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 32 73 89 126 270 4 278
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 1110 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of Link Used 41 % 3% 7% 8% 90% 193% 0% 22%
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report MDOCUMENT196215\IMPRBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4
r
~
Mission & McDonald August 25, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ ~ ~ •
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 586 230 104 417 185 98
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 952 0 0 607 206 109
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3576 3692 1770 1583
Satd Flow (Perm.) 3576 1963 1770 1583
Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 59 59 41
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.48 0.55 0.31 0.18
Platoon Factor 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s ) 13 11 17 16
Level of Service B B C C
Cycle Length. 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio- 45%
Intersection Delay: 12.8
Intersection LOS. B
Splits and Phases: Mission & McDonald
*4 2 3, 4 ~
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Volume 952 607 206 109
Queue Length 50% (ft ) 140 134 100 50
Queue Length 95% (ft ) 186 232 168 81
Link Length (ft.) 1790 690 600 600
% of Link Used 10% 34% 28% 14%
Blocks Upstream?
Storage Length (ft )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMENT196215\IMPRB0WE SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 5
I
♦ ~ ~ ~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOWOEV.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) Nora Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 8/12/97
Other Information......... Buildout with Project, Without Evergree
n I/C, Without Improvemen
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1729 10 90
PHF .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0
MC' s (o }
SU/RV' s ( % )
Cv's ( o)
PCE's 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle ~ Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 -
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
.
. ~
.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor StrTeet WB EB ~
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 906
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 481
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 481
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.79
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)
9.5
WB R 103 481 9.5 0.9 B
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
.
, .
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.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) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 8/12/97
Other Information......... Buildout with project, Without Evergree
n I/C, Without Improvemen
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 30 448 4 2 384 17 8 4 1 21 4 51
PHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s (96)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major.Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
4
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ~
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 469 409
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 801 859
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 801 859
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.90
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 471 418
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022 1084
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1022 1084
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.96
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 920 913
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 359 362
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 343 345
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 940 914
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 302 ~ 313
Major LT, Minor TH
.Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 257 299
~
V
` • ♦ • ,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.HCO Page 3
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)
NB L 9 257 >
NB T 4 343 > 292 12.9 0.0 C 12.9
NB R 1 801 >
SB L 37 299 >
SB T 7 345 > 539 8.9 1.1 B 8.9
SB R 90 859 >
EB L 34 1084 3.4 0.0 A 0.2
WB L 2 1022 3.5 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
~ v
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVWOEV.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) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/24/96
Other Information......... Buildout with Project, Without Evergree
n I/c
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 308 167 43 267 151 27
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV's (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 _
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
r
.
. .
.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB "
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 412
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 856
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 856
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 500
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 990
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 990
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 738
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 396
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 372
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)
NB L 175 372 >
407 17.6 2.8 C 17.6
NB R 31 856 >
WB L 50 990 3.8 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 3.4 sec/veh
'
PAGE 1 ~ 14:20:24 27 OCT 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
03068 MAMER CT (START) 00.000 24TH AV U 19 PAVED 36
00.040 NORTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 36
02956 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 20TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD 00.180 17TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD (END) 00.250 16TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
02957 MAP;ER RD (START) 00.000 SOUTH END TO 9TH AVE U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.060 9TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40
00.120 8TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD ( END ) 00.180 7TH AV ( END ) U 19 PAVED 40
02958 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 BROADWAY AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MAMER RD 00.490 MISSION AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MAMER RD ( END ) 00.700 NORA AV ( END )
03106 MAMER RD k'START) 00.000 32ND AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.050 31ST AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD (END) 00.080 30TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
03144 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 7TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.060 6TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD (END) 00.120 STH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40
03184 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 MAIN AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.100 VALLEYWAY AV U 19 PAVED 36
NiAMER RD ( END ) 00.230 NORTH END OF ROAD
03225 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 46TH AV U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD (END) 00.230 43RD AV (START) U 19 PAVED 36
8 Records Processed
• e L
PAGE 1 14:21:38 27 OCT 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
03046 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 COUNTRY VISTA DR R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AVE (END) 00.230 SIGNAL RD (END) R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AV 00.410 HOMESTEAD DR (END) R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AVE 00.460 MADSON ST R 08 PAVED 50
MISSION AV 00.720 MOLTER RD (LIBERTY L R 08 LIGHT BITUM. 22
01.220 SIMPSON RD (LIBERTY R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 26
02.860 CHASE RD (START) R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 26
MISSION (NEW END) 03.030 IDAHO R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 26
MISSION AV (END) 03.100 IDAHO RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 26
03042 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 FANCHER FRONTAGE RD U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV 00.490 THIERMAN ST (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00.620 BR.ADLEY RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00.770 LILY RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00.930 BOWMAN RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
00.990 PARK RD U 17 PAVED 20
01.110 CENTER RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01.130 CENTER RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
01.230 ELLA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
01.270 ELLA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
01.290 ELTON RD (END) U 17 PAVED 20
MISSION AV (END) 01.510 VISTA RD (START) U 17 PAVED 20
03043 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 VISTA RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
MISSION AV 00.120 BESSIE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00.250 SARGENT RD U 17 PAVED 22
00.370 MARGUERITE RD (END) U 17 PAVED 22
00.510 ARGONNE RD (ONE WAY U 16 PAVED 44
00.560 MULLAN RD (ONE WAY N U 16 PAVED 44
00.660 WILLOW RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
00.760 LOCUST RD U 16 PAVED 36
00.900 FARR RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.010 WOODRUFF RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.140 HERALD RD ( END ) U 16 PAVED 36
01.260 FELTS RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.390 R.AYMOND RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
01.410 OBERLIN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.500 UNIVERSITY RD U 16 PAVED 36
01.670 GLENN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.750 PIERCE RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
01.950 WOODWARD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 36
02.020 BOWDISH RD U 16 PAVED 36
02.060 BATES RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
02.140 WILBUR RD U 16 PAVED 36
02.290 UNION RD (START) U 16 PAVED 36
02.510 SR-27 (PINES RD) U 16 PAVED 50
02.650 HOUK RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
02.720 HOUK RD (START) U 16 PAVED 50
02.760 VERCLER RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
02.900 WOODLAWN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
03.030 MCDONALD RD (END) U 16 PAVED 50
03.280 BLP,KE RD U 16 PAVED 22
03.400 MAMER RD U 16 PAVED 22
03.520 EVERGREEN RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03.650 BOLIVAR RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03.790 BEST RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
03.880 REES CT (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.050 ADAMS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
.
w
PAGE 2 14:21:40 27 OCT 1997
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
04.130 MARCUS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.170 BURNS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.320 PROGRESS RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.380 ST CHARLES RD (END) U 16 PAVED 22
04.540 CATALDO AV (END) U 16 PAVED 22
MISSION AV (END) 04.590 SULLIVAN RD
03045 MISSION AV (START) 00.000 WEST END TO FLOR.A RD U 19 GRAVEL 20
MISSION AV 00.280 FLOR.A RD U 19 GR.AVEL 20
MISSION AVE 00.430 ARC ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
MISSION AV 00.770 LONG RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
00.870 ARTIES ST (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.030 GREENACRES RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.270 BARKER RD U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 20
01.390 HARMONY LN 1600(PRIV U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.670 GRADY RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.730 HODGES RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.790 ALADDIN RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
01.850 CAVALIER RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
02.050 HOLL RD (END) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
02.160 GLENBROOK RD (START) U 17 LIGHT BITUM. 18
MISSION AV (END) 03.260 HARVARD RD (START) R 08 GR.AVEL 30
03047 MISSION RD (START) 00.000 LINCOLN COUNTY LINE R 09 GR.AVEL 18
MISSION RD 00.570 RR TR.ACKS R 09 GRADED/DR.AINED 10
MISSION RD (END) 01.030 STROUP RD R 09 GRADED/DRAINED 10
03049 MISSION RD (START) 00.000 FLINT RD R 09 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MISSION RD 00.500 OLD TR.AILS RD (START R 09 GRAVEL 20
01.060 DENO RD ( START ) R 09 GR.AVEL 20
MISSION RD (END) 02.150 GROVE RD R 09 GRAVEL 20
03048 MISSION RD (START) 00.000 WOOD RD R 09 GR.AVEL 12
MISSION RD (END) 01.000 RITCHEY RD (START) R 09 GRAVEL 12
7 Records Processed
. ,
~
s.,..
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
SECTION 11.10.230 -1-
FiEGEIVED
SPOKANE COUNTY
1 il,'97
DIVISION QF E3UILGII~'G AND PIANNING
F3Y.
s
SPOtUKE ENYIROMtE1(TAI. aROtRIVICE r
(IfAC 147-11-960) Sactton 11.10.230(1)
Envtronnental Chetfctlst ZE-84-B-81 &
Fiie No. ZE-7-96
Pv.9ozc ct cMcklt sc :
TM1t Stikte Envtronmental Po11cy Act (SEPA) chapter 43,21C aC11. reQulres a11 gavernsental agencles to tonslder the envirorasental iriPacts of a proposal
before mkin9 Aecisions. M Envlronmental lapect State.ent (E1S) must be pre9ared for ilt proposals w1tA Drobable siqntllcant adverse lcapacts on
the qu►litr of the envlrorwent. thc purpose of this checfcttst Is to provlde lnforvatlon to help yeu •nd the aqency identlfy 1Apacts troca your
proposal (and to reduce or avotd t.picts from the proposal, If 1t csn be done) •nd to help the agcncy decide vhether an EtS is reQuired.
lnstructlons for Aqpllcants:
This environiental chedcllst asks you to descrtbe soot bistc 1nforaatlon abaut yvur propesal. Govern.ental a9encles ust thls checklisi to detern+ine
.rhether the environ.ental 1mpacti of your propoial •re slqnifitant. *edulrinq pre9antian of an EIS. Answer the Questlons briefly. vitl+ the n+ost
precise inforsation knam. or qlve the Dest descrlptton yau can.
'►ou .ust •nswer each qvestlon •tturattly and carefuily. to tAe Dest ot your knavledqe. In aosL cases. you shoutd be able to •nswer the questlons
trow rour own oaservations or project plans vitAOUt tAe need to Alre experts. If you really do not knoa the ertsMer, or t♦ a questlon does not apply
to your proposal. vrite 'do not know' or •boes not tpply.' Complete ansrers to tAe "stions naw i.ay avotd unnecessary deiays later.
Soma qvestions ask about yoverrtaentat ►equlatlorrs. sucb as zonlnq. sAorellne. anE lindoark deslqnatlons. Answer these Questlons tf you can. lf you
hare proDlers. the govern.ental agencles cin assist you.
The cf►edcllst Questlons applr to i11 partt oi rpur proposal, rven 11 you plan to do thea over a perlod of t1me or on Etfferent parcels of land.
Attach sny adEltlonal tnforattton tAat r11) Cescribe yovr proposal or 1ts envlronAental etfects. The agenCy to rhtch you subalt this chtcklist s►ay
ast you to explain your ansvers or provl4e additional tnform tion nasonaDly related to determ1n1nq if ihere isay be s19n1tfcaet adverse lmpact.
U u o f t hett 11 s t f or nonpro,ye Ct propo sa 1 s.
Cemplete thls chedcllst for nortproject propoisls, even thau9f+ questlorn asy be •nsvend 'does not aoply'.
IN ADOITTON. cauplete the StlP*tFKEI(TAL SkEET FOR NONPROJECT ALTIONS(Part D).
for nonproject uNons. the reftrrnCas 1n the tMtkllst to the rords 'Oroject.' 'tppltunt.' •nd 'property or slte' sl+ould be read ts 'pro0osai.'
'proposer.' •nd 'affecte4 yeographtc ares.' resP,ecttvely.
A. BACICGROl1N0
t. l,me ot proposed projecc. fr .ovlic,bie: Inland Construction Business Park Phase II
t. q+m or Awltc,nc: Inland Construction, Tom Clemson
Address and pl►one rnaber of tppllcant or contact person: John T. Sweitzer
107 S. Howard St, #300
Spokane, Wa 99204 509/747-0999
4, ace c+►ecxli:c ono•na: December 2, 1996
s. A9e„cy reqvescSnq cnectli:e: SAOkane Countv
~ ~ ~1~t,I~.'
1
~l
s. Provo:ea ci.ing ar scheEule c+ncluainy on.:in4, ir ,pplicablea: Construction o£ Phase II to beain in the
summer of 1997 (June, 1997)
7. a. Oo you have any plans for future addttlorts, expans/oe. or further actlvity relattd to or Cometted rtth thts proposa17 lt yes, exp1a1n.
NO
b. Oo you o.m or have aptlons on lanE nearoy or adjuent to this proposal' It yes. explatn. NO
B. list any environmenial lntormttfon you knov tDout that has Deen prtflared. or rill be prepared. directly related to thls proposal.
Inland Pacific Engineering has completed a Traffic Impact Analysis for the entire
9.28-d,(,-re narcel and nronosed develooment from Phase I and Phase II.
Rer,2/1/88 ~
SrourM EInRGMMML axDnWcE
(VAG 197-L1-960) Section 11.10.230(1) ~
L. bACLGtOM (coaticued)
9. Oo yw lcaov vfiethar •ppliutioos •r• pandios tor aoveraaeotal aD9ton 1• ot ochec propoaal• directly affectlaa the propert7 covered by your
proposal' II yes. ezylalo.
N o
10. Llst aoy 6overnarnt approvaL or perzics thac viLl be ae+ded for your proposal. it Icwvo. Chanqe Of conditions fOr pre-
viously approved zone changes, ZE-84-B-81 and ZE-7-96 by the Spokane County Hearing
Examiner Committee and ]3oard of County Commissioners; approval of access by the
Spokane County Engineers; approval of septic tanks and drainfield permits by Spokane
Countv Health District; approval of storm drainaqe by Spokane County Utilities Dept.
11. CLve a bciot, camplete descrlpcioa of 7our proposal. lneludio; the propos44 wos and ths •ise o( ths project and •its. -here are •everal
Quescioos Lcer !o this chacklisc chat ask you to QesctiDe cercaic u peccs ol your proposal. Tou do not aosd to tepeat those aasve[• on thl•
pasa.
r-see attached WY,-~ ~~~\rv_
•.i
1:. lccacion of the pcvpoval. Ctv• sultte L nt lctorticioo toc a person co uadeCscaod tM ptYCis• lou cioe► o( rour pioposed proSecc. Lncludin6 a
screet addreos. it aoy. and seccion. tovorhip aod range. i[ taovo. It a propo ul vould occur over • Captf o[ acu , provtdt c!u range or
bovadarias ot tM sita(s). lrovtde a latal d4seripeLoa. sle• pLan, vtelnity map, •od topograpRle aap, L[ reaioeu E1y avat L Dle vhlle r w
should sulait soy p L ns raau![ed by cM •geacr, you •rs onc required co dupliute saps oT dotailed p L as out+ltced vith any pervit aD0 «<+cSon
re L ced to thl• checklisc.
N. 1618 Mamer Rd and N. 1628 Mamer Rd. The site is located in the Spokane Valley,
approximately 1/2 mile east of Pines Rd, adjacent and to the south of I-90, adjacent
and to the east of Mamer Rd; approximately 100' to 200' north of Mission Avenue.
The site is located in Section 10, Township 25 N, Ranqe 44, EWM, in Spokane County,
Washinqton; Spokane County Assessor's Parcel #45104,0201, .0202, &.0210.
13. Oo-ss cM proposed •ccioo 11e vithlo cM Aqultot Seosltiw Aru (IISA)• -fr Goaral Sewi Serrice A[saT -&Ie frioticr Sdver Service Area'
City ot Spokane' (See: Spoluas Couetr•• AASAA OverLy 2o" AcL• tor bouodaries). c 1
ThP suhjP _t 1 i Ps wi hi n he LSA apd PSSA. ~ 16h~1!`I 3" LL-f
Qt,~.~SIG~.~ (.~u ~ G 1G~N2.
1 ~
ro eE c01CF.c:zn nt AFn.tuxr
B. ntvMX%Mrru. n.a¢zcrs
tvaluatlon FoC
Aieot7 Use Oalr
1. EAR:Tt
Genaral dascr1pt14n o[ tAe •its (c%rcle oo*): ! L t. rolling, hlll ~t M p ~lo • eoun aloous,
ottic: The site is an irreqular shape. ~'he nort~i/nort~east
portion is fairlv level., whereas the south and southeast
nortions are steep; a 35' elevation chanQe in less than 200'.
D. 'R►at 1• tl+e •ceepesc •lop• on tl+e sit• (approzisate peccqnt slope)• The north/northeast
nortion is fairlv level. The south edae of the site slopes
~ ,,,,;p~,o~ard M~.s~son v~nueA ~n ~p~ro~Cimate 50% slo~e.
6 qpo• o so • are w on t • ce (fo zamp eLy, wod. Etsral. at. sasck),
If You Imov thit elassifiutioa ot ajricultural soiL. speeify thaa aod not• aar ptim [sruLnd.
The subiect soils are GqA (Garrison), suitable for cul-
t- i v,t-i an _ ThP aXdyel _ This series is made up
of cravell~ or ston soils.
d. kre che e surface lcatioas or etory of unrtaDle •oili in che tsediate viclnttyi ti •o,
descrlbe.
-Vo indications or known hzstorv of unstable soils in
the immediate vicinity.
2
, L
#11. This request is for the following:
1) 'ro amend ZE-84-13-81 to increase the building coverage from 19,900 sf to 64,867 sf.
2) To amend ZE-7-96 to increase the building coverage from 8100 sf to 32,996 sf.
Tlle completed project will have a total of 97,863 sf of building. Phase II will include a 24,700
sFinulti-story office building on the UR-22 portion of the site. In addition, two warehouse/office
structures that will have a total of 42,947 sf are proposed for the I-2 portion of the site.
Total site coveT•age for Phases I& 11 will be 21 with an 85,513 sf footprint.
SPOKAIiE EIfYIRGrKi(TRL OBQINANLE
(NIIC 197-11-960) Sectlon 11.10.230(1) '
B. ENYIROIMEI(TAL ELEltfIfTS(continueE)
Evaluatton For
Aqency Use Only
e. DescrlDe the purpose. type, and epproxlaate Q w nttttes of ikny f1111ng or graEing proposed.
(nAicate source of f111.
Niinimal aradina will be required for site preparations,
footings, and foundations.
f. Could eroston o aur u a result of cleartng. constevd ton, ar use? If so, qenerally descriDe.
Niinimal erosion will occur durinq construction.
g. ADout what percertt of the slte rtll be covered vith lapervious suriaces •fter proJect cortstruc-
tton (for example. asphalt or buS141nqs)'
Apnroximate].v 40% to 45% of the site will be covered
with impervious surfaces includina buildinas, drivewavs,
sidewalks, Darkina lot. Buildina footprint is 85,513 sf;
other 90,000 sf approx.
h. VroposeC measuns to reEute or control erosfon, or otM r lwpacts to the earth, 1f any:
Potential of wind erosion durinq construction phase
n
may be reduced bv water spravs. The completed devel-
opment's impervious surfaces, landscapinq, and "208"
swales will minimize the potential of wind/water erosion.
2 . A I R
--r. ~ U
a. 1tNat t y pe of eaisstons to the a1r would rtsult from tht proposal (t.e.. dvsi, auta+ablle. adors
fndustrial, wooE ssoke) durlnq construttlon anE +r►+en tht pro f capleteC? If anx.
9e^n+>>Y descrtbe and glve apqroxtute qwntltes if knorn TS'L' levels W111 1ri-
crease from site preparation. Increases in hydrocarbons ''JZ0__
~
from asphalt installation. Thereafter, automobile and ~r u truck emissions will increase existina CO levels; mini-
a
h0W
b. Ari thlr~e ~f~s1Te iourtes of antssiorts or oEor that .ay affect yeur proposal' tf so. a
generally descrlba.
Traffic alonq I-90 to the north.
c. proposcA awasures to reQuce or control eaisstons or other lopacts to aSr. 1f anr:
Compliance with SCAPA reaulations; pavinQ and landscap-
ina in the "completed" phase will redWe suspended par-
ticulate emissions.
3. 4ATER
a. Suriece:
(1) Is then any surlace water boEy on oT in the tmedtatt v1c1n1ty of tf+e slte lncludtnq year-
round and seasonal streurs. saltwter. lakes. ponds. wetlan4s17 If yes. deurtbe type anE
provlde nanes. It approprtate. state "at Strena or rlver it flovs into.
NA
(2) 11111 the project reauire any wric over, in, or adjacertt to (within 200 feet) the destrsbed
waters7 if yes. pleese describe and attach available planz.
NA
3
srac~xs t~vt~ra~.. omnc~rsct
(,JAC 197-11-960) Soction 11.10.230(1)
S. CNVI1tOtMNtAl. CLEKCR:S (conclcwd)
Lvaluatloo For
l1;enC7 Uee OalT
(7) Escioate the arwac o[ fill and dredge uaterial tlut wuld be placad lo or resoved tro+ the
surtec• vater or wCLads aad Sndiuta the aru of tAe s1ta that wuld be a(fected. Lodicate
che soutee of tlll rcarial.
NA (4) Yill ct►e ptoposal raqulrt autiaea wacs[ viChdhwls os diverylonsl Giv+ ageneral daae[!p-
tion. 9urpose, aod aP9ro:faace Quantitles. i[ kaovo.
No .
(5) Doe• the pcoposal 11• vi[hlo a 100-ryur ilood plaint If so, note loutloe on tM siLe plan.
1Vn .
~
(5) Does tl+e proposal in.olv aay discharau o[ vuc• asterial• to wriace wur@t I[ •o.
deacrib• tM tTpe of vaace and •ocicipat•d .olyr of distlucge.
No ,
e. evaut+et
(1) U111 jroue+dwter De vlChdrrvo. of vill vater bw dlsefur=*d to groundvatar! Gtve gsnatal
doscripcion. puryose, and appTOSirstt Quaotlties. if lmovo.
Discharcre of surface water to "208" storm water ,
swales. ,
(2) Deactibs vut• uaterial chat viLt be dtseharted loto cBa trouad fTam srycic ceaks or ocAer
"oltery vast• craatamot (aeility. Deaeribe tM Saowral sls• of eFr Rstaa. cd euRbec of
houre• to be •er►ed (1( applleapL or cht aumber of persom cbe s7scea(&) ar• •sp+tt co
..re. ThP nro-iect wi.l.l uta-lize an on-site septic tank
drainfield sewaqe system on an interim basis. This
pro)ect will be required to double-plumb for future
sewer hookup. It will utilize 1,000-qal septic tanks.
DaseriDe •or ryecess. otAer cpaa tho N dssign.d for tM dispoaal of sanitary varca.
installod for cM quc9oae of di uhar=loj tluida belov che grouad surtae• (laeludAi r7ratme sucA
a• cho u for tl+* dispoaal of scoem vster or drainase ftm lloot dralns). DaserlDS t!A cTyt of
spstes. tM amovat of material to be dispoaed of through c!r system aad cd c"e• o( mteriaL
likal7 co bs disposed of (locludins ~terlals vhicb may •ncer tl+e nttos inadw rtaecly tbrwsh
sD111s or aa a result of [ltefighcins aetivieies).
No other systems are required or proposed.
(i) Vill aar chaleal• (espeelallr organle solvente or pettoleus Iw 1s) be scored Sn aborr
grouad oc uadsrYcouad scora=• canfut It so, vb&t typss and Quantities of ~ter1aL vill M
scored"
In the developed "completed" phase, fertilizers and
pesticides will be applied to the lands~caped areas by
local venc3nrs . Ch mi r. 1 s wi 1 1 no hP ~tor d on-site.
c
srow¢ uvria;ROrrzn:. otaDEAI@a
.
(vI1C 197-11-960) Sectioa 11.10.230(1)
E. QMROTMcrLIL IIUDCE1'IS ( c on t l awd )
Evaluatioo tor
Agency IJoe Only
(5) uhat p[OCeGClre oeasurai vlll De talun to lniure that Laalu or ap11L of 4a7 c M nlcal•
stored or used oo •ita wtll noc b-a alloved to parcolaca to grouodvecec (tL1s lacluds• ou surea
to keep ched cal• ouc of disposal •ystrs• dascribed tn 7b(2) aod 3b(3)'
Compliance with ASA standards for the stor_aae of chem-
icals (fertilizers) where applicable. No storaae is
anticipated, however.
c. vater Ruao(t (loeludina scocs vatar):
(1) DeseriDe ths •ouree of nmoCi (lxludiai scocu vateT) •nd mtbd of collection and disposal
if •07 (loelude ausacicios. il lmow). V!ere K 11 chi• ycer tlavl Vill tkl• ycec tLov loco
ochsr vacers! If w, deacriDe.
Storm water will be diverted to "208" storm water areas.
(2) 'lill aoy ef+ealeal• bo •cored. Aandled or wed oo t!r sic• 1a a loutloo vMre a •p111 ot
leak vill Eralo to surtace oT trouodvatet oc to ••tors vacer disposal r7rstem dioelu rtin; co
sUTfIGf OC j[OVOdMCer"
No
(7) Could vasc• asterlal• •nter {round or su[!ac• meters1 LI w, aenerally d-secslDo.
No
d. Proposod eu sure• to rvdute or eontrol •urtaco. ground. aod nrswtf vater Lspacts. tt aay (if
c the ytopo"d accion 11es vithlo tbo AquifeT Sensiti.e Aru De •epecially claar oo cq Laooations
r reLtins [o tacillties coocerninj Sectloas 3b(4). 3e(5). aod 3c(2) of thls cMckllst):
__TbP dPVPlopIiIP]'lf of an oT1-Sl 1-P St"(lY'Til dYr'll i'1A4P q)Z.-'j-P1
that meets Spokane County Utilitv Department standards
and complies with "208" standards.
4. ►u.vrs
rTu c1c or circle cype o[ vegetatloo foued oo tl+e ai[e:
X_ deciduous crN: alder. uple. aspeo. otl+er.
e.er=nao cre. (ir. c.dar, pLe+e. ocher.
shtvDe.
X aras•.
putu[e.
crop oc gralo.
wc wil pLncs, eatcail. buctereup. bullrwh. skunk uDaa=a. otbar.
watar pLancs: water 11117. tilgrsss. ailfoil. otdr.
other t7Des of wsetation.
0. vhat Icind and aaount of wsata[loo vill be reaowd or alteredt The east portion
of this total 9.28 acres beinq deve].oped with Phase I,
28,000 sf warehouse/office. West oortion imnrovQd with
c. ~t~'4~,rd~.'l~.~y.'Pm~~,r. t9~~~~►a.~agpr~t and open field.
No knowledaP of threatened or Pndanca,rP.d__.-2,pPf l P~ _
d. Proposcd laadscaPiog. we of oaciv+ pLats. or other seuurss co pnsene or enhacee wtataclon
on the oice, it any: Lawn, trees. 1od ShrL1}JS W1]fl_hP_ olanted
around the bu.ildinas, parkiua lot. and north and Past
property lines. All landscaped areas will be irrigated
with an on-site sprinkl.er system. 5
SPdC1Ulf EMIIRM;4fNTA1 ORDINAK[F
(VAC 197-11-960) Scctton 11.10.230(1) • '
B. EHY1ROtoiE!(TAL ELDiElfTS (contlnued) ,
Eveluetlon For
5. ANINALS A9ency Use Only
a. Cirtle any E1rds and eninals whiCh heve been observed on or ncar the slte ar are knorn to be on
or near the site
D1rds: hayk, heron. cagle, songblyds, other: Rohi ns . rr~nw s. rr.l» i 1_ xahPa ~c; ant
omanels: deer, bear, elk. Deaver, other: Rodents ~
fisn: bess. salmon, trout, herrlnq. shellftsh, other:
OtheT:
b. L1st any tAreatencd or endengered species knw n to be on or neer the site.
NA
C. ls the site part of a oSqratSon routeT [t so. e*laln.
NA
d. Preposed oeasures to preserve or enAance wi1411fe. 1f any: I ns ta 1 1 a tio n O f
landscabed areas wi ].1 he1 ppr s r~~iz hdbi tat fnr
birds.
S. ENERGY Ax0 YATURAL RESOURCES
A. Vhat kinds of enerqy (electric. natural qas. wood stove. solar) w111 be useE to .eet tAe
tne toaolet M proSect's enerqy n*eds' Oascrlbe vhether it rtil De useE for heatinq. w nufat-
turfnq, etc.
Electricity from,Vera Power; cras from WWP.
b. uould your Droject •ffect the potentlil use ot soiar enerqy by iqjacertt properttes? [t so.
generally aest N Ot.
NA
C. khat ktnds of enerqy conservttlon features are Included in tAe plarts of tAis propoul? List
other proposed .easures to reCuc* or control enerqy tepacts. 1t anr:
UBC construction standards; convenient Off-StX'P_P.f'
parkinq.
1. ENViROtMEMTN. HEAI.TN
a. Are there any enrtrorrsentil healtb hazirds. tncludlnq exvosure to toxlc theslcals, risk of ftre
and explosion. spfli. or hazardous raste. that could o a ur as t result of this proposal? If so.
describe.
No
(i) Oescribe spectal e■ergency servtces thac might be requlrM.
Police, fire, medical
6
stawa EcvitoeQaVus. •o=ZxaMM ~
(VAG 197-11-960) Socclon 11.10.230(1)
D. L_'RIAOlQ2NlL1. LLDCERS (canciauad)
L•alwclon Por
7 Use Ooly
U~(!V V\.~
C2.'VIROta21T:AL EMAL-8 (cootinwd) Agenc
(2) Proposed seasure• co rcduce or concrol •o.►iroomeacal hulch 1usards, if •oy:
Compliance with all state and,citV,-buildinq code re-
quirements. Compliance with all the zoninq standards
and conditions for approval.
D. Noias :
(1) Vbat c"es of noi" e=lsc io the •ru vhicA sar affect your projeet (tor asa=ple: traftic,
•quiprnt, oparatioo. ocher'O
Traffic noise from I-90 to the narth.
(2) Vhat t7po• and lavaL of aolso vould be cruted br or aawei.ated vitb the pro}eet oo s
•hort-can or a locg-teru Eas1s (for esaaplt: tratiic, coostructioo; opetatiou, otfier)' Iodicac•
vhat hwse ooie• vould eoM (rva the @its.
Short term; qradinq and construction. Lonq term; pri-
mary generators of moise will be traffic, HVAC systems,
vehicles, and beap1_0. Hour of peak nQi sP lPN7Plq wi 1 1
occur between 7: 30 am,a c3 9am, and 4: 30 nm anc3 h_ 30 lam.
Proposed musure [o roduce or coacrol nois• lspaccs. it aay:
L-F~ndsca,pi nq 7nd nri Pnt-afii on nf hiii 1 r7i nCi t-rwarri T-q(1
e. uM AHD SHORLLI:7L USE
vh.< <o che cun.ec u.e ar the .it. .pe .ej.c.nt proverti..t Site is currently
used for two sinqle-familv residences, aaraae, and (see attached)
r
b. 1L• the elce bNn used for •gTltulcu[s' IL •o. dtstrlbe. 4,
Yes; the east p Ortion of this site was used as horse ~
pasture. O_j
c DescriDe any .cruccur•s on ct+s •tc,. Z'WO sinqle-family residences are
wood frame bunqalow style houses, approximately 950 sf
each, constructed in 1946 and 1959. The wood frame shop
building was constructed in 1974 .(see attached) %-tL pcc~
d. Will ae7 •tructures be dsolisled! If so, vhichT FOY' Phase ZI, the 2,r10U5@S ,
aaraae, and storaae buildina will be reg a._d wi h~
24,700 sf office buildincr and a 42L947 sf warehQLae/
office buildina.
c. tl!wc 1s the curtenc :anins eLselfiutlon ot cM •itet Current zonina 1S "I- 21'
Liqht Industrial, and "UR-22" Urban Resa.dential_ -').7.
vhac ls cAa current cmpsahensiv+ pLn desi;natioo of the •its' Urban
g. If appllcable, vdat 1s cdis eurtaa[ ahoriallw aas[er progra dosltnaclon o( the •itt?
NA
h. Flas an7 part o[ t1r site been cLuified as ae 'eurirosrnu117 srmititi" areat IL •o,
speelfr.
No
1. Appro=laately hav nan7 peopla vould reside or vork lo the coapletsd projacc2 A to ta 1
of 100 to 125 emplovees wi.ll wor.k on this pxoiect.
7
T V•
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE, page 7
a: small.storage building on the west portion of the si_te. On the east
portion o£ the site, 28,000 sf of warehouse/office is currently under
construction.
c: On the east portion of the site, 28,000 sf of warehouse/office is
currently under construction.
sFOr.AcE Mxvnawnrru. ocniWat
(VAC 197-11-960) S+ccioa 11.10.230(1) ` • i a. ~
B. LPVIflOti!¢lRAL Q.EH1R'S (contiovrd)
z.aluatloe Por
Agenc7 Use Oal)
J. Appro:lmate17 hov nan7 pecpl• vould c!r coaplated pro}ect dlsplue1 6 people 11 V2
k. Froposcd saasures to arotd or reduca displ.acaseat inpaecs, i[ acr7: 1-r1 2 sinqle-family
No measures needed; the rental homes.
Spokane Vallev has auartment
and home rental vacancies. ,
1. Proposed wsures to anwre the pcoposal 1• couyaclbla vitb exlstlnj •nd pco}ected Lod use• •od
placs. i[ anr: .
Compliance with all zonina standards and zone chanqe
coadj_tiopLq of a,Pnroy
9 xovsinc
a. Appro:laately hov iLan7 units vould De providod, it •o-yt Iodicac• vlatler Aigh-, aiddle-, or
lorlocore howiat. .
NA ,
b. Approtioately hov manr uaits. aap, vould be •lld nacadf [odiut• vlrCM r high- alddla-, o[
iow-iKome na,.ing. Two sinale-familv rental homes, midale to
low income, will be removed f_rom the sublPr.t sit-e.
c. ProposeA aueuce• to reAuc• or coocrol houalas Smpaccs, lf aoy:
No measures reauired
10. ALSTItV;ICS
a v1►at is the tallest he16At o( ao7 proposed sttuccure(s). aot locludin( aocemas 1 Vf+& t to CM
pclnclpal escertor bulidin6 eacerial(s) proposed'
The structures will r1Q-t. Pxceed 37' i n heiaht _ ThP
owner of Inland Construction Companv is r_onsic]Ptia
pre-enaineered steel buildinas with exterior stucco
panels. .
D. Vhat vteva in the isAdiac• vicinlcy vould be alterad or oDsenucedt
A partial view of the new Vallev Mall and I-90 mav be
partiallv obstructed for the mobile home and house on
c. Proposed maasuces to ceduee or concrol aestAacie iapacts, lf aay: th e W e S t.
Placement of utilities underaround
11. LICS': AND GI.AAL
A. 'lfuc typ• of llsht or =Lre vill tho propoaal produeof 'Jf+at [ise ot dar vould lt aaloly oeeur!
Parking lot lights, buildinq exterior liqhtina, and
vehicle liahts in the evenina.
b. Could liQhc or tLre [rou the linished pro}dct be asafat7 t►asard or lesar[er• vith •LM1 NO
tidith "downliqhtinct" and landscapina, liqht/alare a.mpact
c. Iihat e:lstlng ofi-sit• •outces of ll;ht or jLr• aay atfect ywr propotalT W1.ll be minimal.
Liqhts from I-90 traffic and alonct Nora Avenue.
d. Propoaed nu sure• to nduce or contTOl lighc aod gl.are i.mpacts. 1f anyt
Down liqhtinq and screeninq and landscaninq.
8
' SYf7[AAL XNVIIDNl2NT1.L 0E)27lAFCL
(VAC 197-11-960) Soctioo 11.10.270(1) vp v
E. LNYZ201l4UrLAL QMElTS (contiawd)
Bvalua[!on Tor
Aaeecy Use Only
12. RLCRLAIION
a, vhac desi6nacad aad intorna.l recru tiooal opportuaitie• •te in ihe lnsediace vicinity?
V~iltev Mission Park is located aDproximatelv 3/4 mile
west. This park is 7 acres in size.
b. Yould tt►s pe^opossd projeet dirpLe• any azlstinS nereatiooal wesT If so, dsectiM.
No
c. Ptoposed w wn • to nduco or cootrol iapaeto on rsereation. locludia= reerutiooal opportuai-
tiaa to Ee yrovlded by c!►e pto}eet or •ppliunt. if •ap3
None required
13. RIS'URIC AHD CVLT91tAL P1LSC]tVA:I011
An i!ti re any placas or ob r ec• 11sced o0 0r propooed tor oatlooal. @cacs or local pre"na-
tioa r+glstar• Icaow to Da o0 oT nesz co thd siteT If w, p w rally deac[ipa.
No
b. G nera117 d-secribe aoy landaarlts or •wlbooe• ot Rlscoric acchaeological. se L ntllic or culcural
imporcaace kaaro co Do oe or oert to tAe •lce.
~A
c. Ptoposod saaeurse to reduc• or coccrol lupaetG. if •a>>
NA
14. TMAtI5t01tT.tiTION
S. Identify public •trw ts aad Aighvsy• Nrrlag cht sit• aad deseslDe praposcd aceea to tlr
•:isclns •croec nsta. SA,,,. •its pLne• lt aa7.
TbP siih-lect has annroximatelv 592' of frontaae alona
Mamer Road on the west. Mamer Rd is a"loca]. access
road" that has approximately 24' of paved surface.
b. I• •ice curtectl7r "r+od b~ p~+dl}t transit* if aot. wha; t!y appto~cLµ ce dscaaee to cl~
our+sc craortc •copt PWJI.IC tYdT1STJOY'tdt10I1 15 available alonct
Mission Avenue to the south.
c. Rov aaay parkins •paeas vould t!e cospleted projeec hawf Bov savy rould cbw pcoyect elislnste'
This nroiect will have 218 off-street parkina spaces;
the Spokane Zoninq Code rectuires ILR .59acPq_
d. Vill cM propoul nauire aol mr cwda or strwts. or isprov~nts co eziatina road• or scrwcs
not locludint driv+vaysf If w, gewtslly deseriDe (lodi uu vbstM r puslic or ptivate).
According to the Spokane County Traffic Engineer, Mamer
Road frontincr the subiect is required to be upqraded
with additional roadwa,y widepina (5' to 10' ) curbs and
,i dewal ks+ and c3 _dicai-P an additional 5' nf__BnW_
C. uill c►r4 pro}eet use (or oeeur lo tM S~dLta vieiniq of) wtor, rail. or air tnowportacioo2
If w . genarally describs.
No
9
srouIM rNnxaeataxrretr onjx"ct
(VAC 197-11-960) Section 11.10.230(1) ~
S. E7VIR016CEN'JlL II.QQM'S (continurd)
Lvaluicioo For
Ageoc7 004 Ool7
f. itov sany vehicular crlps per dar vould be gaoeratod bp t!r cospleud projeet' Lt lmorn.
iedicate vhan peak vould occuz.
Refer to Traffic Impact Analysis for this pro3ect
dated November, 1996.
a. Ptoposed oeasurss to reduce oc eontrol craeu pottatlon impaets. 11 any:
Location of access points onto Mamer Road as per
Spokane Countv Traffic Enaineer's rectuirements.
LS. PVE[.IC SEAVICLS
a. 'Jould ctti project result in an loeraased nw d tor publie •ervlce• (tot I rsaple. 1~Tt proceetion.
pollce protection, health cacs, schoola. ochar)1 II so. =enetall1 de~crlDe. 1 S p ro -
posal mav result in an increased need for fire Drotec-
tion, police protection, and other ctovernmental services,
includinq planninq, buildinq codes, health district,
Spokane County utilities and traffic and postal service.
b. Proposed oeasure• to reduce or cootrol dlrect Lqscco oo public •orvicee. i• •cry:
Addi t-innal t&x tjo11 arS witl h.1 o t-.Q nf,tset- the 1.n-
creased cost for additional services.
16. I.:ILITTLS
a. Ctrcle utillcie• curTently •vai L E1• •t ths •lce: •lectiltlcr, natutal tas, weter. refus•
•ervlce, teleplwat. •aaicar7 sawr. •eptlc syscws. otAar. Al1 UtllltieS are
available except public sewer; on-site septic tank/
dralnfie]_d svstPm with double nlumbincr is recruired.
b. DeserlD-a tho uellitie• tfuC •e• propoaed tor tM projeet. ttti utllity pTOvidlnt the •*rtte• •nd
the :enesal co"cnuccian aeclvitLs oe ths sit• or lo tM laawdlat• +ritlnity vhiel+ edjhe be
needed.
Electricitv will be provided bv Vera Power; aas by
WWP; water bv Consolidated Irriaation District; phone
by US West Communications.
c. sicruTURE
1. cRe v,nderalRs+nd. evur uoder eM peoalty ot perjur7r tFut tM sbove reroooses •Te rda truthfully ead co the besc ol s7 kaovLdgt. I•lso
understaod C}uc, •tiould CI+eTe, bs anr vl Llful ds[epeeseotaCloo or K lltul Lek of tull dlselosur• an n Dact, the ••e aay vithdrav aor
deterainaclon o( noasignificaoee that St sigAt issue in reliaoee upon t1s!• checkliac.
e.«- _per.eMber 2. 1996 rTaPOe.ot Inland Construction Companv
(rl...e rTlec or t7 w)
Proponent: Wdre": 107 S. Howard St, #300
(siQoacuVo r02 Toln,-,) (,~)+~'~v
Phone: 5 /747-0999 Spokane, WA 99204
peT.oa comp~~~ing corm. John T. Sweitzer a«: December 2. 1996
rnooe: 509/747-0999
POR STATT QSL ONl.t j
Staff ambet(&) revieving checklls[: L
6ased on 'his •caff reviav o[ tAe envlronaeotal checlcllst aod ocher percleenc lnlocsac3en. the staff-
i
Conclude• Clu tthere are no probabla slgnlliciec advarm• lapacts and recoseods a deterainatioo of nooa ignlficaoce.
B. Conclude• thac prob.ble signitlcanc adverse anvi mns ocal lapact• do esisc for the curs+ent propoaal and recoanenda a ni[igaced deter-
aination ot aoniigniticanee vith cooditioas.
C. Conclude• thac there •re probabla slgnlfl unt •dvecse envlto w ntal iapucs aod raccmseod@ a determinaclon of signlflcance
TILI"C TS - 173.00
10
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONE CHANGE
Date: December 2, 1996 Application No. ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
Name Of Applicant/Representative: Inl and Constructi on Company
Mailing Address: c/o John T. Swei tzer, S. 107 Howard, #300
City: Spokane State: wA Zip: 99204
Phone: (509) 747-0999 (Work) (509) 747-6765 (Home)
Existing Zone Classification: ZE-84C-81 i s I-2; ZE-7A-96 i s UR-22
Date Existing Zone Classification Established: ZE-84C-81 approved Sept 1981; ZE-7A-96 approved
April 1996.
Legal Description of Property: _B. 1-U8-1-628 Mamer Road: Tract 97. Vera, except
all that part lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with a distance 100 ft
southerly when measured at right angles from the center line of PSH No. 2, and
exceat that portion lvin4 southwest of the northwest line of Corbin Ditch R/W,
in Spokane County, Washington.
Section 1 n Township 5> 1; Range 44 FWM
Source of Legal: Pi-gqPPr Ti t1P (;omnanv
Paxcel No.: 45104.0201, . n2M_ a,rLd . QZin
PROPOSED CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
Reference specific "Condition(s)" of original approval. (Cite the applicable condition from the
Findings and Order of the Hearing Examiner Committee's public hearing).
Subject has two (2) separate zone classifications: ZE-84-B-81, Division of Building
and Planninq Condition #Z. This condition limits the building coverage to a total
square footage of 19,900 sf. ZE-7-96, Division of Building and Planning Condition
#Z. This condition limits the buildin4 coveraqe to a total square footage of 8,100 sf.
Znninq aDor iial-, Qermit an aVerall hijilrlinn sitP cnvPraaP of _(1Q~,1 sf_._
Give detailed explanation of request for change in status of the proposal.
#1 To amend ZE-84-B-81 to increase the buildina coveraqe from 19,900 sf to 64,867 sf.
#2 To amend ZE-7-96 to increase the buildinq coveraqe from 8,100 sf to 32,996 sf.
(See attached.)
If development of the site will be changed substantially by this request, or the property has
boundaries different than originally proposed, a revised development plan must be submitted.
Signa re of Applicant or AgeTit~ Address if different than Applicant
Rev. 1/96; sam
, - . .
NUTICE OF PUBLrC HEARING
SPOKA,NE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
TO: All interested pErsons, and ownel•s/taxpayers within 400 feet
1'OY1 A12E HERE]3Y NOTIFIED THA"I' A PUBLYC HEARING WILL BE HELD OiV T1IE
LANU USE APPLICATION LISTED BELO`V, AS rOLLOWS:
Aprlication: File No LL-84C-81 /ZE-7A-96, Change of Conditions to existing Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) and Light Industrial (I-2) zones to increase btiilding square footage from 19,900 square fcct to
64,867 square feet and fi-om 8,100 square feet to 32,996 square feet
Hearing Dzte and Timc: November 19, 1997 1:30 p.m.
Place: Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County PuUlic Works Buildmg, 1026
West Broaclway, Spokane, Washington.
APPlicant/Oivner: Inland Construction Co.
ONvner's Desibnated Contact: John Sweitzer, 107 S. Hotivard Stiite #300, Spokane, tiUA 99204, (509)
747-0999
Address ancl Location: Generzlly located east of Mamer Road, south of I-90, anci north of Mission
Aventie in tlle SE `/4 of Section 10, Township 25 N., Railge 44 EWM, Spokane County; Washington
Coinprchensive Plan: Urbai1.
Existing Zoning: Urb1n Residential-22 (UR-22) and Light Industrlal (I-2).
Environmental Determinatian: A Determination of Nonsigiiificance was issued by the County Division
of B uilding and Planning, as the lead agency. The official comment period ends 1 1-17-97.
Related Permits: None
Division of Builcling & Plaunning Staff: Louis Webster, (509) 456-3675
YIEARING CXAMINER PR4CEDURES
Hearing Process and Appeals: T11e hezring will be conducted under the rules of procedure adopted in
Spol:ane County Resolution No. 96-0294 A11 interested persons may testify at the public hearing, and
111c1}' SLlbllilt Wl']tte11 COiIICIieTlt5 ZIid dOCL11i1C11tS bef01'E 02' at tlle he11'111g ThE HeaClllg EXa[111I1E1' I111y I111111
the rime given to speakers A speaker representing each side of the issue is encouraged Any appeal or
the Hearing Examiner's decision will be based on the rccord established before the Nearing Exailliner,
put-stlant to County Resolutiojl Nos. 96-0171. Environmental appeals will follow the same procedtira(
route as the underlying action. All heai-ings ~vill be conciucted in facilities which are zccessible to
persons with physical disabilities
Inspcction of rile, Copics of Documents: A Staff Report will generally be available for inspection
seven days Uefore the hearing. The Staff Report and application file may be inspected at the Spokane
COllllty DIVISIOII Of BtlIIdIIIg ZI1d P11111i111g, 151 Floor Permit Center West, Public Works Building, 1026
West Broadway, Spolcane, WA, 99260, betwcen 8a.m and 4 p m, weekdays, M-F, except holidays.
Copies of documents will be made available for the cost of reproduction. lf you have any questions or
special needs, please call the Division at (509) 456-3675 Send written comments to the Spokane Coluity
Division of Building and Planning, 1026 W. Broaclway, Spokane, WA, 99260, Attn Louis Webster, Tile
No. ZE-84C-81/ZE-7A-96. Iviotions mL2st be made in wrifing and submitted to the Spol:ane County
I-Iearing Eaaminer, 3r`' rloor, Public Worlcs T3uiiding, 1026 W. Broadxvay, Spolcane, WA, 99260-0245
r J r t
•
DETERMINATION OI+,
NONSIGNIFICANCE - "DNS"
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BiJILDING AND PLANNING
ItESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL, JAMES L. MANSON, DIltECTOR
WAC 197-11-970 and Section 11.10.230(3)
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
FILE NUMBER(S): ZE-84C-81 /ZE-7A-96
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of Conditions to existing Urban Residential-22
(UR-22) and Light Industrial (I-2) zones to increase building square footage froin 19,900 square
feet to 64,867 square feet and from 8,100 square feet to 32,996 square feet.
APPLTCANT/OWNER: Inland Construction Co.
c/o Tom Clemson
102 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA. 99202
OWNER'S DESIGNATED CONTACT: John Sweitzer
107 S. Howard, Suite 300
Spokane, WA. 99204
(509) 747-0999
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Generally located east of Mamer Road, south of I-90, and north of
Mission Avenue in the SE'/4 of Section 10, Townsliip 25 N., Range 44 CWM, Spokane County,
Washington.
LEAD AGENCY: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING
DETERMINATYON: The lead agency for tliis proposal has determined that it does not have a
probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement
(FIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file wifih the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this p1•oposal for
at least 15 days from the date issued (below). Commcnts rcgarding this DNS must bc
submitted no later than 4:00 p.m., November 17, 1997, if they are intended to alter the
DNS. All comments should be sent to the contact person listed below.
By: Louis Webster, AICP Title: Associate Planner
Phone: (509) 456-3675
Address: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning (MS-P)
West 1026 Broadway Spokane, WA 99260
DATE ISSUED: ~ • , 1997 SIGNATURE:
-:51
COMMEN['S REGARDING ENVIRONMEdWAL CONCERNS ARE WELCOME AT T(iE I IEARING.
APPEAL OF THIS DETERMINATION, after it beconles final, may be made to the
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, (MS-P), 1 st Floor, West
1026 Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. The appeal deadline is ten (10) calendar days after the
signing of the decision to approve or disapprove the project. This appeal must be written and the
appellant should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the Division of
Building and Planning to assist you with the specifics for a SEPA appeal.
T'his DNS was mailed to:
1. WA State Department of Fcology (Olympia)
2. Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper
3. Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red
4. Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby
5. Spokane Counfiy flir Pollution Control Authority
6. Spolcane County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair; Steve Horobiowski
7. Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Steve Worley
8. Spokane County Boundary Review Board; Susan Winchell
9. Spolcane Regional Transportation Council; Glenn Miles
10. Spolcane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston
11. WA State Department of Transportation; Mark Rowher
12. Long Range Planning Division; John Mercer
13. Fire Protection District No. 1
14. Central Valley School District No. 356
15. Vera Water & Power
A
.
J
MEMOjUNDUM
DATE: January 13, 1997 ~
TO: Pat Harper ~A,~
CC: Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering "
Mark Rohwer, WSDOT ~ D-
' i
FROM: Steve Stairs
SUBJECT: Inland Construction Business Park Traffic ImPact AnalYsis SPMK Co,I~uY
I have reviewed the above referenced traffic study and have noted the following comments-
1 Figures 4&12 show NBR volumes at the intersection of Pines and the WB ramps where they
should be NBT Likewise, figures 9, 10 & 11 show NBL and NBT volumes at the intersection
of Pines and the EB ramps where they should be NBT and NBR respectively All of the
volumes were correctly applied in the capacity analyses with the exception of the NBR at the
intersection of Pines and the EB ramps. The capacity analysis print-out for Pines and the
EB ramps shows 196 NBR rather than the 296 assumed in Figure 9
2 It appears that the 3% general growth rate that was to be applied before adding the
background project and business park traffic, as stated in the "Analysis, Assumption and
Methodologies" section, was not done. All 1995 and 1996 turn movement volumes should
be compounded for 2 and 1 years growth respectively.
3. Table 3 lists the background projects and their associated trip generation volumes Why
was the business park information so vague? ITE provides information for business parks in
land use code #770. I assume the business park referenced in Table 3 is phase 1 of the
Inland Construction Business Park and that the floor areas would be available for trip
generation calculations.
4. This traffic study did not include, as stated on page 17, the Lawson/Gunning project,
Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Park Mall projects because they will be completed after the
phase II of the Inland Construction Business Park This may be true, however, given that
there is a finite capacity on the road system and longer term projects have committed to use
a portion or, perhaps, even the remaining capacity, we cannot allow the quicker constructed
projects to undercut the longer term projects capacity needs The traffic volumes for these
three projects need to be included.
Based on the comments listed above, I would recommend that any further action on this project
be deferred until these issues have been appropriately addressed if you have any questions or
comments regarding my review, please feel free to stop by
( •
l ~ .
Washington State Eastern Region
Department of Transportation 2714 N Mayfair Street
Sid Morrison Spokane, WA 99207-2090
Secretary of Transportation (509) 3246000
January 16, 1997
Mr.. Louis Webster Spokane County Planning
West 1026 Broadway Avenue • .
Spokane, WA 99260-0240 Re: Inland Construction Mamer Road
Change of Conditions
Dear Mr. Webster:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above development proposal. After reviewing
this proposal WSDOT wouid request that the following issues be addressed prior to a SEPA
determination being reached on this project:
• Due to the existing operational difficulties at the Pines Interchange and `the resultant
traffic generation of this project the applicant shall be responsible for a proportionate
sharre of the needed improvements to ihe Pines cmd Missiort intersection.
At this time we would also request that the following items be placed as conditions of the re-
zone request. Please be aware that based on our analysis of the applicant's traffic analysis,
these conditions are subject to change.
• That the needed right of wary shown on the applicant's site plan as `future property
line/R..O. W. " adjacent to I-90 be reserved as a future acquisition area for the upcoming
WSDOT/Spokane County Evergreen Interchange. The definition of 'future acqriisition
area" will be that language typically used by Spokane County.
• Due to ihe proximity of I-90 and the Evergreen Interchange area, drainage and sign
plans will need to be reviewed by WSDOT.
• To ensure that the above conditions are met, WSDOT shall have a signaiure block on the
building permit.
. ~
Mr. Webster
January 16, 1997
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the above please feel free to contact either Greg Figg or
myself in our Regional Planning Office at (509) 324-6199.
Sincerely, Gl~d v ' ~ ~1T/~
MARK ROHWER
Acting Regional Planning Engineer
GF:
cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
~
PAGE 1 ' 15:51:49 16 DEC 1996
Road# Road Names.......... MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info..........
03068 MAMER CT (START) 00.000 24TH AV U 19 PAVED 36
00.040 NORTH END OF ROAD U 19 PAVED 36
02956 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 20TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD 00.180 17TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD (END) 00.250 16TH AVE U 19 PAVED 36
02957 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 SOUTH END TO 9TH AVE U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.060 9TH AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40
00.120 8TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD (END) 00.180 7TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40
02958 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 BROADWAY AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MAMER RD 00.490 MISSION AV U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 22
MAMER RD ( END ) 00.700 NOR.A AV ( END )
03106 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 32ND AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.050 31ST AV (START) U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD (END) 00.080 30TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
03144 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 7TH AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.060 6TH AV (END) U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD ( END ) 00.120 5 TH AV ( END ) U 19 PAVED 40
03184 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 MAIN AV U 19 PAVED 40
MAMER RD 00.100 VALLEYWAY AV U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD (END) 00.230 NORTH END OF ROAD
03225 MAMER RD (START) 00.000 46TH AV U 19 PAVED 36
MAMER RD ( END ) 00.230 4 3 RD AV ( S TART ) U 19 PAVED 36
8 Records Processed
f..
, •
~ !1 S r> o K ~a r~ c~ Aevi't C c~ ~ ~ r~ - i • ~r
DEPARThIENI' OF BUILDING AND PLANNINi; • A C>w1510N OF THE PUBLlC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JAr.sEs L. MANSON, c_.B.o, DIRECTOR DFNNIS M. SCOTT. P.F.., IJIRECTC)Et
MEMORANnuM
'I'O: Pat FIarper, Spokane County Division of Engineeri ng
Jim Red, Spokane County Division of Utilities
Steve Holderby, Spokane County Health District
Wyn B i rkenthal, Spoknne County Parks, Recreation 8c Fai r
Steve Worley, Stormwater Utility
Bill Hemmings, Development Engineering Services
Greg Figg, Department of Transportation
Glen Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council
Christine Fueston, Spokane Transit Authoritti•
Susan Winchell, Boundary Review noard
Gentral Valley School District No. 356
Fire District No. 1
Vera Watzr & Power
FROM: John Pederson, Senior Planne4~DATE: December 10, 1996 . .
; r
RC: Change of Conditions ta existing Urban Residenti'al 22 (UR-22) and Ligiit
Industrial (I-2) zones (see File No. ZE-7-96YLE-8413-81)
. ~
APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DES1GN RFVIEW MrET1NG
JANUARY 16. 1997 AT 3:OOPM
DIVISiON OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 1" FL40R CONFERFNCE ROOM
I'lease review the above application and use the attaclled APPLICATIaN ACCEP"rANCE AND
DESIGN REVIEW MEETING FORM for your comments. The Division of Building and
l'lanning enc;ourages your presence at tllis meeting. The sponsor anci representative have
been invited to also attenci. 1 f you can not attend, please forward your review cocnments
on the attached form to Louis Webster for the meeting. The attached APPLiCAT10N
ACCEPTANCC AND DESIGN REVIEW FORMS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting
and included in the Division of Building and Planning file (so bring three copies to the
meeting). Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the application,
please contact Louis Webster of the Division of Building and Planninb at 456-2205.
c: Inland Gonstruction Gompany e/o John Sweitzer, 107 S. I-loward, #300, Spokane,
WA. 99204
Attac;hments: Application Acceptance and Design Iteview Form, I'raject Uesign, Site PIf1n
7026 WEST f3ROAUWAY A1'LNUE • 5117KANC, WA5IIINGTON 99260
RutLDiNC PHOtvE (509) 456-3675 • FAx: (509) 1156-4703
T'I_ANNIRc; 1'I iOhr•_: (5019) 456-2205 • FAx: (509) 956-2243
TnD: (509) 32•1-31 66
y
Design Review for January 16, 1997 at 3:00 p.m.
Inland Construction Company Change of Conditions
Generally located east of Mamer Road, south of I-90, and north of Mission
Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM,
Spokane County, Washington.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban within the Priority Sewer Service
Area (PSSA)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Change of Conditions to existing Urban
Residential-22 (UR-22) and Light Industrial (I-2) zones (see File No. ZE-
7-96/ZE-84B-81) to increase building square footage from 19,000 to
64.867 square feet (ZE-8413-81) and from 8,100 square feet to 32,996
square feet (ZE-7-96).
PARCEL NUMBERS: 45104.0201, .0202, .0210.
SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.28 acres.
APPLICANT: Inland Construction Company
c/o John Sweitzer
107 S. Howard, #300
Spokane, WA. 99204
(509) 747-0999
ASSIGNED PLANNER: Louis Webster
. . ~ • w
M
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING
CHANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONE CHANGE
Date: December 2, 1996 Application No. ZE-84C-81 & ZE-7A-96
NameOfApplicant/Representative: Inland Construction Company
Mailing Address: c/o John T. Swei tzer, S. 107 Howard, #300
City: Spokane State: WA Zip: 99204
Phone: (509) 747-0999 (Work) (509) 747-6765 (Home)
Existing Zone Classification: ZE-84C-II1 i s I-2; ZE-7A-96 i s UR-22
Date Existing Zone Classification Established: ZE-84C-81 approved Sept 1981; ZE-7A-96 approved
April 1996.
Legal Description of Property: N. 1618-1628 UWer Road k_jract 9L Vera, exce pt
all that part lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with a distance 100 ft
southerly when measured at right angles from the center line of PSH No. 2, and
exceat that portion lvina southwest of the northwest line of Corbin Ditch R/W,
in Spokane County, Washington.
Section i n Township 2 r, Range 44 FWM
Source of Legal: Pi oneer Ti t1 e Cowanv
Parcel No.: 45104. 0201. .0202, and .0210
PROPOSED CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
Reference specific "Condition(s) " of original approval. (Cite the applicable condition from the
Findings and Order of the Hearing Examiner Committee's public hearing).
Subject has two (2) separate zone c1assifications: ZE-84-B-81, Division of Building
and Planning Condition #Z. This condition limits the building coverage to a total
square footage of 19,900 sf. ZE-7-96, Division of Building and Planning Condition
#Z. This condition limits the buildina coveraqe to a total square footage of 8,100 sf.
7nninn annrnvalc pprmit an nvPrall hui1c11n!Q titP r_nverdae o, f 2$.000 Sf.
Give detailed explanation of request for change in status of the proposal.
#1 To amend ZE-84-B-81 to increase the biaildina coveraqe from 19,900 sf to 64,867 sf.
#2 To amend ZE-7-96 to increase the buildinq coVerage f rom 8,100 sf tp 32,996 sf,
(See attached.) ,
If development of the site will be changed substantially by this request, or the property has
boundaries different than originally proposed, a revised development plan must be submitted.
vy
Signa re of Applicant or Ag~rttJ Address if different than Applicant
Rev. 1/96; sam
.
. . ~
The subject is a 404,149 sf (9.28 ac) parcel that includes 276,954 sf (6.36 ac) that is zoned I-2
and ] 27,195 sf (2.92 ac) that is zoned UR-22. The property is under one ownership and is being
developed as one project. Tlie 8100 sf office building approveci by ZE-7-96 straddles the UR-22
and I-2 zoning boundary.
The approved site plan for both ZF-84-B-81 and ZE-7-96 allow for the development of the east
portion of each parcel. This change of condition request will permit the development of the west
portion of each parcel and is Phase II of the Inland Construction Business Park. Phase II will
include a 24,700 sf multi-story office building on the UR-22 portion of the site. In addition, two
warehouse/office structures that will have a total of 42,947 sf are proposed for the I-2 portion of
the site.
Refer to the revised site plan for the subject and Traffic Import Analysis dated November, 1996.
. .
~
WaSh1f1~Ot1 S~@ Eastern Region
rtmem of ~ans f'tati011 2714 N. Mayfair Street
1 ~ ~ Spokane. WA 99207-2090
sld Morrison
Secretary of Transportation (509) 324-6000
. RECEIVED
November 4, 1997
N OV 0 6 1997
Mr. Louis webster SPOKANE COUNTY ENC3INEER
Spokane Cou.nry Planning
West 1026 Broadway Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260-0240
Re: Inland Construction Mamer Road
Change of Conditions
Dear M.r. Webster:
In regard to the above zone cbange request, the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDO'I') met with the applicant on October 28, 1997, to discuss needed
conditions of approval for this development. Based on this meeting, agreement was
reached on the necessary mitigation for traffic impacts to the State H'ighway and to provide
for the future viability of the Evergreen Interchange. In exchange for any monetary
contribution to the State System the applicant has agreed to the following conditions on this
rezone. These conditions of approval are in addition to the future acquisition area that was
provided for in the previous zone change. As a result of this we request that the following
conditions of approval be applied to this development:
• The appliccmt shall provide to WSDOT and/or Spokame County slope and construction
easements along this sites frontage at no charge to WSDOT. ?'his easement will be
used by WSDOT to re grade the site's landsccrpe area on ihe site's I-90 frontage.
• 4n the site 's northern boundary with I-90 the grading and Icrndscaping of this area
shall be coordinated with WSDOT and Spokrme County to minimize the imparct to both
prn-ties as it relates to the Evergreen Interchange.
• Drairtage plans for this site will need to be reviewed hy WSDOT to ensrire drainage
areas adjacent to 1-90 are ardequate.
• Signrzge visible to I-90 wi11 need to be reviewed by WSDOT for conformance to the
FedeTal and State Scenic Vista's Act.
~
-r sMr. Webster
November 4, 1997
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the above conditions, please feel free to contact either
Greg Figg or myself in our Regional Planning Office at (509) 324-6199(7).
Sincerely,
KEITH MARTIN, P.E.
Development Services Engineer
By: Greg Figg
Transportation Planner
GF:
cc: John Sweitzer, Auble and Associates
Gary Bruner, Real Estate Services
Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers
~ • ~
~
t ~
i ~
x
min
.
L .
~ 1
0
y ot ,
"'I .
N ~ I ~ Q
~ • ~ 0 ~ C ` 7~ -c~.. 1
~
.,,,•L`Ae~
t'
f
4
~ ~ ,,nK ~ ; t
1 r ~
OA a ~ • ~ ' 6 ~ y
24
, . _
~ -L ' ~ ~ V9 ~ ► ,t~
~
RO~~
„ vEp~6RE~~
. 12
R~''' o Q 9 . 10
800«•R
> > ~ ti
V ~
Atas
• - ' ~
~
rq
~ } ►vN~
/
~ t
l
~
_1 0
/ ~ ~AlV/'f4vl% • ~ ~
",»o ,74, ~
- ~
n~ ~~.rt~.w 1 + i ~
~ ~~a1wr i • 1
~ ~ i~ • 9~~
~
ql-l .
.
/ r ~ ~ ~ . ~ • x
~ ,L300 ........1 ~ ~o..WM
~ ~ ~ .~..~w. . -
I I I ~ ~ i ~ • "u ~''i • ` / ~ ~ ~ E ;1 1
I I I . ~ • L i/! , ~iwT~~i, /iAa~ , ! ~ / i \ •
~ I Vic(nityMap
~
}
~ I , t^
mm
~ I n ~ ~ ~ - • = -I ~ •
Change of Conditlona
ZE • 84C And TE • 7A • 96
~ Hf i ~ / i f , IIk~ 4 id+~~ ~ i~'
:s./,~.~~ 1
~we7m
I ~ I i , . ; ~ y ~nieno
i I
~ Y V J Vn~~ . C.
~ /'I I~ ~ C\ I I I I I I~ I, 1ew IM1111 w~ pt1Y 1Jiw.W aLLLLL
1►Op1M.'111 ww1
~r~ - r-j•~r \ i ❑ ly~j t•. ~a~~~r~~now~
I L.J - 1lpw~1 IMS ~
l~.4^~'17MtII0.-
IO-
I ■ - ~ . ~ ~ =D A1 ~dF lM+l iwr 1
w~~ I r ` " OIe~ ~ ~ 1►,N'T'I1MR'eI'MMNw~OM
I wr w.+a,.I yk,t tr w~~ri
M~M/ O I/R~.~ ~ h.e ih1+~V~ ~1M/Id4
Pwwwrf~w,i_ ~ i~cerl~l lu~~lrol V
~ ~ I M1 ~~M~I ObM~~i1M~~•tYOM~
• ~ _ «r MIw1~~ I-Mrw
~ tw/ ~u bv~
Ms+l-~'
111 ~
I .I 4 ~~p11Y~1~11'
\
~...u.o.~.~.~
I~ i. , 'I' t~•IMM
I
lJ ~ 1 = 4r • 11
1!ry ~u1~ f W y Y~YV
GN/~ ~ ~I~~.►~►~'1`f1\
I IIP
r-IcG E: !'J~: D
SPOKANE CGUNT,,
I (j9, f
, sito Plan 11,.40, DIUIaIQN QF FUIl,riN0, ANp PD,NNING
''Y;
~
~ ~ _n_i _Z_j 4 1r7l"L; q ~ ~ Api -!Ei -!~j ?1?~!
ra~ ~Ir-ouW 45104ezur
~nan~zs ~ ~ ' f ;1,;
11Q31 1
Yvnr
P Fo~ I , " •
~tM.tKf1i
Qana: C2£MfUl1. ~ ~{tT~AS E
Callw~wr: I:.' 1 W.M16 4310+10202
Oomm i
Po e~. 1~Sru,+tr :rA 90 urrd ' 453 a m04 45133 9o22
~
i.;
Si►. Adieri '
as113.901 ~
161t+ H 3,►FEF4 AI' SPC
ds:a.acioz
ow.oriptr., . 04.Rit~
41101Q20
- iusi27
.
.
~1si.vmoli ' ~
~ .s 1.01 t ~
~ i i oe o s 31.091 - ~
45131.1702 a~51 os as si otl
s+~. ri►. ~~r. u si a
45131oeo7 45142.9020
45151 mos ~ , . ui 1
~ .s~
4s1si.mas ~
_ 0"t45131.01Y1 45111 MS 451124021 451,23203
d'I ,2 ?2f,14
1
~M IkLrst tdsltT'tutun ~fm.lloCaadR~1 X~Ar: l:::2 IAM - i-
I
~
~ . ZE
=84C=81&m7A=96
ZE.,
N
miro4o ~fi
.
Pv~kr ` . ~
~ N
\
~
~ ~
N
N
Av Er- - - - _ N~ • - " ~
~ • ~ ~
MiSsioN AvE. ~
~ _ - -
:
tON
a ' .
o • ~ ~ ,z
iNT
< VE
SK A"i t W O±~ S N
t ~ • ~ 2 ~
J N
~ ~ov~v■ ~ ~ ~
DESME'T T 0 ~ . ~ ~ ~
D"Amsr
ATAL O C ATA LDU 4.' 162'
a ~ C..T.. .
w~Wt,t,o►V CT. ~ ~
th~ t M A
8 ' AY °D AVE
• 14
m
~ .
K v AV ~ ALOcI
O
A <
A; VALL ~
VALLEY WAY ~
cia
\ /
~
s
' i
~
I
In,rERSrarf so
~
. ~
. ;
4 '
~ ~ Iq,Gl~~l~ YRO~
1
Y1cin1tY Map
~ .
•rTM'~, ~ ~ u,,,,,el , U~ '..`~"i~ / ~ ~ i _ i
~ i i /
~.°L`~"~»' Conditions
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ Chan9e °f
6
"
~ . 84c°nd ZE•TA,9
~ ~ / / ~ _ ' j ~ • ~ ~ + M ar~
,~~I~; o•• `
~ / ' I ~ i 1"~ ~ 1V w.~ N p p11~~~1
1 , . 1►r'n ~yM1++
Ia
t ~ ~ ~ ~V►'r ~ , t1w ~yrl „or~wrn"'r
! ~ / / ~ ~ ~ I w Hrti'
a~/~,T/ ~1 • ~ y ~ ~ IiM' ~~r"r M~1~♦
/ 1 ~ • /}y
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ '~V •IO~I~YV~~ ~rY~w
, ~ 1 ; a p/ p1YP
' 1 ~ ` y~s•~:~~ ~ ~~r~~.M
1
r!
~ M
~CElVED
~OUNT
~ ~ ~ C GKA E
;;;~r~ ~ 4 ~ • w...v''~ ~
ti ~ t r~ d,,,..~, -
~ ~10
1457 _ ~~O J
~ ' ' ~ pF R~~aR~
/ Site Pian
APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLAN1vING
Date:
Department:
Department Contact Person:
Action: Change of Conditions
APPI.ICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING: 1ANUARY 16, 1997 @ 3:OOPM
Note:
The following information is to provide the proposal sponsor with primary agency
comments to assist the sponsor and aid the processing of public hearing items heard
before the Hearing Examiner. The following information does not provide a complete or
binding final review of the proposal. This will occur only after the proposal is accepted
and placed on the Public Hearing Agenda. The acceptance of the apnlication and
schedulinp- of the apnlication on the Public Hearing Agenda is the primary function of
fihis meeting. A secondary function of this meeting is to provide a Areliminarv review of
the anplication. This will provide a forum for the sponsor and other departments of what
to expect as standard development conditions and design recommendations.
The comments received are based on a preliminary review of the application form and
site plan by the Departments and Agencies which have been circulated the information
(not all agencies/departments have been contacted--only those who have been determined
to have primary interest.
1. a. Does the application (or can the development) meet requirements to be
placed on the Public Hearing Agenda? ❑ YES ❑ NO
b. If no, what is lacking?
c. Public Hearing Schedule: Hearings before the Hearing Examiner are
scheduled upon determination that the application is complete. Items will be
scheduled for the first available public hearing.
2. After a preliminarv review of the apnlication what "Conditions of Approval"
would be required of the development? (Attach conditions if necessary)
C
tiolsom RING, INC.
Ir~~~~ ~~~~~~C 'ENGINEE
~
~
~
n'ALENE
~ ~e- j ~YG~ t G . Ir."+
~
V"VA c
'
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for
INLAND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PA1ZK
Spokane County, Washington
August, 1997
Sponsor. Inland Struction Company, North 1618 Mamer Road, Spokane, WA 99216
Prepared by:
Inland Pacific Engineering Company
707 W 7th Avenue, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99204
(509)458-6840
'
Tlus report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Enguleenng Company under the direction
of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon.
A. S~
~~Q oF wa
c `1 !
~ • {
2r910^ ~ -
~0, /STE'~
r'A~_
~ J~ - ~ r~':•'~i''
EXF'IRES 91~r-j cqq
Timothy A. Schwab, P.E.
'
'
TABLE OF CON-TEN'TS
IIVTROD UCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TIA - DOCUMEIV'l SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RECOMMENDA7'IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXISTING CONDIT'IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXIST'ING C011TDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Land Use 7
Existing Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Interstate (SR) 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Pines Road (SR 2 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mission Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Indiana Avenue/Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
McDonald Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
MamerRoad 9
' Nora Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Evergreen Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Study Area Intersecnons and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Unsignalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Existing Level of Service and Traffcc Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Traffic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
' Planned Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trip Generation and Distribcition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT A.IVALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B UILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CONCL USIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1
TABLE OF CONTENT S conftAmed
, LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2 - Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3 - E,risting Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 4 - Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure S - PM Peak Hour Background Projects Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 6- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes Without Evergreen I/C 22
Figure 7- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen 1/C, Left Tcirn
at Mamer/Mission Intersection Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 8- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen I/C, Left Tccrn
at Mamer/Mission Intersection Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 9- 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project 27
Figure 10 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, Without Ever2reen
I/C 31
Figure 11 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With EverPreen
I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Intersection Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 12 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Everoreen
I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Intersection Not Allowed 33
LIST O.F TABLES
Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2- Accident data for selected intersections within the study area 15
Table 3- Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour 17
Table 4- Trip Gerceration Rates for Business Park - PM Peak Hour 19
Table S- Build Out Year Traffic Without Inland Construction Business Park- 26
Table 6- Build Out Year Traffic With Inland Construction Business Park, Wrthout
Evergreen I/C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
, Table 7- Build Out Year Traffzc With Inland Constructaon Business Park, jVith
Evergreen I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 8-Build Out Year Traffic With Inland Construction Business Park, li'ith
' Evergreen I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Not Alloived 30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
'
Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables
Calculations for Existing Level of Service
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service Without Project, Without Improvemenrs
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service Without Project With Irnprovements
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, Without Improvemei2rs, Without
Evergreen
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, With Improvements, Withorii Evergreen
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, Without Improvements, Witii Evergreen,
'
Left Turn at Mamer Allowed
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, With Improverrcents, With Evergreen,
, Left Turn at Mamer Allowed
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, Without Improvements, With Evergreen,
Left Turn at Mamer Not Allowed
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service With Project, With Improvements, With Evergreen,
Left Turn at Mamer Not Allowed
'
'
,
1
'
'
INTRODUCTION
TIA - DOCUMENT SCOPE
This Traffc 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 of Phase 2 of the Inland Construction
Business Park, proposed office buildings and warehouse space in Spokane County east of the Ciry
of Spokane. This properry lies north of Mission Avenue and east of Mamer Road as shown on
Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop approximately 5 acres of flat to
sloping land. The existing zoning for this site is a combination of UR-22 and I-2 zoning. In the
spring of 1996 conditions for development of Phase 1 of the business park were set by the County
Phase 2 of the proposed project exceeds those conditions. Therefore this study is for a part of
the change of conditions due to fiu-ther development of the property. The present proposal is for
40,588 S.F. of additional office space and 27,059 S.F. of additional warehouse space which can
be accommodated, although there are several limiting factors, including a BPA easement which
limit development of this site.
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 intersections:
' • Mamer Road & Mission Avenue
• McDonald Road & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue
' • Pines Road & Nora Road
• Pines Road & the Eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & the Westbound I-90 ramp terminals
' • Pines Road & Indiana/Mont omer
g Y
, Specific traffic impact related issues to be addressed within this report will include:
• Existing traff'ic conditions within the project study area.
• Trip generation characteristics related to the proposed development for the existing
and future transportation system.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
• The anticipated trip distribution expected for the new trips from the site at full
build out.
'
• The effects of the trip generation and distribution to the existing and future
transportation system.
• Traffic unpacts within the project study area due either to traff'ic growth or other
background projects which are separate from the addition of the Phase 2 Inland
Construction Business Park.
• Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traff'ic from
the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park.
• Analysis, conclusions and recommended nutigation for the effects of the trips
generated by the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park 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 Mamer Road, south of I-90,
and north of Mission Avenue between Pines Road and Sullivan Road. The existing parcel is
somewhat sloping from south to north. Homes have previously occupied the site, but are in the
process of being removed due to construction of Phase 1 of this project. This rezone will allow
' Phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park to develop additional office and warehouse
space. Prunary ingress and egress for this business park will be to Mamer Road directly via one
driveway location.
The property is bordered by I-90 to the north, some vacant land to the east, Mamer Road to the
west and has some steep land on vacant property to the south. The use of land adjacent to I-90
' is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The predominant land use in the area to the south of
the site is single family dwelling units with lots of varying sizes. Along Mission Avenue, an
assortment of land uses is evident, including a day care facility, some duplexes and single family
' residences, Valley General Hospital and various medical buildings.
Existing zoning of this parcel is UR-22 and I-2. The proposed project uses are allowed under
these zoning categories. Therefore, this TIA is being prepared for a change of condition
application for the property. This parcel is surrounded by UR-3.5 zoning except I-2 and B-2
zoning north of this parcel and the freeway.
A preliminary site plan of this development is shown in Figure 2.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
C) w
' a ~ ~ ~ FA
~ RAC%
; ~ ; ~ ; ; ~
Y ~ 27 , ~ _ ..~.»....«.,~.V.. .«.+v ~ ~ .
iJ 3 W L
Z L
a ~
c
N 10 ~`"~w._._.~....~..V... .
PROJECT
~
AV G~ LOCATION INDIANA
o
c ~
;K SHANNON AVE ~
~ ti ~ 1 y 1
~ INDIANA AVE'
~,.._._..._AVE / O
T NORA Q
~
O
Y f
N -
a o I"~ Maxweu ~MISSIO
SINTO Valley o SINTO a.`g SINTO
. Medical ol 0 ~I.
f ~ V
Center ~.SHARP o o SHAIflP . Zz ~e AVE AVF
BOONE ¢ ~ ~Q (n t
` BOONE ¢ a pQ BOONE tmQI ? we Q Q`
..,.r..._..._ ~ f ?t.~... Oa . 'DESMET ; 3 ~ 3: O a ~
DESMET DESMET Q. cc cc#
°_c CATALDO 1 ° Q~ Q~ -------j d~~~~-- S ~~qTq P
LDO ~ > ui;
x ¢ p CATALDO = AVE j=`:~Q
€ W ~.~.~n, -1 r ~r I
~ ~
1 n r
_ 3 ~ o z N' c ar
w , ~ • z~ MAl ON r n o
m
MA .LON Blakd ; z
~ a RMAIION MAL-LON - o~q -~--~a` ~
°c o~ Elem mj ~ ..saz...._.. I
~ CT BROADWAY i ~i AVE m m; oaav~
Q w, i z
ies ~ N~~ z SPRINGFIELD AVE Q~ ~ W SPRINGFIELO AvE > SPRI~GFIELD~~
z 3w~a Z c)~ w°"~'°°" ALKI AVE CT r ' Progress
~ > ~ ~ ALKI ut ~ ALKI `~..`N Elem o
01 J . ~..e ' z'i" - OUVE cc
Q
OLIVE ~ o oLivE Zi W~ W i~ o # a ~ o
p p ' > a~ m` ¢ i VALLEY Q ~ O ~ OC
VALLEY WAY W~ ym`' WAY~ . Q °
= 3 ,Q, S W Y.<.Q iJIXON w : :E NIXON ' in
u Q, Z NIXON Z> N• z~" NIXON >y N Z
s: MAIH xAVE MAIN m f aI m w Q
. o~Z~~ MAIN ' - --'„j m MAIM ~
~ RIVEHSIDE.. ¢ SIDE
iIVERSIOEF v~
~ o; 4 HIVERw IDE _ = J e ~ RIVERSIDE < 0 ~
m ( ~ SPRAGUE a cn
, 1ST v °x~ Wi 2ND
ol R~ 2 N 0 m..~..w_~.. ~
cr } ~ z
Z J
a ;I 3RD 3RD AVE w. ¢z
~ ~ 3RD AVE N ~p ~ J
4TH w AVE m~ 3RD~CT..,`.'..
y w ~
cc ui ~ : ~
o ~ Keystone STH ~ Q- w~M 5TH ~ a Z~
Elem AVE J{r STH d? ¢~STH
6TN . J. I m CT
6TH 6TH AVE J a TH
' 6TH m 36
j 7TH ¢ . Q,,,. .,3a z . .
w Z Q°f 7TH ~w AVE ' ~j Q ~ w 7TH
Y
Z ~ _ . p _
a 0 ; 8TH AvF °C ° z ~ ~
NOT TO SCALE
I NLAND FIGURE 1 INLAND CONSTRUCTION \
PACIFIC ~ BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING VI CI N I TY M AP
707 west 7tr, •suite 200 (509) 458-6840 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
~ Spokane, WA 99204 FAx (509) 458-6844~ ~ PROJECT N0. 96215 /
~
l \
.
V
~
~ ~
punUM of*:I=
R,LDNO pM
-
t ~ •.:..:..~,'~s ...:,r+T'~,'.r•.'~~ a ~ ~ • . , •
~f~►l~<..y.%N.o . • .',;2,~1~~~~ ~
r• A~~~ ~ : ~
.I .M.~
I~ . PARK
SlGK 9Ui1dfA$
~ ~~%%<~~v.•.•:•..:..~.:Y l ~ )
~ ,M ^v ~ •i ~i..4> .s. ~ ` ~ ~
~~1i^~'. o- ;t~..A~: , v
~ F- -1 ,.j (D
.
~
.9- ~
~ { ~ • ~ • ~ ~ ~ + ~ _ . ~ . ~
~ r ~ i ~ ~ • ' ~ • ~ ~s:
~ r . < ij~ .ti~E.:•,..__;~
~
+ BWlding 60ding Bu~n9 R
' ~ • t F E ~ C
~ , O I ~ w~ O
_ . .
_ Y~ :
~ `•-1••~.
1`' ~4
~
, . S
~ 4
~ "'6...
'
i
NO + TO SCALE
/ ~ INLAND FIGURE 2 INLAND CONSTRUCTION \
PACIFIC BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING SI TE PLAN
707 West 7th •:,:ite 200 (509) 458-6840 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokane, NA 99=34 FAX. (549) 458-6844~ PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
~
'
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 are min.imal. This conclusion was reached
and is documented within the body of this report. A brief description of the conclusions and
recommendations which include project impacts are included here.
• The unsignalized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue & McDonald
Road. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is presently functioning at level
of service F. The signalized intersections within the study area are currently
functioning at level of service D or better.
• The increase in traffic within the next year wcthout the addition of the Phase 2
Inland Construction Business Park trips will lower the level of service at the
following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
(LOS D to LOS F), Pines and the westbound I-90 ramp temunal intersection (LOS
D to LOS E) and the Pines and Mission Avenue intersection (LOS D to LOS E).
With WSDOT scheduled improvements, the LOS for the above intersections on
Pines Road will improve to LOS D. The level of service at Mission and McDonald
during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS F without signal installation.
• Without the scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the addition of the proposed
Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project would cause the level of service
at the intersection of Pines & westbound I-90 xamp terminals to drop from LOS D
to LOS E in all of the Evergreen Interchange scenarios. Also without the
! scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the addition of the proposed project trips
will cause the level of service at the intersection of Pines & eastbound I-90 ramp
terminals to drop from LOS E to LOS F for all scenarios of the Evergreen
Interchange. However, with the scheduled safety and capacity improvements on
Pines by WSDOT, there will be no change in the level of service with the addition
of the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project. Levels of service will
be LOS D or better with or without the proposed project for the build out year.
• There is no measurable benefit to the traffic this project will generate by having the
Evergreen Interchange constructed. Comparing the delay times in Tables 6, 7, and
8 for the different scenarios with and without the Evergreen Interchange, there is
no appreciable improvement in the delay times with the Evergreen Interchange over
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 5 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
1
'
without the Evergreen Interchange.
'
RECOMMENDATIONS
'
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Phase 2 Inland Construction
Business Park will have no significant impact on the transportation system within the general
' geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible ingress and
egress available; not only to ttus proposed development, but also to surrounding properties and
existing commuter trafFic, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project:
• Frontage improvements as required by the County.
' • Future participation in the McDonald/Mission intersection signal improvements
based on additional PM peak hour trips added to the intersection from the project.
'
'
'
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
,
I EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
At the present time the land is undeveloped and zoned I-2 and UR-22. The area adjacent to the
proposed development is zoned UR-3.5 except across the freeway to the north, the property is
zoned I-2 and B-2. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for this area. Phase 1 of this project is in
the process of constructing three buildings with approximately 12,080 S.F. of office space and
' 15,920 S.F. of warehouse space.
The proposed Phase 2 project will develop approximately 5 acres into 40,588 S.F. of office space
and 27,059 S.F. of warehouse space. The land to the east of this parcel is vacant except for a
water tower and pump station. A mix of commercial and rural-type residential land uses exist
on the property to the west of the site fronting Nora Avenue. North of the site is I-90 and south
of the site is a steep hillside up to Mission Avenue.
' Existing Roadways
At the present time the existing roadways in the immediate area are paved and in various stages
of complete build out. For example, Mission Avenue is a minor arterial which runs from Sullivan
Road to the east, and continues past Argonne Road to the west. In the vicinity of the Valley
Hospital, to the west of this site, it has a four-lane cross-section, two lanes in each direction. The
apartment complexes in the area of McDonald Road have been required to widen Mission Avenue
to continue this cross-section further east. 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.
' 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 traff'ic is grade separated and the signed speed limit within this area is 60 mph. This
facility is responsible for carrying many of the inter-area commute trips, such as between the
valley and downtown Spokane. This facility also carries the majority of the inter-state freight and
Inland Pacifcc Engineering, Inc. 7 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
, 1. a ~
1
1 \ tA
~ URm22
5
~ 1 \ .n
Q~ ~gt
.
Q,
~ N
~ . M4N ^ IEtD cNv
PROJECT
T N ' ~ LOCATION - _ - ,
9 6 N r+ o ~ ' . _ - - - - - - ~ -
„ r,•, _ . _ M ` ` ~ ~ m
1- 2 ~ L -
~
- . _ . _ . _ ~ - •
UR2
M22 0 QC '
U. ~ -3 5V4 M i S 5 I O►~ °C v E-
J
r~T d• _ . _ 'oH
UR_22 _
~
R 2 uR-12 e Insert Detail
e ~2 i ` ~ o~ o INT u
Se
.
uR-22 ~ 0< ~R-12 ~ °
- U R - 3.5 D 3..0 .
Y ?
_
~v ' - t~~
" F-
B_ I ~ r °p~ »..ot~~ ` ' 1 ~ ~ _ ~ cj
4'24-42
~ ~ 4 F ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G,~-r~►
1+N
2~ ~ 0 1ak _
t h ~ , .
♦ _ ~ - •
,
R~ f w
a ~ /1-2 .
r~
► 881
~•r Z4 '--7 TC ~ ~ N ~ ' Ju•
ro
koo { c L.3' ~ ~1 g „ , .
_to o IF=
' $
1 R oi'
~
l
MIT
.2 - - ~
~ EY wA Y
NOT TO SCALE
t r e-~ ~ ~
FIGURE 3 INLAND CONSTRUCTION
{ NLAND BUSINESS PARK
PACiFic
ENGINEERING ZON I N G M AP TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 ~
` Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-584 /
'
'
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 five-lane principal arterial on both Spokane
, County's and the Washington State Department of Transportation arterial systems. 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 unmediate 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. Between the intersections of Mission
Avenue and Indiana Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
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; 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. However from
approximately one block west of Pines Road to east of McDonald Road (east of Pines), Mission
Avenue has been developed to the four-lane ultimate cross section. 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
road. However, this arterial will be extended from Pines Road to Sullivan Road with the
construction of the new mall in this area. A five-lane section will be constructed in this area with
curbs and sidewalks.
NicDonald Road is a minor arterial according to the Spokane Counry Arterial Road Plan. It is a
two-way arterial running between Saltese Road to the south and Mission Avenue to the north.
Within the last five years, the section between Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue was upgraded
, to a four lane paved facility with curbs and sidewalk to carrY the north-south traffic through and
ithin the immediate area. South of approximately Second Avenue, it is a two lane facility. It
' serves primarily as access to and from the surrounding residential areas. The speed limit along
it' s length is 35 mph.
Alamer Road is a local access road according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two-lane,
M-o-way roadway running north-south between Broadway Avenue to the south and Nora Avenue
to the north. North of Mission Avenue along the site frontage, the road has a steep grades, up to
131%.
Iriland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 9 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
Nora Avenue is a local access raad a1ong the south side of 1-90 east of Pines Road ta Niamer
Rvad. Tt is a tuo--lane, twa-wa roadv~raY ~runr~ing east-west. At the Pines Road intersection, ~e
~
southbound txaffic is prohibited from turning into Nora Avenue and westbound traff'~c on Nara
Avenue is prohibited from turni.ng southbound onto Pines Road,
Evergreen Road is a principa1 arterial according to the Caunty Arterial Road Plan. Yt is a two-
lane, two-way arterial rurming betvveeri 32nd Avenue tv the south and Mission Avenue to the
tiarth. The speed limit is pvsted at 35. At both Sprague Avenue a.nd Broadway, Evezgreen widers
out. At Broadway, the crass-sectxon changes to accommodate two lanes in each directian. At
Sprague Avenue, zhe widen.ing accomrnodates a dedicated left turn 1ane far bath north and sauth
bound traf~'~c. South of this left turn lane is a short section of twa-way left tuxn lane to
accornmodate the new Target stare and the Safeway stvre fallawed by a continuation of zhe two
~ lane, two-way section it bas aXong mast of it's lengt.h.
Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Corttro!
~
Froject study area intersections in the site victnity were identified thraugh discussions with Pat
Harper at Spokane CountyT Engineer"s Department and Greg Figg at WSDC]T. The in#.ersectians
were;
• I1flamer Road & Missivn Avenue
+ McDona1d Road & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Missivn Avenue
• Pines Road & Nara Avenue
i Pines Road &the Eastbaund 1-90 ramp terrninals
• Pines Road & the Westbaund 1-90 ramp terminals
~ Pines Road & Indianaf Montgomery
These intersections have been anal}rzed for 1eve1 of service {LOS} and forln the basis of this
document. This study was also scoped to look at the effects the Evergreen Tnterehange would
have.
~ The Fines Road intersectians are PresentlY trafF'ic signal controlied intersectio,ns with the excePtion
of Nara Avenue. The Mission & McDonald intersection and Mission & Mamer intersections are
st0p 51g11 ConC,rOIled with C~e n0rthISC3uth StY'eet y1eldiIlg tD M1551011 AYelllle.
Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation
Existing turning traffic movement volumes at the identif ed in~ersections were deterrnined frorrY
actuat traffic eounts taken by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) during the spring of
1995 and fall of 1996, and by W5DOT and Spokane Couaty during 1996 for PM peak hours of
In2and Pacic Engineer-ing, Inc. 10 Indand Con,struction Business Park TIA
,
operation.
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 SER YICE
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 Intersectcons
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
Inland Pacifzc Engineering, Inc. 11 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
,
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 Manua1(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, namely the intersections of Mamer Road & Mission
Avenue, McDonald Road & Mission Avenue, Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue, Pines Road
& Nora Avenue, Pines Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals, Pines Road & the westbound
I-90 ramp terminals and Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery. These intersections were chosen by
Spokane County or WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from the Inland
Construction Business Park.
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 an unsignalized intersections
will be an LOS of E. For a signalized intersection, LOS D 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.
Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing PM peak hour
at each identified intersection. These LOS results are from the traffic counts performed by IPE,
Spokane County and WSDOT for this study. HCS data used to generate all levels of service
Inland Pacafic Engineering, Inc. 12 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
,
,
shown in this document are in the Technical Appendix. Figure 4 shows the existing intersection
volumes counted by IPE staff, Spokane County and WSDOT which were used for Table 1.
Table 1- Existing Levels of Service
. r ' EXISTINC-i PM TRAFFIC
IN'I'ERSECTIQN DELA,'~ } `LOS
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12.4 sec. B'
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 25.5 sec. D~
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 39.6 sec. D_
Pines Rd./Nora Road 6.9 sec. B~
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 28.5 sec. D_
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 83.4 sec. F_
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 9.3 sec. B~
Mission Ave./Evergreen Road 11.4 sec. C~
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement
through the intersection.
As can be seen from the above table, the existing levels of service at most of the intersections
within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized
intersections within Spokane County. The exception is the intersection of Mission & McDonald.
' All other intersections are operating at levels of service D or better.
During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently functioning at
level of service F with an average of 83.4 seconds of delay for each northbound left turning
vehicle. CUyeran intersection delay is 16.9 secoQd.s-) At the present time, the intersection could
function at acceptable levels of service by changing the control to either an all-way stop or by
installing a traffic signal. Although an all-way stop would provide acceptable levels of service
with existing traffic volumes, with the traff'ic growth anticipated in the near future, the all-way
stop would not provide adequate level of service for even the anticipated buildout growth
examined in this study. A signal warrant analysis was performed for this intersection in previous
traffic studies. Presently, this intersection meets five warrants, including Warrant 2, Interruption
of Continuous Traffic. A complete copy of the warrant analysis is included in the Technical
Appendix of the Traff'ic Impact Analysis for the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 13 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
1
/ ~
N n-D ~
50~ ~112
14 44
307 81
1
~ Q (1 _
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
~ rn ~ ~.~i►~ f L
~ NOT TO SCALE
20 vk
a ~ M
~242 jqlp t 0~cy`
~S
~ ~ W. BOUND RAMPS ~ ~h '
9
Q 00 tr)
cl)
o
~
243 cP 90
w 9Q -Z~7
z 4~
~ fn
c F
o
M N
E. BOUND RAMPS
NORA AVENUE
15 ~
4 ~ o
~
w
m
n N ~ <
~ N ~ N d 00
5k~
131 ~ ~ 415 4~ :,~k 12 1
, 129 ~ ~170 394I=> 305 378 ~ C= 331 242 ~ a 217
36 99 198 79 Q 4~ ~ 2 127 39 ~
Q~ o
' N n~ t0 ^ O DO d ~ N N {..L
~
MISSION AVENUE o Z
o)
J w■
Q ~
Z ~
O ~
0 W
U >
w.0/
/ 1~ INLAND FIGURE 4 INLAND CONSTRUCTION \
PACIFIC EXISTING BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING P.M. PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96215
`Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-6844~ O TR AFFI G VOLU M ES /
'
~
Traffac Safety
, Accident summaries available for the most recent three years from Spokane Counry and WSDOT
for the intersections in the study area have been assembled. Generally accidents are documented
by type of occurrence, such as property damage or injury. One fatality occurred in the study area
during the years from 1992 to 1995. This occured at the Mission Avenue/McDonald Road
intersection in October 1995 and underscores the need for a signal at this intersection. Accidents
, are measured based on frequency per million entering vehicles. This ratio is a function of the
average daily traffic entering the intersection and the annual frequency of accidents.
Table 2- Accident data for selected intersections within the study area
ACCIDENT STATISTICS
Intersection 1992 1993 1994 1995 Pex
PIaO INJ PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO INJ ~V
_ ;
Mission & Evergreen 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.36
Mission & McDonald 2 0 0 3 4 2 1 2 0.80
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
'
Accident rates at these intersections are below 2.00 accidents per nullion entering vehicles, the
threshold for safety improvements. Therefore accident history should not be considered a problem
' now or in the future. 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 safery
' 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.
Planned Transportation Improvements
The WSDOT has committed to two projects 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
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
1
eastbound off ramp to accommodate two right turn lanes and widen Pines Road at the Mission
Avenue intersection for a second southbound left turn lane. 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.
Although a signal has not previously been planned for the intersection of Mission & McDonald,
due to the need for one, it will be assumed that the Counry will install one some time in the future.
It should be noted that the proposed project does add traffic to this intersection. However,
warrants for the signal are met without the additional business park traffic.
Background Projects
The basis for additional trips from other proposed projects is the information on background
' projects from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis. Other projects
beyond those in that report were also included.
The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Communiry traffic impact analysis identified two projects for
inclusion in this study as background projects. They are the Lawson Hotel/Off'ice complex and
the Wolff Commercial site. The Lawson Hotel/Off'ice complex is a proposed 200 room hotel and
20,000 square feet of office space. The Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers has land use category 710, General Off'ice 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. In discussions with Jamie Wolff,
the following land uses were identified. The westernmost bullding 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, Sth Edition b~
`~d
(TGM). The bottom floor will have 6,000 sq. ft. of leasable area for office space, and 3 000 sq. C"Sj-6
C``S ~
ft. o f s t o r a g e a r e a. T h e o f f i c e s p a c e w a s m o d e l e d u s i n g t h e G e n e r a l O f f i c e B u i l d i n g 7 1 0) l a n d C~ S6~,•~ '
' u s e c a t e g o r y. -Th e s t o r a g e a r e a i s n o t e x p e c t e d t o g e n e r a t e a n y t r i p s.
. ~
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 Off'ice Buildin
g
(#710) land use category.
' At the northwest comer of Mission and Pines and th
e southeast corner of the site, a restaurant is
proposed. This restaurant was modeled as a High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant; land use
category #832.
Ninety-five percent of the traffic from these uses is expected to use the intersection of Pines &
Mission. From this intersection, the traffic was expected to distribute itself similarly to what the
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 16 Inlantl Construction Business Park TIA
, .
present distribution of traff'ic is depending upon which peak hour was bemg examined.
' Other projects not included as background projects in the Ridgeview Estates Apartment
Community traffic impact analysis are: 1) The trips from Ridgeview Estates Apartment
Community; 2) A 72 unit Retirement Complex south of Mission Avenue between Evergreen Road
and Mamer Road (Land Use 250); 3) Phase 1 trips from the Inland Construction Business Park
(Land Use 150 & 710) .
There are other projects in the planning phase that we are aware of, but have not been included
in the background traffic. These were not included because the buildout of those projects is
beyond completion of this project. These projects are the Lawson/Gunning project, Mirabeau
Point project, and "The Mall" project.
The trip generation rates for these land uses are shown on the following table. Anticipated trip
distribution characteristics are shown on Figures 6 and 7 which follow.
Table 3- Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour
'
,
` PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Entet`ing Exiting
Rate Volume
Percent Volume Percent Volume,
Hotel 200 0. 62-*' 124 60 % 74 40 % 50
Rooms
Office 20 k.s.f. 2.92 58 17% 10 83 % 48
Building* -
Strip Mall 9 k. s. f. . 15.14." 136 ~ 50 % 68 ~ 50 % 68 ~
Off'ice 24 k.s.f. 2.68 64 - 17 % 11 - 83 % 53 "
Building" a. 7 2- & s -:5-11
'
Restaurant 5.5 k.s.f.. 12.92 - 71 " 56% 40-' 44% 31 `
' • 49
Apartments 317 units 0.63 200 68 % 136 32 % 64
Retirement 72 units 0.28 r 20 - 56 11 y 44 % 9'
'
Business 30 k.s.f. 1.48~ 44 ~ N/A 10 ~ N/A 34
Park z z°/o
? ( 7 3 60 3~ 7
* - Lawson site
- Wolff site
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 17 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
~
~
16 ~
4
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y LO
1- b NOT TO SCALE
~15
1
o~ ~
~ W. BOUND RAMPS
o ~
~
Q n
o ~
(y_ 90
W 98 `zzl
Z Q ~
0- ~ N
E. BOUND RAMPS
~
N
NORA AVENUE
'Q19 Q
0
4 ~
M N ~ Fr
~5 w
~
' a
~ o ~ :2 fs
' 64 ~ 1~ 89 ~ g J, ~ 2
78 ~1J 69 154 a 70 59 ~ 43 40 ~J 28
21 34 20 15 Q 23 ~
O
nn O ^ ~
O) N rl) ( ( r 0) N ~
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q ~j ~,60) -3 G3 ~
Z ~
0 ~
0 ?
wJ
I NLAND RGURE 5 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC B ACK GR OU N D BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINQ P.M. PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96215
\ Spokane. WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-E844` ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M E S J~ J
'
Trip Generation and Distribution
Using the Institute of TransPortation Engineers' (ITE) TriP Generation Manual, Sth Editfon, 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 Phase 2 of Inland Construction Business Park is shown
, in Table 4 which follows.
Table 4- T'rip Generation Rates for Business Park
PM Peak Hour , J
Land IJse Size " • . . ` ` Entering Exiting
Rate '
% Volume % Volwme
Warehouse 27.1 k.s.f. 0.74~ 35% 7 65% 13
Office Building 40.6 k.s.f. 2.42' 17% 17 ~ 83% 81 ~
Totals 24 94
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. Three scenarios were
' evaluated for future roadway conditions. They are as follows:
1) Without Evergreen Interchange. The Evergreen Interchange may not be constructed and
open to traffic for several years. In the mean time, buildout will occur for this project.
This scenario evaluates traffic during this time period.
2) With Evergreen Interchange and a southbound left turn at Mamer Road/Mission Avenue
intersection allowed. Left turns at this intersection are currently allowed with yield
control. In icy conditions, vehicles will experience difficulty clunbing the steep slope and
, waiting for a break in traffic, and starting up the hill again to turn left onto Mission
Avenue.
3) With Evergreen Interchange and a southbound left turn at Mamer Road/Mission Avenue
intersection not allowed. Under this scenario left turn and through movements at
Mamer/Mission intersection would be prohibited by channelization. A right turn only
Inland Pacifcc Engineering, Inc. 19 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
condition would exist with a lame so no stopping would be required. This would help out
those climbing the steep grade in icy conditions, but would hinder easy access to the
' Evergreen inierchange.
The following assumptions were used in detenmining the distribution of the site generated trips.
1) Without the Evergreen Interchange
For the exiting u ips:
~ lU% will go toward areas north of the Pines Interchange. From the site they will access
Pines Road by way of Nora Road.
• 40% will go toward areas west of the Pines Interchange using the WB on-ra.mp. From the
site they will access Pines Road by way of Nora Road.
• 25 % will go toward areas south of the Mission/Pines intersettion. From the site they will
go to Mission and then south onto Pines Road.
U
~ 5% will go south on McDonald Road. h sa' +c
2.
• S % will go south on Evergreen Road.
~
• 5% will go east on Mission Ave.
~
• 10% will go east on I-90. From the site they will go to the Pines Interchange using Nora
Road and then onto the Freeway using the Eastbound on-ranlp. Evea though tbere is some
backtrack with this route, there are no signal to go through, only right tums. A route ta
the Sullivan interchange would mean a left tum onto Mission, and a signal at Sullivan
Road. For entering trips
• Trips entering will be coming with the same distribution percentages as where exiting trips
are going.
' •
Nora Ave. will be used for entering trips only for half of those coming from south of the
Mission/Pines intersection. All others will use Mission Ave. a.nd Mamer to get to the site.
2) With Evergreen Interchange - Left turn allowed at Mamer & Mission
Same assumptions as #1 with the following exceptions:
Inland Paci~`ic Engineering, Inc. 20 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
1
AECEIVED
auG 18 1997
SP4KANE COUNTY ENGINEER
• Eastbound trips will go to Mission to access the Evergreen Interchange and I-90.
~ Half of the 40% going westbound on I-90 toward the city will use Evergreen Interchange
and the other half will use Pines Interchange.
With Evergreen Interchange - Left turn prohibited at Mamer & Mission
Same assumptions as #1 with the following exceptions:
•q, \Those exiting the site going south on Evergreen or east on Mission will turn right onto
1
~xaMission and go south on McDonald to either Sprague or Broadway.
~
• Those accessing I-90 eastbound and westbound will use the Pines Interchange only. Traffic volume assignments for the three scenarios are shown in Figures 6, 7& 8.
~
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 21 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
~
~
N ~
8
4
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
~
N ~,n ks
o~ v NOT TO SCALE
X
V
~ 2 946
~ Q
M ~ ~ ~
W. BOUND RAMPS ~
0
-Q ~
o ~
X 90
V) ~
W 9 ~
z
n- o ao
~ E. BOUND RAMPS
,
NORA AVENUE ~r
~ k
Q48 ~
o ~
~ cy-
• * M N ~
W i
~
. .o
M~ k k~ .r m QC
~ 4 N 4
~
17 3
20x~ 16 <1- 2~ ~ a4<- Q p
~
~
MISSION AVENUE nJ w,
Q ui
o ~
o w
U >
w'0/
I NLAND FIGURE 6 ~/00 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC SI TE GEN ER ATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINQ W,Y0 EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th •suite 200 (sos) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
/
ROJECT N0. 96215
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX. (509) 458-6844, `TR AFFI C VOLU M ES ~
` " ~v~►ti► ~~zsf~?~
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
,
N ~ ~ -
NOT TO SCALE
4 '
4 422
~
co 0
W. BOUND RAMPS
0
: Q a
o ~
w 90
cn ,oCI,
Z
~cl
E. BOUND RAMPS
NORA AVENUE Z
~ 56
W
1 Q
18 ~
17 24 4~ ~ 2 ~ 24 S Q 5~ C)
O
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q ~
z c~
o cy-
c~ w
~ w~
\
I NLAND FlGURE 6 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PAGIFfC SI TE GEN ER ATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERING W 0 EVERGREEN I/C '
707 we9c 7t, .suice zoo (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-684400, ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
~
N ~1Z.~~ 9'1 \
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
N
~ `
~ . ~ ~ NOT TO SCALE
~
~4m
W. BOUND RAMPS
0
< N
~
0
~ 90
w 5 ~
Z ~
a- ~
N
E. BOUND RAMPS
.
NORA AVENUE
Q 2s
d*,V\ s 0 ~
~
k Q
^ . N N G
1 O- f~ b G~ 24
~ 24 ~ 5 Q Q
Q p
O w
~
MISSION AVENUE o w,
Q ~
0 NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD ~w
U AND MISSION VENUE ALLOWED >
w~
I NLAND FlGURE 7 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC SI TE GEN ERATED BOSINESS PARK
ENCINEERINQ WITH EVERGREEN I/C 707 west 7cn • suice 200 (509) 458-6840 P. M. P E AK H OU R TRAFFIC IMPACT AN ALYSI S
`Spokone. WA 99244 FAX: (509) 458-6844of ~TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 /
\ ~
~H
1
. \
N
~ INDIANA/MONTGOM v
c~~ NOT TO SCALE
~
a4 .
~CD
" W. BOUND RAMPS
0
Q ~
o ~
~ 90
~
5~
LIWJ
Z
~
E. 60UND RAMPS
C)
NORA AVENUE
~
~ 56 0 /
t~Q '
O ~ .
P5
~f L~' `Lij
i Q
' ci ° ~
13 ~ ~ 8
12 G- 24
24 14 0
4 ,~Cj ~Cf Q Q
G✓
M7 M r- O O
MISSION AVENUE o w,
Q ~
NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD AND ~
o ~
~ MISSION AVE E NOT ALLOWED
w~
I NLAND FlGURE 8 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIPIC SI TE GEN ERQTED ' BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERING Wi TH EVERGREEN I/C •
707 west 7tn •sutte 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
`Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (504) 458-6844~ ` TR AFFI C VOLU MES PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
\
w-
_
/ iWw1 y e8. ~
. . _ . .
w_p~
~
INDIANA MONTGO -
te ~
Y ;
. , - ~ ; - l 1~ ~ * •
' tx
NOT TO SCALE
~Q
foW W. 60UND RAMPS
~
0
Q N
O ~j
°c 90
w 4
z Q
h (L t
N
E. BOUND RAMPS
~
b
ts,= NORA AVENUE
24
C3
Q
~ 0 .
~
~ r .
. LL1 ~ •
~
a
~
~ 20 9 ~J 2~ .
Q
p
0
Of (t
MISSION AVENUE o
sommummm W.
Q ~
0 NOTE. • LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD ~
p l,,
V ANO MISSION VENUE AIlOWED S
wJ
4 I NLAND i~ FIGURE 7 1 r 1
INLaHO coNSrRucnoN
PACIFIC SI TE GENER ATED BUSHESS PARK
ENGINEERINQ WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 west 7cn •sa,ita 200 (509) 4W-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRI4FFiC IMPACT fwALYSIS
` spokane. WA 99204 F~ (wg) 4sa-sa"~ ~ TR C VOLU M ES l` PROJECT N0. 96215 0/
A t4_
~G
* , Y
; / . . . _ h
N ~ •
, • ~ '
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y 00 ,
N
~
~ 0 ~ NOT TO SCALE
~co
W. BOUND RAMPS ~
0
Q ~
o ~
W_ 90
w
Z
E. BOUND RAMPS
~
~
Am NORA AVENUE
48
~
Q
~ O
~
~
~
W
~
Q
~ 04 ~
17 ~ ~3
_ 16 ~ Q- 20
~20 4= 12
p
Q rr' °Q a
0
MISSION AVENUE o W.
Q ~
o . ~
p NOTE. LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD AND W
U MISSION AVE E NOT ALLOWED >
wJ
INLAND a~ FIGURE 8 INLAND CONSTRUCTION \
PACIFIC SI TE GENER ATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINCl WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 west 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR 1RAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
`Spokane. WA 99204 FAx (509) 45e-684-4OOF ` TRAFFIC VOLUMES J` PROJECT N0. 96215 /
I
T4
~ FV7'l1RE YEAR TRAFF'IC IMl'ACT ~ALYSIS
- - - - - - -
~ ANALYSIS, A.SSiI11~PT I01VS A1V1)1~T'~ODOI.OGIES
F'ud,ue year eveni.ng weekday peak hour impacts of the ,potential traffic generated by the proposed
~ projects alon,g Mission Avenue and Pines Road were anallyzed as follows.
0 Trip generation estimates of the future morning and evening 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.
~
• Traffic volumes on each transportation system element at build out were deternained
~ assuming the existing traffic would experience a 3% per yea►r compounded growth rate due
_ to unidentified sources. Identified background projects listed previously were included
above the 3% growth rate.
- • Trip assignmenes from the background projects are as shown in Figure 5. Most of the
traffic from these projects is expected to use the intersection of Mission & Pines and to
~ disperse from there.
m Forecasted traffic volumes for Phase 2 of the Ynland Construction Business Park as
generated from the ITE Trip Generasion Manual, Sth Edition were then added to the
= background traffic to determine the cumulative traffic impacts.
0
Level of service analyses were then performed for tlie without development and with
" development traffic scenarios in order to identify any capacity or level of service
defciencies due to the development of the proposed project on either Mission Avenue or
Pines Road.
~
Build out of the Phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park is anticipated to be
complete in 1997. Therefore, 1997 is the baseline year of this study.
~ • Improvements scheduled for Pines Road by WSDOT and installation of a signal at Mission
~ AvenuelMcDonald Road intersection were assumed to be completed as part of the
improvements by others.
IT BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 V''
~ Level of service calculations were made for build out of the business park, anticipated in 1997.
Analyses for conditions both with and without the proposed project were performed with the three
;
~
, Inlartd Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Inland Cortstruction Bresirtess Park TIA
'
scenarios concerning Evergreen Interchange. These analyses will show how the traffic volumes
wiU be handled by the existi.n~g facility or what new elements will be needed for the tra~c system
' ~g
to continue working at acceptable levels of service. Based upon the existing levels of service, tte
intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently at unacceptable levels of service. Therefor+e,
changes at this intersection are currendy needed and the need for changes will only increase in the
future.
1`he background traffic volumes include the existing traffic, the Lawson Hotel/Offce complex,
the Wolff Commercial site, a 72 unit retirement complex on Evergreen Road, the Ridgeview
Estates Apartment Community, Phase 1 of tlie Inland Construction Business Part and a
' compounded growth rate of 3% per year on all of the streets. See Figure 5 for the traffc volumes
from the background projects and Figure 9 for the total background traffic volumes used. A
summary of the HCS results is shown in Table 5 which follows.
Table S- Build Out Year Traffic Without Proposed Project
BUILDaUr W/o ~~OJEc~ ~RAFFIc
I14TERSEGTION . Without Iuprovements With Iaprovettents
'
DEI.A.Y LOS DELAY L{?S
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 13.1 sec. B 12.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 43.7 sec. E 20.6 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 86.2 sec. F 33.8 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 8.1 sec. B(*) 8.1 sec. B
'
Pules Rd./Mission Ave. 48.0 sec. E 37.8 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 411 sec. F(*) 13.0 sec. B
'
Mission Ave./Marner Road 11.5 sec. C(*) 11.5 sec. C(*)
Mission Ave.lEvergreen Road 17.2 sec. c(*) 17.2 sec. C(*)
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
'
For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement
through the intersection.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system not including the proposed project, wiU cause the level of service at the
Inland Paci,fic Engineering, Inc. 26 Inland Constrciction Business Park 77A
~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - _
I
~ 82~' ~6115 I
14=;> 45 332 c;%, g,f
~ INDIANA/NOONTGOM Y N I
.
~s
~
NOT TO SCALE ~
~
~ a 2 1 ~
. ~ 264
W. BOUND RAMPS ~
Q gm
~
~ O
= ~ ~0-P 90
W ' 1oss~
z
~ FL
~
I E. BOUND RAMPS ~
NORA AVENUE
a
, W
. . ~ ~
Q ~
~
, 199cp tA*516 ,z c:P 4 14 ~
211 c=> C:-244 569 c;> Ca 393 448 r3-384 304 c=> G~ 285
'e136 2.30 czk, ~ 99 4~ ~ 2 162 ~ 43 Q i
Q a4~ a~~ Q
o
is I-
p
Z
i _ N1ISSION AVENUE o w
w ~
Q ~
o
o ~ -
U
w /
.
~~~L~~~ FlGt1RE 9, INLAND CONSTRUCTION
~ _ ~ • .
' PACiFIC 1997 6UILD OUT eusiNESS PaRK ~
ENGofVEERINC WITHOUT PROJECT ~ .
~o~ w~c • s~ice 200 (5d9) 458-saao P. M. PE AK H OU R ~~ic in~PACT AN ~Ysis
Spokone, wA 99204 FAx: (509) 45e-6e44 TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
~ . _ . - - 1 ` - - - - - -
,
Pines RoadlWB I-90 ramp intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS E, the Pines Road/EB I-90
ramp intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS F, the Fines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to
slip from LOS D to LOS E, and the Mission Avenue/Mamer Road intersection to slip from LOS
B to LOS C. With the proposed improvements on Fines Road and the additional trips added to
the transportation system not includiag the proposed project, the level of service at the Pines
Road/WB Ramps will improve from LOS D to LOS C and the level of service at the Pines
RoadIEB ramps will improve from LOS F to LOS D. If a sigaal is installed at the Mission
Avenue/McDonald Road intersection, the level of service will improve from LOS F to LOS B.
Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 4 and estimated trip distributions shown on
' Figures 6, 7& 8 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system at build out is obtained. Figures 10, 11 & 12 show the future traffiic
volumes under these conditions. Using these fudure traffic volumes, build out year level of service
calculations are performod and the results are displayed in Tables 6, 7& 8.
Table 6- Build Out Year naffic ~V'~th Proposed Project
Without Evergreen Interchange
~3~LDOUT ViI'`H PROJECT TR„~i,FFIC
INTERSEGTIQI~ Without Inprgvements With Inprovements
DELAY LOS DELAY Lt3S
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 13.3 sec. B 12.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 50.8 sec. E 22.2 sec. G
Pi.nes Rd./EB Ramps 84.8 sec. F 38.8 sec. D
'
Pines Rd./Nnra Road 9.3 sec. B(*) 9.3 sec. B(*) `
' Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 50.4 sec. E 39.5 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 479 sec. F(*) 12.8 sec. B
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 12.8 sec. c(*) 12.8 seC. C(*)
' Uenotes unsignalized intersection.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transgortation system by the propos@d project, wiU cause the delay times to increase slightly, but
will not change the level of service at any of the intersections over the buildout withouc project
conditions under this senario. Wirh the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no
change in the level of service between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
Inland Paci, fic Engineering, Inc. 28 Inland Construction Busaness Park T7A
T'able 7- Budld Out Year Trajf ac With Froposed Project
Wh Evergreen IRterchange, Lef# T~urn at Mamer Intersection AIlowed
BUI€.Do~~~~ PROJEcTTRAFFrc
UMRSEGUC3N4:
''i~out ~p~vernents ~`~th ~n~o~ve~en~s
DEYA•,' ~ LV S DYlYA1 LOS •
Z
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 13.3 sec. B 12.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 45.5 sec. E 21.3 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 80.9 sec. F 37.4 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 8.7 sec. B(*) 8.7 sec. B(*)
Fines Rd.Mlission Ave. 49.8 sec. E 37.9 sec. D
1Viission Ave./McDonald Road 464 sec. F(*) 13.0 sec. B
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 12.7 sec. C(#) 12.7 sec. C(*)
Denotes uasignalized intersection.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system by the proposed project, will cause the delay times to increase, but the level
of service will remain the same over the buildout without project conditions under this senario.
With the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no change in the level of service
between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
~
Inland Pacifac Engineerang, Inc. 29 Inland Constrciction Business Park TIA
'
~'able 8- Build Out Year ?raffic yV'rth Proposed Pnoject
With Evergreen Intercharage, Le, ft Turn ol Mamer Intersection Bat AIlowed
- " - BUILDOTJT WMi P~.i.C~J~CT,TRAFrJc , .
~4 M-WECTI4N -
~Vjthnut ImprovemEhts ` With Imprdvements - ~
: i DELAY LpS DELAY ~ LOS
;
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 13.3 sec. B 12.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Razngs 51.0 sec. E 22.2 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 84.8 see. F 38.9 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 6.1 sec. B(*) 6.1 sec. B(*)
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 50.4 sec. E 37.5 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 511 sec. F(*) 12.6 sec. B
Mission AveJMamer Road 13.0 sec. C(*) 13.0 see. CN
Deaotes unsignalized intersection.
Without any improvements to the tran.sportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system by the proposed project, will cause the delay ti.mes to increase, but the levels
of service will remain the same over the buildout without project conditions under this senario.
With the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no change in the tevel of service
between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 30 baland Construction Business Park TIA
, . , . ~ - - . . - . . , -r.~ _ ~
~ -
n
~ • ~ ~ ~j I•
52
~ ~115 _
it<:6 43
I 332 113 ,
INDIANA/MONTGOM9 Y
~ ~
, - ~
' ~
N .
S
~
NOT TO SCALE '
~
I 2' ~ _ -
286 I
~
N ~
r% co
W. BOUND RAMPS ~
i - •
i i
i Q - . . ;
90
~ 1075 I
~ c:,N7
z
I
i' E. BOUND,RAMPS ~ -
NORA AVENUE ~
~ 411.BZ . - - _
~
o ~
► ~
W
~ 199cp Q516 _ ,
'x 29 17
21t~ az44 sas~ G= 413 44e~ a3e4 saa~ c_ 207 ,
C:'~r 230 cz~N7 103 4c, ~ a 166 czl~ 43 ~
se7
aq4~ ato Q a4~ a t o.
n p O~ ~ ~ O Vf N
1.L. m
NiISSiON AVENUE - o W • ~
w
Q
ce-
o ~
o w
d U '
w ~
a~ FlGURE 10 r
INLAND INLAND CONSTRUCTION
' ~ - 1997BUILD OUT ' 8USlNESS PARK
PA(;IFIC -
, ENGINEERING W 0 EVERGREEN I/C -
' P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFlC IMPqCT ANAL1fSIS•
~o~ w~sc ~cn • ss,~to 200 (sos) ass-saaa ~
'
`Spakone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844~ ~ TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT N0. 96215
~ ~ _ /
~ -T.~ - - - - - s . . ~
N M ~
sz~ ~ Q»s !
14 c=> C:= 43 j
332 83 i
b Q
~ :R~ ~
INDIANA/MONTGpM Y
~ . -
~
NOT TO SCALE
- ' ' 21
a ~
~i 264 .
a 4 v.
W. BOUiVD RAMPS
N
~ p ~b
2m~ - 90
~ cn
~ z
a-
:E. 80UND RAMPS
.I ~
Q~ NORA_ AVENUE
o ;
o ~
~
CY~
i ~
< ~ . .
199c::9 '%2818 0 22~ ~ 24
211 c=> a~ 578 ~C-413 448 ~ C=3B4 .\t Q ~
59 ~ ~ 230 103 Q 4 ~ 2 Q
; ~ Q Q
, . - 0 m~~ g N
°n
co O
w ~
r-
of !
; N1ISSION A1/ENUE o _ w ~
J , .
Q - - ~
z
. ~ cr- ~
V NOTE: LEF'T TURN A MAMER ROAD ALLOWED ~
wO/
~ - . _ . . . ~ . _ . _ . _ _
~ -q"m I NLAND- --FlGURE-1 1 INLAPID CONSTRUCTION ~
P~CIFIC 1997 WITH PROJECI` eusiNESS PnRK
~~q~~E~~~~~ i WITH Ep RGREEN R/C , ~AFFlC IMPACT ANALY5IS
707 w~t 7tn • suite zoo (509) 458-6840 , P. M. EAK H OU
Spokone~. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 962~ ~J
~ _ . _ _ - - , . . . , - ,
~
52 cP ~115 I~
14 ~ 45
~
332 ~ 83 1
a 4 ~v.
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
I
~s
~
4p 0**4* 21 NOT TO SCALE
~
ezes
; a4
W. BOUNp RAMPS ~
~
~
. o~
. ^
, ~ . . ~ . . .
25°90
(n 1075 c!k,
~ z
I ^ ~ N
1.L ~
I E. BOUND RAMPS
. ~
~
~ NORA AVENUE
~
o
n ~ J
• uJ
~
. . S<
29~' 17
~ Q214~
211 ~
'413 G:-~384
-1> N~'
Z'° ` ~7 ~„1
Q 4 ~ 2 a
~ p Q p Q
~ ~ ° ° ~ O
; O pC
1,MISSION AVENUE o z i
~ a ~
~ z ~
i 0
NOTE: LEFT TURN AT MAMER ROAD ~
NOT ALLOWED wj
`i-' ~
FIGURE 12 - - \ ~ ~ ,
~ INLAND INLAND CONSTRUCTION ,
BUSINESS PARK
Piid►CIFIC 1997 WI TH PROJECT ;
ENGINEERING 1M TH EVERGREEN I/C i '
707 wesc 7tn •sa,ice aoo (sas) ass-ssao ~ P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
sQok~e, wA 99204 FAx: (sos) 4s8-sg~r ~ TR C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
r--
~
r
~
The addition of the Inland Construction Business Park, Phase 2 will not cause any of the
-r-1 intersections to fall into unacceptable levels of service with the iaqprovements that are scheduled
~ for construction. If none of the scheduled improvements are constructed on Pines Road, levels
~ of service will be below acceptable levels for ths westbound and eastbound ramp intersections and
~ the 1Viission Avenue intersection. Note that the intersection of 1Vdission & McDonald was analyzed
~ as a signalized intersection for the "With Improvements" scenario. If this intersection is left
unsignalized, the PM peak hour level of service will be at F with 400 to 500 seconds -of delay
~ depending on the Evergreen Interchange for the worst movem+ent. As stated before, the other
~ intersections are expected to operate at acceptable leveLs of ser`rioe until after the build out of thi.s
project.
~
CONCLUSIONS
L Based upon the analysis, field observations, assu,mptions, 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 are muumal. This conclusion was reached
L and is documented within the body of this report.
The unsignatized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
~ level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue &McDonald
-7 Road. During the PM peak hour, this interse.ction is presently functioning at level
~ of service F. The signalized inLersections within the study area ate currently
functioning at level of service D or better.
~
m The increase in traffic within the next year without the addition of the Phase 2
i Inland Construction Business Park trips will lower the level of service at the
- following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
F (LOS D to LOS F), Pines and the westbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection (LOS
„ D to LOS E) and the Pines and Mission Avenue intersection.(LOS D to LOS E).
With WSDOT scheduled improvements,'the LOS for the above intersections on
~ Pines Road will improve to LOS D. The level of service at Mission and McDonald
during the PM peak hour will remai.n at LOS F without signal installation.
~
I
' - • Without the scheduled improvements on Pines Road, che addition of the propased
Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project would cause the level of service
at the intersection of Pines & westbound I-90 rainp terminals to drop from LOS D
~ to LOS E in all of the Ever een Inter han e sc i
gr c enar os. Also without the
scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the additioa of the proposed project trips
~ will cause the level of service at the intersection of Pines & eastbound I-90 ranap
dterminals to drop from LOS E to LOS F for all scenarios of the Evergreen
Interchange. However, with the scheduled safety and capacity improvements on
~
Pines by WSDOT, there will be no chan,ge in the level of service with the addition
~
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 34 Inland Consrruction Business P. atk TIA
~
.
` of the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project. Levels of service will
~ be L()S D or better ovitll or without the proposed project for the build out year:
` Q
There is no measurable benefit to the traffic this project will generate by having the
~ Evergreen Inierchange constructed. Comparing the delay times in Tables 6, 7, and
~ 8 for the different scenarios with and without the Evergreen Interchange, there is
no appreciable improvement in the delay times with the Evergreen Interchange over
s without the Evergreen Interchange.
RECO ATIOIVS
~
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Phase 2 Inland Construction
~ Business Park will have no significant impact on the transportation system withi.n the general
,
geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible ingress and
egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surraund.iqg properties and
„ existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project:
~
o Frontage improvements as required by the County.
.
Future participation in the McDonald/Mission intersection signal unprovements
based on additional PM peak hour trips added to the intersection from the, project.
~
~
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
~ Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 35 Itilartd Construction Busitaess Park TIA
~
:I
~
~
~
. ~ _
~ ` ~ ~ -
_ -
r
~
~
1
~
~
_1
1
E~
`.~.Li:E,i✓+..L.~wu}~r_a_-__""_v
•L.'1`.~a.lV.;♦ - _ .y'^~k1~'f~"%.w^sL=yra.+.'__.'_....~... r.' .sX.=G_44
+r
. • ^ n
~ • -
~ LEVEL OF SKICDESQ~~~
i t - -
i ~ ~t'' ~
r ~
~ ~
~ ~ , ~
,rn A w MVre YifW ~deqYaW -gaps available to -WeVW
N - '
~ Very seldom gs there more than one ehicle in -the Queue.
.a, B - Little dI,ay encountered with adequate~aps available. -
- Occasion~all~r there is more than one ve~i'icle in the
_ _ queue.
~ - Dela s are short but gersistent as the number of gaps reduce
C and aver oomfort drbps.
Usually there is more t han one vehicle in the queue.
~
- Always at least one vehicle in the qqeue.
~ D - Drivers feel quite restricted due to the few gaps available in
_ which to make a safe turnine movement. - Delays are long auad at this los drivers may begin looldn for
alternative routes prior to enteringe the queue. g
; B - Represea~ts a concTition in which demand equals or exceeds
~ the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection.
Always more ffian one vehicle in the Queue.
- ,
~ - Delays are long; driver frustration is high and it is not
F unusual to see drivers in the queue tum around to find
albmiative routes. ' - '
~ - Forced flow; little to no availaUle gaps.
- Represents an intersection at failure condrtxon,
1. .
. UNSIGr1AI.BZED IDN~ERSECIT0NS
LEVEL OF SE1tVICE CRHIMU
LA t+.:t~c T,~'` <Omr~f 4181
~
i
~.-~1.}..aaH _ ~~y,.ba.. - _ - - , _ s;.i,~7.~: }r.Y x .i' : 3~ k3;~ ° ,j~•v ~.p_ .
_ . i
5_ A Little of No Delay
5- 10 B Short Tiaffic Delays
_ > 10 - 20 C Averaee Traffic Delays
_ > 20 - 30 D Lone Traffic Delavs
~ > 30 - 45 E Verv Lone Traffic Delavs
> 45 F Progression Breakdown
~ S-tooved Condition .
~
~
~
2
saGNALICz~ ENTERSECTIoN& ~ mDIMvAL LEVEL oF-sERVaCE DESCRnM,oNs~~
tS ~ KS ♦ 1 e ~ Y / ~
A ~ Little to ao, av e suc~ppec~ de~y, avwage is less than five seconds
velwcle. Mosl vehiles do not stap at all. Short cycle leangths -
ma _ also contribute to low delay.
~ _ -
B Averdge sbo,p de~ay is in the range of 5.1 to 15:0 seconds~p~
. . vehicle. ltus genera]ly occurs ~rith good progression andlor short
cvcle lenebs. ,
C Avemge stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per
~ vehucle. These hig her delays may result from,fair pmg~ssion
_ and/or longer cyci-e lengths. The number of vehicles gopping is
siEnificant at this level.
D Av e sto delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per
velucl~e. 1`fie~fluence of congestion becomes more noticeable.
~ Lflnger delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
i pr~~og,ression, long cycle length, or high volume/cap acity ratios. ,
~ Nlost, if not all, vehicles stop. This is considered-to be the li.aart of
accwtable delav. E Average stopped delay s are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per
vehicle. These Iugh delay values generally indicate poor
ycle lengths, and high volumeJcafsacitM ratios.
~ nrogession, _long c
~ F_ • Average stop delay is in excess of 60 secondsper vehicle,, This
= con d i tio n o lte n o c c u r s w i t h o v e r s a t u r a tio n o f f h e i n b e r s e c ti o n. I t
mav- a l so occur wi t h vo lum e lca;raci t y ra tios o f 1.0 or a bov e. ~
~ OF S~C~E ~
.
ts-L -
-•.ri-a-_ h: :,y°--v : = =r
-a ,t► - ~~'')'2jF i{. ..K~~{f`,_ ' e~ ..u~~.~`- ~~~~~C :
A < = 5.0
_B 5.1to15.0 ,
° 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).
~
~
~
y
~
7
s LEV~'i3i oL' a)Ell Y ICE
„ Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to
~ quantify diiver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of
;r stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the
i transportation network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board i.n Special
~
Report No. 209, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of
7 service into a range from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which ind.icates
signiScant vehicle delay and traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to
volumes which may far exceed capacity.
7
~Sdgnalized Intersectaons
~ 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
appenclix identify the relationslups between level of service and average stopped delay per
: - vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highvvay Capacity Manual; level of service D is
generally considered to represent the m.inimwn acceptable design staudard for signalized
intersections in an urban area such as this.
~
~
~ .
Unsignalized Intersections
EL
_ The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one/two-way stop-controlled
intersection is exam.ined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The
- Highway Capacity Ma»uol. For urisignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay
~ experienced by each movement within the intersection.
a_
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
f
through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersectioa. '
Oa the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield
- the right of way to all right turning vehicleYs, all left turning vehicle from thc cnajor street and all
~ through r ~ vehicles oa both the ra..inar and ma'or streets, must spend more time at the intersection.
Levels of service are assigned to individual movements wiffii.n the intersection, and are based
~ upon the delay experienced by each movement or approach.
The Transportation Research Board has determ.ined what levels of service for unsigaalized -
intersections should be, bv designating level of service A through F, where level of service A
~ represeats a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service
F which represents a facility wbere there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one
~
movement i.n the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimun acceptable
~ level of service for this area.
~
~
~
~
~
~
= All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the . . ,
r grocedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HC1Vn analysis-aad
procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the
weekends will experience trai~'ic conditions better than those described within this document; which are only for the peak hours of operation.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i~
,
~
~
T
1
M
~
-T
! '7
~
~
l
~
a
~
y
~
ov s~~~ ~
~ -
~
1
C
~ r
~
T7,
~
' fX1S'f',A)4- 1 ~ F(AlL 61NPlTtahl ~
Mission & Pines occober 22,1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Tin*gs Summary
ffJ -:q W [I] Ld 114 IJ ~jj
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VYBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 131 129 36 99 170 415 20 977 45 348 1272 167
Adj. Lane Grp. Vot. 0 323 0 0 294 432 21 1118 0 362 1574 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiaw (Prot) 3582 3662 1583 1770 3703 1770 3662
Sabd. Fbw (Pertn.) 3582 3662 1583 1770 3703 1770 3662
' Lert Tum Type Spin Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Currettt SpCtt (s.) 20 20 20 20 8 35 25 52
Ye[low Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.24 0.94 0.93 0.88
Piatoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.10
Average Delay (s.) 29 29 13 35 36 48 23
Level of Service D D B D D E C
' Cycie Length: 100
Offiset 60 (60%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection VIC Ratio: 81%
Intersection Delay: 28.5
Intersection LOS: 0
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
! 1 4 ~
s 7 e .
'
'
. , Syachro 2.0 Rcport 1:\D0C[;fMENTl962151PINEPMEX.SY4
Inlaad Pacific Engincering, tPEC Page 1
EB Ramps & Pines . occober 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
pq LA -U w , ~ ~ L"i M A L.4j
E6L EBT EBR WBL VYBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 36L 3BT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 940 0 0 0 0 1383 271 157 984 0
Adj. Lane C3rp. Vol. 0 1219 0 0 0 0 0 1772 0 160 1054 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Sabd. Flow (Prot) 1770 1627 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Pemt.) 1770 1627 3640 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Sptft (s.) 38 38 50 12 62
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
ViC Ratio 1.03 1.04 1.00 0.48
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.70 1.16 0.84
Average Delay (s.) 58 41 96 8
Level of Service E E F B
Cycle Length: 104
Offset 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersecbon V/C Ratio: 103%
Intersection Delay: 39.6
Intersection IOS: D
Splfts and Phases: EB Ramps 8 Pines
~y 2 4
,
5 T 6
f
'
I
'
~
.
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMEN'R96215\PINEPMEX.SY4
Lnland Pacific Engiwc.ering, IPEC Page 2
1
WB R8frlps 8c Pitles october 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timines Summary
m A ~ Ld H Es Lfli m ~ A 1i U
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL JYBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 242 1 20 570 882 0 0 927 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 283 0 613 996 0 0 1181 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
SaW. Fiow (Prot) 1583 1770 3725 3666
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1583 1770 3725 3666
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Cument Spiit (s.) 22 22 40 78 38
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.94 0.94 0.36 0.92
Piatoon Factor 1.00 1.05 2.22 0.77
Average Delay (s.) 57 39 7 26
Levei of Service E D B D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 49 (4996), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, 8egin Of Green
I ntersection V!C Ratio: 93%
Intersecti~on Oelay;,-2,5.5
Intersection L03`. C ' -
,
Splits and Phasas: WB Ramps b Pines
4 5 8 V 1 7
'
Syachro 2.0 Report J:00CUMEN'R96215TINEPMEX.SY4
Ialand Facific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
j-
„
Indiana & Pines oaobec22, 19-96
.
Lanes, Volumes, and Titnings Summary
ED FA 0 lJ Ltj- Is 141 0 1 A 14 141 ~Pj
'
EBL EjPT Ej3R WVL WBT WBR NBL NgT NBR SBL SgT S6R
Volume (vph.) 50 `'14 307 - 81 44' 112 129 812 ` 20 9 667 21
Adj. l.ene Grp. Vol. 0 385 0 0252 0 137 929 0 10 768 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Sabd. Ftow (Prot.) 1458 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Sabd. Fiow (Perm.) 1305 1003 371 3714 238 3711
~ .
Left Tum Type Penn Perm nn:.~ P~ertn
Phase Number 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Cument Split (s.) 48 48 52 52
Yetlow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.67 0.56 0.75 0.51 0.09 0.42
Ptafioon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.55 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 19 17 20 7 10 13
Level of Service C C C B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offseti 94 (94%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green ~
intersection V/C Ratio: 71%
tntersection Delay: 12.4 Intersection LOS: B
~ Sptits and Phases: Indlana & Pines
L~ 2 4
~
~
Synchro 2.0 Rcport J:VD0CUMEN"I1962151PINEPMEX.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineecing, IPEC Page 4
~ . . . ~ -
~HCS: Unsignalized Intersections ,Release 2.1c PIATOEXPM.HCO Page 1
I Center For Microcomputers In Tranaportation _
--"IIniversity ' of Florida ~ ~ -
512 Weil Hall ' -
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
..Ph: (904) 392-0378
,Streets: (N-S) Pinea Road - ~ (E-W) Nara Road
;Major Street Direction.... NS ° -
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min).- . .
~-Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/17/96
-~-=-Other Information......... Existing Traff ic (10/10/96 counts)
-.,,Two-way Stop-controlled Interaection
_ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
• No . Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1552 5 15
~;PHF .96 .96 .96
~Grade 0 0
MC's M)
1 SII/RV' s ( °s )
CV's (°s)
PCE's 1.10
;i
~ Adjustment Factors
~Vehicle Critical Follow-up
-Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time (t f)
`Left Turn Major Road 5.50 . 2.10
Turn Minor Road 5.50- 2.60
,Right
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40.
1
1P
~
~
~9 •
~
-
~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c, PINOEXPM.HCO -Page 2' ~
~
~ =
Workshe,e,t for TWSC Intersection
~
LStep 1: RT f rom Minor Street WB EB`
. _
Conflicting Flows: ~ (vph) 811
UPotential Capacity: (pcph) 538
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 538 -
: Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
A&
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95P6
s Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
iMovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
6.9
~WB R 18 538 6.9 0.0 B
~
~
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
~
~
~
~
~ - -
f
~
R
~
~
~
,
~
~
1!
~
~
~
iHCS: Unsignalized Intersections, Release 2.1c MIMCEXPM.HCO Page 1
,
; Center Fo"r 'Microcomputer's In Transportat ion
'-iUnive `rsity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
7'Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 _
L)Ph: (904) 392-0378, `
-,Streets : (N-S) McDonald Road - (E-W) Mission Avenue
''Maj or Street Direction. . . . EW
Length of Time Analyzed..: 15 (min)
-MAnalyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
-4-Other Information....... ..Existing Traffic
Two-way Stop-controlled Interaection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
~
L T R L T R L T R L T R
~
No. Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
-,"Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 394 198 79 305 168 73 '
7PHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
~ Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
~
7su/Rv"s
CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
i~ -
J
Adjustment Factors
~
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
- Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
° Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
,Right
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
r,
~
~
~
~
~
~
t
~
~
V
~i
MT' ~ f
i . , ~ ~ ~ _ . . < ~ • ~
=HCS: Unsignalized -Intersectione-- Release 2.1c _ :MIMCEXPM,:HCO _Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ~ .
iStep 1: RT f rom Minor Street' - NB SB .
--------------------------------------------------------o ,
-Conflicting Flows•:' (vph) ~ 340 _
,lPotential Capacity-: (pcph) 931
yMovement Capacity: (pcph) 931 ~
17 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90
LStep 2: LT f rom Maj or Street . WB EB
1-Conf licting Flows : (vph) 681
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 739
iMovement Capacity: (pcph) 739
-,-.Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
=RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
-Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
~ of Queue-Free State: 0.85
, -
Step Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
; Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1009
`"Potential Capacity: (pcph) ~ 240
Maj or LT, Minor TH
~ Impedance Factor: 0.85
i~Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.85
Capacity Adjustment Factor
-r due to Impeding Movements 0.85
, Movement Capacity: (pcph) 204
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)
;r--------
~ NB L 212 204 117.7 8.1 F
~ 83.4
~NB R 92 931 4.3 0.3 A
~
-~WB L 100 739 5.6 0.5 B 1.2
T,
Intersection Delay = 16.9 sec/veh
~
~
i -
i
y..
1
iHCS: Unsignalized Intersectiona Release 2.1c MIMAEXPM:HCO Page 1
Center For A+Iicrocomputers I~n Transportation
=University of Flor~ida 512 We-i 1 Hal l
^Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 _Ph: (904), 392-0378 ~
-Streets: (N-S) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue ~
Major Street Direction.... EW '
~Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) ~
Tim Schwab
7Analyst
Date of Analysis.......... 10/17/96 ~
~Other Information......... Existing Traffic (10/09/96 counts) ~
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection '
_ L
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
,~.No. Lane s 0 >-1---<-0--- -0--->-1---<-0--- -0--->-1 < 0 0 > 1 1 -
~
Stop/Yield N N '
Volumes 4 376 4 2 331 12 S 4 1 8 4 12
,;PHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 ~
_L_~Grade 0 0 0 4 '
MC' s ( % )
~SU/RV's
~CV's M) '
-`PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
~
~
n Adjuatment Factors
~
~ Vehicle Critical Follow-up '
~
-Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ,
~
` Le f t Turn Ma j or Road 5.00 2.10
~
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 - ~
~ Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
, Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 I
~
~
. I
►
.7 ,
f
i~
~
!
7-
I
L
tl
~ -
-.,HCS: Unsignalized Intersectiona._ Releaae 2.1c- MIMAERPM.HCO Page,, ~2,,
c
~ -
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
,
- Step 1: RT from Minor Street ' NB SB
-
7Conf licting Flows : (vph) 396- 352
~ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 872 918
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 872 918
-Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.98
.
',-Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
~ Conf licting Flows :(vph) 398 358
~'Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1108 1157
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1108 1157
-Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
" RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
---Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
t,--------------------------------------------------------
~[.Conf licting Flows :(vph) 760 756
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 435 438
~Capacity Adjustment Factor
'►"due e to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
y'Nlovement Capacity: (pcph) 432 435
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
~
' Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
= Conflicting Flows : (vph) 762 756
` Potential Capacity: (pcph) 383 386
J` Major LT, Minor TH
„ Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98
~ Adjusted Impedance Factor: , 0.98 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.99
7'Movement Capacity: (pcph) 367 381
~ -
~
~
~
~
~
~
;
;
~
~
CS : Unaigna1ized-, interBectione: -,Release 2ic MIMAMPM: HCO Page-3 Intereect-ion Performance,Summary~ . ' _
-
~ . . Avg . 9 5 %-J . .
Flow Move, ~Shared Total ¢ueu,e ^ ~ Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay' Lerigth- LOS, Delay
lovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) '(veh)' ~ - , (sec/veh)
-
L 9 367 > "
~ T 4 432 > 401 9.3 0.0 B 9.3
A-kB R 1 872 >
~B' L 14 381 >
B T 7 435 > 560 7.0 0.2 B 7.0
SB R 22 918 >
, B L 4 1157 3.1 0.0 A 0.0
L 2 1108 3.3 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
,i
~
~
~
~
,I
~
~
~
~
a
~
,
~
:
a
6
HCS: Unaignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVEXPM.HCO Page 1
„ - -
~;Center For Microcomputers In Tranaportation
._~IIniversity of Florida - , ~
512 Weil Hall - ~ ~
; Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
t,Ph: (904) 392-0378 • , .
Streets :(N-S) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
= Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/24/96 .
,Other Information.........Existing Traffic
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
~
,,No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
-Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 249 131 40 224 126 26
;IPHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
, Grade 0 0 0
=mcis (o)
SU/RV' s ( °s )
~ CV' s )
`-'PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
,r
- Adjustment Factors
= Vehicle Critical Follow-up
: Nianeuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
-Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
7'Left Through Traffic Minor Road 6.04 3.30
Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
r~
I
~
0
~
~ .
~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections- Release 2.1c MIEVEXPM.HCO Page 2
I
Worksheet for TWSC Iriteraection * ~
„ tep 1: RT f rom Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 331
~ otential Capacity: (pcph) 941 _
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 941
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
3tep-2:-LT-from-Major-Street-------------WB-----------EB
,onflicting Flows: (vph) 400
'otential Capacity: (pcph) 1105
~ ~ ovement Capacity : (pcph) 1105
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
JP Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB 58
onflicting Flows: (vph) 609
lotential Capacity: (pcph) 470
Major LT, Minor TH
,'~Impedance Factor: 0.95
--idjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
- due to Impeding Movements 0.95
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 447
~ Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
j Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
~J Rate Cap Cap Delay ~Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
1L 146 447 >
491 11.4 1.7 C 11.4
NB R 30 941 >
IB L 46 1105 3.4 0.0 A 0.5
~ Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh
~
~ .
t
I
~
~
~
~ BUI11.IJL'J~ OUT i
~ ~EVELS Of SERVY~~
~ WITHOUY ~~OJECT
~
~y~~g~OUJl .l~~ r~ g RO~1` ~~T
Y Y ~A0'.Il~l~TS
~
~
~
h~
~
~
i. °
T
4
Ja
~It
~
~
~
I~
~
I I
~v ~ ~ p0v T~i{/f17~ 4'~ ~1~T ~✓rrr~ 4~ ~PR~t~~TS
~
Mission & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
~ ~ ~ -
Lanes, Volumes$ and Timinps Summary
,
El w [Ij L4 J,- 14 41 ~j I
~
EBL EBT EBR VYBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 136 244 516 30 1008 89 479 1310 227
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 Q 416 538 31 1199 0 499 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. F{ow (Proi.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
' Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Spiit (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rabo 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.22 1.12 1.01 0.94
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.09
, Average Delay (s.) 38 38 17 33 94 59 28
Level of Service D D C D F E D
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 59 (59%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 98%
Intersection De1ay: 48.0
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines [TJ A 3 4 '
6 41 7 8
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
-I E- tA I T
~
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 416 538 31 1199 499 1681
' Queue Length 50% (ft.) 172 140 328 20 416 346 558
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 191 495 26 536 421 710
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1080 1080 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 18% 46% 4% 89% 90°!0 151 %
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report 3AD0CUMENT96215\PINEPMB0.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, [PEC Page 1
EB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
~ ~ - w F
Lanes, Volumes, and 7mings Surrtmary EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 256 0 1066 0 0 0 0 1571 304 162 1091 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 690 0 659 0 0 0 0 2009 0 165 1169 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1657 1583 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Pemn.) 1657 1583 3640 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Spiit Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Sp(it (s.) 39 39 50 11 61
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 0.54
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.20 0.10
Average Qelay (s.) 117 118 108 175 1
Level of Service F F F F A
, Cycte Length: 100
Offset 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratia: 117%
Intersecbon Delay: 86.2
Intersection LOS: F
Splits and Phases: EB R,amps & Pines
2 4 -
5 T 6
'
Queue Lengths, and Potentiai Biocking Problems
~ ~ T 1~ yI
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 690 659 2009 165 1169
Queue Length 50°r6 (ft.) 479 457 697 114 198
r Queue Length 95% (ft.) 608 581 855 146 419
Llnk Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 760 760
% of Link Used 58% 55% 182% 19% 55%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT1962151PINEPMBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Pagc 2
WB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
Lartes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
m 114
,
EBL E6T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 264 1 21 694 957 0 0 1016 123
Adj. Lane Girp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 308 0 746 1080 0 0 1286 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Sabd. Flaw (Prot.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 22 22 42 78 36
Yeliow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.02 1.08 0.39 1.06
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.41 0.37 0.86
Average Defay (s.) 77 62 1 61
Level of Service F F A F
Cycie Length: 100
Offser 14 (14%), Referenced to phase 2-Unuseti, Begin Of Green
Intersection V1C Ratio: 106%
lntersection Delay: 43.7
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Plnes
, 4 ,
5 141 8 ~ 7
Queue Lengtfis, and Potential Blocking Problems
H ~I -fl I I
~
Lane GrouQ WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 308 746 1080 1286
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 213 518 125 446
, Queue Length 95% (ft. ) 334 639 212 572
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% of Link Used 30% 84% 28°/a 409%
' Biocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CLTMENT1962151PINEPMB0.SY4
Inland Pacific Enginecring, IPEC Page 3
~
~
Indiana & Pines Angusc 12, 1997
' - - - - < -
l.anes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
[1) ~1 41 y ~1
EBL EBT EBR WBL UVBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 5BL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 891 21 9 732 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1018 0 10 843 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (ProC) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flaw (Penn.) 1300 939 313 ,~3,Z14 192 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Penn 'erm~r-~, _ Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging7
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.88 0.54 0.10 0.45
Piataon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.42 1.00 1.04
Average Delay (s.) 22 19 35 6 10 12
Level of Service C C D B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Qffset: 63 (63%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V!C Ratio: 83°/n
Intetsection Delay: 13.1
lntersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
~ 2 ~ 4 I
Queue Lengths, and Potentlal Blacking Problems
--1 *1 1 T 41 ~
~ Lane GrouQ E6T VYBT N6L NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1018 14 843
Queue Length 50% (ft) 247 140 79 183 3 185
Queue Length 95°!0 (ft. ) 435 269 127 285 4 278
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 140 140 1254 1250
% Of Link USt3d 41 % 26% 91 °l0 204% 0% 22%
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
°ln of storage Used
Fills Storage?
,
Synchra 2.0 Report 1:\D0CUM.ENT1962151PINEPMB0.SY4
lnland Facific Engineering, lPEG Page 4
'd
i
L
-THCS: Uneignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOBOPM.HCO Page 1
-I'Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Univereity of Florida
7512 Weil Hall
LGainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph (904) 392-0378
, Streets -(N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
~ Major Street Direction. NS
of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
,Length
Analyst. . Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis. . . . . 8/12/97
Other Information Buildout without Project, Without Impro
= vementa
~ Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
..Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
z
No Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 10' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
J Stop/Yield N ~ ~N
Volumes 1729 7 34
PHF 96 96 96
iGrade 0
y MC' sM) scr
SU/RV's
CV' s M
~~PCE,'s 1 10
~
~
Adjustment Factors
~ Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
_TLe f t Turn Ma]or Road 5 50 2 10
_LRight Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
~
~
~
~
~
~
~s
'
~
J
CS• Unsignalized Int,ersections Release 2.1c PINOBOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
11teP1 RT from Minor Street WB EB
1 onf licting Flows • (vph) 904
otential Capacity: (pcph) 482
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 482
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 92
,
Intersection Performance Summary
1
~ Avg 95a
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
, Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
, ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
8 1
1'PWB R 39 482 8.1 0 2 B
Intersection Delay = 0 2 sec/veh
7
1
4
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
1~►`
4~,
-1-
HCS• Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCBOPM HCO Page 1
_
r----------
~0'_'enter For Microcomputera In Transportation
,,University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h (904) 392-0378
treeta.(N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
° ajor Street Direction EW
~ ength of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
~Analyst. . . Tim Schwab
;Date of Analysis 8/12/97
_6~Other Information . Buildout without project, Without Impro
vements
, Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
7 L T R L T R L T R L T R
,I
~-LNo Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
'Volumes 569 230 99 393 185 97
--U.PHF 87 87 87 87 .67 .87
Grade 0 0 0
7MC' s (016)
SU/RV' s ( ~ )
~~..cv, s 06)
PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10
~
I
~
~ Adjustment Factors
~
.,gVehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5 50 2 10
'rRight Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
= Through Traffic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
~
~
~
~
r ?
CS Unsignalized Intersections, Release 2 lc MIMCBOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
itep-l.-RT-from-Minor-Street-------------NB-----------SB
, onflicting Flows (vph) 459
, otential Capacity (pcph) 811
ovement Capacity. (pcph) eil
-Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 85
i,--------------------------------------------------------
_L~.Step 2 LT from Major Street WB EB
~Conflicting Flows: (vph) 918
Potential Capacity• (pcph) 551
Movement Capacity (pcph) 551
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 77
Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 3400
31RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
17 of Queue-Free State 0 74
Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
i
! Conflicting Flows (vph) 1352
Potential Capacity (pcph) 145
Major LT, Minor TH
7, Impedance Factor 0 74
"Adj usted Impedance Factor 0 74
Capacity Adjustment Factor
i due to Impeding Movements 0 74
ovement Capacity (pcph) 107
~
~ Intersection Performance Summary
~
Avg 9516
" Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
= Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 234 107 623 9 17 8 F
--aw 411 1
~NB R 122 811 5 2 0 6 B
-WB L 125 551 8 4 0 9 B 1 7
= Intersection Delay = 74 2 sec/veh
~
~
i~
HCS. Uneignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMABOPM HCO Page 1
enter For Microcomputers In Traneportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
irzainesville, FL 32611-2083
~ Sh (904) 392-0378
treets (N-S) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
a3or Street Direction EW
ength of Time Analyzed 15 (ni3n)
alyst . . Tim Schwab
ate of Analysis 8/12/97
ltther Information . Buildout without project, Without Impro
vements
7rwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
~ L T R L T R L T R L T R
~
^
lNo. Lanea 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 <0 0> 1 < 1
~
Stop/Yield N N -
'Volumes 12 448 4 2 384 14 8 4 1 12 4 22
.__f,PHF .96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Grade 0 0 0 4
- C' s
SU/RV' s ( °s }
CV's ( o)
,,_PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 70 1.70 1 70
~
= Ad3ustment Factors
-,Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road 5 00 2 10
~Right Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
y..Through Traff ic Minor Road 6 00 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 50 3 40
~
d
~
~
~
~
--HCS Unsignalized-Intersectione Release 2 lc MIMABOPM.HCO Page 2
~
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
~
=Step 1 RT from Minor Street NB SB
'lConflicting Flows: (vph) 469 408
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 801 860
sMovement Capacity: (pcph) 801 860
= Prob of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0 95
= Step 2 LT f rom Major Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows •(vph) 471 415
_,,,,Potential Capacity (pcph) 1022 1087
Movement Capacity• (pcph) 1022 1067
7-%Prob of Queue-Free State• 1 00 0 99
t1TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
-RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 98
Step 3 TH from Minor Street NB SB
LConflicting Flows (vph) 899 894
Potential Capacity (pcph) 368 370
-,Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 98 0 98
-,,Movement Capacity (pcph) 361 362
Prob of Queue-Free State• 0.99 0 98
! Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
.;t-,Conflicting Flows (vph) 905 894
Potential Capacity• (pcph) 317 321
Major LT, Minor TH
~ Impedance Factor. 0 96 0 97
;Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 97 0.98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 93 0 97
-TMovement Capacity (pcph) 294 313
~
~
a
~
U
_.J.
M
~
CS Unsignalized Intersectdons Release 2 lc MIMABOPM HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance,Summary
~
Avg 9 5 %
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
= Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Aovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
~
-NB 9 294 >
T 4 361 > 326 11 5 0 0 C 11.5
~SB R 1 801 >
I B L 22 313 >
B T 7 362 > 504 8 3 0.5 B 8 3
SB R 39 860 >
~
EB L 14 1087 3 4 0 0 A 0 1
-WB L 2 1022 3 5 0 0 A 0.0
~ Intersection Delay = 0 6 sec/veh
,
~
~
L
~
~
f,
.
~
~
s-
;
~
~
~
>
~
~
~
~
~
L
~
;
aHCS• Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIEVBOPM HCO Page 1
~ enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
T ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h (904) 392-0378
treets• (N-S) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
ajor Street Direction . EW
length of Time Analyzed . 15 (min)
Analyst . . . Tim Schwab
ate of Analysis. . . 8/12/97
ther Information . Buildout without Project, Without Impro
vements
~Z'wo-way Stop-controlled Intereection
1 -
Eastbound Westbound ^ Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
M
3
-jNo Lane s 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
-ilolumes 304 162 43 265 150 27
PHF 95 95 95 95 95 95
~Grade 0 0 0
-MC' s M)
SU/RV' s (t)
~CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1.10 1 10 1 10
~
' Ad3ustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~ aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5 00 2 10
1, ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2 60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6 00 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 50 3 40
~
~
~
,
~
,
~
~
-iaiCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 ic MIEVBOPM HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TwSC Intersection
31, -----------------------------tep 1• RT from Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows (vph) 406
, otential Capacity• (pcph) 862
ovement Capacity• (pcph) 862
-Prob of Queue-Free State 0 96
31'tep-2--LT-from-Major-Street WB EB
'"onf licting Flows (vph) 491
otential Capacity (pcph) 1000
lovement Capacity (pcph) 1000
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 95
, H Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700
T Saturation Flow Rate. (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
~ of Queue-Free State• 0 94
-
Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows (vph) 730
lotential Capacity (pcph) 400
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 94
idjusted Impedance Factor 0 94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
a,- due to Impeding Movements 0 94
k-4ovement Capacity (pcph) 376
~
~
t 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)
~--L--- --174-
~ 1 411 17 2 2 7 C 17 2
NB R 31 862 >
~
,%TB L 50 1000 3 8 0 0 A 0 5
~ Intersection Delay = 3 4 sec/veh
s
~
9
~L
~
~
r
~
~
~
i
~
~ BUY JLJD O U~
~ ~~VELS OF SERVICE
i WgT~OUT P~~~CT
,
~~H ENIPROVEAIErtTS
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
f
~
~
,
~I I
I '
J~
~
I
~
~
ll
~tlc- L otlr (i(~rT'~0~'f ~~O.1LG-T W
,
Mission & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
r
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
0 rl 14 ~JJ
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL UVBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 136 244 30 1008 89 479 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 444 '`462 31 1199 0 514 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 38 18 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.58 0.81 0.35 0.93 0.97 1.02
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.05 1.06 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.03
Average Delay (s.) 38 29 19 36 33 52 45
Level of Service D D C D D E E
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 49 (49%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection VIC Ratio: 90%
intersection Delay: 37 8
Intersection LOS: D
Sptits and Phases: Mission 8 Pines
~
~FJ6 7 y e
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
-lq 1*1 1 TI
Lane GrouQ EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 444 462 31 1199 514 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 172 141 182 20 401 178 583
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 195 427 26 536 217 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1790 ~"-170 600 600 470 470
% of Llnk USed 24% 11 %-24% 4% 89% 46% 151 %
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchra 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN119621511MPRPMB0.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPCC Page 1
,
t_ . .
1 f.:
EB Ramps & Pines AUgUS[ ll, lyy/
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
m -I Lai 4-1 l~ ~ ~1 '4q
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 1A/BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 256 0 1066 0 0 0 0 1571 304 162 1091 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 261 0 1229 0 0 0 0 1683 310 165 1169 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 ~1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.39 1.02 1.03 0.45 1.04 0.56
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 1.04 1.21
Average Delay (s.) 17 49 37 9 103 13
Level of Service C E D B F B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 103%
Intersecbon Delay: 33.8
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
l 2 I a
5 IT 6
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
F-11, -q &I ~ y ~
Lane GrouQ EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT .
Lane Group Volume 261 1229 1683 310 165 1169
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 131 426 584 91 114 198
' Queue Length 95% (f#.) 175 542 716 121 146 253
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 470 760 760
°16 of Link Used 17% 52% 152% 26% 19% 33%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMEN'1W6215\1MPRPMB0.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
~
' WB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
, ~Imlngs Lanes, Volumes, and Summary
~ ~-4 uLd -,-~~~~~M 41 41 ~j I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph. ) 0 0 0 264 1 21 694 957 0 0 1016 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 308 0 769 1080 0 0 1286 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 26 26 29 74 45
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.41 0.83
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.10 1.67 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 39 34 8 19
Level of Service D D B C
Cycie Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 84%
' Intersection Delay: 20.6
Intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Plnes
, 4
T ~
'
5 E1 8 7 ~
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
T
1
Lane Group UVBT NBL NBT SBT ~
Lane Group Volume 308 769 1080 1286
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 204 262 166 376 ' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 334 329 211 572
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% of Link Used 30% 43% 28% 409%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMENT~962 I S\1MPRPMBO.SY4
[nland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
,
Indiana & Pines nUQusc 12, 199'1
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
--1 1,1. 1 4' IH --q I*, I `4 I
I EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph. ) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 891 21 9 732 22 ~
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1018 0 10 843 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711 ~
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 313 3714 192 3711
, Left Tum Type Perm Perm _Perm -Yemi _
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Spiik (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.88 0.54 0.10 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 22 19 34 4 10 12
Levei of Service C C D A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offser 6(6%), ReferencQd to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio; 83°l0
Intersection Delay; 12,6
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: lndlana & Pines
' IT 2
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
, Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Graup Volume 423 258 141 1018 10 843
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 76 168 3 165
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 289 126 267 4 278
Link Length (ft. ) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% Of Lil1k USed 41% 26% 90% 191 °ro 0°fo 22%
' Blacks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report 1:eUUCUMENT196215\1MPRl'MBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4
,
,
Mission & McDonald Augi,5t 12, 1997
t 1 _
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
--I U *--1 1*1 r*-
' EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 569 230 99 393 185 97
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 932 0 0 574 206 108
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Fiow (Prot) 3573 3688 1770 1583
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3573 1989 1770 1583
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 58 58 42
' Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.47 0.52 0.30 0.17
Platoon Factor 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 13 11 16 15
Levei of Service B B C B
Cycie Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 43%
intersecction Delay: 13.0
' Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Mission 8 McDonaid
Z 4
I
' Queue Len9ths, and Potential Blockin9 Problems
~ H *1 1 &1
' Lane GrouQ EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Volume 932 574 206 108
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 302 125 98 49
' Queue Length 95% (ft. ) 416 216 166 79
Link Length (ft.) 1790 690 600 600
% of Link Used 23% 31 % 28°!0 13°/a
' Blocks Upstream?
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:IDOCUMENT19621 S\IMPRPMBU.SY4
Tnland Pacific Cngineering, IPEC Page 5
J
~
~
BaJIl1L.iD O fl.J T YEAR
s 1L.~~~~~ ~F S~~~~~
~ W11THPROtUECH
i
_ WA~~OUT IW~OVEM1[`.NTS
W1LTHO UT JCi VJC~~GREE1V g/ C
~
~
~
i
i
~
~
,
~
~
i~
y~
~
~
~
~r
~
~
af
I
I
1 - -
i,~ j.~,.. f,~',~,~f C i ~'1~''~:;.:~ ,,ci p'R, ~!•'a/,7~
. ,
Mission & Pines w'~~~' z kew Augusc 12, 1997
,
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
PF- [::7 W U 1+-1 'I ~ D
'
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR_~,NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 156 244 416,, 30 1011 92 492 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 438 433 31 1207 0 512 1681 0
' Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot. ) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
~ Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
' Current Spiit (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.65 0.22 1.13 1.03 0.94
Piatoon Factor 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.12
' Average Delay (s. ) 38 41 11 33 98 66 28
Level of Service D E B D F F D
, Cycle Length: 100
OffseY 61 (61%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
I ntersection VIC Ratio: 100%
Intersection Delay: 50.4 ~
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
i
lfwl 3 T{ 1 -
s ~i 7 Js
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
--;E it, T . Lane GrouP EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 438 433 31 1207 512 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 172 148 144 20 419 355 560
' Queue Length 95% (ft. ) 257 203 368 26 539 432 709
Link Length (ft. ) 1060 1080 f1080- 600 600 470 470
% Of Link Used 24°10 19% 3d°lo 4% 90% 92% 151 %
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMEN'Iti96215\P1NEBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
- ,
EB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
--1 U 4-' ~j -q I*, [D rl 114 W ~j I
'
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NgL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 250 0 1075 0 0 0 0 1611 312 162 1095 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 2060 0 165 1173 0
' Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
~ Current Split (s.) 37 37 52 11 63
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.18 1.15 1.17 0.52
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.74 1.26 0.04
Average Delay (s. ) 131 95 177 1
Levei of Service F F F A
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersecction V/C Ratio: 117% Intersection Delay: 84.8
Intersection LOS: F
.
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
2 4
e~
5 T 6
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
~ T IA y
, Lane Group EBT NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 1365 2060 165 1173
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 473 715 114 137
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 601 875 146 411
Link Length (ft.) 1050 470 760 760
% of Link Used 57% 186% 19% 54°!0
~ Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
°!o of storage Used
Filis Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:00CUMENP962151PINEBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
1
W6 Ramps & Pines Augusc 12,1997
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
P1 I U H ~ 1*1 1 LO &I 41 ~ UJJ
,
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 266 1 21 726 965 0 0 1016 123
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 310 0 781 1090 0 0 1286 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 21 21 44 79 35
Yellow Time ( s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V!C Ratio 1.09 1.08 0.39 1.10
P{atoon Factor 1.00 0.42 0.35 0.86
Average Delay (s. ) 103 60 1 75
Levei of Service F E A F
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 108%
Intersection Delay: 50.8
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
'r 4
5 7
Queue Lengths, and Potentfal Blocking Problems
H
1
Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 310 781 1090 1286
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 215 542 116 446
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 336 667 191 572
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% Of LI'nk USed 30% 88% 25% 409°/a
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (R.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
~
Synchra 2.0 Report 1:\130CUMEN1~96215\PTNEBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
,
~
Indiana & Pines AugUSC 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~I --I w 1 ~ 14
EBL EBT EBR W6L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Valume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 4 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot_) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 3714 186 3711
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm , _ Perm
P hase Num b er 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.44 1.00 1.00
Average Qelay ( s_ ) 22 19 37 6 10 12
Level of Serviee C G D B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset. 64 (64°l0), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83°fa
Intersection Delay: 13.3
Intersection LQS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
y1' 2 ),14
KA
1
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
~ H 1<1 I T
1
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 80 189 3 186
, Queue Length 95% (ft.} 435 289 126 294 4 278
Link Length (ft. ) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of l.ink Used 41% 26%0 90%0 210% 0% 22°l0
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of starage Used
Fills Storage?
Syrlchra 2.0 Rcpon .1'',C)OCt~IMEN-1196215"~I}'INEBQWE.SY4
lnland Pacific Lngincering, IPEC Page 4
~HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc PINOWOEV HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
iUniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
~Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
-Ph (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
Major Street Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
~„Analyst. . Tim Schwab
I. Date of Analysis . 8/12/97
LJOther Information Buildout with Project, Without Evergree
n I/C, Without Improvemen
""Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~
I3orthbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
a
~ ^
No Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
-WStop/Yield N C-D N
Volumes 1729 10 82
=PHF 96 96 96
Grade 0 0
" MC' s M -
SU/RV' s ( °s )
iCV's
~.PCE's 1 10
~
~
L
!i
i
Ad]i.stment Factors
~
;Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
,T Lef t Turn Major Road 5 50 2 10
Right Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
AThrough Traff ic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
;
~
~
~
~
~
I'
~
,HCS Unsignala.zed Intersections Release 2 lc PINOWOEV HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
~
s,Step 1 RT from Minor Street WB EB
r;Conflicting Flows (vph) 906
lPotential Capacity (pcph) 481
'k'LMovement Capacity (pcph) 481
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 80
Intersection Performance Summary
~
~ Avg 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
]M- ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh,)
9 3
TVB R 94 481 9 3 0 S B
~
Intersection Delay = 0 4 sec/veh
~
~
N~.
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
ul
Li
f~
~HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 ic MIMCWOEV HCO Page 1
ICenter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hal-1
'°Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
_1Ph (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
ajor Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst . . Tim Schwab
]Date of Analysis 8/12/97
Other Information. Buildout with project, Without Evergree
n I/C, Without Improvment
'Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
~-No . Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
7!Volumes 585 230 103 413 185 98
~'PHF 87 87 87 87 87 87
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s ( °s )
JSU/RV1s (o)
CV' s ( °s )
~ PCE ` s 1 10 1 10 1 10
~
7
d Adjustment Factors
-.Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Lef t Turn Major Road 5 50 2 10
-TRzght Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
-IThrough Traffic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
7
~
~
~
~
~
T
~j
J'
--.HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCWOEV HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
1 ~
sStep 1 RT from Minor Street NB SB
.an-Conf licting Flows (vph) 468
Potential Capacity (pcph) 802
Movement Capac i ty ( pcph ) 802
-Prob of Queue-Free State 0 85
--Step 2 LT f rom Major Street WB EB
'~---Conflicting Flows (vph) 936
.-.,Potential Capacity (pcph) 539
Movement Capac i ty ( pcph ) 539
=Prob of Queue-Free State 0 76
TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 3400
=RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) '
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
~ of Queue-Free State 0 72
~Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows (vph) 1397
=Potential Capacity (pcph) 135
_.Ma3or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 72
-Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 72
Capacity Adjustment Factor
= due to Impeding Movements 0 72
-,-,Nlovement Capacity (pcph) 97
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg 95%
31 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
~ Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 234 97 730 8 18 8 F
~ 479 5
:NB R 124 802 5 3 0 6 B
-wB L 130 539 8 8 l 0 B 1 8
~ Intersection DElay = 84 6 sec/veh
N
7
~
~
n
~
~
,
~HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAWOEV HCO Page 1
~,Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-University of Florida
512 Weil,Hall
71',Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
y;Ph (904) 392-0378
~Streets (N-S) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Ma3or Street Direction EW
*--Length of Time Analyzed . 15 (min)
Analyst . . Tim Schwab
~Date of Analysis . 8/12/97
=Other Information Buildout with pro3ect, Without Evergree
n I/C, Without Improvemen
~Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
~ L T R L T R L T R L T R
-No Lar_es 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
7Volumes 29 448 4 2 384 17 8 4 1 20 4 46
,IPHF 96 96 .96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Grade 0 0 0 4
MC' s (06)
; I SU/RV' s ('s )
CV's
PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 70 1 70 1 70
~ Adjustment Factors
,Vehicle
Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5 00 2 10
T Right Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
hrough Traffic Minor Road 6 00 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 50 3 40
fi
a
~
~
~
_T
r,
~
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAWOEV HCO Page 2
;
~
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
TT
~ Step 1 RT from Minor Street NB SB
; Conf licting Flows (vph) 469 409
!Potential Capacity (pcph) 801 859
-~aMovement Capacity (pcph) 801 859
Prob of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 90
~ S
teP 2 LT f rom Major Street WB EB
~
=Conflicting Flows (vph) 471 418
Potential Capacity (pcph) 1022 1084
~ Movement Capacity (pcph) 1022 1084
Prob of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 97
TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
- RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
of Queue-Free State. 1 00 0 96
~
Step 3 TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows (vph) 919 912
Potential Capacity (pcph) 359 362
Capacity Adjustment Factor
~ due to Impeding Movements 0 96 0 96
~,Movement Capacity (pcph) 343 346
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 99 0 98
~]Step 4 LT f rom Minor Street ' NB
SB
~
Conflicting Flows (vph) 936 912
~Potent~.al Capacity (pcph) 304 314
?~Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 94 0 94
~Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 95 0 96
Capacity Adlustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 86 0 96
,;-Movement Capacity (pcph) 262 300
T
~
~
~
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAWOEV HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
~
Avg 95 0
y` Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
~Aovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
C;
NB L 9 262 >
' B T 4 343 > 296 12 8 0 0 C 12 8
t R 1 801 >
B L 36 300 >
~ B T 7 346 > 530 8 9 1 0 B 8 9
B R 82 859 >
~ B L 33 1084 3 4 Q 0 A 0 2
- B L 2 1022 3 5 0 0 A 0 0
~ Intersection Delay = 0 9 sec/veh
~
~
~
~
a
~
17
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
l
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
~
.
~
BU-J1.1LD O1lJ 1 YEAR
t ~~RVaCE
WITHPROJEl. A
WIJL Yg ~~OVEAMNY S
r WIT~~UT ~~~~REEN
~ -
~
~
~
,
~
~
WM r+ ProJ t"T, LA)r-pl >
Mission & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
L+.~ EN !2J L
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 156 244 516 30 1011 92 492 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 467 573 31 1207 0 528 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3536 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3536 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 37 19 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.98 0.35 0.96 0.93 1.02
Piatoon Factor 1.00 0.89 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.91
Average Delay (s. ) 38 25 38 36 38 51 43
Levei of Service D C D D D E E
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 95%
Intersection Delay: 39.5
I ntersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
1 3 I 'r 4
LIJ 6 1E'1 7 ~ 8
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
~
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 467 573 31 1207 528 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 172 142 393 20 411 179 583
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 198 521 26 539 222 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1790 1790 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 11 °!0 29% 4% 90% 47% 151 %
' Blocks Upsheam? Yes
Storage Length (ft)
% of storage Used
Fills Siorage?
Synchro 2.0 Report JADOCUMEN"I19621 SUMPRBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific i:ngineering, IPEC Page 1
. ~
EB Ramps & Pines nUgust 12. 1947
Lanes, Volumes, and Tirnings Summary
--fl r~ L*-J- ~ 1*1 0 &1 `l
,&W-,WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
EBL EBT F
Volume (vph.) 250 0; 1025- 0 0 0 0 1611 312 162 1095 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 255 0 1182 0 0 0 0 1726 318 165 1173 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rabo 0.38 0.98 1.05 0.46 1.04 0.56
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.78 1.76
Average Delay (s.) 17 40 54 14 94 19
Levei of Service C D E 6 F C
I
Cycie Length: 100
Offset: 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green I
Intersection V/C Ratio: 102%
' Intersection Delay: 38.8
Intersecbon LOS: D
, Splits and Phases: E6 Ramps & Pines
7 d
5 T 6
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
FPI
~
Lane GrouQ EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 255 1182 1726 318 165 1173
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 128 405 599 176 114 294
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 171 522 733 226 146 375
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 470 760 760
% of Link Used 16% 50% 156% 48% 19% 49%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
°/a of storage Used
Fills Storage?
S}mchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMENT1962151IMYRB0WE.SY4
Inlaad Pacific Engineering, 1PEC I'age 1
~
WB Ramps & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
1
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
J,, ~ ~ ~ r ~'I ~ !j I r'j A ij ~
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 266 1 21 726 965 0 0 1016 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 310 0 804 1090 0 0 1286 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 31 74 43
Yeliow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.85 0.81 0.41 0.88
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.45 0.89 0.82
Average Delay (s. ) 40 40 4 22
Level of Service D D A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection VIC Ratio: 85°r6
Intersection Delay: 22.2
Intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
IT 4
5 F'1 8 7
,
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
' Lane GrouQ WBT N6L NBT S6T
Lane Group Volume 310 604 1090 1286
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 208 279 93 396
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 336 343 118 572
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% of Link USed 30% 45% 16% 409%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
- - -
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN71962151IMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
,
Indiana & Pines Augusc I2, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and T'Imings Summary
pq --I ai A ~j T ~ 41
' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 0 10 645 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 3714 186 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Pemn ~Rerm. ;
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 22 19 35 4 10 12
Level of Service C C D A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, 6egin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
Intersection Delay: 12.6
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
~ 2
fi .
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
--1 4- - -fl ~q I .
Lane GrouQ EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 77 170 3 186
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 289 126 270 4 278
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of Link Used 41 % 26% 90% 193% 0% 22%
' B{ocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN1I196215VMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4
,
Mission & McDonald AU,uSc 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ LFJ ~J L*J1 U
' EBT EBR WBl WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 585 230 103 413 185 98
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 950 0 0 602 206 109
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3576 3692 1770 1583
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3576 1971 1770 1583
Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 59 59 41
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.47 0.55 0.31 0.18
Platoon Factor 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 13 11 17 16
Level of Service B B C C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 45%
intersection Delay: 12.8
Intersection LOS: B
Spiits and Phases: Mission 8 McDonaid
2 f+_. 4 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
Lane GrouQ EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Volume 950 602 206 109
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 140 132 100 50
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 186 228 168 81
Link Length (ft.) 1790 690 600 600
% Of Link USed 10% 33% 28% 14%
Blocks Upsiream?
Storage Length (ft. )
°r6 of storage Used
Fills Storage?
.
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMEN71962151IMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 5
_ ,
'
BUILD OUT YEAR
1
LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
WITH4UT IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EVERGREEN I/C
LEFT TURN AT MAMER ALLOWED
1
~
~
1
1
1
~
' I,l,' t c-t ,-r f~ j vlwp.t... ? l G
(/✓r 74 o~ Z',,~~[o tArat{,.J 7S
Mission & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
'
L a n e s, V o l u m e s, a n d T i m i n g s S u m m a ry
Pli ~ ~ H ILI ~ 41 Lti
I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VYBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 156 244 30 1011 92 485 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 438 433 31 1207 0 505 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Penn.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
' Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 fi 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
i Current Split (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.65 0.22 1.13 1.02 0.94
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.10
' Average Delay (s.) 38 41 11 33 98 62 28
Level of Service D E B D F F D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 60 (60%), Re#erenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersecaon V/C Ratio: 100%
Intersection De1ay: 49.8
Intersectian LOS: E
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
'
L4 1 3 4
6 ~E1 7 0
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
--I ~-j -q I*, I T `4 41
' Lane GrouP EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 438 433 31 1207 505 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 172 148 144 20 419 350 559 I
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 203 368 26 539 426 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1080 1080 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 19% 34% 4% 90% 91 % 151 %
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\130CUMEN11962150NEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, tPEC Page I I
1
EB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, ;nd Timings Summary
N-,-1
I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 250 0 1070 0 0 0 0 1595 304 162 1093 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 1360 0 0 0 0 0 2035 0 165 1171 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 1770 1624 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1624 3640 1770 3725
' Left Tum Type Split Pemn Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 38 38 51 11 62
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.14 1.16 1.17 0.53
Plataon Factor 1.00 0.74 1.23 0.06
' Average Delay (s.) 109 101 176 1
Level of Service F F F A
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 0(0°rb), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 116%
Intersection Delay: 80.9
Intersection LOS: F
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
' 4 2 1144
Ll5 T 6 .
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blockjng Problems
~ m Li I .
' Lane Group EBT NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 1360 2035 165 1171
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 472 706 114 160
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 599 865 146 412
Link Length (ft.) 1050 470 760 760
% of Link Used 57% 184% 19% 54%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN'I1962151P1NEVL'i'A.SY4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
1
,
WB Ramps & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
' - _ -
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~Y- 3j r_ ~-j -q ~j'
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 264 1 21 710 965 0 0 1018 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 308 0 763 1090 0 0 1288 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
, Current Split (s.) 21 21 43 79 36
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rado 1.08 1.08 0.39 1.06
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.41 0.36 0.86
Average Delay (s.) 100 60 1 61
Level of Service F E A F
Cyc{e Length: 100
Offset: 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 107%
' intersection Delay: 45.5
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
, 4
I
' -
5 ~El 8 ~ 7
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
' Lane GrouP WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 308 763 1090 1288
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 213 529 120 447
, Queue Length 95% (ft.) 334 653 201 573
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% Of Link Used 30% 86% 26% 409%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length {ft.}
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DUCUMEN11962151PINEVLTA.SY4
[nland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
'
indiana & Pines August 12, 1997
' . , -
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ A ~ A ~Ji M &I A 41 141 1
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 0 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 '~Z14 186 3711
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm 'erm Perm _
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
' Current Spiit (s.) 46 46 54 54
Ye{low Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.44 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 22 19 37 6 10 12
Level of Service C C D B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 64 (64%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
' Intersection Delay: 13.3
intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
2 ~ 4
1
,
Queue Lengths, and Potentiai Blocking Problems -
T
I Lane GrouP EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 80 189 3 186
' Queue Length 95°!0 (ft.) 435 289 126 294 4 278
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% Of Link USed 41 % 26% 90% 210% 0% 22%
, Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Rcport J:\D0CUMENT196215\PINEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 4
,I
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc PINOELTA HCO Page 1
{ Center For Micracomputera In Transportation
--'-University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
LRh (904) 392-0378
dStreets (N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
~Major Screet Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
-,,Analyst . Tim Schwab
;Date of Analysis 8/12/97
i-Other Information Buildout with Project, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt at Mamer allowed
"Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
~ L T R L T R L T R L T R
=No Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N ~ N
~Volumes 1729 10 58
,--PHF 96 96 96
Grade 0 0
3-MC' s (°s )
SU/RV's (o}
" Cv' s ( % )
PCE' s 1 10
~
u~
~ Adjustment Factors
~
,--,,Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~ i Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5 50 2 10
7Right Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
--.,Through Traffic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
~
~
~
~
i
I ~
yL
~
u
A,
~
CS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc PINOELTA HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
litep-1--RT-from-Minor-Street WB EB
onflicting Flows (vph) 906
otential Capacity (pcph) 481
ovement Capacity (pcph) 481
,Prob of Queue-Free State 0 86
~
Intersection Performance Summary
~ Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
14ovement, (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
8 7
'vJB R 66 481 8 7 0 5 B
,
z
Intersection Delay = 0 3 sec/veh
d
~
.
~
I`
t
~
~
~
;
~I
~
~
9
~
P
~
~
I
~
-i~HCS. Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCELTA HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
~Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
:Ph (904) 392-0378
-Streets (N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction EW
'Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
M.Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis 8/12/97
=Other Information Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
' /C, lt at Mamer allowed
-Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
'
i-No Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
~Volumea 578 230 103 413 185 9,8
` PHF 87 87 87 87 87 87
Grade 0 0 0
-MC' s (9.0
~ ;SU/RV' s ( a )
CV's (o)
PCE' s 1 10 1 10 1 10
,
T
Adjustment Factors
~
,Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5 50 2 10
]Through Right Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
Traffic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
~
~
~
'G
~
~
~
~
~
I
~1FiCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCELTA HCO Page 2
IL
Worksheet for TwSC Intersection
1Step 1 RT from M--.nor Street NB SB
=-Conflicting Flows (vph) 464
1 Potential Capacity (pcph) 806
a
yMovement Capacity (pcph) 806
_T_ Prob of Queue-Free State 0 85
LStep 2 LT from MQjor Street WB EB
7Conflicting Flows (vph) 928
; ; Potential Capacitv (pcph) 544
, Movement Capacity (pcph) 544
-Prob of Queue-Free State 0 76
(TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 3400
-,--RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared LJne Prob
of Queue-Free Stace 0 72
~
~
Step 4 LT from M:nor Street NB SB
o , Conflicting Flows (vph) 1389
Potential Capacit% (pcph) 137
Ma] or LT, Mznor T=:
Impedance Factor 0 72
]Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 72
Capacity Ad3ustment Factor
due to Impeding I-+ovements 0 72
_L~Movement Capacity (pcph) 99
71,
intersection Performance SummaYy
Avg 95%
~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
~ Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
INB L 234 99 707 6 18 6 F
___L 464 4
? NB R 124 806 5 3 0 6 B
~
,LWB L 130 544 8 7 1 0 B 1 7
j I-:cersection Delay = 82 3 sec/veh
~
~
P,
%"HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTA HCO Page 1
` Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
T;Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
~Ph (904) 392-0378
~ Streets (N-S) Mamer Road _ (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction. EW
=Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
I ate of Analysis 8/12/97
the r Information Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt at Mamer allowed
iTwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
~
Lx:No Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
i;Volumes 22 448 4 2 384 24 8 4 1 44 4 46
~ PHF 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Grade 0 0 0 4
~MC' s (o )
~ SII/RV' s (10s)
= CV' s ( % )
PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 70 1 70 1 70
74
~
~
, Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~Maneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5 00 2 10
dRlght Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
iThrough Traffic Minor Road 6 00 3 30
~Left Turn Minor Road 6 50 3 40
~
~
Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTA HCO Page 2
,HCS
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
T
_~Step 1 RT from Minor Street NB SB
=Conf licting Flows (vph) 469 412
_Potential Capacity (pcph) 801 856
-~Movement Capacity (pcph) 801 856
Prob of ¢ueue-Free State 1 00 0 90
~Step 2 LT from Major Street wB EB
~Conflicting Flows (vph) 471 425
~Potential Capacity (pcph) 1022 1075
_JMovement Capacity (pcph) 1022 1075
Prob of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 98
~TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
-J-RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
I of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 97
Step 3 TH from Minor Street NB SB
~Conflicting Flows (vph) 919 908
^
'-Potential Capacity (pcph) 359 364
Capacity Adjustment Factor
FT due to Impeding Movements 0 97 0 97
I.Movement Capac i ty ( pcph ) 347 351
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 99 0 98
i'Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows (vph) 932 909
_TPotential Capacity (pcph) 306 315
__Ma1or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 95 0 95
-?'Adjusted Impedance Factor 0 96 0 96
i;Capacity Adjustment Factor
~ due to Impeding Movements 0 87 0 96
-Movement Capacity (pcph) 265 304
~
~
~
_T
L
~
~
~
.,r.
I
~
CS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTA HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
T-1
~ Avg 95s
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
)~ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 9 265 >
T 4 347 > 300 12 6 0 0 C 12 6
R 1 801 >
B L 78 304 >
' B T 7 351 > 449 12 7 1 8 C 12 7
B R 82 856 >
B L 25 1075 3 4 0 0 A 0 2
1 i
~TB L 2 1022 3 5 0 0 A 0 0
Intersection Delay = 1 5 sec/veh
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
~
~
~
~
1
J
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
BV~D OVT YEAR
LE♦~~, ~ R~ /il./.J6JS OF SERV.4.'~~CE
~ ♦ ♦ i~~ ~~~JEC.i4
~ ♦ • Ii~ ~~OVEMIENTS
~ ♦ ♦ Ii ~ ~~RG~~~
LE~'+ T TURN AT MIE9KER. AJL1LOWED
i
~
r ~I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~i
~
~ - - _ J./'~ ~pV r l/LJ(Y ~~~•~CC~ L'✓ ITf' Vf F:~lf,v .~G , i.'1 'T ~N iiT ~v~hr r''t
Td
Mission & Pines AUgusc 12, 1997
1
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
1--t 1 711 01 14 y1 ~jj
1
EBL E6T EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 156 244.~ 416_. 30 1011 92 485 1310 227
AdJ. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 512 0 0 467 C6 2 1207 0 520 1681 0
' Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1_ 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 3585 3658 1583 1770 ~ 3681 3540 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
' Left Tum Type Split Spiit Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
' Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 36 20 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.77 0.35 0.99 0.86 1.02
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.89 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.90
Average Delay (s.) 38 25 15 36 44 42 42
Level of Service D C B D E E E
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V1C Ratio: 89°/a
Intersection Delay: 37.9
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
i 1 3 I 4
'
6 r'17 ~ ii
,
Queue Lengths, and Potential 6locking Problems
E-I -~q I -fl Ll ~ .
~
Lane GrouQ EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Croup Volume 512 467 462 31 1207 520 1681
Queue Length 50°k (ft.) 172 142 197 20 417 173 583 ~
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 201 426 26 539 219 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1790 1790 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24°!0 11 % 24% 4% 90°!0 47% 151 %
, 6lacks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. }
°/a of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 ReQort J:IDOCLIMENT196215\IMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEG Page 1
' EB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
~
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
pq ~`_j -q I LD &I `1 41 141 -
EBL EBT gAB- _ WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR I
Volume (vph.) 250 4,(l 020 ~0 0 0 0 1595 304 162 1093 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 255 0Tf7_6 0 0 0 0 1709 310 165 1171 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Turn Type Spiit Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 40 40 47 13 60
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rabo 0.39 1.00 1.04 0.45 0.93 0.55
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.93 0.81 1.66
Average Delay (s.) 18 45 51 14 62 17
Levei of Service C E E 6 F C
Cycie Length: 100
Offser 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, 6egin Of Green
Intersection V!C Ratio: 101 %
Intersection Delay: 37.4
Intersection L.OS: D
Splits and Phases: E6 Ramps 8 Pines
' 4
1 2
r 5 T 6
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
`l 41
1
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 255 1176 1709 310 165 1171
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 130 408 593 177 114 275
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 174 520 726 225 146 352
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 470 760 760
% of Link Used 17% 50% 154% 48% 19% 46%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
I
~
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN1l96215\IMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Patie 1 I
'
WB Ramps & Pines Au'ust 12, 1497
' '
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
M --I Lil ;-1 4-1 Ftl ~J ~ U U
'
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 264 1 21 710 965 0 0 1018 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 308 0 786 1090 0 0 1288 0
' Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Left Turn Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 29 74 45
Yeliow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.85 0.41 0.84
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.34 0.98 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 39 41 4 19
Level of Service D E A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Rabo: 84%
Intersection De1ay: 21.3
Intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps 8 Pines
4
5 El 8 1 7 '
Queue Lengths, and Potentlal Blocking Problems
H 1+1 ' -fl 41
' Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 308 786 1090 1288
Queue Length 50°k (ft.) 204 273 101 377
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 334 336 128 573
Link Lengtfi (ft. ) 1110 760 760 140
% of Link Used 30% 44% 17% 409%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
°!o of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report 1:1D0CUMEN119621 SVMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
'
Indiana & Pines Augusc 12, 1997
1
Lanes, Volumes, and Trmings Summary
m I-4 L-ii 0.
I EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 63 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 0 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 3714 186 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 22 19 35 4 10 12
Level of Service C C D A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
Intersection Delay: 12.6
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
IT 2 % 4
,
Queue Len9ths, and Potential Blockin9 Problems
N~ ~ T❑ ~ y
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 77 170 3 186
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 289 126 270 4 278
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of Link Used 41% 26% 90% 193% 0% 22%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fiils Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:`kDUCUMEN"I1962151IMPCVLTA.SY4
inland Pacific F.neinecring. IPF,C PaLc -1
Mission & McDonaid Augusc 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
--I Z~ ~ ~1 ' &I
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 578 230 103 413 185 98
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 942 0 0 602 206 109
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Fiow (Prot) 3573 3692 1770 1583
Satd. Fiow (Penn.) 3573 1978 1770 1583
Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 59 59 41
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
VIC Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.31 0.18
Platoon Factor 1.31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 13 11 17 16
Levef of Service 6 B C C
Cyc{e Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Rafio: 45%
Intersection Delay: 13.0
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Mission & McDonald
2 n 4
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
Lane GrouQ EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Volume 942 602 206 109
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 144 132 100 50
` Queue Length 95% (ft.) 192 228 168 81
Unk Length (ft.) 1790 690 600 600
°r6 of Link Used 11% 33% 28% 14%
Blocks Upstream?
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Filis Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMEN1196215\IMPEVL7'A.SY4
inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 5
1
'
'
~
BiJiLD OUT YEAR
I LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EVERGREEN I/C
LEFT TURN AT MAMER NOT ALLOWED
1
1
1
1
1
~.,4~:~~JT ~~I"!s-' ~~dl~'T, r ~C{ciL&tr✓ r,C .~R~ ~7 G`T ~c:
f al+` ~,7 M(v1= T'> PN tS f ~l:t ti•✓
Mission & Pines ' AugUSt 12-. 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
W Lfj ~j -~q I*, . T j `j I
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 199 211 58 156 244 416 30 1011 92 492 1310 227
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 438 433 31 1207 0 512 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
' Current Split (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.65 0.22 1.13 1.03 0.94
Piatoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.12
, Average Delay (s.) 38 41 11 33 98 66 28
Level of Service D E B D F F D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 61 (61%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 100%
Intersection Delay: 50.4
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
i 3 Ta
s Ei 7 ~ 8 - -
Queue Lengths, and Potential Biocking Problems
1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 438 433 31 1207 512 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 172 148 144 20 419 355 560
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 203 368 26 539 432 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1080 1080 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 19% 34% 4% 90% 92% 151 %
' Biocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fiils Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:'~.DOCLIMENT~962151PINEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IYf~C Page 1
1
'
' EB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~Y- L-A U U Li
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 250 0 1075 0 0 0 0 1611 312 162 1095 0
' Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 2060 0 165 1173 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Penn.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
' Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Cunent Split (s.) 37 37 52 11 63
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VIC Ratio 1.18 1.15 1.17 0.52
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.74 1.26 0.04
Average Delay (s. ) 131 95 177 1
Level of Service F F F A
' Cycie Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green I
intersecbon V/C Ratio: 117%
' Intersecbon Delay: 84.8
Iniersection LOS: F
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
2 4
'
5 T 6
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
1
Lane Group EBT NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 1365 2060 165 1173
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 473 715 114 137
' Queue Length 95°!0 (ft. ) 601 875 146 412
Link Length (ft.) 1050 470 760 760
% Of Link Used 57% 186% 19% 54%
Blocks Upstream? Yes I
,
Storage Length (ft. )
°10 of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:I130CUMEN111962151PINEVLTN.SY4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
,
WB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
PFI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 14 41 I<j .
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph. ) 0 0 0 266 1 21 726 965 0 0 1018 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 310 0 781 1090 0 0 1288 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 21 21 44 79 35
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.09 1.08 0.39 1.10
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.42 0.35 0.86
Average Delay (s.) 103 60 1 76
Level of Service F E A F
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 109°/o
' Intersectian Delay: 51.0
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
4
~
~
5 ~E'1 8 7
'
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
H *1 Ti 41
' Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 310 781 1090 1288
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 215 542 116 447
' Queue Length 95% (ft. ) 336 667 191 573
Link Length (ft. ) 1110 760 760 140
% of Link Used 30% 88% 25% 409%
, Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
, Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report 1:1DOC:UIviENT\962151i'1NEVL'IN.SY4
lnland Paciiic Fngincering, 1PFC Page 3
'
Indiana & Pines August 12, 1997
' rT ■
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
pq ~ ;_I 1+_l 7~q I~ ~1 ~i Ll y I
~
EBL E6T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT N6R SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 0 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 3714 186 3711
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Cunent Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.44 1.00 1.00
' Average Delay (s. ) 22 19 37 6 10 12
Level of Service C C D B B B
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 64 (64%), Referenced to phase 2_NB_SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
Intersection Delay: 13.3
i ntersection LOS: B
Spiits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
2 ~ 4
~
'
Queue Lengths, and Potenbal Blocking Problems
' Lane GrouP EBT WBT NBL N6T SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 80 189 3 186
' Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 289 126 294 4 278
link Length (ft.) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of Link Used 41 % 26% 90% 210% 0% 22%
' Biocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft.)
% of storage Used
Fiils Storage?
Svnchro 2.0 Report k",nactiMF:N'f,962 Ii\PiNFVI.TN.SY;1
inland Pacific En-ineerin4, IPFC pace 4
I
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc PINOELTN HCO Page 1
enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
Sh (904) 392-0378
treets (N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
ajor Street Da.rection NS
ength of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
alyst Tim Schwab
ither ate of Analysis 8/12/97
Information Buildout with Project, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt. Mamer not allowed
wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
~ L T R L T R L T R L T R
i7
"No Lane s 0 3 < 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N 0 N
; olumes 1729 10 82
_ HF 96 96 96
Grade 0 0
C's M)
' U/RV' s ( s )
Cv's ( o)
PCE' s 1 10
7
i Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~aneuver Gap (tg) Time ( tf )
Left Turn Maaor Road 5 50 2 10
~ight Turn M3nor Road 5 50 2 60
hrough Traffic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 3 40
~
~
,r
~
~
d
~
~
i
~
CS [7nsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc PINOETTN HCO Page 2
~ -
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Itep-1--RT-from-Minor-Street,-------------WB-----------EB
onf licting Flows (vph) 605
otential Capacity (pcph) 684
~ ovement Capacity (pcph) 684
Prob of Queue-Free State 0.86
~
Intersection Performance Summary
~
' Avg 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
~ ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
6 1
~a`tnTB R 94 6 8 4 6 1 0 5 B
~
Intersection Delay = 0 3 sec/veh
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
T,
"
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCELTN HCO Page 1
-
4,_Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
''-'University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
~Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
_Ph (904) 392-0378
,Streets (N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
;!Major Street Direction EW
I.-Length of Tzme Analyzed 15 (min)
TAnalyst Tim Schwab
! ;Date of Analysis . 8/12/97
JOther Information Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
/C, lt Mamer not allowed
qTwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
~ L T R L T R L T R L T R
~
'!-~'No Lanes 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 585 230 111 413 185 98
IPHF 87 87 87 87 87 87
Grade 0 0 0
~MC's (06)
+ SU/RV' s ( % )
L-L CV' s ( o )
,.PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10
'
J
~ Ad3ustment Factors
..,Vehicle Critical Follow-up
: ; Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Ma3or Road 5 50 2 10
'71IRight Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
-IThrough Traff ic Minor Road 6 50 3 30
Left Turn Minor Road 7 00 340
~
E~
177
r
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
;r,'[3CS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMCELTN HCO Page 2
~
Worksheet for TWSC Intersectlon
~Step 1 RT f rom Minor Street NB SB
~ Conf licting Flows (vph) 468
~Potential Capacity (pcph) 802
~Movement Capacity (pcph) 802
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 85
I - - - - - - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~-Step 2 LT from Major Street WB EB
,Conflicting Flows (vph) 936
~ Potential Capacity (pcph) 539
Movement Capacity (pcph) 539
,,,Prob of Queue-Free State 0 74
,,-TH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 3400
'-'RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl )
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
of Queue-Free State 0 70
Step 4 LT from M? nor Street IvB SB
,,Conflicting Flows (vph) 1407
y"Potential Capacity (pcph) 133
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 70
-IlAd3usted Impedance Factor 0 70
Capacity Adjustment Factor
77 due to Impeding Movements 0 70
;BMovement Capacity (pcph) 93
7,
Intersection Performance Summary
J;9F
Avg 9 5 0
~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
~ Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
~NB L 234 93 780 1 19 2 F
511 8
~NB R 124 802 5 3 0 6 B
~-WB L 141 539 9 0 1 1 B 1 9
~ Intersection Delay = 89 9 sec/veh
'I
~
_T
~
~
t,
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTN HCO Page 1
~Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
IDUniversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
'~Ph (904) 392-0378
]Ma]or Streets (N-S) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
IDther ate of Analysis 8/12/97
Information Buildout with pro3ect, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt Mamer not allowed
r-ITwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
~ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
r L T R L T R L T R L T R
,-'No Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
~ Volumes 29 448 4 2 384 17 8 4 1 12 4 54
' PHF 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Grade 0 0 0 4
NiC' s (01)
71SU/RV' s ( a )
L'CV' s 06)
PCE's 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 70 1 70 1 70
11
ied
7T Ad3ustment Factors
~
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~ManeuverGap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Maa or Road 5 00 2 10
_TRight Turn Minor Road 5 50 2 60
,s,Th rough Tra f f i c Minor Road 6 00 3 30
Leit Turn Nlinor Road 6 50 3 40
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTN HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
I,,Step 1 RT from Minor Street NB SB
,._Conflicting Flows (vph) 469 409
iIpotential Capacity. (pcph) 801 859
-L-Movement Capacity (pcph) 801 859
Prob of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 89
~
yStep 2 LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows (vph) 471 418
Potential Capacity (pcph) 1022 1084
i.29Movement Capacity (pcph) 1022 1084
Prob of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 97
ITH Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob
~ of Queue-Free State 1 00 0 96
~Step 3 TH from Mznor Street NB SB
-
onflicting Flows (vph) 919 912
otential Capacity (pcph) 359 362
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 96 0 96
L.,,Movement Capacity (pcph) 343 346
Prob of Queue-Free State 0 99 0 98
~jStep-4--LT from Minor Street-------------IV~3-----------SB
_LJ
Contlicting Flows (vph) 940 912
'7,Patential Capacity (pcph) 302 314
~Ma3 or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor 0 94 0 94
-,Ad]usted Impedance Factor 0 95 0 96
; Capacity Adjustment Factor
~ due to Impeding Movements 0 85 0 96
¢.Movement Capacity (pcph) 255 300
j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
77,
~
~
~
J
~r►
a~
~
~
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 lc MIMAELTN HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
i'
, Avg 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue P,pproach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
I ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
i 4
NB L 9 255 >
7 T 4 343 > 290 13 0 0.0 C 13 0
JiB R 1 841 >
, B L 22 300 >
' B T 7 346 > 607 7 4 0 8 B 7 4
S3 R 95 859 >
J:B L 33 1084 3 4 0 0 A 0 2
L 2 1022 3 5 0 0 A 0 0
?'r Intersection Delay = 0 8 sec/veh
~
~
-r-.
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
;b
~
~
q
~
~
~
~
-T
a
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
il~ - -
S.J
BUILD OUY YEAR
LEVELS OF ~~RVICE
, WITHPROJECT
WITH IM.PROVEMENTS
WIT~ EVERGREEN
LEFT TURN AT MAMER I010~ ~~ONMD
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
T W~r r ~ ~sJF ~T ►.,vR f ~~4 .7~~G L? 7~z..i r wfA 09 te lvo r ~ «~~~ub
r ,
x, Fr,~r,.t(.4,17 7. rAf I -=,~~i✓ z✓~[ v D f.D
Mission & Pines August 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
-A 1-30 141 H LU I~ ~I 1~ I
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N6L NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph. ) 199 211 58 156 244 416 30 1011 92 492 1310 227
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 512 0 0 467 462 31 1207 0 528 1681 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3536 3647
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3536 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 fi 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 37 19 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.79 0.35 0.96 0.93 1.02
Plataon Factor 1.00 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.91
Average Delay (s.) 38 25 16 36 38 51 43
Level of Service D C C D D E E
CYcle Len9th: 100 I
Offset: 5(5°Io), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 89%
Intersection Delay: 37.5
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
1 3 4
I
6 E1 7 ~ 6
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
--I H '~I +1 T `i I
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 512 467 462 31 1207 528 1681
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 172 142 199 20 411 179 583
t Queue Length 95% (ft.) 257 202 426 26 539 222 709
Link Length (ft.) 1060 1790 1790 600 600 470 470
% of Link Used 24% 11 % 24% 4% 90% 47% 151 %
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. ) ~
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMEN119621511MPEVLTN.SY4
inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
~
EB Ramps & Pines Augt,sc 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
-I ai qF-ll~~~~
EBL EBT Ep-3NBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 250 0,-1025 0 0 0 0 1611 312 162 1095 0 ,
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 255 0-1-182 0 0 0 0 1726 318 165 1173 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm. ) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
' Left Turn Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yeliow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.38 0.98 1.05 0.46 1.04 0.56
Plataon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.78 1.76
Average Delay (s.) 17 40 54 14 94 19
Level of Service C D E B F C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 102%
Intersection Delay: 38.9
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pfnes
2 ~ a
I
5 T 6
'
Queue Lengths, and Potentlal Blocking Problems
-11 T r*1
Lane GrouQ EBL EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 255 1182 1726 318 165 1173
Queue Length 50% (ft. ) 128 405 599 181 114 294
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 171 522 733 231 146 375
Link Length (ft.) 1050 1050 470 470 760 760
% of Link Used 16% 50% 156% 49% 19% 49%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:',DOCUMENI1Q6215\IMPEVLTN.SY4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page I
1
WB Ramps & Pines August 12, 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ ~ ' 41 IH LS 1*1 -q l~ A AJ ~J I
I EBL EBT EBR WBL W6T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 266 1 21 726 965 0 0 1018 123
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 310 0 804 1090 0 0 1288 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 31 74 43
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.85 0.81 0.41 0.88
Piatoon Factor 1.00 1.45 0.89 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 40 40 4 22
Levei of Service D D A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Re#erenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
intersection V/C Ratio: 85%
Intersection Delay: 22.2
Intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
I T 4
LTJ 5 IE1 f3 7
Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems
T y
' Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Volume 310 804 1090 1288
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 206 279 93 397
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 336 343 118 573
Link Length (ft.) 1110 760 760 140
% Of Litlk USed 30% 45% 16% 409%
Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fi(Is Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:1DOCUMEN119621 5\1MPEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
~
Indiana & Pines Augusc 12, ~ ~91/
1
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
M ~ ~ ~j 7 q I*, ~ T I &j `l l ~j .
' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 52 14 332 83 45 115 133 899 21 9 734 22
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 423 0 0 258 0 141 1027 0 10 845 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1300 939 311 3714 186 3711
Left Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.76 0.64 0.89 0.54 0.11 0.45
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 22 19 35 4 10 12
Level of Service C C D A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offsek 6(6%), Reterenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
Intersecton Delay: 12.6
Intersection LOS- B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
2 4
Queue Lengths, and Potential 6locking Problems
-4 E-. N. T I `q y . .
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Volume 423 258 141 1027 10 845
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 247 140 77 170 3 186
Queue Length 95% (ft.) 435 289 126 270 4 278
Link Length (ft. ) 1050 1110 140 140 1250 1250
% of Link Used 41% 26% 90% 193% 0% 22%
' Blocks Upstream? Yes
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Syncluo 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT1962151IMPEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific I:nQineering. IPEC N`~e 4
'
Mission & McDonald t~uCyusc 12. 1997
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
1-4 'a'
' EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 585 230 111 413 185 98
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 950 0 0 612 206 109
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3576 3688 1770 1583
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3576 1941 1770 1583
Left Turn Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 60 60 40
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.47 0.55 0.31 0.19
Platoon Factor 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 12 11 17 16
Level of Service B B C C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL. Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 46%
Intersection Delay: 12.6
Intersecfion LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Mission & McDonald
2 % 4
ME,
.
Queue Lengths, and Potential Biocking Problems
. ~ ~ +1~ ~
' Lane GrouQ EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Volume 950 612 206 109
Queue Length 50% (ft.) 140 133 101 51
Queue Length 95% (ft. ) 186 231 171 83
Link Length (ft.) 1790 690 600 600
% Of Link Used 10% 33% 29% 14%
Biocks Upstream?
Storage Length (ft. )
% of storage Used
Fills Storage?
Synchro 2.0 Report J:I1D0CUMEN7196215uMPEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 5
f .
i' ~ . . .
~
INLAND PACiFIC ENGINEER1NG, INC.
~
c~•
~
I{I
II
1
~
11
~
S1 OKANE COEUR D+ALEI 1E
~
~
~
~
~ TRAFFIC MWACT ANALV91sul
~
for
' INLA.-ND C0NSTRT1CTION BT.TSINi SS PA,RK.
' Spokane County, Wasrirlgtan
Novcmbcr, 1996
~ Spansor l.nland Coustructian Compajiy, Nonli 1618 Mamer R.oad, Spokane, WA 99-416
1'xepareu by-
' _ •
InlaFid Pacific E nornee.ritzg Co»ijoany
707 W 7th Avenue, Sl.rite 200
~ Sporrrne., WA 99204
" (509)458-6840
' Thts repor'thas b-enPrepared bY the staff ofInlanQ 1'zcinc Enginecruag ComPauY under tb.e d.uection
0
of tlle undersignert ptofessionai engineer wliose seal and signattl.re apneass hereon.
~
A sC
~ p o~ wAs,,~
'09 ~ 2_9 6 ~ ~Q
FGtsi
~`S`SIONAt
a
ExPIREs 9~21~g7 ~
,
Timofliy A. Stlawah, p,E.
'
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTROD UCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TIA - DOCUME1Vf SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
' PROJECT DESCRIP770N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
' CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RECOMMENDA770NS 6
EXISTING COND177ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXISTING CONDI770NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Land Use 7
Existing Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Interstate (SR) 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
' Pines Road (SR 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Missaon Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Indiana Avenue/Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
McDonald Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
MamerRoad ...........................I 9
Nora Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . 10
, Evergreen Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
' LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Scgnalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Unsignalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
' Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Traffi c Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Planned Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
~
Trip Generation and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
'
FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPAG'T ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS A1VD METHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
' B UILD O UT LEVEL OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CONCL USIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
RECOMMENDATIONS 35
'
' ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS, contznued
' LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
' Figure 2 - Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3 - Existing Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 4 - Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure S- PM Peak Hour Background Projects Traffic Volumes 18
Figure 6- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes Without Evergreen I/C . 22
Figure 7- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen I/C, Left Turn
' at Mamer/Mission Intersection Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 8- PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes With Evergreen I/C, Left Turn
at Mamer/1Vlission Intersection Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
, Figure 9 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 10 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Uolurnes With Project, Without Evergreen
I/C . . 31
~ Figure 11 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Evergreen
1/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mtssaon Intersection Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 12 - 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, With Evergreen
I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Intersection Not Allowed 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
~ Table 2- Accident data for selected intersections wlthin the study area 15
Table 3- Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour . 17
Table 4- Trip Generation Rates for Business Park - PM Peak Hour . . 19
, Table S- Build Out Year Traffic Without Inland Construction Business Park . 26
Table 6- Butld Out Year Traffic With Inland Construction Business Park, Without
Evergreen I/C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
' Table 7- Build Out Year Traffic With Inland Construction Business Park, With
Evergreen I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 8-Build Out Year Traffic With Inland Construction Business Park, With
~ Evergreen I/C, Left Turn at Mamer/Mission Not Allowed 30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
'
Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables
Calculations for Existing Level of Service
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service without Project
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service without Project Including Improvements
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service wcth Project
Calculations for Build Out Levels of Service wcth Project Including Improvements
'
'
' INTROD UCTIQN
~ 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 unpact
assessment conducted for the proposed development of Phase 2 of the Inland Construction
Business Park, proposed office buildings and warehouse space in Spokane County east of the City
' of Spokane This property lies north of Mission Avenue and east of Mamer Road as shown on
Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop approximately 5 acres of flat to
sloping land. The existing zoning for this site is a combination of UR-22 and I-2 zoning. In the
spring of 1996 conditions for development of Phase 1 of the business park were set by the County.
Phase 2 of the proposed project exceeds those conditions. Therefore this study is for a part of
the change of conditions due to further development of the property. The present proposal is for
, 40,588 S.F. of additional office space and 27,059 S.F. of additional warehouse space which can
be accomodated, although there are several limiting factors, including a BPA easement which limit
development of this site.
'
The purpose of this analysis is to review, assess and identify potential traffic related impacts wluch
this development may have on the transportation system and where possible minimize these
impacts. This TIA will be completed in accordance with the cunent traffic guidelines available i
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 deternlined through conversations with
' Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following intersections: • Mamer Road & Mission Avenue
( • McDonald Road & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road & Nora Road
' • Pines Road & the Eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & the Westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & IndianalMontgomery
1
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.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
' • The anticiPated triP distribution exPected for the new trips from the site at full
build out.
' • The effects of the triP generation and distribution to the existing and future
transportation system.
'
• Traffic unpacts within the project study area due either to traff'ic growth or other
background projects which are separate from the addition of the Phase 2 Inland
' Construction Business Park.
• Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traffic from
' the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park.
• Analysis, conclusions and recommended mitigation for the effects of the trips
generated by the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park on the transportation
system.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This property is located in eastern Spokane County, Washington, approximately 10 rniles east of
the City of Spokane central business district. The parcel lies east of Mamer Road, south of I-90,
and north of Mission Avenue between Pines Road and Sullivan Road. The existing parcel is
, somewhat sloping from south to north. Homes have previously occupied the site, but are i.n the
process of being removed due to construction of Phase 1 of this project. Thls rezone will allow
Phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park to develop additional office and warehouse
space. Primary ingress and egress for this business park will be to iVlamer Road directly via one
driveway location.
` The property is bordered by I-90 to the north, some vacant land to the east, Mamer Road to the
west and has some steep land on vacant property to the south. The use of land adjacent to I-90
is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The predominant land use in the area to the south of
' the site is single family dwelling units with lots of varying sizes. Along Mission Avenue, an
assortment of land uses is evident, including a day care facility, some duplexes and single family
residences, Valley General Hospital and various medical buildings.
'
Existing zoning of this parcel is UR-22 and I-2. The proposed project uses are allowed under
, these zoning categories. Therefore, this TIA is being prepared for a change of condition
application for the property. T1us parcel is surrounded by UR-3.5 zon.ing except I-2 and B-2
zoning north of this parcel and the freeway.
A preliminary site plan of this development is shown in Figure 2.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
Q x FA
1
O 0
_ aC 13fiACE 4^, ! , . . . .
~ ; „ ~.p.._w......
Q27D
c
d
L
u x N L
i 3 Z C
a `
.
.
~ p 10 PROJECT INDIANA
~ av LO CATIO N ~
o ~
a
'Ku+ SHANNON AVE
, r _ * - ~ i y ~ ►
I N DIANA AVE
ti
~ NORA AVE ~ 9 ~
^~x
~
o
o H ...Q MAXWELL~ ~ ~M/ss,oIy
Valley o SINTO I SINTO,
~ S1N70 Medical ...o 0 0 0~" iz '~Qw c, qVc
Center 0 SHARP o o SHARP ~Z AVE N
¢ ac
~ o ~ BOONE . • ~ BOONE .m z~w~ O Q` i
BOONE oc a
- ; Z < DESMEt ' DESMET n s j a ~ ~ a 0
DESh4ET Q ~ a: CAT
CATALDO Q pCOg?/
> -~-.K ^ w' ~ O ? CATALDO ~ AVE
LDO ' W z W ~ p z ~ ' ~ zl M A l O N r c-, o
o t MA .LON E l e m~ J s m zIMALLONMA~LONj ~ a~ Fp p A
I m a Q V~'
` ~ ~ CT BROADWAY ~ ; AVE m ~a ~l
w Z il SPRIF GF1ELD
tigs SPRINGFIELD~AVE Progress
z z SPRINGFIELO AVE ~ w ALKt AV ~ C~
3'L 2a~` Z _ ~ []C ALKI Elem cc ~
3: AI.KI m OUVE ~
~ p a
o a
J cc Q O
OLIVE" Q OLIVE N w z~ W ~ VALLEY Q O ~ a-
a+ im
o ~ W W ~rm3 ; - °C . _ . _WAY ~ ~
N
VALLEY WAY 31 rt-' ~.,~""_NIXON a? z;
i w W ~ NIXON z (n
~ Z NIXON ~ t m~-. z; W' NixOtI ~ Z
3:°
u ]
¢ MAIf1=AVE MAIN my~ m a m Q i m~ w
2 W S~ .e.~ IDE ~ O
+S J~
' o~Jg° J~ MAIN
M ZIN _ Q~ } RIVERSIDE.. Q~ R~
- o Z' J
- IIVyRS~lOEI ~pIVERSIOE ° RIVEASIOE
, = Q ; z S m , SPRAGUE ~
W~ 2N0.
o , co ..e _
1ST CC - 2ND Z
a J N -8
3RD 3RD AVE W, i?
p c~~-- oc
' Q 3RD AVE i Q m; 3aa~cs !a
c, 4TH AVE wi..~,,>
rt--
: ~ cs W
' " W a Y f ~ STH ~ > ¢ STFi
0 ~ W ~ K Elemne STH _ . AVE mt „ - , 5TH J Q
".;.,.w0 °C ~ 6 T H
6TH > . 6TH 6TH AVE ~T m
o.......... 7T., Q.a... a. a . a s, p ? 7TH
~ ~!'°w z 7TH AVE w
W x
u 5 °c i ; cc o z ~ c,aj • ~
Z ~ cc oc p , .
a > 8TH AVF m~
~ NOT TO SCALE
J
~
FIGURE 1 1NLAND CONSTRUC710N ~
~ INLAND
PACIFIC BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING VICIN{TY MAP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • suite 200 (509) 458-6sao PROJECT N0. 96215 ~
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-6844~
1 /
V ~ ~ ~
~ o ~
~
~ MAUDWO PAD ~ _
~ i~
. ~ . , . . _ ; • ' ~
~ ~~~n
. . 'yz••
` ~ . • ~ ~
rj i r • ~ ~ ~ .t ~ ~4i ~
~ . PMJSK
8uildfrtg . ~
. ~ ~~~,~v,.,....~: • rr ~ l ~ /
~y`~.;,~ o:., ;~.c>.,. ~
t n•~v ~ a .A> ~
F i. 1~ ~
s .
~ ~ :i,,.. r s•.
. ~
1~
io >r ~,.a~•~••~
~ r . .
i~ BuMEn Suilding 8u~tn~~~ ;
t 9 9
. ~ . . j ~ .
A4.
sutlding
' -
.
.
•~~'ti.
s~. • ~
_ . _
, _
, •1 ~
'
~
NOT TO SCALE
~ J
INLAND FIGURE 2 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC eUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING SI TE PLAN
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96215
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-68440OF
\ /
' 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 are minimal. This conclusion was reached
and is documented within the body of this report. A brief description of the conclusions and
recommendations which include project impacts are included here.
• The unsignalized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue & McDonald
Road. Dunng the PM peak hour, this intersection is presently functioning at level
of service F. The signalized intersections within the study area are currently
functioning at level of service D or better.
• The increase in traffic within the next year without the addition of the Phase 2
Inland Construction Business Park trips will lower the level of service at the
following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
and the Pines and Mission Avenue intersection. Both of these intersections will
drop in level of service from LOS D to LOS E for the PM peak hour traff'ic. With
WSDOT scheduled improvements, the LOS for the above two intersections on
Pines Road will improve to LOS D. The level of service at Mission and McDonald
during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS F without signal installation.
• Without the scheduled unprovements on Pines Road, the addition of the proposed
Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project would cause the level of service
' at the intersection of Pines & westbound I-90 ramp terminals to drop from LOS D
to LOS E in all of the Evergreen Interchange scenarios except for the scenario with
the Evergreen Interchange allowing southbound left turns at the Mission & Mamer
, intersection. Also without the scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the addition
of the proposed project trips will cause the level of service at the intersection of
Pines & eastbound I-90 ramp terminals to drop from LOS E to LOS F for all
' scenarios of the Evergreen Interchange. However, with the scheduled safetY and
capacity improvements on Pines by WSDOT, there will be no change in the level
of service with the addition of the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park
project. Levels of service will be LOS D or better with or without the proposed
project for the build out year.
• There is no measureable benefit to the traff'ic this project will generate by having
the Evergreen Interchange constructed. Comparing the delay times in Tables 6, 7,
Inland Pacifzc Engineering, Inc. 5 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
' and 8 for the different senarios with and without the Evergreen Interchange, there
is no appreciable improvement in the delay tunes with the Evergreen Interchange
over without the Evergreen Interchange.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of the Phase 2 Inland Construction
Business Park will have no significant impact on the transportation system within the general
geographic area. 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:
• Frontage improvements as required by the County.
• Future participation in the McDonald/Mission intersection signal improvements
based on additional PM peak hour trips added to the intersection from the project.
. < _
'
'
,
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Inland Constructaon Business Park TIA
'
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
At the present time the land is undeveloped and zoned I-2 and UR-22. The area adjacent to the
proposed development is zoned UR-3.5 except across the freeway to the north, the property is
zoned I-2 and B-2. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for this area. Phase 1 of this project is in
the process of constructing three buildings with approximately 12,080 S.F. of office space and
15,920 S.F. of warehouse space.
The proposed Phase 2 project will develop approxunately 5 acres into 40,588 S.F. of office space
and 27,059 S.F. of warehouse space. The land to the east of this parcel is vacant except for a
water tower and pump station. A mix of commercial and rural-type residential land uses exist
on the properry to the west of the site fronting Nora Avenue. North of the site is I-90 and south
of the site is a steep hillside up to Mission Avenue.
,
Existing Roadways y
At the present time the existing roadways in the immediate area are paved and in various stages
of complete build out. For example, Mission Avenue is a minor arterial which runs from Sullivan
Road to the east, and continues past Argonne Road to the west. In the vicinity of the Valley
Hospital, to the west of this site, it has a four-lane cross-section, two lanes in each direction. The
apartment complexes in the area of McDonald Road have been required to widen Mission Avenue
to continue this cross-section further east. 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 Axterial Road Plan as a pri.ncipal arterial, for the majority of it's length it is a two lane,
' two-waY striP Paved road with gravel or grassY shoulders.
' Interstate (SR) 90 is an east/west two-way, four lane, median separated limited access interstate
freeway on the County, Washulgton State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration transportation systems. This interstate faciliry 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 within this area is 60 mph. This
facility is responsible for carrying many of the inter-area commute trips, such as between the
valley and downtown Spokane. This facility also carries the majority of the inter-state freight and
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 7 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
,
URM22
lt>, ro 4o
, ~ . . ~ ,n
v ~ `
10
~ N
, MAN IEtD RRr-10
N PROJECT
9 s _ i N o Av E, LO CATI O N - - - - N- . . - _ -
~ - - - - - - - .
- - - • - - - 1 u r71 hV E
~..t.. _
~
} _ 2 M • - ~ ~ ~
.
~ m 1_2 ~
N o of
~ Uf `2
N
B- U~f -3.5 IY4 : li I S 5 ION
T 7
t r Y N 3 ' IOti
` • ~ UR-2 2 -
2-2 p N a - p ~
B T = 1 O~ INT Uf~-~2
~ u R- 2 2 See Insert Detail
~ ~
R- 22 UR-22 ~ 4 o s►n
- U R -3.5 ~ m : UR.:..~ 2 A. -
_ Y
< . c
J N
B ~ I ~ p'- ~.✓o' `j'"~v~_ ~ ~~O 0-0 ~
V J C) ~
1 ~ .e A _~1`.. f
I
4-24 • dR-.T {
4
, r ; . I~ , 1 i ` 2
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ • ~ C.~ ~ -.i. ;
c1.T.•
" ' I y H I ~'J ~ ' ~ ~ -
♦ ~ ~ 'j i ~ / c ' a
~ ♦ 3 i
_z- = rc t Cp
=A (D
,
i ~ - 4 ~ e ^
M
or 1 ~ 48 81 /
77C
:1 Dj
8 ~ Q ~
►2 ~ • ~ ~t ~
,O.~r f~ C. 0.~• S~r~~~ ♦ e i • r~s t O~I
Ev w^Y
I NOT TO SCALE
~
FIGURE 3 INLAND CONSTRUCTION
\
I NLAND
PACiFIc BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING ZON I N G M AP TRAFFlC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 West 7th • Swte 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96215 J
5pokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-6844, !
\
'
' commercial vehicles with destulations 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 five-lane PrinciPal arterial on both SPokane
County's and the Washi.ngton State Deparnnent of Transportation arterial systems. As a north-
' south principal arterial, this facility is responsible for intra and inter-urban area trips. The inter-
area trips are prunarily those trips between commuruties 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 vicuuty is five lanes, with two-way
left turns and dedicated left turn lanes at the intersections. Between the intersections of Mission
' Avenue and Indiana Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Mission Avenue is a minor east-west arterial accordulg to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan.
' It's ultimate cross section is a four-lane section; two lanes in each direction. Tum lanes will be
added as needed at critical i.ntersections 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. However from
approximately one block west of Pines Road to east of McDonald Road (east of Pines), Mission
Avenue has been developed to the four-lane ultimate cross section. 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
road. However, this arterial will be extended from Pines Road to Sullivan Road wi[h the
construction of the new mall in this area. A five-lane section will be constructed in this area with
' curbs and sidewalks.
McDonald Road is a minor arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. It is a
' two-way arterial running between Saltese Road to the south and Mission Avenue to the north
Within the last five years, the section between Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue was upgraded
to a four lane paved facility with curbs and sidewalk to carry the north-south traffic through and
' within the immediate area. South of approxunately Second Avenue, it is a two lane facility It
serves primarily as access to and from the surrounding residential areas. The speed limit along
' it's length is 35 mph.
Mamer Road is a local access road according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two-lane,
two-way roadway running north-south between Broadway Avenue to the south and Nora Avenue
to the north. North of Mission Avenue along the site frontage, the road has a steep grades, up to
13%.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 9 Inland Construction Buscness Park TIA
1
'
Nora Avenue is a local access road along the south side of I-90 east of Pines Road to Mamer
' Road. It is a two-lane, two-way roadway running east-west. At the Pines Road intersection, the
southbound traffic is prohibited from turning into Nora Avenue and westbound traff'ic on Nora
Avenue is prohibited from turning southbound onto Pines Road.
'
Evergreen Road is a principal artenal according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two-
lane, two-way arterial running between 32nd Avenue to the south and Mission Avenue to the
t 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. 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
'
Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control
Project study area intersections in the site vicinity were identified through discussions with Pat
Harper at Spokane County Engineer's Department and Greg Figg at WSDOT. The intersections
' were •
• Mamer Road & Mission Avenue ' • McDonald Road & Mission Avenue ,
• Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue
• Pines Road & Nora Avenue
' • Pi.nes Road & the Eastbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & the Westbound I-90 ramp terminals
• Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery
'
These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) and form the basis of this
document. This study was also scoped to look at the effects the Evergreen Interchange would
' have.
The Pines Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections with the exception
' of Nora Avenue The Mission & McDonald intersection and Mission & Mamer intersections are
stop sign controlled with the north/south street yielding to Mission Avenue.
'
Traffac Volumes and Peak Hours of Operalion
Existing turning traffic movement volumes at the identified intersections were determined from
actual traffic counts taken by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) during the spring of
1995 and fall of 1996, and by WSDOT and Spokane County during 1996 for PM peak hours of
Inland Pacific Engcneering, Inc. 10 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
,
' oPeration.
' Sulce the weekday PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the greatest traffic
demands are placed on the surrounding transportation system, thls will be the tune 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.
' Sigrialized Intersections
For signalized intersections, recent reseazch 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 ifitersections
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 ultersections, level of service is based on the delay expenenced 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 a11 right turning vellicles, all left huning vehicle from the major street and all through
vehicles on both the minor and maj or 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
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 11 Inland Constructcon Busaness Park TIA
1
, 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 tlus report were performed u1 accordance with the
procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCIv) 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, namely the intersections of Mamer Road & Mission
Avenue, McDonald Road & Mission Avenue, Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue, Pines Road
& Nora Avenue, Pines Road & the eastbound I-90 ramp terminals, Pines Road & the westbound
I-90 ramp terminals and Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery. These intersections were chosen by
Spokane County or WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from the Inland
' Construction Business Park.
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 an unsignalized intersections
, will be an LOS of E. For a signalized intersection, LOS D 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
1 build out of the ProJ'ect maY be candidates for mitigation to Provide accePtable levels of service.
Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing PM peak hour
at each identified intersection. These LOS results are from the traff'ic counts performed by IPE,
Spokane County and WSDOT for this study. HCS data used to generate all levels of service
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 12 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
' shown in this document are in the Technical Appendix. Figure 4 shows the existing intersection
volumes counted by IPE staff, Spokane County and WSDOT which were used for Table 1.
, Table 1- Existing Levels of Service
` EXISTINGPI1h '~JZAFFIC
.INTERS~CTIO~1'
DELAY < < LOS
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12 4 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 25.5 sec. D
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 39 6 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 6.9 sec. B
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 28.5 sec. D
Mission Ave /McDonald Road 83.4 sec. F
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 9.3 sec. B
Mission Ave./Evergreen Road 11.4 sec. C
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
,
For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement
through the intersection.
As can be seen from the above table, the existing levels of service at most of the intersections
' within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized
intersections witlun Spokane County. The exception is the intersection of Mission & McDonald.
All other intersections are operating at levels of service D or better.
During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently functioning at
level of service F with an average of 83.4 seconds of delay for each northbound left turning
' vehicle. Overall intersection delay is 16.9 seconds. At the present time, the intersection could
function at acceptable levels of service by changing the control to either an all-way stop or by
installing a traff'ic signal. Although an all-way stop would provide acceptable levels of service
' with existing traff'ic volumes, with the traffic growth anticipated in the near future, the all-way
stop would not provide adequate level of service for even the anticipated buildout growth
examined in this study. A signal warrant analysis was performed for this intersection in previous
traffic studies. Presently, this intersection meets five warrants, including Warrant 2, Interruption
of Continuous Traffic. A complete copy of the warrant analysis is included in the Technical
Appendix of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community.
Inland Pacifcc Engineering, Inc. 13 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
/ ~n cn ~
N co
'D
40
50 =-P ~112
14 44
307 81
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y NcoN
~ N ~
~ ai
NOT TO SCALE
~ 20
a ~
4=242
f s > zs .
O N
~ ° W. BOUND RAMPS
' o
Q 00 ~
Ln
o ~
~ z43 g 0
~ 940
Z 't7
~
n
-
ao n
►7 N
E. BOUND RAMPS ^ .
NORA AVENUE ~
15
1 Q r
Q
04
Ul)
W 1 G~
~
^ N ~ ~
~N M Na' ~ ~
N5
131 ~ ~415 4-P ` L"
12
, 129 ~ ~1gg 394 305 378 G- 331 242 237
198 79 Q 4~ 2 127 9 ~
Q a 4~v a~cr p
Nr- In pp ^ Q aD d.- N N LL
6L
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q ~
o Of
o w
U >
j
w ,
/ ~ INLAND FIGURE 4 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
im rm PACIFIC EXISTING BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING P.M. PEAK HOUR
707 west 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX (509) 456-6844, ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 962~ ~J /
'
Traffic Safely
' Accident summaries available for the most recent three years from Spokane County and WSDOT
for the intersections ui the study area have been assembled. Generally accidents are documented
by type of occurrence, such as properry damage or injury. One fataliry occurred in the study area
during the years from 1992 to 1995. This occured at the Mission Avenue/McDonald Road
intersection in October 1995 and underscores the need for a signal at this intersection. Accidents
are measured based on frequency per million entering vehicles. This ratio is a function of the
' average daily traffic entering the intersection and the annual frequency of accidents.
Table 2- Accident data for selected intersections within the study area
ACCIDEN'T S'TATISTICS
Intexsection 1992 1993 1994 1995 Per
PDU INJ PDQ INJ PDO INJ PDO I1vJ MIEv
Mission & Evergreen 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.36
Mission & McDonald 2 0 0 3 4 2 1 2 0 80
Pines & Mission 20 12 12 12 6 8 ' 12 13 1.71
z ' 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
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
now or in the future. 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.
Planned Transportation Improvements
The WSDOT has committed to two projects 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
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Inland Constructcon Business Park TIA
'
eastbound off ramp to accommodate two right turn lanes and widen Pines Road at the Mission
Avenue intersection for a second southbound left turn lane. 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 traff'ic going westbound on I-90.
Although a signal has not previously been planned for the intersection of Mission & McDonald,
:due to the need for one, it will be assumed that the County will install one some time in the future. It should be noted that the proposed project does add traffic to this intersection. However, 'w, 4,k~o
warrants for t he signa l are met wi t hout t he a d ditiona l business par k tra f f ic.
Background Projects
The basis for additional trips from other proposed projects is the information on background
projects from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis. Other projects
beyond those in that report were also included.
The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis 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 is a proposed 200 room hotel and
20,000 square feet of office space. The Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers has land use category 710, General Off'ice 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 traff'ic unpact
analysis as a background project is the Wolff Commercial site. 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, Sth 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 northem 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 of the site, a restaurant is
proposed. Thls restaurant was modeled as a High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant, land use
category #832.
Ninery-five percent of the traffic from these uses is expected to use the intersection of Pines &
Mission. From this intersection, the traffic was expected to distribute itself similarly to what the
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 16 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
' present distribution of traffic is depending upon which peak hour was being examined.
Other projects not included as background projects in the Ridgeview Estates Apartment
' CommunitY traffic imPact analYsis are: 1) The trips from Ridgeview Estates APartment
Community; 2) A 72 unit Retirement Complex south of Mission Avenue between Evergreen Road
and Mamer Road (Land Use 250); 3) Phase 1 trips from the Inland Construction Business Park
(Land Use 150 & 710). . .
There are other projects in the plann.ing phase that we are aware of, but have not been included
' in the background traffic. These were not included because the buildout of those ProJ'ects is
beyond completion of this project. These projects are the Lawson/Gunning project, Mirabeau
Point project, and "The Mall" project.
The trip generation rates for these land uses are shown on the following table. Anticipated trip
distribution characteristics are shown on Figures 6 and 7 which follow.
~ Table 3- Trip Generatc'on Ra.tes for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour
' . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
. .PM>:P`-
eak
- u
0
. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
.
Size`
- ~ .
.
. .
. : : . .
.
. .
.
. .
. . . . . ~ . . ~ : .
. .
_ ::<::::<;:::::.:::::::;:::::_-:::;>:::;: er~ E i
- ~ ~ :::>::~:::~nt > n ~ :
. . ~n~ n
. _ , . . . . . :
- - g~.... .
-
' - .
~ u<-:> : ~ -
.
~lzat
e` `V`o- me
_ .
:
. .
;
.
~ -
.
u:..::
:
ceriti::~ o~iine>~ <::F
.
.
. . . . . . Q
~e
. . . . . . . . . .
' - Hotel 200 0. 62 v 124 - 60 % r 74 40 50
Rooms
' . ~
Office 20 S.F. 2.92v 58 17% ~ 10 83% 48
Building'
Strip Mall 9 S.F. ~15.14 / 136 50% 68 50% 68
I
Office 24 S.F. 2.68 v 64 17 11 83 53
Building'• .
Restaurant 5.5 S.F. 12.92 71 56Vo 40 44% 31
Apartments 317 0.63 ~ 200 68 % 136 32 % 64
'
~
Retirement 72 units 0.28 20 56 11 44 9
'
Business Various N/A 43 N/A 10 N/A 33
Park
* - Lawson site
Wolff site
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 17 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
/ \
~
~r
t ~ .
16 ~
INDIANA/MONTGOM K ~
' . . ~
~
~
b NOT TO SCALE
'
15
4 Cf
~
~ W. BOUND RAMPS
Q ^
o b _
~ D
u.1
Z
' 0- r~ N
E. BOUND RAMPS
~ NORA AVENUE
41". 1s , i
' fn ~
o
p N y~///j, ~ ~ J~f ✓ • //W t I -
~
64 cP ~ 89 2
' 78 ~ <Iz- 69 150 ~ .C= 70 59 ~ G- 43 40 28
21 34 20 15 23
Q ~ Q
Q ~ O
, a' 04
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q cr_
z 0
0 oc
o j
woo/
INLAND FIGURE 5 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC BACKGROUND BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINQ P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
707 west 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 PROJECT N0. 96215 /
\Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844, ` TRAFFIC VOLUMES -o
'
' TriP Generation and Distribution
' Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Sth Edition, 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 Phase 2 of Inland Construction Business Park is shown
in Table 4 which follows.
'
Table 4- Trip Generation Rates for Business Park
' . . . , . . ~ . . . = - . . . . . . . . . :
->~Iour~~:<:::::::::>;~:::
. . . .
: .
se . : . : ~ Size: . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
:
. . E n : .
....n#e~i,..g: :.><.:~<~ .:::.::.:.:::.;.~::~utin
. . . . :Rate .
'
. .
= :
; : . • ~
. ; . . . : . .
~ -
. _ 4
°I . u111 ~ ~
y . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . _
. .
Warehouse 40.6 k. S. F., 0.74 35 % 6 65 % 20
1 ~
~
Office Building 27 .1 k. S. F., 2.68 17 % 12 83 % 60
Totals 18 SO
. . ~ ,
' Based u on existin ADT's alon the ad'acent roadwa s= the teak h ur -
p g g ~ y, p o s duectional and turning
volumes at each intersection and field observations of primary driver characteristics determ.ined
~ during actual- field observations and intersection counts, the anticipated trip distribution and
assignment witlutl the general area was determined for the proposed project. Three scenanos were
evaluated for future roadway conditions. They are as follows:
~
1) Without Evergreen Interchange. The Evergreen Interchange may not be constructed and
open to traffic for several years._ In the mean time, buildout will occur for this project.
, This senario evaluates traff'ic during this time period.
2) With Evergreen Interchange and a southbound left turn at Mamer Road/Mission Avenue
' intersection allowed. Left turns at this intersection are cunently allowed with yield
control. In icy conditions, vehicles will experience difficulty climbing the steep slope and
waiting for a break in traffic, and starting up the hill again to turn left onto Mission
, Avenue.
3) With Evergreen Interchange and a southbound left turn at Mamer Road/Mission Avenue
intersection not allowed. Under this senario left turn and through movements at
Mamer/Mission intersection would be prohibited by channelization. A right turn only
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 19 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
' condition would exist with a lane so no stoPPing would be re9uired. This would helP out
those climbing the steep grade in icy conditions, but would hinder easy access to the
~ Evergreen interchange.
The following assumptions were used in determining the distribution of the site generated trips.
1) Without the Evergreen Interchange ' For the exiting trips :
• 10% will go toward areas north of the Pines Interchange. From the site they will access
' Pines Road by way of Nora Road.
• 40 % will go toward areas west of the Pines Interchange using the WB on-ramp. From the
' site they will access Pines Road by way of Nora Road.
• 25 % will go toward areas south of the Mission/Pines intersection. From the site they will
go to Mission and then south onto Pines Road.
'
• 5% will go south on McDonald Road.
• 5% will go soutti on Evergreen Road. j
~ -
• 5% will go east on Mission Ave.
, • 10 % will go east on I-90. From the site they will go to the Pines Interchange using Nora
Road and then onto the Freeway usmg the Eastbound on-ramp. Even though there is some
backtrack with this route, there are no signal to go through, only right turns. A route to
, the Sullivan interchange would mean a left turn onto Mission, and a signal at Sullivan
Road.
, For entering trips
1 • Trips entering will be coming with the same distribution percentages as where exiting trips
are going.
Nora Ave. will be used for entering trips only for half of those coming from south of the
MissionlPines intersection. All others wfll use Mission Ave. and Mamer to get to the srte.
2) With Evergreen Interchange - Left turn allowed at Mamer & Mission
Same assumptions as #1 with the following exceptions:
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 20 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
,
1
' • Eastbound trips will go to Mission to access the Evergreen Interchange and I-90.
• Half of the 40% going westbound on I-90 toward the city will use Evergreen Interchange
' and the other half will use Pines Interchange.
With Evergreen Interchange - Left turn prohibited at Mamer & Mission
'
Same assumptions as #1 with the following exceptions:
• Those exiting the site going south on Evergreen or east on Mission will turn right onto
Mission and go south on McDonald to either Sprague or Broadway.
• Those accessing I-90 eastbound and westbound will use the Pines Interchange only.
'
Traffic volume assignments for the three scenarios are shown in Figures 6, 7& 8.
'
~
'
1
~
,
,
Inland Pacifcc Engineering, Inc. 21 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
'
,
N
V ,
'
~ 4 =
~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
z;>
i
N
~ NOT TO SCALE
~
~2
~Q
N ~
W. BOUND RAMPS
' ° .
Q ~
90
W 9 ~j
z Q ~
0- o ao
~
i E. BOUND RAMPS .
~
~ .
~ 48 NORA AVENUE
~
'
•
Q°
o
~
. Q
~
N G
✓ Y V
17
~ 16 ~ 20 4~ 2'
~ 20 ~ 4 4 c:z~\7 ~
cr_
I Z
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q w
z ~
o ~
o w
U >
INLAND FIGURE 6 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC SI TE GEN ER ATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINQ W/0 EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th •suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROJECT N0. 96215
\ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-684 TRAFFIC VOLUMES J\ ~
'
N
'
.
+
4 ~ -f
I ~
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
N ~
NOT TO SCALE
~CO
~ W. BOUND RAMPS
, o -
Q N
O ~
w 90
1 ~ 4
z
~
~ Q
~
N
E. BOUND RAMPS .
NORA AVENUE
~ 24
~ 0
M N ~ ~ / f
w
G
Q
ip d N ~
N r'')
~0 J, knio
1 ~zo 9 ~ az4 .
0
Q a
~ o 0
Of
~ Z
MISSION AVENUE o w.
Q ~
' lz ~
0 NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD w
v AND MISSION VENUE ALLOWED >
~ - ~ W ~
/ i~=~ INLAND FIGURE 7 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
Mimi PACIFIC SITE GENERATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERINQ WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 west 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
~ Spokone. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844, ` TR AFFI C VOLU M ES J~ PROJECT N0. 96215 J
N •
'
I y a,
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y
N
NOT TO SCALE
~z
~Q
N 00 W. E30UND RAMPS
o Q ~
o ~ . w 90 .
V) 9mz~l
W
Z
a-
E. BOUND RAMPS =
. ' M . ~
~ NORA AVENUE '
Q 48
o ~
w
~
- Q .
~
17 3
, 16~ 20 Q
20 ~ 12
Q p
_ o ~
z
Mo w,
. Q ~
0 NOT
E: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD AND ~
0 W
~ MISSION AVE E NOT ALLOWED I W
INLAND FIGURE 8 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC SITE GENERATED BUSINESS PARK
ENQINEERING WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P. M. P EAK H OU R TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokone, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458-6844/ ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 /
~
, FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
Future year eveni.ng weekday peak hour impacts of the potential traffic generated by the proposed
projects along Mission Avenue and Pines Road were analyzed as follows:
• Trip generation estimates of the future morning and evening 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.
• Traffic volumes on each transportation system element at build out were deternuned
assuming the existing traffic would experience a 3% per year compounded growth rate due
to unidentified sources. Identified background projects listed previously were included
above the 3% growth rate.
• Trip assignments from the background projects are as shown in Figure 5. Most of the
traffic from these projects is expected to use the intersection of Mission & Pines and to
disperse from there.
• Forecasted traffic volumes for Phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park as
2
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 development and with
' development traff c scenarios in order to identify any capacity or level of service
deficiencies due to the development of the proposed project on either Mission Avenue or
Pines Road.
'
• Build out of the Phase 2 of the Inland Construction Business Park is anticipated to be
complete in 1997. Therefore, 1997 is the baseline year of this study.
~
• Improvements scheduled for Pines Road by WSDOT and installation of a signal at Mission
Avenue/McDonald Road intersection were assumed to be completed as part of the
'
unprovements by others.
'
BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service calculations were made for build out of the business park, anticipated in 1997.
Analyses for conditions both with and without the proposed project were performed with the three
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
' scenarios concerning 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. Based upon the existing levels of service, the
'
intersection of Mission & McDonald is presently at unacceptab1e 1evels of service. Therefore,
changes at this intersection are currently needed and the need for changes will only increase in the
, future.
The background traff'ic volumes include the existing traffic, the Lawson Hotel/Office complex,
the Wolff Commercial site, a 72 unit retirement complex on Evergreen Road, the Ridgeview
Estates Apartment Community, Phase 1 of the Inland Construction Business Part and a
compounded growth rate of 3% per year on all of the streets. See Figure 5 for the traffic volumes
from the background projects and Figure 9 for the total background traff'ic volumes used. A
summary of the HCS results is shown in Table 5 which follows.
r Table 5- Build Out Year Traffic Without Proposed Project
W1~~~. ~ PR O T ~JEC:~ T..;....: ~ F
. . - - -
O IC
. : BU~l~ .
.
.
. : ~
: : ~ ~'~~ZS~C> . . . .
.
. .N.... . . : :
.
.
.
. : ~ : . .~:~:::>>::::<.;:;;::>.::<:. V~.}t~iout:Irn -:.r:o:~emerits - . i. ..=:Im .`rov:em~nts;
. . . . - ~
. : :
.
. :
~ - . . = DELA
. ~:DE.:>'A>~:::::::;:::;.~~~ . L
OS
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12.1 sec. B 11.6 sec. B
, Et
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 36.8 sec. D 19.9 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 58.4 sec. E~ 29.2 sec. D
,
Pines Rd./Nora Road 7.9 sec. B(*) 7.9 sec. B(*)
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 42.8 sec. E 36.1 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 302.4 sec. F(*) 12.6 sec. B
, Mission Ave./Mamer Road 11.2 sec. C(*) 11.2 sec. C(*)
' Denotes unsignalized intersection.
For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement
' through the intersection.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system not including the proposed project, will cause the level of service at the
Pines Road/EB I-90 ramp intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS E, the Pines Road/Mission
Avenue intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS E, and the Mission Avenue/Mamer Road
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 26 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
N `
R n n ,W I
50 112
14 =~J C- 44
323 81
>
u.
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y " ~ " ,~r✓,~.:~~~.~,~
r✓/ < o' °o
oo
C ~ NOT TO SCALE
~ 20
257
~ ~ Cf
W. BOUND RAMPS
o ~r ~ O .n
Q r n
O ~ v
(y- 243 90
a
W 1038
. Z
. CL o
E. BOUND RAMPS
NORA AVENUE
'~km 34 -
C)
<
0 J
co
W
~
N N a
N et N~ N L
/ooo/
195 504 12 J, ~ 14
' 207 ~ Gm- 239 544 C= 375 437 G- 374 289 ~J G,- 252
57 133 218 ~ 9 4 Q 4~ ~ z 154 -4~7 ~ 40 Q
Q
N
LL r-
N P' 00 LO N O 00
MISSION AVENUE n w
w
. Q ~
z ~
o of
c~ w
U >
` ~ wJ
INLAND FIGURE 9 INLAND CONSTRUCTION \
PACIFIC 1997 BUILD OUT BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING WITHOUT PROJECT
707 West 711 •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
`Spokane, WA 99204 FAx: (509) 458-6844,, ` TR AFFI C VOLU M ES J~ PROJECT N0. 96215 /
'
intersection to slip from LOS B to LOS C. With the proposed improvements on Pines Road and
the addditional triops added to the transportation system not including the proposed project, the
level of service at the Pines Road/WB Ramps will improve from LOS D to LOS C. If a signal is
installed at the Mission Avenue/McDonald Road intersection, the level of service will improve
from LOS F to LOS B.
'
Using the number of generated trlps shown on Table 4 and estunated trip distributions shown on
Figures 6, 7& 8 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use
the transportation system at build out is obtained. Figures 10, 11 & 12 show the future traffic
volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes, build out year level of service
calculations are perforrned and the results are displayed in Tables 6, 7& 8.
Table 6- Build Out Year Traffic With Proposed Project
Without Evergreen Interchange
.
: . ~ .
. .
BI~ILDOUT'WITH PROJTRA- FIC:~:
. - . .
_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- .
. . .
~IT..: ~RSECTION ; .
. .
. .
. .
. ,
; ~ ~ .
, :
. = - ~ ~ -
.
. . . . .
Wi~out:Im roveinent,s' eme
. . . : :
. .
->;:::>:<:::::;::::::<::.:;::>:::>::>~::>::
- ~:O'
: :.::.;:.:<.::.::<.:::.::<:::.;;;;:>;;.:.> . . . . .....L~~LA:' .........L~J~.-~-----
~ - : ::::::::::DELt~~`:::~:~::
. . . . . . . : _ . , . . .
.
.
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12.3 sec. B 11.6 sec. B
- ~
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 42.5 sec. E 21.4 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 72.0 sec. F 36.4 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 9.0 sec. B(*) 9.0 sec. B(*)
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 44.7 sec. E 35.2 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 351.8 sec. F(*) 12.6 sec. B
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 12.4 sec. C(*) 12.4 sec. C(*)
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system by the proposed project, will cause the level of service at the Pines
' Road/WB I-90 ramp intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS E and the Pines Road/EB I-90 ramp
intersection to slip from LOS E to LOS F over the buildout without project conditions under this
senario. With the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no change in the level of
service between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 28 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
Table 7- Build Out Year Traffic With Proposed Project
With Evergreen Interchange, Left Turn at Mamer Interseclion Allowed
' _ . . .
0
: ~ : .U
. . ; - PR JE
~ O T C
~ . . T.~'T~.
: . . .
:
:
.
..::::::>;:~:;.:.;-:>:::>:::::<:»»;:::::::»-<::::;:;_:;.::::: :Wathout::I~ri "zo~e en~s~:.:
. . . .-:::..:...,P::::._ ..:?t~>:::::....::.:
. _ . . .
io.";::-~i~:~~AY.::
Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12.3 sec. B 11.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 38.4 sec. D 20.6 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 68.4 sec. F 35.8 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 8.4 sec. B(*) 8.4 sec. B(*)
Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 44.2 sec. E 34.9 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 341.0 sec. F(*) 12.8 sec. B
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 12.2 sec. C(*) , 12.2 sec. C(*)
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
Without any improvements to the txansportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system by the proposed project, will cause the level of service at the Pines RoadlEB
I-90 ramp intersection to slip from LOS E to LOS F over the buildout without project conditions
under this senario. With the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no change in
the level of service between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
'
'
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 29 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
~
' Table 8- Build Out Year Traffic With ProPosed ProJ'ect
With Evergreen Interchange, Left Turrz at Mamer Intersection No( Allowed
' . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
: . . . . .
. . ~ : : ~ T : > : : :PRO~:ECT~ TR:A~'EI:G
~ : . : ::I~~~. I~....U ~ . . .
: . . . . . . . .
,
~ . .
. . .
.
.
. Z::::~C'~~~~.:::>;::~:~:>~:..:•
. . ~ .
. tho.utmProveinen~~ ~ WiroVements<;=:~.
. :P.,
1 . - - - - . . : . . .
:
:1F.:::_
~::~IJ~~:;A:- ~ ~ : LOS .DE~AY~ . .
. . . . . . . .
~
' Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 12.3 sec. B 11.6 sec. B
Pines Rd./WB Ramps 42.9 sec. E 21.4 sec. C
Pines Rd./EB Ramps 72.0 sec. F 36.4 sec. D
Pines Rd./Nora Road 9.0 sec. B(*) 9.0 sec. B(*)
' Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 44.7 sec. E 35.2 sec. D
Mission Ave./McDonald Road 380.8 sec. F(*) 12.4 sec. B
' * *
Mission Ave./Mamer Road 12.6 sec. CO 12.6 sec. CO
Denotes unsignalized intersection.
.
Without any improvements to the transportation system, the additional trips added to the
transportation system by the proposed project, will cause the level of service at the Pines
Road/WB I-90 ramp intersection to slip from LOS D to LOS E and the Pines Road/EB I-90 ramp
intersection to slip from LOS E to LOS F over the buildout without project conditions under this
' senario. With the proposed improvements on Pines Road, there will be no change in the level of
service between buildout with or buildout without the project conditions.
1
'
'
'
Inland Pacifzc Engineering, Inc. 30 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
~
, 50 ✓ ~ 112
14 ~ 44 .
323 81
0''0o
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y ~
. ~
~
~ b NOT TO SCALE
20
~ 259
a4
cn IM
0 ` W. BOUND RAMPS
' o LO N .
o~
Q
243 J, 90
~
' V) ' i 047 X
Z
~ , ~
,
E. BOUND RAMPS .
.
NORA AVENUE
~ 82 0
4 ~ o rf f~
N O
CO
1 co I.L ~ r I
LiJ .1.~'°= ; %
2
N N ~ w ~ N Q
. ~ba ~ba
195 ~ i;~t, 504
207 ~i C- 239 560 ~ ~ 395 29 ~ 293 ~ C~--a 254
' 57 ~ •~i 153 218 98 ~4 ~ ~ 372 158 ' 48 0
Q Q
N ~ O ~ ~ N A/
' ~y LL
MISSION AVENUE o z
~ w
Q w
z ~
. o ~
o >
ILLI,.O/
INLAND FIGURE 10 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
, PACIFIC ~ e-~vff, ,T-rc' = BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING W 0 EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844/ ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M E S J\ PROJECT N0. 96215 /
/
~ N ~ p!
n
' 50 112
. 14 ~ r`--44 .
323 81
im in o
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y " ° "
NOT TO SCALE
zo
a i
~ 257
~Q
' ~ rn
W. BOUND RAMPS
o LO to Q o_
o
~ 243 ~ . . . .
~ 90
Z 1042
E. BOUND RAMPS
j
NORA AVENUE
58 00 - ~ " / ' e f ~ ~ •
w
~
(V N d- • ~ ~ ~ ~
v v
195 ~ 504 22 czfi~ ~
' 207 ~ C- 239 24 57 553 ~ ~ 395 437 ~ ~ 374
~ /r 153 218 98 Q 4~ ~ 2 ¢
N~CD LO to p O
, ~
^
r
MISSION AVENUE o Z
_j
w
Q ~
z ~
o ~
C) NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD ALLOWED W
w~
♦ I NLAND FIGURE 11 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC 1997 WITH PROJECT BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 West 7th •Suite 200 (549) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
\ Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844,, ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215 /
rn ~
n
' 50~ ~112
14 44
323 81
' o,Lno
INDIANA/MONTGOM Y N m N
' rn i
~rn
20 NOT TO SCALE
~
G~ 1
259
~ r
rn n~
W. BOUND RAMPS
t 0 o .2
0 ~
243 90
W 1047 ~
Z
n- ° o
' tn V)
E. BOUND RAMPS ~
NORA AVENUE
~
~ az
Q
f
°
W
~
N N <
, N N N G
195 ~ ~5Q4 ~ ~
29 17
' 207 <-239 560 395 437 -m> 374 :
57 153 218 106 4~ 2 ~
Q
N~~ ~ ~ O 0
1 ~
MISSION AVENUE o z
J
•
Q W
~
' Z ~
O ~
0 NOTE: LEFT TURN A MAMER ROAD w
NOT ALLOWED W ..O/
INLAND FIGURE 12 INLAND CONSTRUCTION ~
PACIFIC 1997 WITH PROJECT BUSINESS PARK
ENGINEERING WITH EVERGREEN I/C
707 west 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458-6840 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
~
~ Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458-6844/ ~ TR AFFI C VOLU M ES PROJECT N0. 96215
\
'
' The addition of the Inland Construction Business Park, Phase 2 will not cause anY of the
intersections to fall into unacceptable levels of service with the improvements that are scheduled
for construction. If none of the scheduled improvements are constructed on Pines Road, levels
' of service will be below accePtable levels for the westbound and eastbound ramA intersections and
the Mission Avenue intersection. Note that the intersection of Mission & McDonald was analyzed
as a signalized intersection for the "With Improvements" scenario. If this intersection is left
' unsi nalized th
g , e PM peak hour level of service will be at F with 300 to 400 seconds of delay
depending on the Evergreen Interchange for the worst movement. As stated before, the other
intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service until after the build out of this
project.
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 are minimal. This conclusion was reached
, and is documented within the body of this report.
• The unsignalized intersections within the project area are presently functioning at
' level of service C or better with the exception of Mission Avenue & McDonald
. Road. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is presently functioning at level
of service F. The signalized intersections within the study area are currently
functioning at level of service D or:bette'r. .
• The increase in traffic within the next year without the addition of the Phase 2
Inland Construction Business Park trips will lower the level of service at the
following intersections; Pines and the eastbound I-90 ramp terminal intersection
and the Pines and Mission Avenue intersection. Both of these intersections will
' dro in level of service from LOS D to LOS E for the PM pe
A ak hour traffic. With
WSDOT scheduled i.mprovements, the LOS for the above two intersections on
' Pines Road will improve to LOS D. The level of service at Mission and McDonald
during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS F without signal installation.
, • Without the scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the addition of the proposed
Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park project would cause the level of service
at the intersection of Pines & westbound I-90 rarnp terminals to drop from LOS D
, to LOS E in all of the Evergreen Interchange scenarios except for the scenario with
the Evergreen Interchange allowing southbound left turns at the Mission & Mamer
intersection. Also without the scheduled improvements on Pines Road, the addition
of the proposed project trips will cause the level of service at the intersection of
Pines & eastbound I-90 ramp terminals to drop from LOS E to LOS F for all
scenarios of the Evergreen Interchange. However, with the scheduled safety and
Inland Pacifzc Engineering, Inc. 34 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
t capacity improvements on Pines by WSDOT, there will be no change in thc level
of service with the addition of the Phase 2 Inland Construction Business Park
project. Levels of service will be LOS D or better with or without the proposed
,
ProJ'ect for the build out Year.
• There is no measureable benefit to the traffic this project will generate by having
the Evergreen Interchange constructed. Comparing the delay times in Tables 6, 7,
and 8 for the different senarios with and without the Evergreen Interchange, there
is no appreciable improvement in the delay times with the Evergreen Interchange
over without the Evergreen Interchange.
'
RECOMMENDA TIONS
Based upon ttie analysis presented, the proposed development of the Phase 2 Inland Construction
Business Park will have no significant impact on the transportation system within the general
geographic area. 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:
• Frontage improvements as required by the County.
• Future participation in the McDonald/Mission intersection signal improvements
- based on additional PM peak hour trips added to the intersection from the project.
,
'
'
Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 35 Inland Construction Business Park TIA
T~~~HNI+CAL APP'ENDIX
~
I
~
~
INEF-
UNSIGNALLZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE DFSCRIPTIONS
: . . . . . ~ h . ?
' .
. . f~•/ ~ . SL{ ~4Q
1
Ti ' r - f y, c ` tr ~'W~rVRiV ~~~13V4-i L,~Fr
.'.Los.. . ' 'J`it/ . . . x~ 4 . > / . _ . . ....f. . . .
A - More than adequate gaps available to prc>ceed.
- Verv seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue.
B - Little delay encountered with adequate gaps available.
- Occasionallv there is more than one vefiicle in tlie queue.
- Delays are short but persistent as the number of gaps reduce
C and driver comfort drops.
- Usuallv there is more than one vehicle in the queue.
- Always at least one vehicle in the queue.
D - Drivers feel quite restricted due to the few gaps available in
which to make a safe turnine movement.
- Delays are long and at this los drivers may begin looking for
alternative routes prior to entering the queue.
E - Represents a condition in which the demand equals or exceeds
the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection.
- Alwavs more than one vehicle in the aueue.
- Delays are long, driverfrustration is high and it is not `
, F unusual to see drivers in the queue turn around to find .
alternative routes. i
- Forced flow; little to no available gaps. - Represents an intersection at failure condition.
UNSIGNALIZED I]vT`ERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SFRVICE CRITERIA
. . ; _ _
.
_ . r.
r .
. ~ela sec : ~e~r~ ~f ~erYZC~ . ~X ~ela ia ~iROT 5~te~t -
T ~
. { . . ` fi
5 A Little of No Delav
~
5 _ 10 B Short Traffic Delavs
> 10 - 20 C Avera2e Traffic Delavs
' > 20 - 30 D Lone Traffic Delavs
> 30 - 45 E Verv LonE Traffic Delavs
> 45 F Pr?topped ression Breakdown
Condition
'
1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF SERYICE DE.SCRIMONS
...•..:.-::..;.;.yv:},•;:.:.• - : ~ i.:is:•; r. , r. ri l
1 A . a. . f:~:.J1~ x , . .
I ~ . • : . ♦ . . . :
ue'~ trv C~6 .:~:~~f~ ~a~rr.~t,a~t'~~fet~S~CS _ . . . .....r......
. j
' A Little to no average sto,pped delay, average is less than five seconds
per vehicle. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths
mav also contribute to low delay.
B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 secondsper
vehicle. Ttus generally occurs with good progression andlor short
cvcle leneths.
C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per
vehicle. These higher delays may result from fa.ir progression
and/or longer cycre lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is
siQnificant 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 af unfavorable
' progression, long cycle length, or high volumelcapacity ratios.
Most, if not all, vehicles stop. This is considered to be the limit of
accentable delav.
E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per
vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor
Droeression. Ione cvcle leneths, and hiiah volumelcanacitv ratios.
,
F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 secondspe r vehicle. This
con di tion o f t en occurs wi t h over saturation o f f he intersaction. It
mav a lso occur wi t h volum e lcapacitv ratios af 1.0 or above.
'
SIGNALIZED I]'VfiERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITFjRIA
~ . ,
_ ' r ?
~.ev~~ S~opped Delay r
Ve.-icle .
i A 5.0
B 5.1 to 15.0
' C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 40.0
, E 40.0 to60.0
F > 60.0
Source: Trmspartation Res&arckl Board; "Highway C,apacity Nlanual," SNcial Peport 209
(1994).
'
'
'
'
,
EXI.STING
LEVELS OF SERVICE
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
:A P 0,t
' Mission & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 41 ~J
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 131 129 36 99 170 415 20 977 45 348 1272 167
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 323 0 0 294 432 21 1118 0 362 1574 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3582 3662 1583 1770 3703 1770 3662
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3582 3662 1583 1770 3703 1770 3662
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 20 20 8 35 25 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VIC Ratio 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.24 0.94 0.93 0.88
' P(atoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.10
Average Delay (s.) 29 29 13 35 36 48 23
Level of Service a D B D D E C
, Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 60 (60%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused. Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 81 ° o
Intersection Delay: 28.5
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
L4 ' 1 LLq 3 T4
,
6 E1 7 ~3
'
'
svnclirc, -1.0 Report J:~,DC?Cl_iMLNT'\06`' 1 5'\F'INEE'tilEX.51'4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
'
' E6 Ramps & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~t ~ -.1, 1 'r E' ~1 ' T 0 `l *j I
'
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 940 0 0 0 0 1383 271 157 984 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 1219 0 0 0 0 0 1772 0 160 1054 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1627 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1770 1627 3640 1770 3725
Left Tum 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
VIC Ratio 1.03 1.04 1.00 0.48
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.70 1.16 0.84
Average Delay (s.) 58 41 98 8
Level of Service E E F B
, Cycle Length: 100
Offset 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 103%
Intersection Delay: ?9 0'
Intersection LOS: d
, 'Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
112 J_tA 4
~
5 6
'
'
'
S}''(1it1Cl) 2.0 Rq)oI'( ~''•I'1';f'I'.'tii~.ti..S
[nland Pacific Engineering, li'FC: Page 2
' WB Ramps & Pines Qccober 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
UJL~~
EBL ~
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 242 1 20 570 882 0 0 927 11~~
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 283 0 613 996 0 0 1181 ~Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1583 1770 3725 366
, Satd. Fiow (Perm. ) 1583 1770 3725 366.
Left Tum Type Penrt Split Prot Perr
Phase Number 5 5 8 4
Phase Lagging? Ye
Current Split (s.) 22 22 40 78 3u
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.94 0.94 0.36 0.92
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.05 2.22 0,77
-~verage Delay (s.) 57 39 7 26
i_ evel of Service E D B p
~ Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 49 (49%), Referenced tc phase 2-? Jnused. QF~-ain rf Green
Intersection ViC Ratio: 93°~'~ Intersection Delay: 25.5
! ~ ~ ~ersection IOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB RamPs &Piries
'
fi {
T _
~1 f3 7
,
~
'
~
,
~
fnland Pacific Fngine.erinp, IPFC
,
' Indiana & Pines OCcoaer;2, 1996
Lanes, Voiumes, and Timings Summary
1-t I --I 1~ 1 01 ~ I *j ~
EBL EBT E6R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 307 81 44 112 129 812 20 9 667 2'
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 395 0 0 252 0 137 929 0 10 768
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 ?
Satd. Flow (Prot. ) 1458 1531 1770 3714 1770 37
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1305 1003 371 3714 238 37 ~
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Per
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
ruRent Spfit (s.) 48 48 52 52
Alow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
'C Ratio 0.67 0.56 0.75 0.51 0.09 0.42
lataon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.55 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 19 17 20 7 10 13
Level of Service C C C B g g
Cycle Length: 100
:Jffset 94 (94°/a), Referencnd 'tc, ~.>ha>e 2-N3-'-QQ, B;3.~;n nt c"reen
- Aersection V/C Ratio: 71
~ fntersection Delay~ 12 ?Intersection [_C)S- ~
t ~ Splits and Phases: Irtciiana & Pines ~T 2 .14
r w.;u- + • . .
~
~
'
~
~
~
'
1:1liUCt1N1ENi19021SOPiNE[`',`:
1r't'md Parific 1pTr'
,i
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOEXPM.HCO Page 1
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) Nora Road
Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min).
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/17/96
Other Information......... Existing Traffic (10/10/96 counts)
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1552 S 15
PHF .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s (0-0)
PCE's - - 1.10
_ _ ~L _
' t • "
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
' Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
1
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOEXPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
L-e-p 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 811
otential Capacity: (pcph) 538
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 538
rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
Intersection Performance Summary
, Avg. 950,
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
llovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
. 6.9
~B R 18 538 6.9 0.0 B
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
'
- -
1 . • .
'
' .
'
'
'
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCEXPM.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) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
' Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) -
Analyst Tim Schwab
' Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96 .
Other Information......... Existing Traffic
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
' Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
' No. Lanes
Stop/Yield N N .
Volumes 394 198 79 305 168 73 ' PHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
SU/RV' s (0i)
' CV' s
PCE's. 1.10 11.10 1.10
1 .
' Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
' Through Traff ic Minor Road _ 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
'
'
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCEXPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
~
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 340
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 931
Movement Capacity: (pcph) . ~ 931
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90
'
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 681
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 739
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 739
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. ~
' _of_Queue_Free_State _ 0_85
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1009
Potential Capacity: (pcpl~) 240
Major LT, Minor.; TH - ,
' Impedance Factor: 0.85 ' -
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.85
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 204-
, 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)
~ NB--L--- --212- --204- -117.7- ---8.1- --F--
83.4
NB R 92 931 4.3 0.3 A
WB L 100 739 5.6 0.5 B 1.2
Intersection Delay = 16.9 sec/veh
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAEXPM.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) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) ~ .
Analyst Tim Schwab
lDate of Analysis........... 10/17/96
Other Information......... Existing Traffic (10/09/96 counts)
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
' Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
'No. Lane s
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 4~378 4 2 331 12 8 4 1 8 4 12
,PHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
MC' s (0-0)
SU/RV's (o)
lcv Is (o)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
-
- -
' .
' Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
,Through Traff ic Minor Road _ 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
,
'
'
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAEXPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 396 352
~ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 872 918
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 872 918
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 398 358
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1108 1157
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1108 1157
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
,Major LT Shared Lane Prob. ~
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
iConflicting-Flows:-(vph) 760 756
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 435 438
Capacity AdjustmentlFactor
'due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99 •
lMovement Capacity: (pcph) 432 435 '
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
iStep-4:-LT-from-Minor-Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 762 756
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 383 386
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: . 0.98 0.98
i Adjusted Impedance Factor: . 0.98 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 367. 381 -
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAEXPM.HCO Page 3
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)
NB L 9 367 >
NB T 4 432 > 401 9.3 0.0 B 9.3
NB R 1 872 >
SB L 14 381 >
SB T 7 435 > 560 7.0 0.2 B 7.0
SB R 22 918 >
EB L 4 1157 3.1 0.0 A 0.0
WB L 2 1108 3.3 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
,
, .
'
'
,
'
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVEXPM.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) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
, Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/24/96
Other Information......... Existing Traffic
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
' No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 249 131 40 224 126- 26 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s (0i)
CV' s (0-6)
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
. .
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
, Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
'
'
'
,HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVEXPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
lStep-l:-RT-from-Minor-Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 331
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 941
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 941 •
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
I-S-t-e-p-2--:--L-T--f-r-o-m-M--aj-o--r-S-t--r-ee-t WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 400
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1105
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1105
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
ITH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
lConflicting Flows: (vph) 609
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 470
,Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 _
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
lMovement Capacity: (pcph) 447
' Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
~
--146- --447->------
INB L---
491 11.4 1.7 C 11.4
~A ~
NB R 30 941 >
IWB L 46 1105 3.4 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh
!
,
BUILD OUT YEAR
LEVFLS OF SEIZVICE
WITHUUT PRQJECT
s
1
'
1 ~
t-bOJT f : T
Mission & Pines Gctober 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ L-1j, Ld LI-i Li-i ~ Ti Ld L4 y *j I
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 133 239 504 29 979 88 469 1272 222
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 406 525 30 1167 0 489 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Left Tum Type Spfit Spiit Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Spiit (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.21 1.09 0.99 0.91
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.09
Average Delay (s.) 37 37 16 33 80 54 25
Level of Service D D C D F E C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 59 (59%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 96%
Intersection Delay: 42.8
Intersection LOS: E
Splits arkd Phases: Mission & Pines
3 4
T
~ E1 7 ~ 8
1
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENTl962151PINEPMBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 1 '
1 r,
,
.
EB Ramps & Pines occober 22, 1996
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
Li *j
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VYBR NBL NBT NBR-, SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1038 0 0 0 0 1530 196 157 1061 0
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 690 0 617 0 0 0 0 1849 0 160 1137 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1654 1583 3666 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1654 1583 3666 1770 3725
' Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 39 39 50 11 61
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0
V/C Ratio 1.16 1.08 1.07 1.13 0.53
t Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.20 0.09
Average Delay (s.) 118 81 55 155 1
Level of Service F F E F A
' Cycle Length: 100
Offser 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 108%
f ntersection Delay: 58.4 ~N`
Intersection LOS: E
Sptits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines
2 - 4
5 T 6
'
1
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:"I)OCiIMEN'I\962151PINEPMBO.SY4
inlartd Aacific Cngitlcering, IPEC Page 2
'
' WB Ramps & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Votumes, and Tjmings Summary
1-t ' -I Ld H 'L 01 41
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 257 1 20 677 931 0 0 988 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 299 0 728 1051 0 0 1249 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
, Current Split (s.) 22 22 42 78 36
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.99 1.05 0.38 1.03
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.40 0.36 0.86 I
' Avera9e DelaY (s. ) 69 52 1 50
Level of Service F E A E
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 14 (14%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 103%
Intersection Delay: 36.8
intersection LOS: D
.
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines ' 4
T
1
~ 5 F1 8 ~ 7
'
'
1
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\.D4CUMENT1962151PINEPMBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC f'aec 3
,
'
' Indiana & Pines Uctober 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~t ~ 1--4,1 r E- 4-- `l I
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 867 20 9 712 21 •
' Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 990 0 10 818 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1308 959 337 3714 212 3711
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4_0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.80 0.52 0.09 0.43
Piatoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.42 1.00 1.00
' Average Delay (s.) 21 19 22 5 10 12
Level of Service C C C A Q 6
Cycle Leng►h: 100
Offset: 63 (63%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
intersection Delay: 12.1
lntersection LOS: 6
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Ptnes '
t 2 ~ 4
~ -l
~
,
~
~
~
Synchro 2.0 Report J:iDOCUMENT06215tPINEPMBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC 4'age 4
J
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOBOPM.HCO Page 1
, Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
' Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392 0378
l Streets: (N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) .
Analyst Tim Schwab
' Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout without Project
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection .
, Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1682 7 34
l PHF .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0
MC's (a)
SU/RV' s ( o )
'CV's (o)
PCE's -1.10
----------------------y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
, Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOBOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
,
Step 1. RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 880
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 496
Movement Capacity:. (pcph) 496
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92
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)
7.9 .
WB R 39 496 7.9 0.2 B
Intersection Delay = 0.2 sec/veh
• e •
'
'
'
~
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCBOPM.HCO Page 1
enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h: (904) 392-0378
-
F
treets: (N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
ajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
(nalyst Tim Schwab
ate of Analysis.......... 10/21/96 _
ther Information......... Buildout without project
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
o. Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 > 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
trade olumes 544 218 94 375 175 92
HF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
0 0 0
MC's (o)
U/RV' s ( o )
Irv's ( o)
PCE's - 1.10 . ~ 1.10 1.10 .
Y---------------------------------~----------
' Adjustment Factors ~
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
eft Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
ight Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
hrough Traffic Minor Road . 6.50 3.30
teft Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
,
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCBOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 438
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 831
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 831
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 876
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 581
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 581
kT rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.80
H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.77
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
lConflicting-Flows:-(vph) 1290
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 158 ,
aj or LT, LMinor TH • -
Impedance Factor: . 0.77 .
rmjusted Impedance Factor': 0.77 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.77 .
Lovement Capacity: (pcph) - 121
, Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
221 121 458.7 15.1 F
tB--L---
302.4
B R 117 831 5.0 0.5 B
B L 119 581 7.8 0.8 B 1.6
Intersection Delay = 54.4 sec/veh
4. .
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMABOPM.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) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) ~
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
10ther Information......... Buildout without project
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 12 437 4 2 374 14 8 4 1 12 4 22
PHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
MC' s (01)
SU/RV's (o)
CV' s (01)
PCE's 11.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
, ~
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
,Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road ~ 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
'
'
'
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMABOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 457 398
otential Capacity: (pcph) 812 870
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 812 870
ts r ob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.96
tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 459 405
totential Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1099
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1099
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of_Queue_Free_State_ : 1-.00
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
F__onflicting_Flows:_(vph) 877 872
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 378 380 apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 -
(ovement Capacity: (pcph) 370 372
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
ttep-4:-LT-from-Minor-Street NB
SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 883 872
f~ajor otential Capacity: (pcph) 326 331
LT, Minor TH
,Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.97
djusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.98
apacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93 0.98
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 302 323
F
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMABOPM.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
~
Avg. 9500
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
lMovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 9 302 >
' NB T 4 370 > 335 11.2 0.0 C 11.2
NB R 1 812 >
'SB L 22 323 >
SB T 7 372 > 516 8.0 0.4 B 8.0
SB R 39 870 >
IEB L 14 1099 3.3 0.0 A 0.1
WB L 2 1036 3.5 0.0 A 0.0
I Intersection Delay = 0.6 sec/veh
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVBOPM.HCO Page 1
lCenter For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
iDate of Analysis . . . . . ; . . . . 10/24/96
Other Information......... Buildout without Project
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
, Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
I----
o. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 289 154 40 252 143 26
trade HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
0 0 0
MC's (o)
U/RV' s (0i)
rcv I s (o)
PCE's. - 1.10 1.10 1.10 ,
L
' Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
eft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
teft Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
'
,
,
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVBOPM.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
RT from Minor Street NB SB
-
Lte P 1.
onflicting Flows: (vph) 385
otential Capacity: (pcph) 884
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 884
rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
tep 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
onflicting Flows: (vph) ' 466
Lotential Capacity: (pcph) 1028
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1028
rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of_Queue_Free_State___________________0_95
t
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 692
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 421
aj or LT, Minor TH i <
Impedance Factor: _ 0.95
tdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
Lovement Capacity: (pcph) 399
' 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)
1 --166- --399->------
436 14.8 2.3 C 14.8
B R 30 884 >
B L 46 1028 3.7 0.0 A 0.5
, Intersection Delay = 2.9 sec/veh
'
'
BUILD OUT YEAJl2
LEVELS OF SERVICE
VVITHUUT PROJECT
INCLUDING IMP120VEMENTS
4N PINES AND MISSION
1
1
'
1
1
~
~ .
~ • , . , ~
Mission & Pines Uctober 23, tyyo
Lanes, Volumes, and Tjmings Summary
' . . . . ~
I LA 1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 133 239 504 29 979 88 469 1272 2221
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 434 560 30 1167 0 503 1634 C,
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 ^
~ Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 3540 36z
~-itd. Fiow (Perm.) 3585 3662 1583 1770 3681 3540 W
n Tum Type Split Split Prot pu
,ase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 6
:lase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 38 18 48
<311ow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
::'C Ratio 0.82 0.56 0.98 0.34 0.91 0.95 1.00
: atoon Factor 1.00 1.05 1.02 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.03
erage Delay (s.) 37 29 39 36 30 48 38
,vel of Service D r P n n E C
-
ycle Length. 1 C ~
- ffseL 49 (49%), .:ersection V!C Ratio
~ .-tersection Delay: ~;7
~ersection LOS: 11
' Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines
1 3 4
~ •`tt ~S
~
~
~
~
~
f"M
'
~.u t%(T»il
1:.llvLUMLNI~~6215~iMYIZI'MBt1.S,..1 .F :r._ 1T';;~'
,
'
EB Ramps & Pines occober 23, 1996
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ 1 'g-I H ~ I -q ~I L4 ~ I
I EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1038 0 0 0 0 1530 296 157 1061 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 248 0 1197 0 0 0 0 1639 302 160 1137 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Spfit PeRn Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
, CuRent Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V1C Ratio 0.37 0.99 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.55
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.62 1.04 1.22
~ Average De{ay (s.) 17 42 30 9 92 13
Levei of Service C E D B F B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Refereneed to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 100%
Intersection Delay: 29.2
Intersection LOS: D
,
Sptits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines ' 112 4 . ~
5 T 6
'
'
,
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:IDOCUMEN119621 S11MPRF'MBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
'
WB Ramps & Pines October 23, 1996
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
I I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 257 1 20 677 931 0 0 988 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 299 0 750 1051 0 0 1249 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Spiit (s. ) 26 26 29 74 45
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rabo 0.82 0.81 0.40 0.81
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.11 1.68 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 37 33 8 18
Level of Service D D 6 C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
intersection V/C Ratio: 81 %
Intersec#ion Delay: 19.9
Iniersection L4S: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines •
4
~X ; ~ _ i''*r1•
_ '.I ~ .
5 -41 8 ~ 7 - -
'
1
'
Synchro 2.0 Rcport J:\DOCUNiENT19621511MPRPMBO.SY•1
lnland Pacific Enginecring, IPEC Pagc 3
1
Indiana & Pines Occober 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
1A L*J, LU L&J Ll U U
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 867 20 9 712 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 990 0 10 818 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 337 3714 212 3711
Left Turn Type Perm Perm PeRn Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.80 0.52 0.49 0.43
Platoon Factor 1.40 1.00 0.38 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 21 19 21 4 10 12
Level of Service C C C A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Intersection Delay: 11.6
Intersection LOS: 8
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines I1~` z 4 '
~
1
,
Synchro 2.0 Report 1:1DOCUMENTl962 I 5\IMPRPMBO.SY4
Inland Pacific Engincering, IPF,C Pa`,e 4
~
Mission & McDonald October 23, 1996
'
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
'
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 544 216 94 375 175 92
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 889 0 0 548 194 102
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1 ~
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3573 3692 1770 1583
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3573 2053 1770 1583
Left Turn Type Penn Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 58 58 42
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.45 0.49 0.28 0.17
Platoon Factor 1.22 1.00 1_00 1.00
' Average Oelay (s. ) 13 11 16 15
Level of Service B B C B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 40%
Intersection Delay: 12.6
' lntersection LOS: B
,
Splits and Phases: fV(ission & McDonald 2 ~ 4
,
'
'
'
Svnchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMF,N719621511MPRPRIE30.SY4
Inlancl Pacific Engineering, IPEC page I
'
1
'
BUILD UUT YEAIl
1 {
LEVELS UI' S~RVICE
WiTH PROJECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
I,JJT'c9V"! r.~`ff/~cFGftN ~~G
l
' Mission & Pines october 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
E6L E8T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 544 29 982 91 482 1272 222
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 4 501 0 0 428 525 30 1174 0 502 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
' Left Tum Type Split Spiit Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 fi 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
' Current Split (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.84 0.79 0.21 1.10 1.01 0.91
, Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.12
Average Delay (s.) 37 40 16 33 83 60 26
Level of Service D D C D F E D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 61 (61 Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 98%
Intersection Delay: 44.7
Intersection LOS: E
. Splits and P,hases: Mission & Pines
1 3 4
6 E1 7 8
'
'
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:1DOClIMENT06215\PINEBOWE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Pagc I
,
' EB Ramps & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
El~~~~ ~ ~ 1~ ~j~
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1047 0 0 0 0 1570 304 157 1065 0
' Adj. l.ane Grp. Voi. 0 1328 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 160 1141 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (ProG) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
Satd. F1ow (Perm.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
, Left Tum Type Spiit Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Spiit (s.) 37 37 52 11 63
Yellow Time (s.) 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.15 1.13 1.13 0.51
' Platoon Factor 1.00 0.75 1.26 0.04
Average Delay (s.) 112 79 157 1
Level of Service F F F A
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 114%
Intersection Delay: 72.0
Intersection LOS: F
.
' Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines 2 4
'
5 T 6
,
t
'
Synchro 2.0 Rcport J:\DOCUMENT196215\PfNEdOWE.SY4
[nland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
1
' WB Ramps & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' 1-t I L4L-J- L&t- 1*1 1 T1 &1 I ci .
E8L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 259 1 20 709 939 0 0 988 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 301 0 762 1060 0 0 1249 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Pro#.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Spiit (s.) 21 21 44 79 35
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Rado 1.06 1.05 0.37 1.06
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.41 0.34 0.86
Average Delay (s.) 90 50 1 62
Level of Service F E A F I
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 106%
' Interseciion Delay: 42.5
IntersecUon LOS. E
.
Splits and Phases: W6 Ramps & Pines
' 4 ,
T
i
- ,
5 1F1 6 7
'
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Rcpart JADOCUMENT196215\PINEBOWE.SY4
inland Pacific Engineering, 1NEC Page 3
,
' Indiana & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
[JI I --I ' ri FI 'L~ ~ I ~ ~j 1~
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Tlme (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
Platoon Factor 1.00 1_00 0.49 0.44 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s. ) 21 19 24 6 10 12
Level of Service C C C B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 64 (64%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Uf Green
lntersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Intersection Deiay: 12.3
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines '
,
y~
1
1
1
1
1
Svnchro 2.0 Report J-ADOCl,1ME=NT"161151f'INE:I3~~~~1AT-:.51'4
Inlwld Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 4
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOWOEV.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) Nora Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Anal f zed 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
lDate of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout with Project, without Evergree
n I/C
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
,Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 1682 10 82
PHF .96 .96 ~ .96
Grade 0 . 0
MC' s 006)
SU/RV's (o)
CV' s (01) IPCE's ~ 1.10 '
, AdJ'ustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
iManeuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
'Right Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
,
'
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
.
Step l: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 881
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 495
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 495
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.81
Intersection Performance Summary ~
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
lMovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
9.0
IWB R 94 495 9.0 0.7 B
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
. ,
i
i
1
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCWOEV.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) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout with project, Without Evergree
n I/C
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0. 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 560 218 98 395 175 93
PHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (
SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s (01)
1
PCE's 1110 1.10 1.10 L
Adjustment Factors -
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
' Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 .
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
~
~
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 448
'Potential Capacity: (pcph) 821
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 821 ~
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
'Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 895
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 567
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 567
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.78
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. ~
of Queue-Free State. 0_75
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
lConflicting-Flows:-(vph) 1336
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 148 ~
Maj or LT, Mino,r TH .
Impedance Factor: 0.75'
lAdjusted Impedance Factor: 0.75 ~
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 111
' Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
221 111 536.1 16 0 F
INB--L---
351.8 -
INB R 118 821 5.1 0.5 B
WB L 124 567 8.1 0.9 B 1.6
Intersection Delay = 61.8 sec/veh
~
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.HCO Page 1
enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h: (904) 392-0378
treets: (N-S) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Fajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) ~
(nalyst Tim Schwab
ate of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
ther Information........~. Buildout with project, Without Evergree
n I/C
wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
'No. Lanes 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0 - - -0- ->-1- -<-0- -
0> 1 < 1
iHF top/Yield N N olumes 29 437 4 2 374 17 8 4 1 20 4 46
.96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
FU/RVI C' s ( % )
s ( a )
CV' s (01)
. . ~
CE's 1.10 1.10 , 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
' AdJ'ustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~i
aneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
eft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
through Traffic-Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
' ~
'
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
tep 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
; onflicting Flows: (vph) 457 399
otential Capacity: (pcph) 812 869
Movement Capacity:'-(pcph) 812 869 .
rob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.91
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 459 408
totential Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1096
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1096
rob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.97
FH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
ajor LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.96
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
llonflicting-Flows:-(vph) 897 890
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 369 372 •
apacity Adjustment-Factor `
due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0:96
(oviement Capacity: (pcph) 353 356
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
tt-e--p-4--:--L-T--f-r-o-m-M--in-o--r--S-t-r-e-e-t NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 914 890
totential Capacity: (pcph) 313 323
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.95
djusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.96 .
kapacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.96
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 270 309
'
'
,
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAWOEV.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
' Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
llovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 9 270 >
B T 4 353 > 305 12.4 0.0 C 12.4
R 1 812 >
rs BL 36 309 >
B T 7 356 > 542 8.6 1.0 B 8.6
SB R 82 869 >
JEB L 33 1096 3.4 0.0 A 0.2
WB L 2 1036 3.5 0.0 A 0.0
' Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh
. ,
, -
'
' .
'
~
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVWOEV.HCO Page 1
~enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
12 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h: (904) 392-0378
treets: (N-S) Evergreen Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
ajor Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time'Analyzed... 15 (min) _
Analyst........ Tim Schwab
~Date of Analysis.......... 10/24/96
Other Information......... Buildout with Project, Without Evergree
n I/C
~wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection-----------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
'
No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0 < 0 0 0 0
top/Yield N N
olumes 293 158 40 254 144 26
(HF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0
C's (o)
tU/RV's ( o )
CV' s 06)
.
CE's ~ 1.10 1.10 1.10 •
'
Adjustment Factors
ehicle Critical Follow-up
lraneuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
eft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
ight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
hrough Traffic Minor Road ~ 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
~
,
~
CS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIEVWOEV.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
1;tep_1:_RT_from_Minor_Street NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 391
otential Capacity: (pcph) 877
ovement Capacity: (pcph) 877
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
t-t-e-p--2--:--L-T--f-ro--m-m--aj--o-r--S-t-re--e-t WB EB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 474
rotential Capacity: (pcph) 1019
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1019
rob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95
H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State. 0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
onflicting Flows: (vph) 700
kotential Capacity: (pcph) 416 _
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 _
Adjusted Impedarice Factor: 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.95
ilovement Capacity: (pcph) 394
' 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)
i[B L--- --167- --394->------
430 15.3 2.4 C 15.3
NB R 30 877 >
tB L 46 1019 3.7 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 3.0 sec/veh
,
I'L'IC_ bovT L' `7 r~ 1 E'oJt4-i c.tJ1~ ti C. ~/l1L C, r.-rz E~ -~/L , L7. I vfZ~.l ~!7 /,,'11*11rz,
,
' Mission & Pines Octoher '2 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' m -4 ~ ;-1 1+-1 'L &I `i I 1*j I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 504 29 982 91 475 1272 222
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 428 525 30 1174 0 495 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
, Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.84 0.79 0.21 1.10 1.00 0.91
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.11
Average Delay (s.) 37 40 16 33 83 57 25
Level of Service D D C D F E C
' Cycle Length: 100
OffseC 60 (60%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
intersection VIC Ratio: 97%
lntersecfion Delay: 44.2
Intersection LOS: E
1 Splits and Phases: Mission & Pines '
LLA , 3 T4
~
s Ei 7 y e
~
,
'
'
,
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D4CtJMENT196215\PINEVLTr'1.SY4
lnLinc1 F,icific C:rl21nter1n;j„ I11'.C
1
, EB Ramps & Pines October 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~t
EBL EBT EBR VYBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1042 0 0 0 0 1554 296 157 1063 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 1323 0 0 0 0 0 1982 0 160 1139 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. F{ow (Prot) 1770 1624 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Penn.) 1770 1624 3640 1770 3725
' Left Tum Type Spiit Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Spiit (s.) 38 38 51 11 62
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VIC Ratio 1.11 1.13 1.13 0.52
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.76 1.23 0.06
Average Delay (s.) 93 84 156 1
Level of Service F F F A
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V1C Ratio: 113%
Intersecction Delay: 68.4
Intersection LOS: F
, .
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pjnes ' 2 4 -ti ~
5 T 6
,
I
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMENT196215\PINEVL.TA.SY4
Inland Pacific Enginccring, [PEC Page 2
'
, WB Ramps & Pines uccober '12, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
pq Lz~ ad H IL M~ I LD 01 Li 41 I
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 257 1 20 693 939 0 0 990 119
, Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 299 0 745 1060 0 0 1252 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1585 1770 3725 3670
, Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
CuRent Spiit (s.) 21 21 43 79 36
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.05 1.05 0.37 1.03
' Plataon Factor 1.00 0.40 0.35 0.86
Average Delay (s.) 88 51 1 51
Level of Service F E A E
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin O' Green
Intersecfion V/C Ratio- 104%
Intersection Delay: 38.4
Intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines ' . `
T14
5 ~i 8 y 7
1
'
1
I
Synchro 2.0 Report J:',DnCUMEN11962151P[NF,V[_TA.SY4
h21arici i'aritic F,m'I^tC'('i11,_'.. I111:C' Pacc. :
'
Indiana & Pines Octabcr 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' H" I aj A 1*1 ~ ~1 Ll
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.44 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 21 19 24 6 10 12
Level of Service C C C B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 64 (64%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
lntersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Intersection Delay: 12.3
Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines
~T 2 i ~ 4 ~
t~ A
J
'
'
,
1
S}nciiru 2LU Kcport
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC f'age 4
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOELTA.HCO Page 1
iCenter 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) Nora Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout with Project, With Evergreen I -
/C, Lt. at Mamer allowed
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1682 10 58
PHF .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0
MC' s (o )
SU/RV' s (0i)
CV's ( o) - PCE's • 1.10
'
Adjustment- Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf )
Left Turn Major Road . 5.50 2.10
~ Right Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOELTA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
I EB
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 881
, Potential Capacity: (pcph) 495
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 495 ~
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.87
'
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)
8.4
WB R 66 495 8.4 0.4 B
Intersection Delay = 0.3 sec/veh
a
a L
'
~
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCELTA.HCO Page 1
UCr-_enter _For Microcomputers Tn Transportation
University of Florida
,512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
,Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
/C, lt. at Mamer allowed
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
,Stop/Yield . N N
Volumes 553 218 98 395 175 93
PHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .97
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (o)
ISU/RV's ( % )
CV' s (01)
_ ~ .
PCE's ~ 1.10 1.10` 1.10 "
. .
- Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
~ Maneuve r Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
i Right Turn Minor Road _ 5.50 2.60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
~
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCELTA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TtiVSC Intersection
SB
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 444
Potential Capacity:.(pcph) 825
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 825*
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 887 '
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 573
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 573
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.78
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.75
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
1Conf1icting_Flows:_(vph) 1328
Pote,ntial Capacity: (pcph) 150 -
Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: - 0.75 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.75 `
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.75
lMovement Capacity: (pcph) 113
' Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 9506
' Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
--221- --113- -519.5- --15.8- --F--
INB--L---
341.0
NB R 118 825. 5.1 0.5 B
'
WB L 124 573 8.0 0.9 B 1.6
Intersection Delay = 60.2 sec/veh
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTA.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) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
, Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
Other Information......... Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt. at Mamer allowed
' Two_way-Stop=controlled_Intersection----------------__-__--__-------_-_
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
,
No. Lanes 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 0 0> 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
IVolumes 22 437 4 2 374 24 8 4 1 44 4 46
PHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
I MC' s ( o }
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV' s 05)
,PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1:10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
' AdJ'ustment Factors
vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
l Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traff ic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
'
'
1
,
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
' StePl. RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 457 402
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 812 866
Movement Capacity: -(pcph) 812 866
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.91
'
Step-2:-LT-from-Major-Street - - - - - - - - - - - - - WB - - - - - - - - - - - EB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 459 415
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1087
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1087
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.98
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.97
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 897 886
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 369 ~ 374 ,
Capacity Adjustment Factor
l due to Impeding Movements . 0.97 0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 356 361
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
1Step_4:_LT_from_Minor_Street NB SB
Conf licting Flows :(vph) 910 887
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 315 324
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.96
~Adjusted Impedance Factor: ~ 0.96 0.97
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.87 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 274 313
'
' ,HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTA.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
' Avg. 9500
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
imovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 9 274 >
L B T 4 356 > 309 12.2 0.0 C 12.2
B R 1 812 >
SB L 78 313 >
ISB T 7 361 > 460 12.2 1.7 C 12.2
SB R 82 866 >
B L 25 1087 3.4 0.0 A 0.2
kB L 2 1036 3.5 0.0 A 0.0
I Intersection Delay = 1.4 sec/veh
. .
. :
1 ' -
'
, .
'
'
L,v cVt pOo!FcT GJffw ~vsR~cCCtN IL7, TvR,v f.T /t~As1CR /✓oT ~I «owCn
1 _ -
, Mission & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' PF- r' ~-l 0 1*1 T A 111 I*j .
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 504 29 982 91 482 1272 222
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 428 525 30 1174 0 502 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 1770 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 fi 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 17 17 11 32 31 52
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V1C Ratio 0.82 0.84 0.79 0.21 1.10 1.01 0.91
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.12
Average Delay (s.) 37 40 16 33 83 60 26
Level of Service D D C D F E D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 61 (61%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
I ntersection V/C Ratio: 98°/p
' Intersecbon Delay: 44.7
IntersecUon LOS. E
:
Splits and Ptlases: Mission & Pines
1
fi <1 7 IqIB
'
'
'
1
Syncluo 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMENT1962151PINEVLT'N.SY4
Inland Pacific Enginecring, IPEC Page i
'
' EB Ramps & Pines occober 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Tlmings Summary
L<-J- -fl ~I Ll ~ . .
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vofume (vph.) 243 0 1047 0 0 0 0 1570 304 157 1065 0
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 1328 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 160 1141 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 1623 3640 1770 3725 ~
Left Tum Type Spiit Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' Current Split (s.) 37 37 52 11 63
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V!C Ratio 1.15 1.13 1.13 0.51
, Piatoon Factor 1.00 0.75 1.26 0.04
Average Delay (s. ) 112 79 157 1
Level of Service F F F A
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 0(4%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Inteirsection V/C Ratio: 114%
Intersection Delay: 72.0
Intersection LOS: F
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps & Pines '
' 2 . 4
~
5 T 6
. ,
,
,
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMEN711962151P1NEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
' WB Ramps & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ -40 1 4- r'1 `i 41 10 .
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 259 1 20 709 939 0 0 990 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 0 0 0 0 301 0 762 1060 0 0 1252 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 1770 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Penn Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 21 21 44 79 35
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 1.06 1.05 0.37 1.07
Piatoon Factor 1.00 0.41 0.34 0.86
' Average Delay (s.) 90 50 1 63
Levei of Service F E A F
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 15 (15%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 106%
Intersecction Delay: 42.9
Intersection LOS: E
Splits and Phapes: ' WB Ramps & Pines
~ 4 T .
5 ~ 8 y 7
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Report I:\JDOCUMENT196215\PINEVLTN.SY4
[nland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
.
'
Indiana & Pines October 22, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
I -I I C-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 41 lo'
EBL EBT EBR VYBI. WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Pemn.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
Platoan Factor 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.44 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 21 19 24 6 10 12
Level of Service C C C B B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 64 (64%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Intersection Delay: 12.3
Intersection LOS: B
. , `Spiits and Phases: Indiana & Pines IT 2 ~ 4
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOCUMENT1962151PINEVLTN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IYEC Page 4
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOELTN.HCO Page 1
enter For Microcomputers In Transportation
niversity of Florida
512 Weil Hall
ainesville, FL 32611-2083
h: (904) 392-0378
treets: (N-S) Pines Road (E-W) Nora Road
ajor Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed.... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
ate of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
tther Information......... Buildout with Project, With Evergreen I
/C, Lt. Mamer not allowed
wo-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
'No. Lane s 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield N N
IPVHF olumes 1682 10 82
.96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0
C's (o)
IUU/RV' s (0i)
CV' s (01)
,
CE's 1.10
t AdJ'ustment Factors
ehicle Critical Follow-up
tVaneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
ight Turn Minor Road . 5.50 2.60
through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
~
'
'
,HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c PINOELTN.HCQ Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
lStep-l:-RT-from-Minor-Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 881
lPotential Capacity: (pcph) 495
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 495
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.81
Intersection Performance Summary
' Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Im- Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
ovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
9.0
r B R 94 495 9.0 0.7 B
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
'
. ' •L
4
'
1
'
'
1
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCELTN.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) McDonald Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
'Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
10ther Information......... Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
/C, lt. Mamer not allowed
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
'
No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield N N
I Volumes 560 218 106 395 175 93
PHF .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (01)
I SU/RV' s ( % )
CV' s ( o ) .
,PCE's T.10 1.10 1.10 =
, Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
lManeuver Gap (tg) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
iThrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
'
'
1
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMCELTN.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
' Ste 1. RT from Minor Street
P NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 448
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 821
Movement Capacity: (pcph) ' 821
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.86
'
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 895
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 567
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 567
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.76
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
,-of-Queue-Free-State:___________________0_73___________-_
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB Sg
Conf licting Flows : (vph) 1346
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 146 . ~
,Major LT, Minor TH ~ .
Impedance Factor: 0,73 '
Adjusted Impedance Factor: ' 0.73 ~
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.73
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 106 -
~ Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95a
' Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
--221- --106- -580.5- --16-5- --F--
380.8
B R 118 821 5.1 0.5 B
B L 134 567 8.3 1.0 B 1.8
Intersection Delay = 66.5 sec/veh
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTN.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) Mamer Road (E-W) Mission Avenue
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min)
Analyst Tim Schwab
Date of Analysis.......... 10/21/96
lother Information......... Buildout with project, With Evergreen I
I /C, Lt. Mamer not allowed
, Two_way-Stop_controlled-Intersection-----------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lane s 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 1
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 29 437 4 2 374 17 8 4 1 12 4 54
IPHF .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96
Grade 0 0 0 4
MC' s (01)
' SU/RV' s (0i)
CV's (o)
. ,
,PCE's 1.10 1-10 t 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.70 1.70 1.70
Adjustment Factors -
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
I Maneuver Gap ( tg ) Time ( t f)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60.
lThrough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTN.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
' Step 1. RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 457 399
~ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 812 869
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 812 869
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.89
Step 2: LT. from Major Street WB Eg
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 459 408
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1096
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1096
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.97
' TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.96
Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 897 890
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 369 372
,Capacity Adjus.t:ment Factor ' ,
due to Impeding Movements 0.96 ' 0.96 -
Movement Ca ac' ~
p ity: (pcph) 353 356
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.98
' Step 4 LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 918 890
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 311 323
lMajor LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.95
~Adjusted Impedance Factor: ~ 0.95 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.85 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 264 309
'
'
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c MIMAELTN.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
' Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
, Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 9 264 >
NB T 4 353 > 300 12.6 0.0 C 12.6
NB R 1 812
SB L 22 309 >
SB T 7 356 > 619 7.3 0.8 B 7.3
SB R 95 869 >
EB L 33 1096 3.4 0.0 A 0.2
WB L 2 1036 3.5 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh .
' .
~
1
T~ OVr YE NR -
~~~V,LS OV SERVICE
r~
~p OJ~i C l.
1 j ~ . ~+MEN1 ~
81 l~
GIM~?ROV
SION .
T ~
1~ D lr
~ ~
N Pj.N
~
~
Ft~rG i~:'v1 f/17F~ rt.^.1 ECT l/✓ T~ Od7 V1
~~~✓~WLu7 S To ~/Nl S 1 ~1 /~S/oN L•:. F'r'
' Mission & Pines (Jcc«c,er- 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~
~ pq 1-4 1-11. l~~l I1 0 01
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 504 29 962 91 482 1272 222
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 457 560 30 1174 0 517 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Satd. Flow (Penn.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Left Tum Type Spiit Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
CuRent Spiit (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 37 19 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.59 0.96 0.34 0.94 0.91 1.00
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.89 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.91
Average Delay (s.) 37 25 33 36 34 48 35
Levet o# Service D C D D D E D
' Cycie Length: 100
Offset 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 92%
Intersection Oelay: 35.2
Intersection LOS: D
.
Splits and Phases: Missfon & Pines , '1 3 4 .
'
LTJ I
6 E'1 7 ~ 8
'
'
'
'
~
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMENT1962151IMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland PLacific F.tic;ii}cering„ IPI=C' Pa~~c 1
'
' EB Ramps & Pines Octobcr 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
L
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1047 0 0 0 0 1570 304 157 1065 0
' Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 248 0 1207 0 0 0 0 1682 310 160 1141 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
' Left Tum Type Split Penn Penn Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
' CuRent Split (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.37 1.00 1.03 0.45 1.00 0.55
' Plataon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.78 1.77
Average Delay (s. ) 17 44 45 14 83 19
Level of Service C E E B F C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Interseciion V/C Ratio: 101 %
, Intersection Delay: 36.4
Intersection LOS: D
.
Sptits and Phases: EB Ramps $ Pines
1 2 4
~
1
5 T 6
'
'
'
,
'
Synchro 2.0 Report JAD0CUMEN'I196215UMPRB0WE.SY4
l,,larid 1'aCif_jC Fn~~,iri:~r:►i~, Paw, c 2
' - _
1
' WB Ramps & Pines October 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
J ~ ~ IJ ei I
H L~J- L*J U
'
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 259 1 20 709 939 0 0 988 119
' Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 301 0 785 1060 0 0 1249 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. F{ow (Prot) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
' Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 6 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 31 74 43
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.83 0.79 0.40 0.85
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.45 0.90 0.82
Average Delay (s.) 38 40 4 21
Level of Service D D A C
' Cycle Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
intersection V/C Ratio: 83%
, lntersection Delay: 21.4
Intersection LOS. C
Splits and'Phases: WB Ramps & Pines
, 4
T
1
5 F, e ~ 7
'
1
,
,
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:1I?0CUMEN719621 S\[MPRBOWE.SY4
inland Pacific Engineering, 1PEC Page 3
,
' indiana & Pines October 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
I -j -1 oi I 0 ~ Ll 11
EBL EBT EBR WBL VYBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0- 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
, Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V!C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 21 19 22 4 10 12
Level of Service C C C A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
' Intersection Delay: 11.6
Intersection LOS: B
, Splits and Phases: Indiana 8 Pines
z t; 4
~
1
1
1
Synchro 2.0 Report J:kDOCUMEN7R96215VMPRBOWE..S~~ ~I
inland Pacific Engineerinv, lI'EC 1 ':t_~ 4
1
Mission & McDonald Octoher':, 199U
' Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 560 218 98 395 175 93
Adj. lane Grp. Vol. 907 0 0 575 194 103
' Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 3576 3692 1770 1583
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 3576 2023 1770 1583
' Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 59 59 41
Yellow Time (s. ) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.45 0.51 0.29 0.17
Piatoon Factor 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 13 11 16 16
Level of Service B 8 C C
' Cycle Length: 100
4ffset: 0(0%). Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 42°io
, Intersection Delay: 12.6
Intersection LOS: 6
Splits and Phases: Mission & McDonaid
42 ~ 4 .
'
'
'
1
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:ID0CUMENT96215\IMPRB0WE.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
q
p'✓IL GOVY (.~l T N f rRoJ~GT ~trJ ert£f.,. ~C !.r ,T;:~✓ li- /G~~1iatE,^~ f-1 l.LawEp
)
~PFOVE/KF/✓TS PfJEt f ~Sisl~ ~I✓C[vpE:~
Mission & Pines October 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
L*.,J `wl W F'
1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 504 29 982 91 475 1272 222
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 457 560 30 1174 0 510 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Left Turn Type Split Split Pcot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 36 20 48
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.59 0.93 0.34 0.97 0.85 1.00
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.89 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.89
Average Delay (s.) 37 25 29 36 39 41 35
Level of Service D C D D D E D
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 92%
Intersection Delay: 34.9
Intersection LOS: D
.
Splits and Phases: Mlssion & Pines
3 4
I ~T
,
s ~ 7
1
'
1
Svttchro 2.0 Report ):'4)0C'UN4EI`'T~;(;_" 1 ti'Iti1PC\%L'F:,.5Y4
Inl;,n:i i'acifii: F.ng;neering, lf'f=C Pave I
'
' EB Ramps & Pines October 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
H t-I A
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Voiume (vph. ) 243 0 1042 0 0 0 0 1554 296 157 1063 Q
Adj. Lane Grp. Val. 248 0 1201 0 0 0 0 1665 302 160 1139 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 40 40 47 13 60
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V!C Rabo 0.38 1.02 1.02 0.43 0.90 0.54
Platoon Factor 1.40 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.81 1.67
Average Delay (s.) 18 51 42 14 57 17
Level af Servi 1f? G E E 6 E C
' Cycie Length. 100
Offset: 89 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V!C Ratio: 101 %
Intersection De1ay: 35.8
intersection LOS: D
Splits and Phases: EB Ramps 8► Pines •
2 4
~
~
5 T 6
,
~
'
'
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:1DaCUMF.NP.9621S\IMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland P,icifc P,ar'c"
'
WB Ramps & Pines October 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
IJ L*J M U L.LA U J ~JJ
EBL EBT EBR WBL VYBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 0 0 0 257 1 20 693 939 0 0 990 119
, Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 299 0 768 1060 0 0 1252 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3536 3725 3670
Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Spiit (s.) 26 26 29 74 45
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.84 0.40 0.81
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.34 0.98 0.82
Average Delay (s. ) 37 40 4 18
Levei of Service D D A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V!C Ratio: 82°/a
intersection Delay: 20.6
Intersection LOS: C
.
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps & Pines ' i
T 4 •
7
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:IDOCUMEN'I196215UMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 3
' Indiana & Pines October 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, an im ngs Summary
m -1 Id ~l L ~J- ~J Lil 01 14 . ~j .
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Pro#.) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711 .
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 21 19 22 4 10 12
Level of Service C C C A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Intersection Delay: 11.6
Intersection LOS: B
.
Splits and Phases: • Indiana & Pjnes 2 F 4
Synchro 2.0 Report J:IDOCUMENn962151IMPEVLTA.SY4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Fage 4
. .
'
Mission & McDonald October 23, 1996
1
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~ ~ ~
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Vofume (vph.) 553 218 98 395 175 93
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 899 0 0 575 194 103
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Flow (Prot) 3576 3692 1770 1583
Satd. Flow (Penn.) 3576 2030 1770 1583
Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 2
Phase Lagging?
Cunent Split (s.) 59 59 41
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.45 0.51 0.29 0.17
Platoon Factor 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 13 11 16 16
Level of Service B B C C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-NBTL, 8egin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 42%
Intersection Delay: 12.8
Intersection LOS: B
. Splits and Phases: Missfon 8 McDonald ' 42 4
'
'
~
Synchro 2.0 Report J:00CUMEN119621 SIIMPEVLTA.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 1
.
' ,tci=;'~j ~(:r,•1 PKO.JIt't~ tk~jr1N EVCClGisEIw.i J fCG~ /~r J~VIIMl1G. /Jor ALLOWCD
f"
7NP~wc p+rrr ~ 'To ~'r~,~s % ~~rs S~~N ~t~ •D_ ~
' Mission & Pines October 23,1996
,
I
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
~41~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 195 207 57 153 239 504 29 982 91 482 1272 222
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 501 0 0 457 560 30 1174 0 517 1634 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Satd. Fiow (Prot.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
' Satd. Flow (Perm.) 3585 3658 1583 1770 3681 3540 3647
Left Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot
Phase Number 1 1 6 6 7 4 3 8
Phase Lagging? Yes Yes Yes Yes -
Current Split (s.) 20 20 24 24 8 37 19 48
Yeilow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.82 0.59 0.96 0.34 0.94 0.91 1.00
Platoon Factor 1.00 0.90 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.91
Average Delay (s.) 37 25 33 36 34 48 35
Level of Service D C D D D E D
' CYcle Len9th: 100
Offset: 5(5%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, 8egin Of Green
Intersection V1C Ratio: 92%
Intersection Delay: 35.2
Intersection LOS: D
.
. - ,
Spiits and Phases: Mission 8 Pines
1 3 T 4 '
s F'1 7 8
'
'
'
1
1
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\D0CUMENT196215UMPEVLTN.SY4
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page i
'
, EB Ramps & Pines octobeT 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
' PF- ~ ~ ~ ~ *1 1 T~
EBL EBT EBR WBL VYBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 243 0 1047 0 0 0 0 1570 304 157 1065 0
' Adj. Lane Grp. Voi. 248 0 1207 0 0 0 0 1682 310 160 1141 0
Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1770 3167 3725 1583 1770 3725
Left Tum Type Split Perm Perm Prot
Phase Number 4 4 6 5 2
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Sp(it (s.) 41 41 47 12 59
Yeliow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.37 1.00 1.03 0.45 1.00 0.55
' Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.78 1.77
Average Delay (s.) 17 44 45 14 83 19
Levei of Service C E E B F C
Cycie Length: 100
4ffset 69 (89%), Referenced to phase 2-SBT, Begin Of Green
Intersection V1C Ratio: 101 %
Intersection Delay: 36.4
intersection LOS: D
Spiits and Phases: EB Ramps 8 Pines
2 4
J T~
1
1
1
Synchro 2.0 Rcport J:ID0CUMEN'R96215UMPEVLTN.SY4 ~
lnland Pacific Engineering, IPEC Page 2
1
' WB Ramps & Pines october 23, 1996
Lanes, Volumes, and T'imings Summary
~ M -4 L-J rJ ~:J- 0 *1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph. ) 0 0 0 259 1 20 709 939 0 0 990 119
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 0 0 0 0 301 0 785 1060 0 0 1252 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0
Satd. Flow (Prot.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1585 3540 3725 3670
t Left Tum Type Perm Split Prot Perm
Phase Number 5 5 8 4 7
Phase Lagging? Yes
Current Split (s.) 26 26 31 74 43
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.83 0.79 0.40 0.85
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.45 0.90 0.83 ~
Average Delay (s. ) 38 40 4 21
Level of Service D D A C
Cycle Length: 100
Offset 57 (57%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused, Begin Of Green
Intersection V!C Ratio: 83%
Intersection Delay: 21.4 -
intersection LOS: C
Splits and Phases: WB Ramps &Pines . ' '
4
5 E, e ~ 7
,
1
'
Synchro 2.0 Report JADOCUMENT1962151IMPEVLTN.SY4
Inland Paciftc Engineering, IPEC Page 3
indiana & Pines October 23, 1996
'
Lanes, Vofumes, and Tim(ngs Summary
Pfl -I IaJ Ld 1+-1 0
~
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph.) 50 14 323 81 44 112 129 875 20 9 714 21
Adj. Lane Grp, Voi. 0 412 0 0 252 0 137 999 0 10 821 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Satd. Flaw (Prot) 1457 1531 1770 3714 1770 3711
Satd. Flow (Perm.) 1308 959 333 3714 207 3711
Left Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Penn
Phase Number 4 4 2 2
Phase Lagging?
Current Split (s.) 46 46 54 54
Yellow Time (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VIC Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.09 0.43
Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.33 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 21 19 22 4 10 12
level of Service C C C A B B
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 6(6%), Referenced to phase 2-NB-SB, Begin Of Green
Intersection V/C Ratio: 77%
Interseciion Delay: 11.6
intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Indiana & Pines . '
~T 2 ~ 4 .
Synchro 2.0 Repon J:IUOCI 11~11~N l'.9(,21 i11I~iPE:VI.TN.SY4
Inland Pacific Engineering, IPEC
Page 4
J
Mission & McDonald October 23, 199c,
,
Lanes, Volumes, and Timings Summary
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Volume (vph.) 560 218 106 395 175 93
Adj. Lane Grp. Vol. 907 0 0 585 194 103
Lanes 2 0 0 2 1 1
Satd. Fiow (Prot) 3576 3688 1770 1583
Satd. Fiow (Perm.) 3576 1989 1770 1583
Left Tum Type Perm Perm
Phase Number 4 4 ~
Phase Lagging7
Current Split (s.) 60 60 40
Yellow Tlme (s.) 4.0 4.0 4.0
V/C Ratio 0.44 0.52 0.30 0.18
Plaioon Factor 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average Delay (s.) 12 10 17 16
Level of Service B B C C
Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 0(0%), Referenced to phase 2-N6TL, Beg;n Of Grec:n
I ntersection V/C Ratio: 4 3%
Intersection Delay: 12.4
Intcrsection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: Mission & McDonald
k4l 2 A 4
1
'
Synchro 2.0 Report J:\DOC1►ti1ENT~962 1 i\[R,11'1A'L'I N~Y4
Iniarid Pacific F.►i~~irie~rin~.. Il'F~.' I';_,,_ -
a #
J
J
_.__.w ys.... s
3 G
{f [
f
I
{
x L..
m
r .,y
.\ra
t
3
` ~ i
f
4 ~
- ._a F
~ a '
a E
X.„ i < Maw
a "r ~ {
s
L
i`
r ~ ,
l
~.s ~ 1
r r
f
1
1
t
I
x J ~ s:
f + 7 ~
sF
F
pA 8
~7. 4 8 ~
x ~
tt 1
1
4 {
jj ~ ~ b
d ~
i
°G
i 3~.
E
t
~ # f
! j ~ ~ f' E t
G
I
~ I
i
i
py p 8
~ E ~ i
m ~ -
e ~ ~
4~
4
l..f
3
E E
m
4 ,
i
E
~ ~
. #
n.
E
^ ~ s ~ ~ .__..n
d
r f~
x ~
a
s
~a.~~
_ _
M
,
. . 0.»5..'
~
ya,
. °a
, "4
m, ~
w „wa.
.,.~rv ~.M,, s w ,
~k
„r ra .W ce
t ~ M.
"a
a. s w„
~ ^