Loading...
27865 PE-1751 MIDILOME 1994, June Traffic Impact Report r- Traffic Impact Report ° 0 Proposed Midilome East Development June 1994 i DAVID EVANS AND AssocIATES, INC. e f I Traffic Impact Report Proposed Midilome East Development Spokane, Washington June 1994 WAS 30560 5 I r - ~3 9 Jt 't~_ ~ r' Prepared for Nlidilome, Inc. rDANAD EVANS ANAS,SOCINFE5, INC A PROFESSIONAL SEWCES CONSULTING F1RA4 OFFICES IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA 2828 S W CORBF.TI` AYU\Ul: PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-4830 I503f 223-6663 FAX (5031223-2701 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY ...iii INTRODUCTION I CURRENT CONDITIONS 2 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS 2 State Road 27 2 32nd Avenue 2 CJ~~ TRAFFIC PATTERNS . 2 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Level of Service Criteria 2 Weekday AM Peak Hour 3 Weekday PM Peak Hour 3 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS . . 4 Weekday AM Peak Hour . 4 Weekday PM Peale Hour 4 PROJECT IMPACTS 5 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5 SITE TRAFFIC 5 Trip Generation 5 Trip Distribution 5 Trip Assignment 6 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS 6 Weekday AM Peak Hour _ . . 6 Weekday PM Peak Hour 6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 7 IMPROVEMENT OPTION I 7 IMPROVEMENT OPTION 2 8 IMPROVEMENT OPTION 3 8 CONCLUSIONS . 8 APPENDIX A - SR 27 and 32nd Avenue 1993 Intersection Counts APPENDIX B - Midilome East Development Project Trip Generation APPENDIX C - Traffic Operations Backup Data Existing Intersection Configuration APPENDIX D - Traffic Operations Backup Data Improvement Option I APPENDIX E - Traffic Operations Backup Data Improvement Option 2 APPENDIX F - Traffic Signal Warrant Testing Improvement Option 3 r. i LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1. Summary of Intersection Operations iii 2. Level of Service Description for an Unsignalized Intersection 3 3. Vehicular Trip Generation 5 4. Comparison of Intersection Operations with Improvement Option I 7 5. Comparison of Intersection Operations with Improvement Option 2 8 LIST OF FIGURES Follows No. Title Page 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. 1993 Existing Conditions 2 3. 1996 Background Conditions 4 4. Project-Generated Traffic Distribution 6 5. Project-Generated Traffic Volumes 6 6. 1996 Total Conditions 6 ii SPRY Our assessment of the intersection of 32nd Avenue and SR 27 indicates the proposed Midiiome East Development would have an noticeable impact on the intersection operations. Implementing a four-way stop-sign control system instead of the current two-way system would mitigate these impacts. A traffic signal would not be warranted. The analysis for the 1993 existing, 1996 background, 1996 total, and 1996 mitigated conditions is shown in the table below. FABLE 1 (~=f ffo~ Summary of Intersection Operations Four-way Stop-Sign Current Stop-Sign Control Control as Mitigation on 32nd Avenue Measure 1993 1996 1996 1996 1996 Intersection Existing Background Total Background Total Weekday AM Peak Hour Eastbound LTR R C C A 13 Westbound LTR A B B B B Northbound L A A A A A TR A A A A A Southbound L A A A A A TR A A A A A Weekday PM Peak Hour Eastbound LTR C D E B R Westbound LTR D E E B B Northbound L A A A A A TR A A A A A Southbound L A A A B B TR A A A B B I iii INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to identify any improvements that may be necessary at the intersection of SR 27 and 32nd Avenue due to the proposed Midilome East Development. This analysis was requested by the Washington State Department of Transportation ('WSDOT) to determine if the proposed Midilorne East Development would trigger the need for a traffic signal. For the analysis, the proposed Midilome East Development, consisting of 127 single family residential units, was assumed to be fully occupied by the fall of 1996. An existing condition, based on 1993 traffic counts at the intersection, was examined. Background traffic volumes were projected for 1996 based on an annual growth rate and combined with projections for the proposed Midilome East Development. Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic was analyzed for all three of these conditions. This report contains discussions and summaries of all of the analyses performed and appendices contain the full analysis output. I 1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Before determining the future intersection requirements, DEA analyzed the existing intersection operations. INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS The intersection of SR 27 and 32nd Avenue is located on a state highway facile VMM It lies in an area which is primarily residential, wlthinost of the comrnercia evelapment to the north. A vicinity map showing the intersection with respect to the proposed Midilorne bast site and the surrounding street system is shown in Figure 1. U~'u State Road 27 . „ It connects with some of the major commercial corridors, and it has an interchange with Interstate 90. At the intersection with 32nd Avenue, SR 27 is a three-lane roadway: one moving lane in each direction with a center turn lane. ct aA, 32nd Avenue Thirty-second Avenue is of the only continuous east/west roadways running through a primarily residential area. It is two lanes wide, with one travel lane in each direction. At the intersection with SR 27, 32nd Avenue is controlled by stop signs. TRAFFIC PATTERNS The weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. The weekday PM peak hour is the period of highest activity. During both the AM and PM peak hours, the traffic volumes on 32nd Avenue are equal to or higher than those on SR 27. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS The Level of Service (LOS) of each lane at the intersection was calculated for each of the peak. hour conditions. The LOS for each time period is shown in Figure 2. Level of Service Criteria The Level of Service criteria at an unsignalized intersection in an urban area is defined in Table 1. This table defines the Level of Service concept with LOS A representing a no delay 2 CD C=)O Not to Scab DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IM -5i 0 16th Ave. 32nd Ave. STI'IE r, Dishman Cq -Mica Rd. v 3 FIGURE I VICINITY MAP Legend 9(= 607 44 Traffic Volume Not to Scale A Level of Service DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES. INC. r P 4 ra 10 Lh t- o ~ 00 t--44 t21 i 175 4--197 14 51 32nd - 32nd Avenue Avenue - 41~ 30 166 -e 153 - 0 20 m e t~ - 68 r. A. Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic B. Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic PV) N 32nd 32nd Avenue ~ Avenue B C C. Weekday AM Peak Hour Operations D. Weekday PM Peak Hour Operations FIGURE 2 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS condition and LOS F representing severe delay and congestion, Generally, LOS D, representing a moderately congested condition is the minimum standard to be maintained in an urban area. TABLE 2 Level of Service Description for an Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Description A Operations with reserve capacity greater than 400 passenger cars per hour; little or no delay. ^ B Operations with reserve capacity of 300 - 399 passenger cars per hour; short traffic delays (u J,~IJ C Operations with reserve capacity of 200 - 299 passenger cars per hour; average traffic delays. D Operations with reserve capacity of 100 - 199 passenger cars per hour, long traffic delays. E Operations with reserve capacity of 0 - 99 passenger cars per hour; long traffic delays. F Operations where demand volume exceeds capacity of lane, causing extreme delays and queuing. Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, p. 14-9 Weekday AM Peak Hour During the weekday AM pear hour, traffic is higher on 32nd Avenue, where it is controlled by stop signs, than it is on SR 27. All of the intersection movements operate at LOS A with the exception of the eastbound approach, which operate at LOS B. Weekday PM Peak Hour During the weekday PM peak hour, traffic is fairly balanced on SR 27 and 32nd Avenue. Traffic on SR 27 would operate at LOS A, while the eastbound approach on 32nd Avenue would operate at LOS C, and the westbound approach would operate at LOS D. 3 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The background conditions were evaluated for the year 1996 without the proposed Midilome East Development. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background traffic volumes were estimated for the year 1996 by applying an average annual growth rate to all of the traffic volumes at the intersection. To calculate this annual growth rate, average daily traffic volumes on Sly 27 were compared for the years 1988 and 1992. During that four-year tinne period, traffic on the highway grew by an average of 5 percent per year. This growth rate was applied to both the SR 27 and 32nd Avenue traffic volumes because there is no available information on 32nd Avenue. The estimated background traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 3. INTERSECTION OPERAT ONS The Level of Service (LOS) of each lane at the intersection was calculated for each of the peak hour conditions. The LDS for each time period is shown in Figure 3. Weekday AM Peak Hour During the weekday AM peak hour, operations would worsen on 32nd Avenue. While traffic movements on SR 27 would continue to operate at LOS A, the eastbound approach on 32nd Avenue would operate at LDS C, and the westbound approach would operate at LDS B. Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic operations on 32nd Avenue would also worsen during the weekday PM peak hour. While traffic movements on SR 27 would operate at LDS A, the eastbound approach on 32nd Avenue would operate at LOS D, and the westbound approach would operate at LDS E. 4 Legend 5(=RO 1 Traffic Volume Not to Scale A Level of Service DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC Cn N rn N f+l it %a H 51 0000 N In 24 4 203 4 228 16 X59 32nd 32nd ■ Avenue Avenue 47 ~J 35 192 177.E r 23 79 m rDi A. Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic B. Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Q Q ~ ~ ■ 32nd 32nd Avenue Avenue C. Weekday AM Peak Hour Operations D. Weekday PM Peak Hour Operations FIGURE 3 1996 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PROJECT MPACTS To evaluate the impacts of the proposed Midilome East Development, project-generated trips were estimated, distributed on the surrounding street system, and added to the 1996 background traffic. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The proposed Midilome East Development would consist of 127 single family detached residences located on a 44.7 acre site The proposed development would have two access points off of 32nd Avenue between Madison Road and SR 27. SITE TRAFFIC Trip [generation The vehicular traffic generated by the proposed Midilome East Development was calculated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Report, 5th edition. Table 3 summarizes the 24-hour and peak hour traffic volumes calculated using the equations from this report. TABLE 3 Vehicular Trip Generation Time Period biboUnd Outbound Total AM Peak Hour 26 73 99 PM Peak Hour 87 47 134 Weekday 24-hour 643 643 1,285 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Report, 5th edition The proposed Midilome East Development is expected to generated 1,286 trips on a weekday, with 99 trips during the AM peak hour and 134 trips during the PM peak hour. 5 Trip Distribution The trip distribution for the proposed project was based on an examination of the overall transportation system in the area and the traffic volumes at the intersection of 32nd Avenue and SR 27. S Most of the traffic on 32nd Avenue (75 percent) is traveling eastbound or westbound, with 20 percent turning northward and 5 percent turning southward. Volumes traveling eastbound and westbound were split approximately 50 percent in each direction. Based on these characteristics, the project-generated traffic distribution pattern was developed, as shown in Figure 4. 'Grip Assignment Using the trip generation and distribution patterns, the traffic generated by the proposed Midilome East Development was estimated for the intersection of 32nd Avenue and SR 27. The project-generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. TOTAL TRAffIC VOLUMES Total traffic volumes were estimated for the year 1996 by adding the proposed project-generated traffic to the estimated background traffic. These traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours INTERSECTION OPERATIONS The Level of Service (LOS) of each lane at the intersection was calculated for each of the peak hour conditions. The LOS for each time period is shown in Figure 6. Weekday AM Peak Hour During the weekday AM peak hour, operations would worsen from the background condition. The traffic movements on SR 27 would continue to operate at LOS A, while the eastbound approach on 32nd Avenue would operate at LOS C, and the westbound approach would operate at LDS B. Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic operations on 32nd Avenue would also worsen during the weekday FM peak hour. On SR 27, traffic movement's would operate at LOS A, while both the eastbound and westbound approaches on 32nd Avenue would operate at LOS E. 6 Legend 40 % Inbound Not to Scale 40% Outbound DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC 16th Ave. r S% r 5% 15% !5% 1 y , r 32nd Ave. 35 % ~ 40% E- 60% -0-40% 1 -4-35% 40% 60%-10, 40%-i 5% 5% r r- Dishman -Mica Rd. ran o ~ FIGURE 4 PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Legend ~ 9= RO 4 Traffic Volume Not to Scale DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC pe. N P4 N et n a t 4 o a d 4 10 35 L o Q 32nd 32nd r Avenue, Avenue 29 P. 19 0 r 4 0 0 2 zt o 0 A. Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic B. Weekday PM Weak Hour Traffic FIGURE 5 PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES a Legend t Turning Movement D Not to Scale 51 Traffic Volume DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC { A Level of Service CC n PG r- Ga N Vi N i w [ry N 51 ° Cq n 24 4-213 ~ ~ f ■ 253 32nd 32nd 58 Avenue 42 ■ Avenue 221 No 146 No I ~ f 27 It I;r A. Weekday AM Peak. Hour Traffic S. Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic i t (1] N Vj N Q ■ 13 ~ ~ ■ E 32nd 32nd C+ Avenue E Avenue Q Q Q Q ~ r ,t C. Weekday AM Peak Hour Operations D. Weekday PM Weak Hour Operations r FIGURE 6 1996 TOTAL CONDITIONS r' RECONEVM DED F"ROVEMENTS Intersection operations are expected to worsen with the proposed Midilome East development. On 32nd Avenue, both the eastbound and westbound approaches would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Three options were investigated to improve the future operations of this intersection. IMPROVEMEN'T' OPTION I The first improvement option would be to change the intersection control so that the northbound and southbound movements on SR 27 would be controlled by stop signs while the eastbound and westbound movements on 32nd Avenue would be uncontrolled. This intersection control is more logical considering that the volumes on 32nd Avenue are generally equal to or higher than those on SR 27. Table 4 compares the background and total traffic operations with the stop-sign control on 32nd Avenue, as it currently is, and with the stop-sign control on SR 27. TABLE 4 Comparison of Intersection Operations with Improvement Option I Stop-Sign Control on 32nd Avenue Stop-Sign Control on SR 27 Intersection Background Total Background Total Weekday AM Peak Four Eastbound LTR C C A A Westbound LTR B B A A Northbound L A A B C• TR A A B B Southbound L A A C C TR A A A A Weekday PM Peak Flour Eastbound LTR D E A A Westbound LTR E E A A Northbound L A A D E TR A A B B Southbound L A A ID D. TR A A C D Overall, the intersection would operate better with the stop-sign control on SR 27 than it would on 32nd Avenue. The northbound left turn would operate at LOS E during the peak hour. However, because the number of northbound left-turning vehicles (42) is significantly smaller than the combined number of eastbound (319) and westbound (346) vehicles, the intersection would operate better overall. 7 r l 'r IMPROVEMENT OPTION 2 The second improvement option would be to change the intersection control so that the both 32nd Avenue and SR 27 would be controlled by stop signs. The four-way stop-sign control would distribute delays onto both roadways more evenly, as shown in 'f'able 5. r - TABLE 5 Comparison of Intersection Operations with Improvement Option 2 Stop-Sign Control on 32nd Four-way Stop-Sign Control Avenue Intersection Background Total Background Total ULJU Weekday AM Peak Hour - w Eastbound LTR C C A B ` Westbound LTR B B B B ` Northbound L A A A A Tit A A A A Southbound L A A E,, A t~~ TR A A A A Weekday PM Peak Hour Eastbound LTR D E B B Westbound LTR E E B B Northbound L A A A A { TR A A A A Southbound L A A B B TR A A B B f With the four-way stop-sign control, all of the approaches would operate at LOS A or 13, with no one movement experiencing substantially more delay than any other movement IMPROVEMENT OPTION 3 ~r The third improvement options would be to change the intersection control to a traffic signal However, the projected total traffic volumes would not meet the traffic signal warrants contained ~ in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, this improvement was not pursued further. l_ CONCLUSIONS The 1996 estimated traffic volumes with the proposed Midilome East Development would not f require a traffic signal; however, to minimize delays that would occur on 32nd Avenue, some change in traffic control would be necessary. Four-way stop control would offer the best overall intersection operations with all movements operating at LOS A or B. ~ 8 , A a4 *ClaAM f APPENDIX A 5R 27 and 32nd Avenue 1993 Intersection Counts ~~UUU WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTAIOH repared hY.District 6 PLanning District 6 Planning Department Site code : 00002732 N. 2714 Mayfair Spokane. WA 99207 Start Date: 07/23198 41 Phone (509) 456-3996 File I.D. : 32ND Page vehicte group 1 Pines Road 132nd Ave. JPines Road 132nd Ave. ] Southbound [westbound [Northbound JEastbound ] Left Thru Right Other [ Left Thru Right Other , Left 1hru Right Other [ Left Thru Right Other [ Totat ate 07/23/95 -6:45 4 9 5 0[ 6 14 13 0] 7 16 17 0[ 9 34 6 0 140 17:00 3 12 5 0[ 9 16 3 0 J 5 13 10 3[ 6 33 6 0 124 7:15 6 7 6 -0 ] 6 26 8 a 8 27 3 0 5 31 7 0 14D 07:34 5 13 11 0 5 35 20 0 14 42 13 0 11 48 4 0 221 r Total 18 41 27 0 [ 26 91 44 0 [ 34 98 43 3 [ 31 146 23 0 [ 625 07:45 4 11 17 0[ 2 76 9 0[ 8 37 6 0 I -8 49 3 0[ 230 iB:OO 8 12 8 0[ 3 39 8 0[ 5 24 6 1[ 13 43 6 0] 176 i8:15 1 18 4 0 4 25 7 0 9 29 7 a 9 26 7 0 146 u8:30 1 17 T 0 5 16 9 0 5 28 6 0 7 26 6 0 133 °r Total 14 58 36 0 [ 14 156 33 0 [ 27 118 25 1 [ 37 144 22 0 ] 685 18:45 5 10 6 0[ 1 18 7 0] 4 30 9 0[ 4 28 8 0] 130 09:00 6 17 6 0] 5 15 5 0] 3 27 4 0[ 6 16 7 0[ 117 905 5 15 7 0[ 3 17 6 0[ 7 21 6 0] 2 24 2 0[ 115 19:30 6 26 2 O 5 10 1 a 5 27 5 0 4 22 5 0 118 Hr Total 22 68 21 0 [ 14 60 19 0 [ 19 105 24 0 [ 16 90 22, 0 [ 480 39:45 2 13 5 0[ 4 17 8 .0.[ 6 30 6 0[ 8 12 7 0[ 118 10:00 3 20 10 0] 3 17 4 0 6 4 32 11 0] 6 7 4 0 121 10:15 5 25 10 0[ 3 22 7 0] 7 47 6 0 7 24 10 0] 173 10:30 4 21 10 0 3 25 6 0 3 33 6 0 6 20 8 0 145 Hr Total 14 79 35 0 ] 13 81 25 0 ] 20 142 29 0 [ 27 63 29 0 [ 557 10:45 7 29 9 0] 5 25 11 0[ 9 43 9 0 I 8 32 3 0[ 190 11:00 15 20 9 0[ 4 33 8 0[ 2 36 7 0] 15 55 8 0 I 212 11:15 10 17 6 0] 6 20 7 0 I 9 23 7 0[ 7 39 8 0 159 11:30 9 18 5 0 1 31 5 D 9 33 3 1 6 25 4 0 150 Hr Total 41 84 29 a ] 16 109 31 0 [ 29 135 26 1 36 151 23 0 [ 711 11:45 6 24 6 0 5 16 7 0' 6 28 5 0[ 10 31 5 0 ~ 149 12:00 3 35 12 0[ 5 25 4 0 J a 27 8 0 J 9 35 15 0; 186 12:15 5 18 7 0 j 8 18 8 0[ 6 26 7 0 6 29 4 0[ 142 12.30 6 30 7 0[ 3 34 7 0 L 8 21 6 0[ 9 26 7_ j _L 165 Hr Total 20 107 32 0 21 93 26 0 [ 28 102 26 0 ] 34 121 31 1 1 642 12:45 3 24 16 0 5 28 5 0 6 26 10 0 8 31 8 0 170 . Hr Total 3 24 16 0 [ 5 28 5 0 ' 6 26 10 0 [ 8 31 8 0 [ 170 *TOTAL* 132 461 196 0 [ 109 618 183 0 163 726 183 5 1 189 746 158 1 3870 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTAIOH -pared qy District 6 Planning District 6 Planning Department Site Cade ; 00002732 1 N. 2714 Kayfair Spokane, WA 992:07 'Start Rate: 07/23/95 Phone (509) 456-3996 File I.O. : 32ND Page : 2 Vehicle group 1 --------Pines Road-`---! 132nd Ave. Pines Road 32nd Ave. l Southbound fuesthound ]Northbound jEasthound 4 Left Thru Right Other Left Thru Right other Left lhru Right Other Left Thru Right Other JataL :e 07/23/95 -------------------------•---------•----------------------a---------------------------------------••------------------- ik, Hour Analysis By IndividuaL Approach for the Period: 06:45 to 13:00 on 07/23/95 Peak start 12:00 07:15 l 10:00 07:15 lunge 17 107 42 0 16 176 45 0 1 23 155 32 - 0 37 171 20 0 cent 10% 64% 251 0% j 7% 74% 19% OX .1 11% 74% 15% 0% 16% 75% 9% 0% Pk total 166 237 210 1 228 chest 12:60 07:45 10:45 l 07:30 f Lume 3 35 12 0 2 76 9 0 9 43 9 O 11 48 4 0 f „ total 50 I 87 i 61 63 PHF .83 .68 .86 .90 ak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 06:45 to 13:00 on 07/23/95 Peak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 E 07:30 ] tum 18 54 40 0 14 175 44 0 j 36 132 32 1 41 166 20 0 rcent 16% 48% 36% 0% 6% 75% 19% 0% 18% 66% 16% 0% , 18% 73% 9% 0% rx total 112 ' 233 201 227 ":ghest 07:45 I 07:45 ` 07:30 07:30 fume 4 11 17 0 2 76 9 0 14 42 13 0 I 11 48 4 0 total 32 87 69 f 63 PHF 88 .67 .73 ` .90 w ' WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRAHSPORTAION repared by District 6 Planning District 6 Planning Department Site Cade : 00042732 - N. 2714 Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 start Date: 07/24/95 Phone (509) 456-3996 File I.O. ; PINES32D Page : 1 Vehicle group 1 -27 132nd SR-27 32nd I southbound .[Westbound IHorthbound [Eastbound I I I I I Left Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Other I Left ;Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Other I Total ate 07124/95 '2;30 1 28 7 0 I 5 19 3 0[ 5 40 6 0 1 7 24 9 0[ 154 ,2:45 8 23 13 0; 5 21 7 0] 8 25 4 0[ 8 25 4 0[ 151 3:00 4 20 13 0 [ 3 11 6 0 [ 8 31 6 2 [ 4 30 11 0 ' 149 1.3:15 4 29 9 0~ 3 13 6 0 3 41 6 0~ 7 39 3 D 163 r Total 17 100 42 0 I 16 64 22 0 I 24 137 22 2 I 26 118 27 0 I 617 13:30 5 31 9 0[ 5 26 11 0[ 4 34 5 0 1 '4 24 10 0[ 168 3:45 2 33 4 0[ 5 26 3 O I 7 29 10 0[ 10 29 8 O I 166 ,4:00 11 27 11 0 I 4 24 9 0 1 5 33 8 0 [ 10 26 10 0 [ 178 14.15 10 24 5 0 I~ 3 18 5 0 I 8 33 6 1 1 5 32 4_ _ 0 _ 154 4r Total 28 115 29 0 I 17 94 28 0 I 24 129 29 1 I. 29 111 32 0 666 14:30 8 27 11 0[ •8 20 5 O J 4 34 9 1[ 4 23 7 0[ 161 14.45 6 29 13 0 12 20 6 0[ 8 30 10 1[ 7 20 9 0 y 171 15:00 6 30 14 0 [ 12 25 8 0 1 8 30 7 0 [ 7 26 17 0 ( 190 ,15.15 2 25 11 0 1 9 34 5 0 8_ 28 5 0 1 7 25 14 0 _L 173 Hr Total 22 111 49 0 1 41 99 24 0 I 28 122 31 2 I 25 94 47 0 I 695 °15:30 8 32 17 0 1 7 25 1 0[ 5 37 10 4 1 12 22 6 1 I 187 IS.-45 6 17 9 0[ S 41 9 0 1 12 38 7 4 11 33 11 0[ 203 16:00 13 34 23 0[ 4 31 5 O I 6 32 5 0 1 9 30 11 0[ 203 16.15 11 34 9 0 I 7 33 4 0 5 27 10 1 I 11 26 10 0 188 Hr Total 38 117 58 0 I 23 130 19 0 I 28 134 32 9 I 43 111 38 1 I 781 16:30 10 35 16 0 [ 12 54 7 0 [ 9 37 15 0 [ 4 39 13 0 251 16:45 13 38 it 0 7 52 8 0 1 3 33 8 1 [ 4 42 10 0 [ 230 17:00 10 35 20 0[ 13 32 5 0 ~ 8 31 3 0 9 41 13 O I 220 17:15 20 53 20 2 1 10 0 8 27 7 0 5 42 14 0 277 Hr Total 53 161 67 2 I 47 192 30 0 I 28 128 33 1 I 22 164 50 0 978 17;30 6 45 12 0 7 55 5 0[ 4 32 9 0 7 41 14 0 I 237 47:45 13 49 27 0 [ 17 44 3 0 1 11 30 5 0 1 7 36 18 0 260 18:00 8 46 17- 0 I 12 44 3 0 10 32 10 1 I 11 34 22 1 I 251 18:15 10 53 11 O 14 26 S 0 9 24 7 0 10 29 13 0 211 Hr TotaL 37 193 67 0 I 50 169 16 0 I 34 118 31 1 I 35 - 140 67 1 I 959 18:30 4 53 12 D l 11 24 1 0 7 26 8 0 [ 10 36 11 0 [ 203 18:45 5 36 13 012 _ 25 7 0 I_ 9 26 8 1 j 11 34 22 0 209 Hr Total 9 89 25 0 I 23 49 8 0 I 16 52 16 1 I 21 70 33 0 412 - r *TOTAL* 204 886 337 / 2 I 217 797 147 0 I 182 820 194 17 I 201 808 294 2 I 5108 I r WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTAION ppared'by District 6 Planning District 6 Planning Department Site Code : 00002732 N. 2714 Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 Start Date; 07/24195 Phone (509) 456-3996 File I.D. : PIWES320 Page : 2 Vehicle group 1 SR-27 . . 132nd IsR-27 132nd I Southbound lllestbound [Northbound Ifastbou d I I I I I Left Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Other I Total ite 07]24195 Teak flour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 12:30 to 19:00 on 07124195 eak start 17:15 ' 1705 1 15:45 1 17:15 J turn 47 193 76 2 1 51 197 21- 0 1 32 134 37 5 1 30 153 68 1 1 Ment 15% 61% 24% 1% I 19% 73% 8% OX 1 15X 64% 18% 2% J 12% 61% 27% 0% 1 Pk total 318 I 269 1 208 252 1 ighest 17:15 J 17:15 1 15:45 1 18:00 1 alume 20 53 20 2 15 54 10 0 J 12 38 7 4 J 11 34 22 1 J Ni total 95 I 79 1 61 1 68 1 "!F .84 I .85 1 .85 1 .93 1 eak Howr Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 12:34 to 19:40 on 07124195 Peak start 17:15, 17:1S 17:15 1 17:15 1 alone 47 193 76 2 1 51 197 21 0 I 33 , 121 31 1 J 30 153 68 1 I ercent 15% 61% 24% 1% 1 19% 73% 8% 0% 1 18% 65% 17% 1% J 12% 61% 27% 0% 1 Pk total, 318 1 269 1 186 1 252 1 ighest 1705 J 17:15 ,J 18.00 1 18:00 1 'Aume 20. 53 20 2 15 54 10 D J 10 32 10 1 I 11 34 22 1 1 ni total 95 1 79 1 53 1 68 I Off .84 1 .85 I .88 1 .93 1 4 APPENDIX B Midilome East Development Project Trip Generation MIDILOME EAST DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 127 DWELLING UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 6/28/94 DRIVE AVERAGE STANDARD ADO-USTMENT WAY RATE DEVIA'T'ION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 10.13 0.00 1.00 1286 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.20 0.00 1.00 26 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.58 0.00 1.00 73 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.78 0.00 1.00 99 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.69 0.00 1.00 87 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.37 0.00 1.00 47 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 1.05 0.00 1.00 134 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.21 0.00 1.00 26 AM GEM PK HR EXIT 0.59 0.00 1.00 75 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.80 0.00 1.00 102 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.69 0.00 1.00 88 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.37 0.00 1.001 48 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 1.07 0.00 1.00 136 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 11.06 0.00 1.00 1405 PK HR ENTER 0.56 0.00 1.00 71 PK HR EXIT 0.48 0.00 1.00 60 PK HR TOTAL 1.03 0.00 1.00 131 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 8.68 0.00 1.00 1103 PK HR ENTER 0.50 0.00 1.00 63 PK HR EXIT 0.50 0.00 1.00 63 PK HR TOTAL 0.99 0.00 1.00 126 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) = .921LN(X) + 2.698, R^2 = .96 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = .867LN(X) + .398 R^2 = .89 , .26 Enter, .74 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = .902LN(X) + .528 R^2 = .92 , .65 Enter, .35 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .858LN(X) + .464 R^2 = .89 , .26 Enter, .74 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .892LN(X) + .59 R^2 = .91 , .65 Enter, .35 Exit Sat. 2-way Volume: T = 9.217(X) + 234.586, R^2 = .93 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T = .871(X) + 20.759 R^2 = .9 , .54 Enter, .46 Exit Sun. 2-Way Volume: T = 8.881(X) + -25.166, R^2 = .94 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: T = .761(X) + 29.705 R^2 = .88 , .5 Enter, .5 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROT'RANS APPENDIX C Traffic Operations Backup Data Existing Intersection Configuration CJ~UIJU LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM93EX HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 1 20 V12 155 N7 V11 I V 1 N= 2 C v 1> ^-----.-----V6--- 40 Grade 0% V5-- 54 N= 2 36 --V1------------ v---------- V4-- 18 132 --V2------------> major road Grade 0% 32 --V3------------v [1 > PINES ROAD V7 14 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 1 175 Date of Counts: 1993 V9 Time Period: AM PK HR minor goad 44 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.84 Grade 0 o Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 6 7 1 8 9 1 10 1 11 112 Volume (vph) - 1--361-1321 321 181--541 4018-141 1751 441 411 1661 201 Vol(poph),Tab.10.11 371XXXXIXXXX1 181XXXXIXXXXI 141 1791 451 421 169' 201 -,VOLUMES IN PCPH 20 V12 169 V11 42 V10 v 1> V6-- [----------V5__ 37 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 18 --V2------------> -_V3------------ v C1 14 V 179 V9 45 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM93EX STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 c-/ V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vcl2 16+ 132= 148 vph 20+ 54= 74 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 {secs.} 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity►Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 945 pcph Cp12 = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 4.8% (V12/Cpl2)x100= 2% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .99 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 945 pcph Cm12=Cp12= 1000 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street I v--- V4 V1 Conflicting~Flows, Vc~ -V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vcl 32+ 132-- 164 vph 40+ 54= 94 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 1000 pcph Cpl = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x10o= 1.8% (V1/Cpl)x1o0= 3.7% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .99 P1= .98 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 1000 pcph Cml=Cpl= 1000 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street I A V8 v V11 Conflicting Flows, VcN~^ .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+Vl=Vcll 16+ 132+ 36+ 40+ 20+ 54+ 18+ 32+ 54+ 18='296 vph 132+ 36= 292 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 709 pcph Cp11 = 712 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)x1OO= 25.2% (Vll/Cpll)x100= 23.7% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .81 P11= .83 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8-Cp8xP1xP4 Cmll=CpllxP1xP4 688= 709x.98x.99pcph 691= 712x.98x.99pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street C-1 V7 I-] V10 ----y-----_. .Conflicting Flows, Vc Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=VclO 296+ 166+ 20= 482vph 292+ 175+ 44- 511vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Figio.3) Cpl = 503 pcph Cp10 = 482 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 Cm10=Cp10xP4XPIxP8xP9 = 503x.98x.99x.83x.99 = 482x.99x.98x.Blx.97 = 401 pcph = 367 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM93EX SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH -----714----------401 .m 694 387 455 B A 8 179 688 694 509 456 A A 9 45 945 694 900 456 A A APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM--V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 42 367 609 325 378 B B 11 169 691 609 522 378 A B 12 20 1000 609 980 378 A B MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 'MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1 37 1000 963 A 4 18 1000 982 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96NB HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 1 23 V12 192 N> V11 47 V10 rN= 2 C v I> ^----------V6-- 46 Grade 0% <-----------V5-- 63 N= 2 42 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 21 153 --V2------------ , major road Grade 0% 37 --V3------------v [1 a PINES ROAD V7 16 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 1 203 Date of Counts: 1996 BACKGR V9 Time Period: AM PK HR minor road 51 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.84 Grade 0 q Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS --------------------------------------_-------a----------------------------------- Movement no. 1 1 2, 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 1 12 'V'olume (vph) I 421 1531 371 211 631 461 159 2031 511 471 1921 231 Vol(pcph),Tab.10.11 431XXXXIXXXXI 21]XXXXIXXXXI 161 2071 521 481 1961 231 VOLUMES IN PCPH 23 V12 196 - V11 48 l V10 [ v 1> "-----------V6-- [----------V5-- 43 --V1------------- V---------- V4-- 21 --V2 > --V3 v C1 > V7 16 V8 207 V9 52 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96NB STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vcl2 19+ 153= 172 vph 23+ 63= 86 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 919 pcph Cp12 = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 5.70 (V12/Cpl2)x100= 2.3% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .99 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 919 pcph Cm12=Cp12= 1000 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street v-- V4 Conflicting Flows,-Vc - --V3+V2=Vc4W} V6+V5=Vcl 37+ 153= 194 vph 46+ 63= 109 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 991 pcph Cpl = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x3.00- 2.10 (V1/Cp1)x100= 4.3% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4- .99 P1= .97 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 991 pcph Cml=Cpl= 1000 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street v vll Conflicting Flows, Vc .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=VC8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vcll 19+ 153+ 42+ 46+ 23+ 63+ 21+ 37+ 63+ 21= 344 vph 153+ 42= 339 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Figl0.3) Cp8 = 670 pcph Cp11 = 674 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)xl00w 30.9% (V11/Cp11)x100= 29.1% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .76 P11= .78 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xPlxP4 Cm1l=CpllxP1xP4 643= 670x.97x.99pcph 647= 674x.97x.99pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street V7 V10 Conflicting Flows, Vc Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vcl4 344+ 192+ 23= 559vph 339+ 203+ 51= 593vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Cavacity,Cp(Fig10.3)' Cpl = 449 pcph Cp10 = 425 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 CmlO=CplOxP4xP1xP8xP9 = 449x:97x.99x.78x.99 = 425x.99x.97x.76x.97 = 333 pcph = 301 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JEO - AM96NB SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V (PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM--V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 16 333 645 317 370 H B 8 207 643 645 436 370 A B 9 52 919 645 867 370 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 48 301 550 253 283 C C 11 196 647 550 451 283 A C 12 23 1000 550 977 283 A C MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1_ 43 1000 957 A 4 21 991 970 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96H HOURLY VOLUMES-- Grade 0% N = 1 27 V12 221 N> V11 - - - V10 -___===--y~=T====-_-__ 58 N= 2- [ 1> V6-- 50 Grade 0% V5-_ 63 N= 2 43 --V1-------------^ v---------- V4-- 21 153 --V2------------> major road Grade 0% 37 --V3------------ y [I > PINES ROAD V7 16 STOP xx V$ YIELD N= 1 213 Date of Counts: 1996 TOTAL V9 Time Period: AM PK HR minor road 51 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.84 Grade 0 Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. ' 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 11 112 Volume (vph) 431 1531 371 211 631 501 161 2131 511 581 2211 271 Vol(pcph),Tab.10.11 441XXXXIXXXXI 211XXXXIXXXXI 161 2171 521 591 225 281 VOLUMES IN PCPH y 28 V12 225 V11 5 V1Q 1> ^----------V6--- =r [----------V5-- 44 --V1 v---------- V4-- 21 --V2------------> --V3------------ v C1 , V7 16 V8 217 V9 52 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM968 STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc -------1/2-V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=VC12 19+ 153= 172 vph 25+ 63= 88 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 919 pcph Cp12 = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 5.7% (V12/Cp12)x100= 2.8% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .98 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 919 pcph Cm12=Cpl2= 1000 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Mawr Street v-- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc r^-- __-V3+V2=Vc4r- V6+V5=Vcl 37+ 153= 190 vph 50+ 63= 113 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 991 pcph Cpl = 1000 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x100= 2.1% (V1/Cpl)x100= 4.40 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .99 Pl= •97 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 991 pcph Cml=Cp1= 1000 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street V8 --v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vc~ rr~===.5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+Vl=Vcll 19+ 153+ 43+ 50+ 25+ 63+ 21+ 37+ 63+ 21= 349 vph 153+ 43= 342 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (sees.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 666 pcph Cp11 = 671 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)x100= 32.6% (V11/Cp11)x100= 33.5% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .74 P11= .74 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cm11=CpllxPlxP4 640= 666x.97x.99pcph 644= 671x.97x.99pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street V7 V10 Conflicting Flows,^Vc Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7~^Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vcl0 349+ 221+ 27= 597vph 342+ 213+ 51= 606vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Ca$acity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cpl = 422 pcph Cp10 = 417 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 Cm10=Cp10xP4xP1xP8xP9 = 422x.97x.99x.74x.98 = 417x.99x.97x.74x.97 = 294 pcph = 287 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96B SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH - 16 294 633 278 348 C B 8 217 640 633 423 348 A B 9 52 919 633 867 348 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMEN'T' V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH - _--10----ti.........___59_____-----287 535 228 223 C C 11 225 644 535 419 223 A C 12 28 1000 535 972 223 A C MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1 44 1000 956 A 4 21 99.1 970 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM93EX HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 1 68 V12 153 N] V11 V 10 30 N= 2 [ v 1> ^----'------V6-- 76 Grade 0% <----------V5-- 193 N= 2 33 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 47 121 --V2------------ 7 major road Grade 00 31 --V3------------ v [I R 7 PINES ROAD V7 51 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 1 197 Date of Counts: 1993 V9 Time Period: PM PK HR minor road 21 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.93 Grade 0 Population:10000 0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS - Movement no. 1 2 3 1 4 5 I 6 78 9 110 1 11 12 Volume (vph) I 331 121 311 471 1931 761 511 1971 211 301 1531 681 - Vol(pope),Tab.10.11_-341XXXXIXXXXI 481XXXXIXXXXI 521 201 211 T311-156 691 VOLUMES IN PCPH 69 V12 156 V11 3 ______e I 1 V10 C v I. ^----------V6-- [----------V5 34 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 48 V2------------> --V3--y_--------v <1 > V7 52 V8 201 V9 21 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM93EX STEP 1 : RT From dinar street ~ ~ --<-/-V12`----_-__-_~. Conflicting Flows, Vc 112 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vcl2 16+ 121= 137 vph 38+ 193= 231 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = +956 pcph Cp12 = 857 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 2.2% (V12/Cpl2)xlOO= 8.1% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .99 P12= .95 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 956 pcph Cml2=Cp12= 857 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street ` v-- V4 Conflicting Flows,-Vc -~_---V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vcl 31+ 121= 152 vph 76+ 193= 269 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 1000 pcph Cpl = 914 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x10O= 4.8% (V1/Cpl)x100= 3.7% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .97 P1= .98 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 1000 pcph Cml=Cpl= 914 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street V8 1 v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vc-- ~k .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vcll 16+ 121+ 33+ 76+ 38+ 193+ 47+ 31+ 193+ 47= 486 Vph 1211- 33= 463 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 561 pcph Cp11 = 578 pcph % of Cp, utilized (V8/Cp8)x100= 35.8% (Vll/Cp11)x100= 27% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .71 P11= .8 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cmll=CpllxP1xP4 533= 561k.98x.97pcph 549= 578x.98x.97pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street V7 1-~ V10 Conflicting Flows,, -VC -------Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vc10 486+ 153+ 68= 707vph 463+ 197+ 21= 681vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(FiglO.3) Cpl = 361 pcph Cp10 = 375 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 CmlO=Cp14xP4xP1xP8xP9 = 361x.98x.97x .8x.95 = 375x.97x.98x.71x.99 = 261 pcph = 251 pcph i i l LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM93EX r 1SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS j' MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH t, 7 52 261 458 209 184 C D 8 201 533 458 332 184 B D 9 21 956 458 935 184 A D APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 31 251 524 220 268 C C 11 156 549 524 393 268 B C 12 69 857 524 788 268 A C MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCAH) CR(CM-V) LOS ----1--------~-°'34---------914 880 A 4 48 1000 952 A COMMENTS: r r 3 t r r` F A LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96NB HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 1 79 V12 177 N> V11 I 35 V10 < v > --------V6-- 88 N= 2 Grade 0% VS-- 223 N= 2 38 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 54 140 --V2------------> major road Grade 0% 36 --V3------------v <1 ^ > PINES ROAD V7 59 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 1 228 Date of Counts: 1996 BACKGR V9 Time Period: PM PK HR minor road 24 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.93 Grade 0 % Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 11 12 Volume (vph) I 381 140 361 541 223 881 591 2281 241 351 1771 791 Vol(pcph),Tab.10.11 391XXXXIXXXXI 551XXXXIXXXXI 601 2331 241 361 181 811 VOLUMES IN PCPH 81 V12 181 V11 I 36 V10 < v J> ^----------V6-- <----------VS-- 39 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 55 --V2------------> > V7 60 V8 233 V9 24 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96NB SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7.8,9 CR CR LOS LDS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 700___-----~-196 387 136 70 D E 8 233 477 387 244 70 C E 9 24 1000 387 978 70 A E APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LDS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 36 183 451 147 153 D D 11 181 495 451 314 153 B D 12 - 81 820 451 739 153 A D MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS =--1 ---------~39---------875-------------- 837 A 4 55 1000 945 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PlMi96B HOURLY VOLUMES_______a__ Grade 0% N = 1 81 V12 196 N> V11 42 V10 -N= 2- [ v 1> ^----------V6-- 101 Grade 0% C_______-a_V5-- 223 N= 2 42 --V1-------------" V---------- V4-- 54 140 --V2-------------> major road Grade 0% 36 --V3------------V c1 ^ 7 PINES ROAD V7 59 STOP xx r V8 YIELD UUU N= 1 263 Date of Counts: 1996 TOTAL V Time Period: PM PE HR minor road 24 Prevailing Speed:30 32ND AVENUE PHF:0.93 Grade 0 o Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 Volume (vph) 1 421 1401 361 541 2231 1011 591 2631 241 421 1961 811 Vol(pcph),Tab.10.11 431xXXXIXXXx1 551xxxxlxxxx1--601 2681--241- 431-2001831 VOLUMES IN PCPH 83 V12 200 V11 43 V10 v 1y ----------V+6-- <----------V5--- 43 --V1-------------^ V---------- V4-- 55 --V2------------> --V3-------------v 7 V7 60 V8 268 V9 , 24 4 f Dim) E:VANS ANDASSOCIATf.S, INC A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING FIRM OFFICES IN OREGON WkSHINGTON, CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA 2828 S.W CORKTT AVENUE P©RTIAND, OREGON 9'24]-183[1 (j43) 213 6661 FAX ( 943) 2 23 270 1 NAME: JED - PM96B LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE STEP 1 RT From Minor Street/_> V9 V12 --------------------------------1 2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vc12 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1g+ 140= 158 vph 51+ 223= 274 vph t Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 934 pcph Cp12 = 812 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 2.6% (V12/Cpl2)x100= 10.20 .94 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .98 P12= . 12= 812 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 934 pcph P - v-- V4 vi _ STEP 2 . LT From Mayor Street 2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vcl Conflicting Flows, Vc V336+ +V140= 176 vph 101+ 223= 324 vph = Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 Cpl = 865 pcph = 1000 pcph o (V1/Cpl pcp 5%. % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x100= 5.50 .97 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= •97 P1= . 1= 865 pcph '-Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 1000 pcph P STEP 3 . TH From Minor Street V8 v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vc .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vci1 18+ 140+ 42+ 101+ 151+ 40+242= 546 vph 223+ 54= 578 vph (secs.) ~ Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 6 ( (ssec518 pcph Potential C4acity,Cp(Fig10.3) CV8 = 495 pcp54.1% (V11/Cp51 pcph 38.6% of Cp utilized ( / P8) P11= .68 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .54 Cm1 11xP1xP4 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xPlxP4 P 466= 495x.97x.97pcph 487= 518x.97x.97pcph ---_--_<-\-V7V10-_---_----- STEP 4 ._LT_From -Minor -Street Conflicting Flows, Vc Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=VC10 578+ 196+ 81= 855vph 546+ 263+ 24= 833vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp7 = 288 pcph Cp10 = 297 pcph = Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 Cm10=Cp10xP4xP1xP8xP9 = 288x.97x.97x.68x.94 148 xpcph.97x.54x.98 = -173 pcph = -r LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: .TED - AM96NB1 HOURLY VOLUMES _ Grade 0% N = 2 46 V12 ^ 63 N V11 21 -N=^1 = v 1. ^-----------V6-- 51 Grade 0% <----------V5-- 203 N= 1 47 --V1------------^ v---------- V4-- 16 192 --V2------------> major road Grade 0% 23 ---V3------------v <1 ^ > 32ND AVENUE V7 42 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 2 153 Date of Counts: 1996 BACKGR V9 Time Period: AM PK HR minor road 37 Prevailing Speed:30 PINES ROAD PHF:0.84 Grade 0 % Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS - -I Movemen-n°_-----~y--1-1.~-----1 -4-`--5~~------7---$----E-1aT1Y11--12 Volume (vph) 1 471 1921 231 161 203 511 421 153 371 211 631 461 Vol(poph),Tab.10.11 -481XXXXIXXXX1- 161XXXXIXXXXI- 431-1561 38211 641- 471 VOLUMES IN PCPH 47 V12 64 V11 21 I V10 [ I7 "----------V6-- <----------V5-- 48 --V1------------^ v-----------V4-- 16 --V2------------> --V3------------ v <1 43 V8 156 V9 38 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96Na1 STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street , V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=VC12 - 12+ 192= 204 vph 26+ 203= 229 vph Critical Gap, To (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 886 pcph Cp12 = 860 pcph. % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)xlOO= 4.3% (V12/Cpl2)x100= 5.5-% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5)~ P9- .97 P12= .97 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 886 pcph Cml2=Cp12= 860 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street 9 v-- V4 I Conflicting-Flows, Vc- - --T ~V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vc1 23+ 192= 215 vph 51+ 203= 254 vph Critical Gap, To (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 966 pcph Cpl = 929 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)XIOO= 1.7% (V1/Cpl)x100= 5.2% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .99 Pl= .97 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 966 pcph Cml=Cpl= 929 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vc - - .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+Vl=Vcll 12+ 192+ 47+ 51+ 26+ 203+ 16+ 23+ 203+ 16= 521 vph 192+ 47= 507 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 535 pcph Cp11 = 545 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)xlOO= 29.2% (Vll/Cpll)x100= 11.7% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .78 P11= .93 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cmll=CpllxP1xP4 514= 535x.97x.99peph 523= 545x.97x.99pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street , <-1 V7-~ V1o Conflicting Flows, Vc _--^---__-Vc8(step3)+VII+Vl2=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vc10 521+ 63+ 46= 63ovph 507+ 153+ 37= 697vph Critical Gap, To (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cpl = 404 pcph Cp10 = 367 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 Cm10=CplOxP4xP1xP8xP9 = 404X.97x.99x.93x.97 = 367X.99x.97x.78x.97 = 350 pcph = 267 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96NB1 SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH _-~-__-350^---- 307 B 8 156 514 560 358 366 B B 9 38 886 560 848 366 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH ' 1021=_====-r=267x- - 246 C 11 64 523 627 459 516 A A 12 47 860 627 813 516 A A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS ----1---- 48 929 881 A 4 16 966 950 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM9651 HOURLY-VOLUMES- - Grade 0% N = 2 50 V12 ^ 63 N V11 21 N= 1 [ I> ^----------V6-- 51 Grade 00 <----------V5-- 213 N= 1 58 --V1-------------^ v---------- V4-- 16 221 --V2------------> major road 'Grade 0% 27 --V3------------ v ^ > 32ND AVENUE V 43 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 2 153 Date of Counts: 1995 TOTAL V9 Time Period: AM PK HR minor road 37 Prevailing Speed:30 PINES ROAD PHF:0.84 Grade D % Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Ms~vement ~Q-------~_-~-i--2wl--~-I--4-1--~-I--~----~--~--$ I 9 110 1 11 ! 12 ~ Volume (vph) 581 221 271 161 213 511 431 1531 371 211 631 501 ------------------------tl_-----_------------------__--------y-----___--_------- Vol(pcph),Tab.10.1, 591XXXXIXXXXI 161XXXXIXXXXI 441 1561 381 211 641 511 VOLUMES IN PCPH 51 V12 64 V1l 21 V10 C V > ^-----------V6-- [----------V5-- 59 --V1------------- v---------- V4-- 16 --V2 > --V3------------ v Cy > V7 44 V8 156 V9 38 a LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96P1 STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc` 1/2^V3+V2=Vc9 - 1/2 V6+V5=Vc12 14+ 221= 235 vph 26+ 213= 239 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 853 pcph Cp12 = 849 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 4.5% (V12/Cpl2)x100= 60 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .96 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 853 pcph Cml2=Cpl2= 849 pcph STEP r2 . LT-From _Major -Street __r--v---V4 V1 Conflicting Flows, Vc--'_---JM--V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vcl 27+ 221= 248 vph 51+ 213= 264 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 934 pcph Cp1 = 919 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x10a= 1.7% (V1/Cpl)x100= 6.40 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .99 P1= .96 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 934 pcph Cm1=Cpl= 919 pcph STEP -3-.~TH From Minor Street V8 v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vcµ- - .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vcll 14+ 221+ 58+ 51+ 26+ 213+ 16+ 27+ 213+ 16= 573 vph 221+ 58= 561 vph critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cps = 499 pcph Cp11 = 507 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)x100= 31.3% (V11/Cp11)x100= 12.60 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .76 P11= .92 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cm11=CpllxPlxP4 474= 499x.96x.99pcph 482= 507x.96x.99pcph STEP 4 : LT From Manor Street c-\ V7 1- Conflicting Flows, Vc Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vc10 573+ 63+ 50= 686vph 561+ 153+ 37= 751vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cpl = 373 pcph Cp10 = 337 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 CmlO=CplOxP4xP1xP8xP9 = 373x.96x.99x.92x.96 = 337x.99x.96x.76x.97 = 313 pcph = 236 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - AM96BI SHARED VANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V (PCPH) CM (PCPH) CSI-H (PCPH) (CM-V) ( CSH -V) CM CSH -7------- - 44 ---___---313-- 269 C 8 156 474 519 318 325 B B 9 38 853 519 815 325 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 21 236 215 C 11 64 482 596 418 481 A A 12 51 849 596 798 481 A- A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM--V) LOS 1 59 919 860 A 4 16 934 918 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96NBI HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 2 88 V12 223 N V11 4 V10 5 -N= I [ v 1> ^----------V6-- 24 Grade 0% [----------V5-- 228 N= 1 35 --V1----------- v---- V4-- 59 177 --V2------------ > major road Grade 0% 79 --V3------------v C1 7 32ND AVENUE V7 w--__----_---__- 38 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 2 140 Date of Counts: 1996 HACKGR V9 Time Period: PM PK HR minor road 36 Prevailing Speed:30 PINES ROAD PHF:0.93 Grade ❑ % Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS -------------------------------------------------------v------------------------- Movement no. 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 10 111 1 12 1 Volume (vph) 351 177 791 591 228 241 381 1401 361 541 2231 881 Vol(pcph),Tab.1❑.11 361XXXXIXXXXJ 601XXXXIXXXX1 391 143 371 551 2271 901 VOLUMES IN PCPH 90 V12 227 V11 55 V10 v I> "----------V6-- -------V5-- 36 --V1-------------^ v---------- V4-- 60 --V2------------> --V3------------v [1 > V7 39 V8 . 143 V9 37 LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32MD AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96NB1 STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street / a V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc__tl~-------1/2~V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vcl2Y 40+ 177= 217 vph 12+ 228= 240 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 872 pcph Cp12 = 848 pcph 0 of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x1OO= 4.20 (Vl2/Cpl2)xloo= 10.60 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .94 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 872 pcph Cm12=Cpl2= 848 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street v-- V4 VI Conflicting Flows, Vc`rW------r~V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vcl 79+ 177= 256 vph 24+ 228= 252 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(FigiO.3) Cp4 = 927 pcph Cp1 = 931 pcph 0 of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x10O= 6.50 (V1/Cpl)x1OO= 3.90 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .96 P1= .98 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 927 pcph Cml=Cpl= 931 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street V8 v V11 Conflicting JFlows, -Vc---_~^----.5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+Vl=Vcll 40+ 177+ 35+ 24+ 12+ 228+ 59+ 79+ 228+ 59= 563 vph 177+ 35= 590 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 50+6 pcph Cp11 = 487 pcph of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)x1OO= 28.30 (V11/Cp11)x100= 46.60 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .79 P11= .61 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cmll=CpllxP1xP4 476= 506x.98x.96pcph 458= 487x.98x.96pcph _ STEP 4 LT From Minor Street ~ V7~~ V10! Conflicting Flows, _Vc_ _-___----Vc8(step3)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=VcIO 563+ 223+ 88= 874vph 590+ 140+ 36= 766vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Figl0.3) Cpl = 280 pcph Cp10 = 329 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xPlxP4xPllxP12 Cm10=CplOxP4xPlxP8xP9 = 280X.98x.96x.61x.94 = 329x.96x.98x.79x.97 151 pcph = 237 pcph LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96NB1 SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 39 151 112 D 8 143 476 525 333 345 B B 9 37 872 525 835 345 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 55 237 182 D 11 227 458 527 231 210 C C 12 90 848 527 758 210 A C MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1 36 931 895 A 4 60 927 867 A COMMENTS: LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96$1 - HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 2 101 V12 223 N V11 V1Q 54 ~ - V ] -V6-- 24 Grade 0% ~N_ 1 I V5-- 263 N= 1 42 --V1-------------^ v----------- V4-- 59 196 --V2------------> major road Grade 0% 81 --V3------------ v <1 > 32ND AVENUE V7 42 STOP Xx V$ YIELD N= 2 140 Date of Counts: 1996 TOTAL V9 Time Period: PM PK HR minor road 36 Prevailing Speed:30 PINES ROAD PHF:0.93 Grade 0 % Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 1 I 2 3 4 1 5 I' 6 I 7 8 I 9 1 10 1 11 112 Volume (vph) 421 1961 811 591 2631 241 421 1401 361 541 2231 101 T Vol(poph),Tab_10_11-_431XXXXIXXXXI-=601XXXXIXXXXI==43`1431=-371==55 _2271_1031 VOLUMES IN PCPH 103 V12 227 V11 55 10 _ ~ V10 1> ^----------V6-- [--------_-V5-- 43 --V1------------A v---------- V4-- 60 --V2-------------> --V3------------v C > v 43 V8 143 V9 37 t LOCATION: PINES ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96B1 STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 V12 _ Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3+V2^Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=Vcl2 41+ 196= 237 vph 12+ 263= 275 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5.5 (secs.) 5.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp9 = 851 pcph Cp12 = 811 pcph % of Cp utilized (V9/Cp9)x100= 4.3a (V12/Cp12)x100= 12.7% Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P9= .97 P12= .92 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9= 851 pcph Cml2=Cp12= 811 pcph ....^,--•^--------tea.,^------... n ~ STEP 2 . LT From Major Street v-- V4 V1 Conflicting Vc~----_^-__-V3+V2=Vc4 V6+V5=Vc1 81+ 196= 277 vph '24+ 263= 287 vph Critical, Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 5 (secs.) 5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp4 = 907 pcph Cpl = 897 pcph % of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)x100= 6.6% (V1/Cp1)x100= 4.80 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P4= .96 P1= .97 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4=Cp4= 907 pcph Carl=Cpl= 897 pcph STEP 3 : TH From Minor Street k v V11 Conflicting Flows,cVc .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vc11 41+ 196+ 42+ 24+ 12+ 263+ 59+ 81+ 263+ 59= 625 vph 196+ 42= 653 vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) 6 (secs.) 6 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cp8 = 464 pcph Cp11 = 446 pcph % of Cp utilized (V8/Cp8)x100= 30.8% (V11/Cp11)x100= 50.90 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) P8= .76 P11= .57 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 Cmll=CpllxP1xP4 432= 464x.97x.96pcph 415= 446x.97x.96pcph STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street V7 V10 Conflicting Flows, Vcr N-----Vc8(step3)+V1I+V12=Vc7 Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=VcI0 625+ 223+ 101= 949vph 653+ 140+ 36= 829vph Critical Gap, Te (Tab.10.2) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (secs.) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Cpl = 250 pcph Cp10 = 298 pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xPllxP12 Cm10=Cp10xP4xP1xP8xP9 = 250x.97x.96x.57x.92 = 298x.96x.97x.76x.97 = 122 pcph = 205 pcph -pil ,OCATION: S ROAD & 32ND AVENUE NAME: JED - PM96B1 SHARED LADE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS +IOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 43 122 79 E 8 143 432 481 289 301 C S 9 37 851 481 i 814 301 A B APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS AOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 55 205 150 D 11 227 415 490 188 160 D D 12 143 811 490 708 160 A D MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 4OVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS --W=143=___--~---897--------------T--_--_ 854 A 4 60 907 847 A COMMENTS: APPENDIX E T'raff'ic Operations Backup Data Improvement Option 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29/94 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Traffic and Roadway Information Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT- Volume 47 16 42 21 TH Volume 192 203 153 63 RT Volume 23 51 37 46 Total Volume 262 270 232 130 Peak 15-minute Volume 66 68 58 33 p111F 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Number of Lanes 1 1 2 2 Approach Levels of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Approach Flow Rate 262 270 232 130 Approach Capacity 641 587 590 511 Volume/Capacity Ratio 0.41 0.46 0.39 10.25 Delay 5 6 4 3 Level of Service A B A A Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Delay 5 seconds Intersection LOS A (Conflicting Approach Plow Rate Pro ortion is Out of Ran e FOURWAY. XLS: AMBACK;jed Page 1 of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAIT STOIC-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29/94 Identifying Information _ Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR VOLE STJNI MEN WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 47 16 42 21 TH Volume 192 203 153 63 RT Volume 23 51 37 46 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT Flow Rate 47 16 42 21 TH Flow Rate 192 203 153 63 RT" Flow Rate 23 51 37 46 Approach Flow Rate 262 270 232 130 Proportion LT 0.18 0.06 0.18 0.16 Proportion RT 0.09 0.19 0.16 0.35 Subject Approach Flow Rate 262 270 232 130 - Opposing Approach Flow Rate 270 262 130 232 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 362 362 532 532 Total Intersection Flow Rate 894 894 894 894 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.15 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.26 Proportion, Conflicting A roaches Flow Rate 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.60 LT, Opposing Approach 16 47 21 42 RT, Opposing Approach 51 23 46 37 LT, Conflicting Approaches 63 63 63 63 RT, Conflicting Approaches 83 83 74 74 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 4.06 01.18 0.16 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.16 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 4.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 Proportion RT, ContlictinA roach 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound - Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.15 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.26 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 2 2 Lanes on Opposing A roach 1 1 2 2 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.06 0.18 0.16 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.16 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.17 0.17 0.12 r 0.12 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approach 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 A roach Capacity 641 587 590 511 F FOURWAY.XL.S:AMBACK-,jed Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29194 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Traffic and Roadway Information Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 58 16 43 21 TH Volume 221 213 153 63 RT Volume 27 51 37 50 Total Volume 306 280 233 134 Peak 15-minute Volume 77 70 58 34 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.€3.0 1.00 Number of Lanes 1 1 2 2 Approach Levels of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Approach Flow Rate 306 280 233 134 Approach Capacity 665 598 573 490 Volume/Capacity Ratio 0.46 0.47 0.41 0.27 Delay 6 6 5 3 Level of Service B B A A Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Delay 5 seconds Intersection LDS S (Conflicting Approach Flow Rate Proportion is Out of Zge) E FOURWAYM&AMTOTAL;jed Page 1 of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29194 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State; SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME SUNIlV "Y' WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 58 16 43 21 TH Volume 221 213 153 63 RT Volume 27 51 37 50 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT Flow Rate 58 16 43 21 TH Flow Rate 221 213 153 63 RT Flow Rate 27 51 37 50 Approach Flow Rate 306 280 2,33 134 Proportion LT 0.19 0.06 0.18 0.16 Proportion RT 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.37 Subject Approach Flow Fate 306 280 233 134 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 280 306 134 233 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 367 367 $86 586 Total Intersection Flow Rate 953 953 953 953 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.32 0.29 0.24 0.14 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.29 0.32 0.14 0.24 Proportion, Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 0.39 0.39 0.61 0.61 LT, Opposing Approach 16 58 21 43 RT, Opposing Approach 51 27 50 37 LT, Conflicting Approaches 64 64 74 74 RT, Conflicting A roaches '87 87 78 78 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.06 0.19 0.16 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.18 0.09 0.37 0.16 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.13 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approach 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.13 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.32 0.29 0.24 0.14 Prortion, sun Approach Flow Rate 0.29 0.32 0.14 0.24 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 2 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 2 2 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.06 0.19 0.16 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.18 0.09 0.37 0.16 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.13 ,Proportion RT, Conflicting Approach 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.13 Approach Ca acit 665 598 573 490 FOURWAY.XLS:AMTOTAL;Ied Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29194 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & States SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Time Period: PM PEAK. HOUR Trgfflc and Roadway Information Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 35 59 38 54 TH Volume 177 228 140 223 RT Volume 79 24 36 8$ Total Volume 291 311 214 365 Peak 15-minute Volume 73 78 54 91 PHF 1.010 1.00 1.00 1.00 Number of Lanes 1 1 2 2 Approach Levels of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Approach Flow Rate 291 311 214 365 Approach Capacity 505 571 506 621 Volume/Capacity Ratio 0.58 0.55 0.35 0.59 Delay 9 8 4 9 Level of Service B B A B Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Delay 8 seconds Intersection LOS B (Conflicting Approach Flow Rate Proportion is Out of Range) FOURWAY.XLS:PMBACK;jed Page 1 oft ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAX STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29/94 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME 5UNBIARY WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 35 59 38 54 TH Volume 177 228 140 223 RT Volume 79 24 36 88 PHF - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT Flow Rate 35 59 38 54 TH Flow Rate 177 228 140 223 RT Flow Rate 79 24 36 88 Approach Flow Rate 291 311 214 365 Proportion LT 0.12 0.19 0.18 0.15 Proportion RT 0.27 0.08 0.17 0.24 Subject Approach Flow Rate 291 311 214 365 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 311 291 365 214 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 579 579 602 602 Total Intersection Flow Rate 1181 1181 1181 1181 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.31 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.26 0.25 0.31 0.18 Pro rtion, Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.51 LT, Opposing Approach 59 35 54 38 RT, Opposing Approach 24 79 88 36 LT, Conflicting Approaches 92 92 -94 94 RT, Conflicting Approaches 124 124 103 103 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.19 0.12 0.15 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.08 0.27 0.24 0.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approach 0.21 0.21 0.17 0 17 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.26 0.18 03.31 Proportion, © osiri A roach Flow Rate 0.26 0.25 0.31 0.18 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 2 2 Lanes on Ope2sing A roach 1 1 2 2 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.19 0.12 0.15 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.08 0.27 0.24 0.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Pro rtion RT, Confliction Approach 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.17 Approach Capacity 506 571 606 621 FOURWAY.XLS:PMBACKJed Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6/29/94 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND A,VENIJE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR 1}gfftc and Roadway Information Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 42 24 42 54 TH Volume 196 263 140 223 RT Volume 81 59 36 101 Total Volume 319 346 218 378 Peak 15-minute Volume 80 87 55 95 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Number of Lanes 1 1 2 2 Approach Levels of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Approach. Flow Rate 319 346 218 378 Approach Capacity 579 583 627 629 Volume/Capacity Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.35 0.60 !Delay 8 10 4 10 Level of Service B B A B Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Belay 8 seconds Intersection LOS B (Conflicting A roacb Flow Rate Pro rtion is Out of Ran e) FOURWAY.XLS:PMTJTALjed Page f of 2 ANALYSIS OF FOUR-WAY STOP-SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 6129/94 Identifying Information Intersection: SR 27 & 32ND AVENUE City & State: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Scenario: 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMESUMMARY WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT Volume 42 24 42 54 TH Volume 196 263 140 223 RT Volume 81 59 36 101 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT Flow Rate 42 24 42 54 TH Flow Rate 196 263 140 223 RT Flow Rate 81 59 36 101 Approach Flow Rate 319 346 218 378 Proportion LT 0.13 0.07 0.19 0.14 Proportion RT 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.27 Subject Approach Flow Rate 319 346 218 378 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 346 319 378 218 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 596 596 665 665 Total Intersection Flow Rate 1261 1261 1261 1261 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.27 0.17 0.30 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rata 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.17 Pro rtion., Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.53 LT, Opposing Approach 24 42 54 42 RT, Opposing Approach 59 81 101 36 LT, Conflicting Approaches 96 96 66 66 RT, Conflicting Approaches. 137 137 140 140 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.07 0.13 0.14 0.19 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.17 0.25 0.27 0.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 Proportion RT, Conflictin Approach 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.21 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.27 0.17 0.30 Proportion, Opposigg A roach Flow Rate 0.27 0,25 0.30 0.17 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 2 2 Lanes on Opposing A roach 1 1 2 2 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.07 0 13 0.14 0.19 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.17 0.25 0.27 [3.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approach 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 Pro onion. RT, Conflicting Approach 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.21 A roach Ca aci 579 583 627 629 FOURWAY.XLS:PMTOTALUed Page 2 of 2 e APPENDIX li Traffic Signal Warrant Testing Improvement Option 3 r. '6!28194 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS INTERSECTION INFORMATION City: Spokane Population: 100000 Intersection Location: (Rurallllrban) Urban Major Street Name: highway 27 Minor Street Name: 32nd Avenue Number of Moving Number of Moving Lanes for Each Approach: 2 Lanes for Each Approach: 1 Speed: 30 mph Speed: 30 mph Street Width: 40 ft Street Width: 40 ft Direction: NB SS Direotion: EB WB Hour Beginning: Hour Beginning: 12:00 AM 12:09 AM 1:09 AM 1:00 AM 2.00 AM 2:00 AM 3.00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 8:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 175 86 7:0D AM 200 161 8:00 AM 170 108 8:00 AM 203 203 9:00 AM 146 111 9:00 AM 128 93 10:00 AM 191 128 10:00 AM 119 119 11:00 AM 190 154 11:00 AM 210 156 12:017 PM 156 159 12:00 PM 186 140 1.00 PM 183 159 1.00 PM 171 102 2:00 PM 182 172 2:00 PM 172 139 3:00 PM 181 182 3:00 PM 166 154 4:00 PM 194 213 4:00 PM 192 172 5:00 PM 189 281 5:00 PM 236 269 6:00 PM 183 297 6:00 PM 242 235 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 8.00 PM 8.00 PM 9:09 PM 9.00 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 11.00 PM 11:00 PM 24-hour Total 2142 2050 24-hour Total 2225 1953 WARRANTS.XLS:SAMPLE jed Page 1 of 4 - - l 6128!94 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS r WARRANT 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME (8 HOURS) ~r 5:00 PM 189 281 5:00 PM 236 269 N 6:00 PM 183 297 6:00 PM 242 235 N 4:00 PM 194 213 4:00 PM 192 172 N 11:00 AM 190 154 11:00 AM 210 156 N ~J 3:00 PM 181 192 3:00 PM 166 164 N 8.00 AM 170 108 8.00 AM 203 203 N 2 00 PM 182 172 2:00 PM 172 139 N 12:00 PM 156 159 12:00 PM 186 140 N 7:00 AM 175 86 7:00 AM 200 161 N 1:00 PM 183 159 1:00 PM 171 102 N 10:00 AM 191 128 10:00 AM 119 119 N _ 9:00 AM 148 111 9:00 AM 1 28 93 N r✓ v Warrant Requirements: Major Street Lanes: 2 r Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minimum Volume an Combined Major Street Approaches: 600 - Minimum Volume on Higher Minor Street 150 {r I5 THE SIGNAL WARRANT MET? NO ` 1 WARRANT '2, INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC IS HOURS} i 5:00 PM 189 281 5:00 PM 236 269 N - 6:00 PM 183 297 6:00 PM 242 235 N 4:00 PM 194 213 4:90 PM 192 172 N 11:00 AM 190 154 11:00 AM 210 156 N 3:00 PM 181 182 3:00 PM 166 164 N e 8:00 AM 170 108 8:00 AM 203 203 N { 2:00 PM 182 172 2:00 PM 172 139 N 12:00 PM 156 159 12:09 PM 186 140 N 7:00 AM 175 86 7:00 AM 200 161 N _ 1:00 PM 183 159 1.00 PM 171 102 N 10.00 AM 191 128 10:00 AM 119 119 N 9:00 AM 148 111 9:00 AM 128 93 N Warrant Requirements. Major Street Lanes: 2 Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minimum Volume an Combined Major Street j Approaches: 900 lr { Minimum Volume on Higher Minor Street 75 IS THE SIGNAL WARRANT MM NO i S r~ rl r r WARRANTS XLS SAMPLE.jed % Page 2 of 4 f , L - - 1 6/28!94 .i i TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 9, FOUR HOUR VOLUMES 5.00 PM 189 281 340 5:00 PM 236 269 N f 6:00 PM 183 297 340 6:00 PM 242 235 N ~ 4:00 PM 194 213 390 4:00 PM 192 172 N 11:00 AM 190 154 #NIA 11:00 AM 210 156 #NIA 3:00 PM 181 182 390 3:00 PM 166 164 N 8:06 AM 170 108 #NIA 8:00 AM 203 203 #NIA 2:00 PM 182 172 390 2:00 PM 172 139 N 12:00 PM 156 159 #NIA 12:00 PM 186 140 #NIA l Warrant Requirements: s Major Street Lanes: 2 Minor Street Lanes: 1 / ~r IS THE SIGNAL WARRANT MET? NO WARRANT 10. PEAK HOUR DELAY If This warrant is not analyzed as part of the signal warrant caluoulations. i f S WARRANT 11, PEAK HOUR VOLUME 5:00 PM 189 281 520 5:00 PM 236 269 N 6:00 PM 183 297 520 6:00 PM 242 235 N ~ 4:00 PM 194 213 590 4:00 PM 192 172 N ! 11:00 AM 190 154 #NIA 11.00 AM 210 156 #NIA dJ 7 Warrant Requirements: ` Major Street Lanes: 2 Minor Street Lanes: 1 y a t IS THE SIGNAL WARRANT MET7 NO f 1 i y~ r/1 i / F• l ' WARRANTS XLS-SAMPLE'led Page 4 of 4 r-_ r it