The URL can be used to link to this page

27891 PE-1750 SHELLEY LAKE LEYEL OF SERVICE - Si$naiized Intersections T.,evel of Service (I.OS) is a qualifiable premise dedelaped by the transportation professivn ta quantify driver perceptian fvr such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments causei by ather vehicle.s afforded tfl drivers who uttilize rhe transportatian network. As defined by the Transpvrtation Rewuch Board in Special Repvrt No. 209, the 1985 Highway Canacitv Manual. This document has quantifel level of service intv ranging frcam "A" which iridicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicate.s significant r+ehicle delay and traffic congestion and system breakdawn due ta Wolumes far eacr.eeding capacity. Tror signalized uztersections recerlt reseacch has deterniined that aVerage stopped cfelay ger vehicle is the best aVailable measure of LO5. ThIS 15 Sh[3WI1 afl page 3. The tables on page 3 identify the relationships per Tevel of ser►+ice and aVerage stQpged delay ger vehicle, [7sir:g this definitivn as presented in the Highway +Capacity Manuals an LflS of "D" is generally cansidered ta represent the minimum accepiable design standard for signalized intersectaons. T]nsigrialized Intersections q'he calculativn vf LQS at an unsigndized vr flneltwo-way stvp contro3led intersection required a differenz apprvach. The 1985. Transprrrtariart Research Boards, Special Repart 209, The Highwrry Capacity Manuu1, includes a method fvr calculation the I.evel of 5ervice (I.OS) at " oneltwo-way stop-wntrolled intersectivns. Fvr these unsignalized intersections, LOS is deFined differently than for a signal controlled inteTSectivn in that it is based upon the concepi of "Reserve Capacity'", or that pOr~tavn of lthe patential Gapacityr which is nvt usetl. , Ler+el aF Service in the cantext frrr aaa unsignalizcd intersectian is based upvn the idea of "Reserrre Capacity", which represents that haurly pc,rtivn of the interseections available capacity which is nat used. For unsignalized i,ntersectiansf this is based upon the patential availability of gaps in the can#licting trafic stream that are available ta malce a specific turning mvvement. An exampYe is that an eastbvund left tuming Ve.hicle must yield tv bvth narthbourid and svuthbvund th€ough and left turning Vehicies. it there are nvt very many narth and southbaund vehicles then the eastbaund left turning wehicle will have mvre vppvrtunities {gags in t,tae trafF~c steatn} with which ta make the turnning mvvement. HaweVer, as tra~f'ic vvlurnes both north and _ sauthbvund increase there are fewer and fewer opportunities in which the westbaund left can be made. 'Ihe transpnrtativn Reseairch Board has defermined what levels of service for all intersectians should be by designating LOS leVels of A through F, where an La5 of A represents a tree flnwing facility wi1h wnple vpportunities to make a specific turning mvvement and an Lt}S of Frepresenfis a facilicy where there are few if any aVailable gaps where, a specific - mvveanent can be made, thus causing the mavement to baek (queue) up and create rongestion, Inland Paofic Env,uerin8 ComPany 18 Shellcy Ltlre M driVer friusgativn and excessive cornmuting delays, 'lfie reserve rapacxty +concept applies only ta an individual trafftc mavement ar to shared lane movements. ance the capacity of aD the indivitfual movement has been calculated and their LvS and the absence of gaps vr tfie expected delays determined, an vveraT evaluatian of the intersectivn c.arr be made. Normally' the mvvemen[ hav1[1g the vVC7r5t LOS definBS the vver"dll evaluation, but this may te tempered by engineering judgemrent. An LOS of i] is generally cansidered to represertt the minimum acceptable opemtivnal staiadard for an urban intersectian and LOS of C the minimum aaceptable aperatiQnal standard for a rural interseetion. .All LOS analyses described in this report were perfvrmed in accordance with the procedures described aboVe. As afinal nQte, the Highway Gapacity Manua'f (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst rase cAnditivns, therefvre, the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weelcencls, in rrany instances exgerience tra#'_fic conditinns better than those described whthin this dcxument for anly the Peauk Hours of operaavn. This is especially, true for minvr street - mvWements as the HCM favors the major street and penaiim the aaailable gags on the minor ~ street therehy, resulting in a►+ery conservative LOS estimate. Sheliey Lake I.evei of Service artd Trqf,~ic Arw1►ysis As vutlinad above trie LOS techniques used for this study will clasely follvw thase as vutlined , in th~ 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. 7?ZB, Speciad RepQn 209. 'I'he scope of this study hvwever, wi~ deal primarily with thvse interswtions of interest as noted belvw. 0 Sullivan Raad and 5prague Arrenue ■ Sullivan Raad and 4th AWenue ' SPrague Avenue and Cvnciin ■ Sullivan Road and lbth Avenue This praject lying within Spoicane Cvun#y, is alsa within the urban grvwth bvundary. Therefore, far this analysis the 14we.st acceptable level of service for a signalized intersectivn w'rfi be an LDS of I7, while for rar+signalized intersectivns the minirnum acceptabie LDS wilI be an I.OS of E. 7hese ler+els will be threshvld levels far analysis and rnitigatian. However, if the Lfl5 of the existing intersectivn is currently at an LO5 of less chan an L(lS of Dor E respectively, than mitigativn wW only be recommended co pmVide zelief taack w the existing delay vr capacity leaels. Tab1e 4 belvw indirates the existing revels of service experienced at the identified intersectioris. ` These LQS results aree from the traffc cvunts perfarm,ed by IPE in Tune and 3u1y of 1993. I I,irana Padfic ERRinrering Cmqau 19 sf,trrey r.ake Tu ~ ~ Table Na. 4- 1"3 Peak Hour Existing Levels of Service ry r4 PL~1,~G .TaRL~C ■D~~ ` ~ ~r~vc'~c vv~s;~~ F-•?;Da 1 ECTIONM1.` ; • , i" . ,a., n.- , `,+uy { , J,, ~ a: 4~' Cnp I TAS j YIC ` x ~ ~.~[DS • ~ . , Dewy~;YIc,~'~~SF'~ ~ p 'L~QS ~ ;,~lay • , , 5ullivan Road and 24.4 0.53 C 30.2 0.79 D 5prague Avenue Su11ivan Road aud 175 D 76 E 4th Avenue Sprague AYenue and 424 A 101 D Copklm Raad Sullivan ltoad aad 273 C 121 D 1 Crth Avenue As can be seen fmm the aaove tahle, all urtersections are within acceptahle level of ser►+ice Omhmlds for intersectians within an urban area. However, the existang 5ullivan Road and 4th Avenue intersectinn, currently operates at or near an LDS of E, duriryg the PM peac hour. AIt]Di~gh IIDt belDW SCCepIabIe IeYelS, bath the Sullivanl4th and the Su'llivanl16th hawe levels of servace value.s of La5 D, during the AM and FM pea,ks, respectively. A clvser analysis of these intersection levels of service reveals the follvwing informatian. - Sudli►+an Rvad and 4th Avenue - As seen in Table Nv. 4, this intersecCion, duririg the AIVI peak hour aperates wath an LOS of T], and a reserve capacity of 175 gassenger cars per hour (pcph). As described earlier, for unsignafized intersecEions, che LOS far the intersection is the lawest IOS experienced by any ane leg of the intersectivn. The AM pea.k hour LO5 of D at 175 pcph, is for the eastbaund 1eg of the intersection. Fvr this graject it shauld be noted that the westb+dund 1eg, or the leg vvhich has t.he potential fvr traffic from this prapasal, has an AM pealc hour T.OS of B waith a mserve ca.pacity v€ 312 pcph. Fvr the PM peak hvur, as shown in 'I`able Na. 4, this intersectivn operates with an L,[}S of E, - with a reserve r,,apacity of 76 pCCph. Clnlike the AM peak hour, however, bath the eastbound and westtound legs of this intersection functirrra at vr near the same leWeis, please review the appendix for I.DS rF,alcuiativns. The pnmary reasan far the poar level of servace 15 the canflicting Teft turns as well as the moderately high to high through traf~ic vulumes bvth direcdvns vn Sullivan Road and the faet thaC there is nv tuming lane ar refuge far left tums at this anterrsectivn. Spragrte Avenue and Co,rrkIin Raad P As shawm isi 'Pable No. 4, during the AM peak hvur this irttersectivn functions with an L[lS of A, and a reserve r.apacity of 424 pcp'h. Hovvever, during 1nland Pacifie Enginernng CorrpanY 20 She1lry Iake T!e! I the PM peac hour the TAS for this in#e_rseetivn fa11s to and LUS of D, with a reserve capacity of 101 pcph. This level of service is fvr the southbound ieg of the in#erswbivn. 1;he nvrt.hbound ieg, vr the leg which will be directly affected by tris prvposal, cunently vperates during the PM pe.ak hvur with an L(]5 of C, with a reserve capadity of 274 pcgh. This level of serviice designation is adequate for an urban unsignalized intersectaon• Tt shvuld te nvted that the southbvund LOS of I], was for an inLerswdan leg vvhich had orly 9left taarns and S right turns. . SuIlivan Rraad ctnd 16th Averirre - As shawn in Table No. 4, during the AM peak hour this antersectian operates with an aicceptabie I..OS of C, with a reserve capaciry of 273 pcph. As with the other intersectivns, during the PM peak hQur the 1eve1 of service fvr this intersectivn faT1s . tu arr LQS of D, with a reserve capaciry of 121 gcph. Again, the identified LOS is for the far 1eg, vr eastbvund leg of the intmswtiQn. The near leg, ar the leg wi[h the pvtential ta be - affected by this prvposal curFeerjtly operates during the PM peak haur wit'h an L05 of B, with areserve capacity of 385 pcph. It should be nvted, that Sullivan Road funceans as a h;igh cpmmuter route between Interstate 90 and those residential areas south of 5prague A►►enue j, `T`herefore, the dissimilarity in thhmugh vulumes as shown in Figures 4 and S, will directly affect all left lurning voluanes whether they be near side or far side. GeneraTly, during the AM peak hvur, the eastbvund left turn will operate poarly, due to canflicting gaP plac:emeni from, the nvrthUvund traffic, and conversely in the evening the eastbvund left will have tQ campete r with gaps fram the sauthtmund through (wvrk to horne base) commuters. T11$ 51tuaXIOIIy W'lU al'nLQSt alWSyS G1L15e the eaStbnUrid Ieg fC1r bath 4th and 16th to result irr poor le►+els of service. N'at due to excessive vvlumes an tfie 1eg of the intmsectivn, rather due to the high cammute valumes either nvrth vr south and the absence of adequate gaps for entranc.e antv 5ullivan. As has been nored, these intersactivns were counted in June and ]uly, 1993 by IPE staf'f, hawever, in addition to gerforming a physical +caunt vf'these intersectians, additional aperational characteristics were vbserved and nvted. Frimarily aiong it's length, SuIlivan Raacl from Sprague Avenue south cpemtes wifih an average runni,ng speed of 32 tv 37 miles an hour, based upon the highway capacity manuat, fsr an arterW street with a pc7steci speed Gmit of 35 mph, this art.erial street would have an LO5 of A,IB. AdditivnaT vperational characteristics were vbserved alvng SuUivan Road, during the June and July c,ounting vperasiarts. The single largest cantributing faetor tv the paor level of service both rWculated and rneasured alang this arterial is the iack of forced gaps and platvvns alang Sullivan Rvad svuth of Sprague Avenue. The term fvrcel gaps refers tv a traffic contmt devioe such as ,a stAp sign ar tr-affic signal which foroes ' gaps in the through traff c stream and increases headway between r+ehicles. The Qther, significant abservation was the lack of platvons, along 5ullivan Road, which also results in staggered Vehicles between platavns and few gaps forlleft tuming side street traffic tu make the intended mcnrement. abservations, clearly indicated that the number of turning vehicles frvrn the side straets were nat significarit as to their immediate Wolumes, but a'ter sevcral minutes of nv-gaps along Sullivan dnland PadfiG Err8irueering Gonqam 21 SheUcY l,ake 7`iTA II rRoad, they wouTd begi.n fio queue up along their resgective 1egs. During bvth the AM and PM peak hour, it was not unusual ta observe, three w seven Vehicles queued up waitirag to either cross vr make turns at the intersecting cross streets on SuRivan Rnad. The presenr,e of these detucles, in aqueue, is primarily due ta the randvm nature of Vehicle gaps and speeds atvng - SuRrivaun Road. A more in depth analysfs, revealed that during the AM coznrnrrniute, the narthbound rupstream vehicles, svuth of lfith Avenue, cou1d enter crnto SuWvan relatively easily arrd at will. Hvwever, as these vehicles began their cammrate, they wv~~d be jvined with additivnal vehicles, at approximate 50 tn 150 fovt headways. This type of heaciway, is usually associaced rvich a reTatively good arterial LQS, vuhich ►avas vbserved to be betwe.en LC]5 A and I.OS B. However, this type of free f1vw, dves nat allvw the additivnal side street tmff~c nvrth of 16th Avenue the ' opportunity to enter the trafffic stream. Cvnversely, during the PM peak hour the sauthhvund traffic which is allvwed ta ent.er Sullidan through the Su1livan and Sprague signalized intersecmvn, do sv in a rather dense platoon. Hvwever, given that there are no tra~'fic contml devices alvng this rcaute (stop signs or signals) the traffic is allvwed to reach a free flaw speed with increased headway. T3uring the PiVI peak hour, the vnly gaps created irtt the traffic stream are when a svuthbound vehicYe turns left, eastbvund, thereby slvwing dawn follvwing Suffivan Road traffic until the mavement can he made. Hvwevex, due tv the width of SuLlivan betvWeen 16th and 40th A►+enues, this situation cart reaUy only occur at thvse intersectivns south of 16th AVenue. In the eVent Ehat gaps were adailable, the queue of twv to seven vetucles could be released by agap as smal as 10 to 12 seconds. There, are 5everai excellent resauz°ces fvr gap progressivn, ' but fvr ttds analysis we haVe used Greenshieid °s, ¢ueue Dischaarge Data which states that a gap - of $ ta 12 seoonds will accommodate between 4 artd 5 cazs in the queue, whieh is the upper limit ' of tt:e average number of cars experienced in any one ]eft tum queue. Therefgre, based upon actual gap timing and field obser►iativns, the rperatian of the unsignaliaed intcrsections atong SullaWan Raad, with an LQS of E, with the additian of gaps cou1d maintain better levels of servire than andicated in the LOS calculativns as nutlined in t~e HGM. As the highway capacaty tnanua1 dtes nvt deal well with gap relativnships in travel patterns and dves nvt have the ability tn analyze adequately this juxtapvsitivn in gatterns. Warrant AnaIysis I A1thvugh no actual warrant analysis was perfarrned, the Sullivan Raad and 4th Avenue intersection by inspection MAY vvarrant a traf~ic signal due to rnereting the criteria for Warrant No. 11, Peak Hour Warrant, as vutliaed by the 11lanual on ilnr"form Trcr,,'ic Cvrurnl I7eWces (MUT`+GD)• I,itl'and Pacifie Eagiritering Cosnparry 22 Shelley Lake Tlr! ~ ~ety Accident summaries available for the nnost rer.ent thm yeus (12101189 to 12131J92) frvm VVSDOT and the Spakane County files far the identified intersectivns within the SheRey Lake Nicinity were ammbled. Generally, accidents are documenteci hy type of occurrence, such a~ proPerty damage (pDp), inyurY {M and fatality (FAT), as well as average frequency per millivn entering ►►eXucles (per NNfEV). This ratio is a funcenn of the average daily taaffic enteging the nntersection and the annual ftequency of accidents. Table 4B dcycuments the accident raxe per MEV fvr the identified interseceons. Table Na. 4B - F.xisting Accident Histvry '90 to 142, S'helley Lake Vicinity ' ■ ~a ,~rpy~ •~lf~.+~,P3,1"Aa171nc~ ~x;~ , Yf `'h 3 $f . ^ -,13llid.ll■l1N ADAD ~LIa■0l4+7~ " ~'"~r , ` ~ t a`„r - . , t~ ,i4" . w` ~ ' ' ` • ~r ` .c p 4 o . c' ' ; ...3~ x ~ ; ,r~~.` 1~T i~,&,, Nf Per f` ~wrF•~ , . . . • „ ; ME~'' ' ' ~~S~llirs~ Rosd ~;~F'A`T`.`I ,p`~'~~'AT 5prague ~ 12 ~ 14 I 0 ~ 24 ~ 11 ~ 0 I 24 ~ 18 ~ 0 ~ 3,17 16th A►+enue ~ U ~ o ~ 0 0 ~ 0' ~ d I fl ~ D ~ 0 ~ 0 , 5praguelConirlm ~ a ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ a ~ v ~ a ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 As shvwn in Table 4B, accident rates varieci between 0 and 3.17 per NIEV.With tlae exceptivn fur the 5ullivan and Sprague intersection, these rates are betaw accident trends for principal = arterials wittin the Scate of Washingtvn, as wcU as belvw natianal trends fvr this type of facility. Hnvvever, the acccidend rate at the Sullivan and Sprague inttersectian is at +or abtrve the average accident expectancy fvr an intersection of this type and gearnetry. Gen+erally, for urban intersectivns, an accident ratte of 1.6 accidents per NIEV is considered to be at the upper limits of average. Fer the WSDOT arinual repvrt, the aVerage accident rate fQr an urban principa1 arterial such as SulliVan Raad is roughly 2.4 acccidents per MEV. It shauYd be nated that even ihaugh ac.cident rate threshvlds are nvt exceeded actual safety probtems rnay nat be apgarent until accident recards are investigated by type of occurrence. Based upon the types a€ accidents and iheir severity within this area, the imprvvements tv the ~ S11fl1Yan Road s'lnd SpIague AVe31IIe '1nter5eCtL[3I1 ShD1T1d TedLl{;e t`!e e7C1St1rig acCideIlt 1"dte of 3.17 MEV to near the state average accident rate of 2.4 MEV. i ~ Inland Pacijet Engineeiing Comparry 23 Slralley Lake TL{ i Planned Tianspnrfttr"an Impr+vvements A review of the six-yeax Transpartativn Impror+ement Prograrns (1993-1998) far Washingtan 5tate Department of Transportatian and Spokaae Cauni}+ indicates that funding has been allocated for work vn tvvv projects within the immediate area. These projects are as listed belovv, 1. Sullivar► Road, Interstate 90 to Broadway Avenue, 1993-1995. This project pmpvses to -widen the existing Sullivan Road to seven-ianes to pmvide access to a propased shvpping center developrnent at the northeast carner of the Suilivan and Broadway intersectivn, and will he designe,d to meet existinig Spakane Gaunty arterial, standards. 2. Sullivan Road, SrQadway Avenue to Sprague AVenue, 1993-1995. Thns project prvposes ' to widen the existing fvur-lane swtion of roadway to seven-lanes and to rmatch with the proposed project directly nvrth nf Brcadway Avenue. This prvject has heen propvsed to impmve existing leveY of service along 5ullivan Rvad and provide through traf~'ic progressian along this corridar betweeen the existing and pmposed land uses to the svuth ~ vf Sprague Avenue and Interstate 90. As wittr the northem sectivn this roarP wiU be ; des'rgned to meet existirig Spnkar►e Cvunty aaterial standards. ~ Inlard Fudfic Engincering ICa'mw+y 24 Slullry Lvke TU FUTVRE YE4R TRAFFIC IMP'~4CT ANALYSTS ANALYSIS ASSUMP7IONS ANIa ~ETHUI)OLUGIES Future year marning and evening vveekday pea,k hvur impacts of the potential tr-aff'~c generated • b}r the progmsM Shelley Lalce project were analyzed fnr each develvprnent altemative as follaws: • The project description, planrdeci year of buildnut, iocation a,nd size of the pmposed Sheiley lAke prvject were confiamed, as were estimates for maximum unit buildaut densities and sezvned a.reas. ~ ■ Tra~'ic generativn estimates of the future mvrning and eVening peak hour trips far the complete buildaut were completed and assumed tn be by phases, with Phase 1 cavmplete3 by 1995 and full buildvut far I'hase 2 by 2000. ~ Background traffic vaLumes vn each key transgnrtation system element were determined prior to superimposing the traffic impacts of the propcased 5helley loake praject. '1'his included adding any knvwn pipeline projects, such as Ridgennvnt, Morningside! Fred Meyer, etc., as well as allQwing fvr transgartation system gmwth at 3.0% per year far those streets intersacting with SuiliVan Rvad and Sprague Avenue. • Fer Phase I trrip assignment, Canldin RQad is expefit.ed to carry appraximately 95-pereent ' of aU ingress and egress trips with the rernainder of the trips using 4th Avenue. By the - year 2004, or at full buildout, Cvnklin Rvad via Rvtchford brive, wauld still be expected to carrY apProxirnately 80-percent of a11 site generated trips, vaith 4th Avenue carc}►ing 10-percent of the remainder and 16th Avenus via Rvtchfard Drive carrying the remaining 10-percent. 'i'his wvuld be true both during the moming and evening commute times. 0 Forecasted traffic vvlumi.es, generated fram the ITE, 7rip Generatiart Mariual, 5th Edition _ were then superimpvsed on the backgraund traf~'ic tv determine cumulatiVe traffic impacts. This determinatian was perfvrmed for both the morning and eVenzng peak hours for the both Phase 1 and Phase 2, ultimate builduut. • Level of service analysis wa.s then perforrned for both the pre-r]evelopment and gvst- development traffc volumes ta identifj► any capacifiy or LOS deficiencies due t,o the deVelvpment of the prvpose[i Shelley Lake pmject, ~ • AddidvnallY, site raelated issues such as ar,.cess design and operatian, intemal site circulation and on-site parlang were then addressed to ensure that t3he project site p1an cvnformed to general trafficJtraasportation and 1ocal aaea design requiremenis. IALand Paqfie Enginean,ng Cmpasry 25 SheHe;y f.ake TIA DEVET,OFMENT TRAFFIC Shedley Lake - Altemative No. T Sr`1e Generated 7'rrlf',~c Trip generativn estimates were prepared fvr the maximum patential far -this alterrtiative develaprnent vf the Shelley Lake project. Based upvn the existing zoning code fvr 5pokane Cvunty, approxiTnately 264 single-fannily and 196 multi-family units could be, and aze propnsed, , within the Shelley i.ak,e project site. The trip generativn estimates wEre determined using the Irsutute of Traffic E-n$ineers, T'rip Gener,anon Manual (TGM), 5th EditiQn. The TGM pravides empirical daia, based upon actual field observations for trip generation characteristics of similar residential tievelopments thraughaut the United States. 'Ihe alternadVe a.s st,ated wrll be a deVelvpment of 264 single family and 195 multi-family, apartment unrts. 'I'he TGM provades trip generation rates based upan the lalnd use type, ie, coJmmeacial, residenda'ly industry, schovl etc... 'Fherefare, fvr this trip generation analysis, Iand Use Code 210 - Single Family T]etachexi and 220 - for Multi-Family Attached from the TGM wffl te use.d w determine bath the AM and PM pea.k hour trip generatiorr rates. These rates far total buildout nf tlais altemative are listed in Table 5. ~ As indicated 'uy Table 5, tlais pmpvsed project wiU generate r+arivus voTumes of trraffic during ccrostiuctivn of the several phases of deVelopment. At Phase 1, campletivn, which includes SS single family residential hvmes the pzvpvsed project will generat.e appraxirnately 43 AM pea.k haur arad 59 PM peak hour trigs. 'Phe aznticipated to#a1 number uf vehicles which waU be generated throughvut the day wauld be 590 Vehicles per day (vpd). Qf the 43 AM peak hvur - trips, 11 tsips will be entering the site, while 32 will be exiting. [3f the 59 PM peak haur trips, 38 tnips will be entering the site, while 21 wi11 be exiting. Far Phase 2 altemative completion or at praject buiTdaut, this praject altemative will generate appraximately 283 AM Peak hvur trips and 375 PM peak hvur trips. 'Phe anticigated total nunnber af daily trips which will access this site is exgectecl to be apprv~imately 3,750 vpd. 0f the tatal 283 ►4.M pea.k hour trips, 66 trips will be entering dhe site, while 217 will be exating ciuring the AM pealc hvur. Qf the 375 PM peak hour trips 246 wil1 te entenng the site, vahile 129 wiU be exiting. Shelley Lake - Allemative No. 2' Srte Genernted Trq,f'f~c Trip generation estimates were prepazed for ihe maximum patential for thps altemative develvpme.nt of the Shelley Take projoct, Based upvn the existing zaning code for Spvkane Cvunty, apProximately 225 single-family units cauld be groposed, within the 5helley Lalce project site. The trip generativn estimates were determined using the tnstirwe of Traffic inlana Padfic Enqi,ucren8 eawar,ry 26 sJuury Lake ?M i Engineers, Trip Gerieratton Manuad (T'GM). Sth F.diaimn. The TGM pravides empirical clata, ~ based upan aciual field vbservabons for trip generation characterisfics of similar residential deVelopments thrvughvut the United States. The TGM pmvides trip generativn rates ha5ed upon the land use type, ie, comrnercial, residential, indust;ry, schoal etc... Therefvre, for this trip generativn analysis, Land Use Code 210 - Sirigle Farnily Detached from the TGM will be used to deternmne bvth the AM and PM peak hvur trip generatian rates. The.se rates for total buildout of t.his alternati►+e are listed in Tahle S. As indicated 'an Table S, this groposed project will generate various vvlumes v€ traffic during canstruction of tt►e several phases of develvpment. At Phase 1, compTetion, which includes 56 ~ single family residentiaY hames the proposad project wW generate approximately 41 AM peak hour and 57 FM peak haur taips. The anticipated totat number of Vehicles which will be generatexi throvghvut the day wauid be 574 dehicles per day (vpd). Of the 41 AM peac hour trips, 11 trips wiR be entenng the site, while 31 will be exiting. Of the 57 PM peak hour trips, 37 trips will be entEring the sitte, while 20 will be exitang. Far Phase 2 aiternaeae completion Qr at praject buildout, this project alte.rnnative wiTl genera're appraximately 156 Al►vi Peak haur tnips and 228 Fk~ peak haur trips. The anticipated tutal ~ nurnber of d,aily trips which wil1 access this site is expected ta be apprvxhmately 2,280 vpd. Of the total 166 AM geak hour trips, 44 trips will be entering the site, while 122 wiil t3e eaci4ng F during the AM peak hour. Qf the 228 PM peak hour trips 14$ wi1l be entering the site, while $0 wW be exiting. ~ Shelley i.ake T Altemmtive No. 3 ~ Site Gereerrrted Trq ffic Fvr this prugasel pmject altexnative, I)v Nvthing, there will te no add'itional trips generated than currently are generat.ed by the existing project site. i ~ Inland Paafic Lngireeerin8 Co"PQny 27 Shelley Take 7!A { - ! Table 5- Trip Genernt[an - 5helley Lake Plat , t'`~.~''"?4, f #'o ' ' r"'6~C,<"` n "3'.t.`mrz.M. ~k,.. „ .wdi ~w~. : <i ,..,i. o ~,z t ~ :~£s ,o~i`~~a` ' ~ ~ tiTP!lPnGENER~I~TION ~`I~1B~ , C~'L'f wY LAKE Afte , ~ ~~s ' ~~.a ' p" = c~s ' ~ c~aer ~ , ~ , , ~ . ' ~ " , ~ ` ' ~ ~ •s ~G,r, , ~ , ' , matives € ~ F. , : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~M Peali H~r{ ` , , ' ' , <•'r " - PM Ft1t qunr ~ '~i. 'af':t~` 3ry + a ~ s ~ `7,f , 4's'~ } • ' S .5~cE5'w'^M,~ ` <r \+,,"4t" , s ` ` ~ • ~Y ~ y , l~Fl~ , No. , LA~d N9. 1nAC7Ut lliBthL Ratle~' NO. Ia1Du# } ~1,;,'~ ~ C~lOlII~6~YE ~ ~ ` ~.T1~s ' [sE ~'1'i~ ' Splh , " ~l'itiufioa~l YQltlmeN; kr~ ~i~, t> Split . VOl~me~ . . . ; ~ • • ^ E • • ~~w ~ ~ { y N . . . Gen.• , s 1 , • - , v~~` `N' ''~tl~~,'M •y (46. ` ~ h'~ ~ , l~~ ~ ~a'.~ • . ~ ~ 4 yQ~ ~ ` in V01 ; Vi~Jl f ,o In t•~~e 3 , s L~- • , , ~,~.n ` ~it , , , , . A1t.No.1 ~ I ~ I N r ~ I I I ~ 1 I 5$ ~ 210(.74) I 43 I 26174 ~ 11 ~ 32 ~11 l, 32 ~ 1.01 ~ 54 ~ 65J35 21 38 ~ 21 I 38 2 ~ 206 ~ 210(.74) ~ 152 ~ 26174 I 40 ~ 112 ~ 51 ~ 144 1.01 208 ~ 65135 135 ~ 73 I 1-n ~ 94 ; 2 196 InD(.45) I 8$ ~ 17183 15 I 73 I 66 I 217 0.55 : 109 68132 73 ~ 35 ` 246 129 t Alt. t - Totals 283 66 ~ 217 ~ 375 246 ~ 129 ~ , . .a ,~»ry..''z ~ . ' 79 - ~ ~ ~,.~;':~?c~•~P`"`,~C' • c; c ~ . ~ - . - s~~„ ~ , ' :y. •t» ~ ~t ~ , ' , , , „ ~ xx<,o . fs ~ ~ . ~ - ` - ` ~ . , • . ~ , A1C. NQ. 2 1 ~ 58 I 210(.74) I 43 ~ 26174 I 11 I 32 ~ 1t I, 32 1.01 59 I65135 ~ 38 ~ 21 ~ 38 I 21 2 I 169 I210[.74] ~ 125 261'14 ~ 33 92 124 1.01 171 I 65135 I 111 ~ 60 ~ 149 ~ al l I I I~ I I I I I ~ ~ Alt. z - TatWs 168 I 1 I I~~ 124 I I230 ~ I y I 149 ~ 81 ,Land Ust Gvde 210 =Single Fm►rily Residrntia! Detuchrd Land Use Code 220 = Apartme,ne Phasa 1 is expedect to be cvmplert by 1993 P,iase 2. Wldaut Ls rWcted ro ,6e cc►mp[ere by 2OW r 1'nland Pan'fic En$ineering Comparry 2$ Slaellry Lafre 77A a TRIP DISTRIHU77l3N AVTJ ASSIGNMENT Based upon the follvwing criteria trip distributian and assignmsnt within the general area has been determined using: • F.xisting ADTss along the adjacent principaVminvr ar-tenallc.ollectors and 1oca1 access stwts. . • Existing A.M arid PM peak hour disectional and turning Wvlumes alvng 5ullivan RQad and ° SFrague Avenue. • Field vbservations af prirmary driver chaira►cieristics determined during actual field observatians and intersectian caunts. - • Regional employment d.ata frvrn the travel forecasting model pmvided by the 5pakane Regional Cvuncil (SRC), • Future land use projectivns provaded by Sgolcane Cvunty. The ressultyng estimated trap distrihutiQn is shawn in Figure 6. The resulting taip assignment to the existing transpartativn system is as shawn fvr Alternative Nv. I in Figures 7 and S fvr Alternative ATa. 2 in Figures 9 and 10. As shown in Figure 6, 62-percent vf ths site generated trips have been demrmined to be frotinlto the nvnrh. 'I'his carresponds with thase trip distribution rates as prvvided by the Spokane ~ Regional Caunc'rl, emplDyment data mvdel. This da#a from ihe SRC provides emgloyment and nvn-empTvyment areass. T'hese areas then determine the destinativn of the morning home-based tb W[]Ik a17d eVeI11I1g W[lIk td h[3Ti'1@-based ti1p5. The aGtual tTTlg d35trit3ut➢oIl When Iun C?Il the SRC model incvrporatess, land use, street type (classification), size (number of lanes), sPeed (posted) and several ather social and eccanamic aspects of the vverall area. From this madel, then an existing or prvpased trip ean be m4adeled ta determine the actual, ar nearly aetual path that the vehicle and ic's vccupanfis would chnse tv access the agpropriate land uses. The critical factor fvr thrs analysis is speed and pragressivn, the cnmputer optimized these two factvrs to deternline what will be the least time dependent mute and then adds the ovmnnuting vehicle to that r+aute. BACRGROITND TR4FF7C Due ta the growth which has taken glace within the Grezater 5pvkane area, gmw#h rates for ttae azea st►uth of this prv}ect Wicinity were abtiained firom both Spakane County and SRC. The input , from the Cvunty indicated th,at the ,general northbound and southbaund through vvlumes alnng Sullivan Roacl should be increased by 3.0 percent per year, for the twenty year period analyaed Inlaad Padfic EVneenng Cmnpam 29 - Sh.el2ey Ldke TG (1993 through 2015). This increase in through tiaffic volumes would approximate the existing growth rate which is expected to continue throughout the duration of this project. For those , arterials, collectors and local roads adjacent to or intersecting with, including Sprague Avenue, ~ a 3.0 percent per year gmwth rate was used. As with the gmwth rate associated with Sullivan Road, this rate will be applied to all area strcets over the twenty year period analyzed (1993 through 2015). This increase in tcaffic volumes along these streets, as with Sullivan Road, is ezpected to continue thmughout the duration of this project. i InJand Pad,fic Engineerin8 C4nwanY 30 SluQry Lake TU ~ Nm AviL ~ ' • . 500 . ~ yy~~ • • Aw. ~ ✓p01~a1~.~ ~ a An. ' w. ~ auv Cau vs. tooo ~ Atdlon CL ~ • . ~ Uon An ~ . . ~ r . D"» ~ ~'Mtd Aw. Alkl An. L g ` Aw. ~ Apd An OIM Ava. Jf ~ Vrl 1hIMx Wy Nlion ~ NI= ~ ~ NI -IF ri NI: , . ~ WI W w. I A ~ Wln Ave. 1,1w. ~ a zra ' . ~ tnd Aw. Isi Aw. Y .1 3rd Ave. 3rd Aw. b+d A Aw. ~ M. / <th Aw. I 7,A Aw. ° A I 4 Qo SN Aw. tA . QtA Aw. t ~ Sth CL 4h Aw. m° ~ ath A W ~h Aw. Av~. 1M ~ tt1~ Av~. . Li . ~ Ave °q 9ff+ ~ a°c ;VLAvlj itA Ave A». f~o m 10th ,n. tOtl1Av~ ~ m • C i~ t1A Aw. 11tA A . w 11 ' It Aw. s g ~ d • ~ Aw. ~ o'~c ; m 1 Aw. iJlA Aw. x 14N Aw. F I g3th Aw. 1 4 14 . Are. I An " ~ W Ntlf Aw. 1SM Aw I iStAAve. Sth Ave. ' tStl+ • . tilA Aw. ~ 1ftl► Are. tefA Arn. • i fi ~ ~ ~ 1 17tA Mn. • . 1h A pr w. 1Ttl~ Aw. Av~. Rq• ~ Aq°C 2M An. . .~w 1q AtA. , b'°' 7~ ~ ~ • Cl ~ I ` INLAND PACIFIC Figure 6 SHELLEY LAKE ENGINEERING Tri p Di s tri buti on ~ SPaKANE, WASHlNGTON South 25 Attomont Spokcne.Washington ` (509) 535-1410 99202 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAIYSiS . ~ - - - - - - - - . r _ . ~ N > J41 ~ ('~2)'.3 O4 ~ v ~ LAI ~ sPRAGuE ►avE SPRaGUE AuE r a ~ ~ ~ I ~ . V ~ 0 L) Vn ~ I-0. J' a cn - ~ ~ I I FOU RTH ~ - , r. ~ I C:p~ ~ 0 LL- i x L) ~ a , 7 6TH ~ . ~ ❑ ~ ~ ~ , vs ~ PM PFAK ~ (1M PEAK) NOT TD SGALE # . I~I~ FIGURE 7 1 5HEL~ ~E 1 IN~D P AC , ENGINEET~ING ALT No. 1 - PHASE 1 sPoKANE. wASHirvGToN TR[p aISTRiBLITOON ~ 5outh 25 Attamont 5polcana.Woahin (509) 535-1410 99~~ gto2'n ANC? ►4SSlGNMEN~ TRAFFlC jMPACT ANALYS[5 ~ _ _ - . . _ - ~ ~ 1Y d ce4 J, (77).51 r241(56)l--> o- ~ -0-~~}91o .j .1 SPRAGUE AVE SPFtAGUE AVE 0 ~ z J N z ~ ° N ~P C. ~ ~ FoUR7H u~ ~ r. ~ > ~ 0 z c.) - ~ ~ 1 fiTFC ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ PbA PEW4 i (►uM PM) N07 TO SCALE ` INLANI] PA~~~~C"" FEGUa~ ~ ~~ELLEY LfiXE , ENGINEERING ALT No. 1 - PHA'SE 2 sPvwaNE. WASHfNGTON sautr, 25 Attamont 5pokane,w03h~n&n TRIP DiSTRlBL]T6[3N ~ (509) &35- 1410 99202 J ~ ANp p5S1GNMENT f ~ TRAFFIC IMPacT ANALYSIS ~ s _ ~ - . - - - - - - - - ~ 2 ~ C~+ lll LAw w V SPRAGUE AVE SPRAGUE AVE - ~ m ~ n ~ (25)] 9 ~V} Z O C.) FouRrrH C~kr ~ of 0 ~ - _ c.~ . r- 0 7 6TFi ~ a r~ z z ~ ~ a ~ ~ PM PM NaT TD SCAL.E PEAK) ~ 1~LA.Ll D P1`iC1FIL FdGURE 9 SHELLEY fAK~ ~~~~~~~RING ALT No. 2- PHASE 1 sPoKANE. WASHINcTVN TRIP DiSTRiBUTION Soutr, 25 Alkanont Spokono.weanington ~►FFiC IMPACT A6+1ALYSls ~ (saa) ~-1szc~ 99202 ~ ~ AN~3 ~SiGNME1~1T ~ ~ ~ p s ~ If ~ s p Y ~ N a'' ~ SPRRGUE AVE SPRAGUE AVE a z :3 a N ~ {94}73 (1~2 t2 5 I FOUR`fH ~ . - ~ 0 ~ x ~ - ~ v • 1 fiTH ~ ~ _ a ~ ~ J J P11R PM ~ (AJd RM) ` NOT 70 SCALE nGLiRE 10 SHELLEY LJ4KE ~ INLAND PACIFIC E~~~NE~~~NG ALT Na. 2 -r F'HASE 2 sPQKAvE. wASH~NGTON TRiP D15TRlBuTION Souch 25 Altamont s~kane.Wcr$hin~r ~,a~F1~ ~~~aGr An~A~~'S15 (509) s3~ti4 io 99 z~2 f~ AND A55iGN~EENT ~ ~ FUIVRrL YEAR I,EYEL UF SERVICE Far all alternati►►es the background growth is expected to be cvnsistent and nvnspraject dependent. Therefore, background leVels will not be analyzed fvr each aitemative. Buckgr+nund Future Year Ievel of Service fiv the existing volumes rounted at the identified intersections, the background traf~ic Valurnes shown on Figures 11 threrugh 14 were analyzed to detemnine the irngact of nvn-project reTated grawth. Ttae resutting levels of service fvr Fhase 1are shvwn in Tables 6, 7, 10 and 11 and far Phase 2 6uildout in Tables 8, 9, 12 and 13. As ean be seen from these Lables the ac9ditivnal valurnes resulting from a combinatiun of area wide vacartt Froperty buildvut as wefl as the continuing background growth pattenn of 3.0 percent per year wi31 have signif cant impact, in same places9 during the AM and PM peak hours thh.rvugh the completion of Phase 1 in 1995. Hvwever, the resuLting b-a~'fic vvlumes due to backgmund growth alone, will result in seWeral inCersectians failing w rneet even the minimum requirements of Spakane County for Phase 2 buildvut in 2000. T'hese problern intersections accur during bvth xhe A1M and PM peak hours at the fallowing iritersectians. SuIUvan Road and Sprugue Avenue - 1995 Background - " Peak Hvur As shvwn in the identiied tables, with the constructiDn of the SuUivan Road Tmprovement Froject, between Broadvvay Avenue and Sprague Avenue, this intersection is exgected to flperate wath acceptable levels of service in 1995. ~ 1995 Backgrvund - FM Fealr Haur As shown in the identified tahles, with the cansidera'ble ler+el of existing and groposed deaelvpmeat in place, this intersection will operate with arn Li3S of F, during the PM peatc hour in 1995. The associated delay of 52.5 seconds, althvugh beyond the acceptable hmit of an LOS of I3, includes the wide,ning of Sullivan iv seven-lanes an the southbvund leg of this intersectivn. It is only expected that this level of delay will te extended vver a period nv langer that IO to 15 minutes as this intersection experiences, significant peaks due to the c,ommuting nature of the dehicles accessing this intersectivn. 2000 Brrckgrourd - AM Pecrk hiaur As shown in the identified tahles, with the ranstruction of the SuHavan Road Trnprcrvernent Prtaject, between Brvadway Avenue arbd Sprague Avenue, this intersectian is expected tv vperat.e with accepiable levels of service in 200II. 2000 Backgmurrd - PM Peak Haur As with the results frvrn all of the backgraund growth noted in 1995, this intersecdan will continue remain at an I.OS of F, vvith the delay decaying from 62.5 seovnds in 1995 Co 90.2 seconds in 2000. Althvugh this 1eve1 0f senrice is high and is unacceptable, fiom the Spakane Caunty, LOS policy, in actual experienoe, a minute and vne-half of aWerage delay at a high volume urbanized intersection, which this intersecevn will 4uickly becorne, is to 6e exp@cctei and wvuld nvt be cvnsideTW excessive. If this intersectivn were tv Inlamd Paofic Enginerring Con"►7 36 Shetlcy L,ake T7A continue tv be analyzed as a suburban intersectian then significant revWvns wvuld be necessitated. It shvuld be noted, that the calculadons as shown in ihe appemdix nate that the southbvund left turn with a future wolume of nearly 400 left tums cou1d be rer+ised tv a dual left tum, which could impro►ve the nverall leVel of service of this intersectivn during the year 2000, PM Peak Hvur tv an LQS of E, with an average delay of 55 secands. SuIIivan Road and 4th Avenree - - 1995 Backgr•ound - AM Feak Haur As shown in the identified tables, during the AM peak hour, the level of service of this intersection is at* I )Wd to degrade from and existi.ng LO5 of C, with a aeserve caNcity of 201 passenger cars ger hvur (pcph) ta an d~~ of ga with a reserve capaciry of -21 pcph. The pnmaury reason for this level of service degradativn is the ezisting ranstrucbivn of ~ver 600 apartment wnrits along 4th Avenve east of 5uliivan Raal. Althvugh, , apartments, characteristically, generate half the AM and PM peak hour trips of sir►gle family , residentiall, aconcentrativn of this type, wil1 use up rather quickly the excess capacity of this intersection as it is curren4ly configured. At this bme and with completion of the apartment compYexes, levei of service of this intersectivn wil9 only cantir►ue to degrade. 'Y'liee anXy rremedy available at this intersection wvuld Fe to improve the; interwct'ron ta include a left turn pocket and signalize thas interswtion. If the.se roadway improvements were ta be perfarmed, then the reswltang level of service would be an L[3S of C (18.6 secvnds). 1995 Background - PM Feak Hour As shawn in the i+tentified tables, during the P1VI geak huur this intersectivn which curnently has ari I.C]S of E, wi1l degrade tv an LC35 of F, with a reserve raFacity of -146 _pcph. This situativn, as described for the AM peak haur condition, is that with the addition of the apartrxients along 4th Avenue, this intersectivn will degrade beyond it's capacity to handie the number of r.ars accessing the 4th Avenue vicinity, east of Sullivan Raad. - With signalizativn the PM peak hour L[]5 wauld bc D (29.6 seconds). 2000 Background - AM Peak Hour As showri in the; identified tables, by the y~ 2000, with ❑n1y baclcgmund Walumes present, this intersection icontinues to degrade anid lose reserve capacity from and LUS of F, -21 pcph ta an LQS of Fl, -80 pcph. An LOS of C(18. 8seconds) would be achiewed if signalized. 2000 Bukgrarsnd -PM Pea,k Hour As showrn in the identified tables, by the year 2000, with onty background valrames present, tnis intersectivn continues to degrade and lose reserve capaicity fmm and Lfl5 of F, -145 pcph tv an iAS of F, -192 pcph. Arr LQS of D(37.2 sec:onds) wauld te achieved if signalized. Spmgue Avenue and CanlrUn RQad - 1995 Backgrounrt - AM Peak Haur A5 Shnwil lil itlS 1~tifi@d table5 thiS 111'#eISeChoI1 i5 L']CpCW Lo opeTdtB III 1h8 fuillie Wlih a VCry acceptabFe lL'Vel of SCrw1C7G. 1995 Backgrotind -PM Perrk Hvur As shvwn in' the identified tables tlus intersection is !nlmd F'a4r En8;ncefin8 C4mpany 37 Shellry Lake M ~ I expected tc) +operate in the future with avery azcepfiable 1L-ve1 af service. 2000 Background - AM Peak Hour As shvwn in the identifiei tables this intersecctian is ' expected to vperate iri the future with a very acceptable 1evel af service. 2000 Back$rour:d - PM Petrk Haur As 5howra in the identified tables this antersection is expected to operate in the future with a Very acceptable lerael vf service. Sul'ivan Road artd I6th Avenue - 1995 Backgr+vund - " Feak Haur As shvwn in the identified tables3 this ireterssecction will C,i]ntIIlk1C EQ ()per"dtE YE7y IIea11y aS 1t CUrreIIily dCieSr in that the eastbound leg, is responsible far the c.onflactir►g movement and therefare, wili nvt be affected by develaprnent east vf Sullivan, (westbound leg) canly by increases in nhrvugh traffic volurnes. 1995 Backgmund - PM Peak Hour As shovm in the idenmfied tables, this intersectian will cvntinue to vperate Very ne.uly as ic currently dnes, in that the eastbound 1sg, is responsible for the canflicting mor+ement and therefvre, will nat be affected by deuelopment east of Su11iVan, (westbound Teg) anly by increases in through traffic Vvlumes. 2000 BackgrQUnd - AM Peak Hour As shawn in the identified tables, this intersection wW coratinue to aperate very nearly as at currently does, in that ttae ea.stbound leg, is respnnsibTe far the conflicting moVernent and therefore, will nvt be affeer,ed by develvpment east af Sullivarr, (westbound leg) only by incr+eases in through traffic vvlurne.s. - 2400 ,8ackground - PM Peuk Hour As shvwn in the identified tables, this interswtion will continue to apeTate very nearly as it currently does, in that the eastbound leg, is responsible far the conflicting mvWement and thereforae, will nvt be affe,cted by develvpment east af Su1Tivan, (westbouad leg) only by increases in thrvugh waffic Vcalumes. Inlund Faafir Engintcring Cam,PunY 38 3Julley Luke M i N ~ m ~y S - 1 B7 ~J 451 -MD- CI.- 456 ~ ~ 38 3~ ~ 8 7'0 93 %J { ~ i ;PFtAGllE AVE SPR4GlJE AliE , 1 r z 332 s~ ~ 12 o 4 ~ 4235 ~ F[3URTH n 18 P 4~t* 87 8 ~7 C~ 6 2 17 0 tA~~ ~ m ~ 2 U - F ❑ 1 BTH a ~ ~ ~ J ~ - cn ~ NDT TD 5CA! E r I AT~~ ~ A ~~,,1~ ~~~L~ F~GUl~E 11 1 ~ SHELLEY LAKE ~ ~r 1995 AM PE►4K HOUR sPaxANE, wAsHiNcTON ENGINEERING FllTl1RE TRAFFIC VOLUMFS 5outh 25 lutarnvnt Spakane.Washington CJLTIPl~ SIJLWAi+i RD F'RC1~lECTS (50s~) ~-141a 99202 ~ ~ wRiiOl]T S~iELLEY U~E / Na,~F~SC IMPAC7 AP~AL~~S , ~ - . . . , 473 289 SB ~ ~ 9 ~ 8~7 ~;~8 1~ ~ 938 5~i 232'~ 27 ~294 V 3 SPRAGUE AVE SPFtAGUE AVE ❑ ~ z 54 c:P ~ 166 D ~ 2 14 ~ 74 0 22 -J~r r~ 34 G.? r V * FOURTH M m co ~ J11 ~734 9 •~i7 C}~ 8 10 3 - N pfpq + 0 ~ U r C~ 1 fiTH ct: 0 ~ i z ND i 1 O .7L/1LE En 10~ + ~~~PtND PA'~IF~~ ~ ~ FiFure 12 1 ~ s~ELLEY LAXE 1995 PM PEAK HOUR s~OKANE, WqSHINGT01~ ~NGINEERING F1JTl1RE TF2AFFIC VOLUMES South 25 Altamont 5pckann,Wrmhingtor+ MI~L~ifPLE SLILUV'APf RD PF~Q.IECTS. TRAFFiC IMP~4CT Af~iALY5E5 , (509) 535-1a1~f s9~a2 ~ ~ wrTHDtFT 5Ha.1.EY lAKE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co f° --0 ~ 210 1167 I 225--4> el~ 278 462 C=w 460 ~ 1~ 3 ~ ~ sPRAGU£ AVE spRAGuE avE I a ~ ~ ~ 23 J' 4k. ~ z 9 ~ ~12 b 35 0 ~ ~ FauRm ~ ~ B Ccz2~, ~67 y7 ~~C d N 0 ~ U H ~ 6TH ~ cl a: ~ y ~ NOT Tfl 5CALE ~ ~ ~ tn e ~ T~~1 A ~Tn Figure 13 ■ ~ SH€L~Y ~CE ~ A 1"i~r 1J ZaOD ►4M F'EAkC WQUR SPOkANE, wA5H11dGTVN E1■ GIl■ EERI1RG FUTURE TRAFFIC VDLUMES 5outh 25 Altnrnont 5pokane.lNcahington MULTIPLE SfJLL1VAlV RD PR(3.iE (5f}9) &35-141f1 982~2 ~ ` ~yyi~igl~ SHELL~~Y LAKE ~ ~ ~'RF~1C IMPAG"~ ANALYSlS ~ . ~ . . t - • ~ °'r' °~s o m tn 57 9 513 1230 -P> .0-1061 660-cG CJ..- W9 ~ ~ ~ 27 310 34+ L17Np +N~ m a O SPRAGLfE AllE 5F°RAGrJE Ay'E c`s ~ ~ z 54 tn z 14 C,y- O 25 -~l 34 v FOUR'fF! ~ m /6.5 J11 ~ 34 9 -_7 ~ 8 10 3 a4~ a ~ E- v _ 1 fiTH a ~ ~ ~ M V) i NOT TO SCALE ~ INLAND P ACIFIC RGURE 14 ~~EUXY LAXE ` 11T~'r~N~~~INC~ 2000 PM P~K HQUR SPo~~►E. W,~HINGTON EFUTURE TRAFF'1C VC3LLiMES Soutls 26 Altamont Spakane.lNaahington MULTIPL€ SllLWRN RO gRO]ECTS TRAFFIC IME~A~"f A~IAI=Y515 (509) ~-141a 99202 wmiOtrr sHE~ LvcE / ~ y ~ Shelley Lake Future Year Leve2 of Servate Aitentative No. 1 Tv the Phase I arid Phase 2 (UUuildaut) AM and PM backgTound pealc hvur interseceon volumes, the site generated traffic volumes as shvwn in Figures 7 and 8 were added a,nd are shawn in Figures 15, 16, 17 and 1$. The resultant traffic volumes were then analyzed fvr future year Y.f)S with the prvject. Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 indicate the resulting levels of servir,,e fram the traffic valurnes generated by this altexnative. Afternative No. I Phase I - Resulting I,evel of Senice AM Peak Hour - As can be seen from Table 6, fnr Phase i cvmpletian t.his project daes nat degrade the leVel of service, beyond the background L[3S for any of the identified intersections FM Perak,Haut - As can lae seen frvm Table 7, far Phase 1 completion this praject ww redure the background leuel of servir,e at the Sprague Avenue arld Cvnklin R❑ad intersectian. 'I`he specific reduction in LQS is the reductian from an LO5 of C, 236 pcgh xo an i.fl5 of E, $S pcph. Aithough this level of service, reciuction from an LOS of C tv an LOS of E, seems ~ excessive, ii is anly assvciated vvith a nvrthbound left turn dolume change from 4 left turns without the prvject tv 20 left tums with Phase 1 of 1he pmject. Afternative NQ. 1 PhasP Z{Bu;Idout} - Resreltin$ Level► of Service AM Peak Hour - As can be seen frvm Table 8, for Phase 2 completion this praject will reduce the teveIs of service, beyond the 6ackground leVels of service at twv iniersections. The first intersection is the unsignalized Sprague Avenue and Catiklin Road intersectican, whe.re the 2000 backgmund LOS of A(4?3 pcph) and the LOS with the project is anticipalted ta mvve to an LC)S of D(14S gcph). AIlthough signifir.ant in the fact that the vverall reductiarr is three levels of service from an LOS of A W an LOS of Di CIl]5 tedl]Ct1011 Ll LOS, is sti11 alove the minimum acceptable LOS as identifed by Spvkane Cvunty. Inkmd Padhc En~~~~g C4,pQny 43 shetrey r.ake TU ~Y r Table fi - P"haw I - ~ Peak Hvur IntersectTan LeveLs of Service - Alternative No. I ~ VY~L~{rM1n~2 } t~ FlJY Ram "ko ~w` ~ • i» ~ {~4~ ~~YNn~ ~S~~.s~~ ~ ~I ~~~lUA~~V~o TkAM } ~ kil\k{ • ~if~~~ . r s#g~,.` ±Y,fF' FF,*",~'i•f• . , kJlf'J~+ ` IIIC~y LAJ~7}}~ I`r1JlJt7<< i~.+r Sullivan 8t 5prague ~ 34.6 I 0.52 ~ 0 I ~ 34.0 ~ 0.68 I I] I ~ 34.8 ~ 0.70 ~ D 5u11':nau imd 4th I I f I201c I, 4 ~-21 ~ F I ~ ~-24 ~ F ~ Sprague 19t Canklin 463 I A 717 ~ 11 447 ~ A Sullivan end 16th 201 I C . ~ I 94 I E 44 ~ E s` Tabie 7- Phase 1- PM Peak Haur IntersectiQn Leevets vf Service -Alternative No, I , ` ` i~S ~,br;k., ~ll •{r~ ■~3 r D1'7A ■,f.■{.~I{'~sif x`'i■tTi~bT~:~~ i}~'`~~ ~ ■M ~3'~~r. >z~Fr~1~y/ 1r~i*'S:~^a ~7f■L~,1.~'i'~~+ ~&d i1}Ll~fl µ~L. ; 179~ x~~, 44d ` ~k~F ~ : , , .~1~~ •y ~p}2. ro ~ .r, ~ , 2 ~ ~Vf7 , • ,~~anfi.o[^~ Sk ~ •'~,n~ ~k . .V , nelii t.~~~ii~~`I, 5>> s, ue~y`` ~ v~ic- ~ tiosi;'~ War IViCn LciS Sullivan 8t 5prague ~ 39.7 0.59 I iy I ~ 62.5 ~ 1.02 ~ F I ~ 65.7 ~1.04 ~ F I I Sullivan and 4th 98 ~ E ~ I I-146 ~ F I I ~-15I1 I F Sprague 19t Canklin ~ i I I 116 I] ~ I I236 ~ C 88 I le , Sullivan and lbth ~ ~ I I 152 D ~ I I 5 ~ E 4 ~ E InlanI Pacic Engfnecrin8 CvnWany 44 Shed[ey T.ake TL{ ~Ta'ble S - Phase 2 - AM Peak Hou _r Intersectivn 'Levels af 5ervice - AiternatTve Na. I ~ ay~y Fy 'B~~t'v y^"~~vALi\V ~L -v~ 7~',""y, ~4~4 m~~~ KJ~i IAliJ1i ~ ~k1181ii~~ ~x ~A t u~~li~ °v' ~3 w < < • , ~ nei~y z.~vS`~~~. r~~ vjG p Lv`s vrc,,• 1 - ws suWWan & sprague 34.6 0.52 D 36.0 0.79 fl 41.6 0.89 F, 5tdlinan aad 4th 201 ~ E -80 ~ R -1n 1 F Sgrague dt ConWin 109 ~ D 473 ~ A I I' ~ 145 1 I3 SulCioan ana lGth 98 I B ~ I 71 ~ E 53 ` E 'f'able 9- P'hase 2 - PM Peak Hvur Intersection Uvels v[ Service - Afternative Nv. 1 ~ a . s; ~ ~'`/'~i~ %~n~.V, ,~°k.n• g?~#k~ v { ``,h`~'v• T`F ffi~~'~i. i• ~ , . . . „ ` ki r • a F 'Y ' tja STM} ~v: C 4 Vc`4 ;c ~Ll~•` - V ~':£3; , ~ U~~~d" 'u~$~: , ~v . , . " , a+r t,; • , ~ ~ x£ < • ~a~~y M yrc ~ ~ir.~is~~ ~ yi~ ~ • ~os,~ ~ ; W~p.~ ~..~.L~ = ~r`~I i~ve~f~~~ - s I up iu~►s Suiliran & Sgrague ~ 39.7 ~ 0.59 0~ , 90.2 I 1.12 ~ F 117.7 ~ 1.22 ~ F I ~ Sullivan end 4th 96 1 E -192 ~ F -232 ~ F 3prague dt Gvnklin ~ ~ I I 146 ~ D m ~ C . ~ I I -35 F Sultivsn and 16th I I I 152 D ~ I I -13 I F . I-18 F ~ l+►rldrui Pacsfrc Engineeren8 Cvnqpany 45 S,iuuey I,akc 7'fA The ses:vnd i.ntersectinn, ta experience areductivn in IA5 is the 5ulhvan Rvad and Sprague Avenue intersection. This intersectian reduces fronn and I:Q3 of D, wnth an average deTay of 36.0 secands tv an LOS of I71E wit3i an average delay of 41.6 secands. Although the LdS D Iei+ei is exceeded, an increm of 5.6 secvnds of tatal delay, is snznewhat arbitrary due ta the somewhat subjective nature of signalized intersectior► level of service calculativns. Usually, the rule of thumb would state, ihat wiih more aggressive signal timing, by yncorporating sharter cycle iengths, incor,porating mvre right turn on red nr left turn permittedlprotecct,ed phasing a 10 ta 25 percent reduction in delay can be achieved. In nrder tv maintain continuiry between level of scrwice caLculativns far revievv, these timing revisians weTe not incorparated. Therefvre, an average delay Ghange from 36 to 41.6 seconds cauld be cansidered to ie Very litde change, if any at all. Additivnally, the primary neascm for the increase in LC]S is due ta the overall increase in traffic r+alumes at this intersectivn and ~e reductian in green bme fvr the ca,st:baund arQd westbound directions given the larger thunugh wolumes alvng Sullivan Avenue. T'herefQre, if there were mvre thrvugh ianes available for through traff c Fm,gression vr nvrthbound Ieft tums the or+erall iratersectivn level of service cauld be maint.ained within the acceptable hmits of nv less than an LQ5 of D. PM Peak Hvur - As ean be seen frvm Table 9, f~r Phase 2 (auildaut) this prQject wiU reduce the Su13ivan and Sprague and the Sprague and Conkliri intersectians belvw the leveis of service from the backgraund grnwth in traffic,, As with the earlier discussions, 1he leVeIS of 5ervice Ted11Ct1oT1S UIl Sp1`ague AvenLIe are ri[lt reduceons vn 5prague Ar+enue, rather they are the result of additivnal through volume.s on - Spragus Avenue and this through traf'fics impact un the intterrsecting side streets. The irnpact to the intersecting side streets is usuaily in either the nvrthbaund or southbvund unsignalized left turn. As indicated for Phase 1 cornpletivn, the increase in toth through Wfic vn Sprague and an increase of 161eft turns reduced the reserve capacity by 150 vehicles, 'I'he same is true fcrT the Phase 2 completion, where the increase in nvrth'bound Ieft turns from a pre-deVeloped altemative wcalume of 4 is to a developed buikdout valume of b$ ieft tums. It shauld be nvted ttrat this r+olume ns appraximately half that of the left tums in the AM peak haur. Hvweder, the higher eastbound rommuting volurnesan 5prague asid the conflicc that they present, farces this intersection to an i.QS of F. At the SuUivan Road and Sprague Avenue intersectivn, the reductivm in level of service created by this intersectivn is two fold. First, the incre.ase in thraugh volumes due ta cvnsiderabie backgraund growth, cvmbined with an increase in left tum vvlumas for access to the proposad Fred 1Vleyer facility, have pushed this intersectian beyvnd it's capacity to serve the expected gmwth. By the year 2000, witlh a baCkgraund 1er+e1 of service at an LOS of E (90.2 seconds), the additiona1 delay and level of service reductian to an L{]S of F (117.7 5eYAndS) 15 [he 1e5l1lt of the southbound tv eastbound Yeft tum being beyvnd capacity with no additiQnal gteen time available ta improve this level of service. Trr ihe eveni that the county were t,o construct dual JrJand Pacyfc Engin,earing Compsn}' 46 SheUcy Taki nA lefts at this intersectian as par[ af the 3uUirran Road irnpmvement pro3ect, L[3S at this intersection will increase tv an LaS of E with an aVerage deiay vf 55 secands. ~ Inland Paafic Enginerring Company 47 She21ry Lakt ~T!''ei ~i 1'~] r N N m 17 1) ~ 1~ 154 451 ~ ~ 458 ~ ~ 9 29 ~ ~ 12 I ~ ~ ~N N tALn ~ ~ SPRAGUE AVE SPRAGUE pllE z 332 a ~ o- 12 z ° 4 35 ~ N G N 1 FouRTH ~ . ~ ~ a -mv o- s 2 cz~, ~ as ll~~~ a ~ z v ' 1 fiTH ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ i I V) ND7 7D 5Ca4L£ ~ \ I~ INLAND PACIFIC L nGUR~ ~~EUXY LAXE 1 l9 gb AM sPoxANE, wAsHINcTaN I E~~~NEERING FuTURe TRAMc voLUMEs Sauth 25 Altamont Spokane,Woahin tan AULnPLE SULUVAN RD pRt}JECTS (509) 535-1410 99142 or~ WITH SHELLEY LAKE iFAFFEC IMPACT f1NALY5E5 ~ ~ . - _ - - . a - - _ _ -.--y... ~ ~ 473 ~ ~ 302 ~ ~ ~ 8 57+~ ~ 511 QS~ ~ C.~ 936 298 ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ b3 w i~G [~7e N SPRAGl1E AllE SPRAGUE AVE r ~ ` m z J J ..J 55 J" ~ ] 68 D `aC V'1 Z 14-0 14 ' 0 22 c;kr e 34 ~ ' FQURTH , t 65 J' ~a4 s ~ r~ s _ 10 r ~ ~an41 p N IA [L m ~ V F" 0 16TH ~ ~ ~ i z > NOT TD SCALE V) + INLAND PAC IFIC ~ FIGURE 16 1 ~ ~E *s 1995 PM PEAK HOllR sPOwaNe, wASKiNGTON ENGIN~~~~~G FUTrRE rRAFFl~ VOLuMEs sn„tl, 25 Altomont spakane.washington MULnPLE 5lJl1NAN RO►4D ~C ~p~~qCT ►4NA~1"S!S ~ (509) 535-141Q 99202 ~`RRO~IECTS W~H SHELLEY E.A4CEf ` ~ a 209 ~ - 270 .P ~ 223 485~ CY~ 464 241 ~ -:3- 289 20 89 117 o~ ~ #AO w+ V SPRAGUJE AVE SPRAGUE A11E ~ ~ z °0, ~ z 25 ~ ~'J42 V7 2 t O ~ ~ N N C. ~ N FOUR7H ~ ts~'' ~88 2 17 4 d O N ~ V ~ ~ 1STH ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 i ~ NQT TQ $Clo1LE ` INLAND PAC IFIC FIGURE 17 SHELLEY LAKE ' ~ 2000 AM PEAK HOt,fR sPoKANE. wasHINGxON E~~~NEERING FU7URE TRAFFIC VOLLIMES South 25 Altomant 5pokona,WoshirI gtors Ml]LTiP1E SLILLIVAN RE3 Pi~O,~ECTS ~ (5G9) 535-1410 99zc32 WirH SHELLEY 11+~~ / TRAFFI(. tMPAC'T ANALYSIS ~ ~ - • - - - • .o.~ _ . _ P~~ ~W) 4m 513~ ~354 '1332--C> C~106$ ~ 8817--C> -*--598 325 353 133 42 ~ ~amnco ~ SPRacuE Ave sPRAGuE AvE m Cr 57 »5 (n z ,5--C> 14 Q 25 34 U ! CD 0 j ~ ~ FoUR-rH - I co Fwcc 65 J' $-=C> ~ ,a,~ ~ 4 0: CD ~ - ~ z . c~ ~ v 15TFi °C ! a ~ ~ I 'Z ~ ~ ~ a ~ N ` NaT TO sCALE ~ ° IN~~ ~ ~~IC/ FIGURE 18 SHELLE1' lAKE ~~~ar~ ~~~~r 2000 PM PEA~C ~IVUR SPO~aE. wAsHIr~~ron~ I FuTuRE TRAFFIc w~~~MES south 25 rhamorA spokane.washl,~~n MuL~P~ suLUrAa Ra~ ~,~c tw+~►~cz ~~vsi~ ~ (sas) ~-141o s92c~a ~ ~R~ECTS wi~ SHEl~LEY I,KE/ ~ . I Shelley La're Future Yee:r T.evel of 5erWce Ailtemative Na. 2 To the Fhase I and Phase 2(buildaut) AM and PM backgraund peak hvur intersection volumes, the site generatei traffic vvlumes as shnwn in Figures 9 and 10 were addeci and are shawn in - Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22, The resultant traffic vv$urlnes vvere then analya.ed for future year LO5 with the project. Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 indicate the resulting levels of service fram the trafFic volumes generated by , this alternative. Alternative No. 2 Plase I - Resu2#irag I.evet of 5ervice AM Fecrk Hvur - As can be seen from Tab1e l0a fvr Phase 1 cnmpletion of this altematir+e will orly affect the reserve capacity of the Sullivan Road and 4th Avenue intersection but will nvt degrade the leVel of service, beyond the background L.OS for any of the identified intersections, including the SulliVan and 4th intersectinn. PM Peak Hour - As can be seen frorn "Table 11, fvr Phase I cvmpletaan of this alternative will vnly affect the reserve capacity of the Sullivan Raad and 4th Avenue intersection but will nat degrade the 1eVel of service, beyond the background T.[3S for any of the identifiad intersectivns! _ including the Sullivan and 4th intePsectson. Afternextive No. 2 Plur.re 2 (Buildout) - Resulting I.evel of SerWce AM I°eak Hour - As can be seen from TabIe 12, for Phase 2 completion of t.his alternati►re will only affect the reserve cagacity of the 5u11iVan Road arld 4th Avenue intersection hut will nvt degrade the leael of serwice, beyvnd the backgraund LQS fvr any of the identi~'ied intersections, including the Sullivan and 4th intersection. - PM Feak Hvrer - As can be seen frvm Table 13, far Phase 2 r,orripletivn of this altematiae will vrily affect the re.serve cagacity of the Sullivan Rvad and 4th Arrenue inCersectivn but will raat clegrade the level of serwice, beyond the backgrour►d L[]5 for any of the identified intersecbons, including ttse SuTlivan and 4th intersection. lnland Pacifie Engineerins C4mFa+iY 52 Shellry I.akr TL! [ S ~ ^ Y Table 141 a Phase 1- A~ ~k Hour Intersection Levels of SerwTce - Afternative No. 2 y x ~ s 4 Qtih L Y - Q~ [x ~ ~ S} t \~s'C `c}i~ fb'~ `CfL•.f~<<+i ~ y~y~``•~ + i ~.~~~f ~1~5 BIllC~i'F~~i~''~O~ „ 1~J ~Q,~Ce~.+r.,TRAM~..` « . ~ • ~ l~}~ v~h~:t ~ i,~J , ~Ori1` Ue~qS~iZ@i1`l % , `~'~gn~lia~ 5~nallxe~i ~`s 1 rS;,Ll,aa~1lRL~ed . , ~zT , ~ j~lC ~ r tA5„'~{r; C.ap x IAS $ Dela; V1C ~ WS l , f a~ I LOS~ peiai t ~ ~`VJ,e' x ~ ~f5i. $ulliven dt 5prague ~ 34.6 ~ 0.52 I] I N 34.0 0.68 ~ D 34.0 I 0.6$ D 3ulliYan and 4th 701 I G -21 ~ F -143 I F , sgraguB & Conklin I I 1 I463 A ~ r ~717 A ~ I N4M~ B ~ Sullivan ansk 16th 1201 C 94 I E 63 1 E ; ~ , TabTe 11 - Phase 1-PM Feak Hour Intersectian Ievels of Servlce - Atternative Na. 2 , .,5~ R , . . ~ t ~ v , { ~ , . . ' . y., ; a'W~S ,c`v;a'c'ra~. 3E~ € ~ ` „ ~ 1"5 OACICGR(l1JN6 TiAJ*1Gx'; ~ ~;~~~,'t~5,~~►IT~~~i~,1~C"~'.~G . . ` .s~~ < ` . , k ' ;•;:J, Delay N ~ V1C ~ L45., ~.ALUS , Dela;,,~ ~ YlC1; }C.ap'`~~Lf!!S Dels~r 'I ~fC ` IA~' ~ zCap ~ LU3 5u11iYnn .4e Sprague ~ 39.7 ~ 0.59 ~ Q ~ I 52.5 I1.02 I F 63.7 ~ 1.02 ~ F SulliYan and 41 9$ I E ~ I I-10 I F ~ I-188 ~ F Spnigrue bk Coaklia 116 I G I 236 I C I ~ ~237 I C Sullivan and 16th I ~ I I 152 ~ f1 S ~ E + I E . lnland Paetfrc Engineering Gar+pany 53 Shs!!ey Lake T1.4' r; "I'able 12 - Phase 2- AIV[ P'eak Haur Tnterssction trevels af 5ervice -Alternative No. 2 • i,.+. a..~ , ` `'S.`~ F~ r ^f2.~ ` /,.iiy' p . , . ~ . . , , k' ;r;~A~''''~, ' ` ` ~ ~SM~`r , > 9. ± ' . ~ BA'~KG~OUP~l7>,^IC PR()JECT TRAMC` y~~~ s` ,l"u~ 1~ -.L.'~ryv~ + ,•J, S•~ } . . ~ .~y ~ti ~ ~i G~~ { v~ 4 ~t M1 + ~ ~p ~ L+US. I~ef~~ ~ Cap UU3' I.~[]5` ` 1,'ap';.~~ jos- , VIC'~ ~ Sulliraa dt 3prague ~ 34.6 ~ 0.52 ~ b 36.0 ~ 0.78 ` D 35.9 ~ 0.79 ~ T] Su11i►►an mW 4& I I ~ I 241 ` C -80 F -416 F 5pragua & Conklitn 463 ~ A 473 A 342 ~ B Sullivan and lbth 201 I C 71 ~ E 33 ~ E Table 13 - Phase 2 -PM Peak Hour Intersettivn Uvels oC 5ervice -Alternatlve Nv. 2 ~~~i~i~x '~~30 U,14'CN►G1~'~?I.J~tTRAi~'IC~.i,.~ ~2m tRAM4 Y: • ~ MERSEen "~s~ • oN, ~ s~eliired F I ; "Unsi,g'alized -1 , 5'lgnalized k, , f il~~nnasli~, S~~li~~•` _ I UnftnulLted ~l/q l,~ry p~ * ~y ',~a F.4'+{f~ ~1 y /y~I yy~ ~~iT ~(F a7 _ .Vf{,+.,.,~.-,1J1.►~7':~.tiRrit~}c.z~ -1.Jll~,',.4~'t~~I~IC~~. _ _ _ '*-vaE"' zr.id'.~+ . n. • h ~f `h _ ~ Sullivsn & Sprague ~ 39.7 ~ 0.54 I Q~ I 90,2 I 1.17 I F ~ I 103.4 ~ l.i$ i F I ~ 5ullivan atid 4th 98 I E -192 ~ F -322 ~ F 5praguc 8t Conklin 116 ` 1] 1225 ~ C 227 I C Suilivaa and 16th I I 152 ~ D I I ~-13 I P ~-13 ~ F fnland Pae:fid Engineering C4mpary 54 57rellry T.ake TT,4 ` Nv p TI r~7 ~ S ~ 187 15C1 ~ 46L~ 4 (452 1 ~ -4 o- g3B ~ 8 # ~ L ~ SPRAGUE AV'E SPRAGUE AVE a z I ~ ~ ~ z 10 ~ <3:- 12 O ~35 ~ N m 1~ ao ~ ~ FOuRTH I ~ ; 01 96 67 a -C> ~ B i 2 17 C] ~ °4D+ ° - a 7 BTH ~ ~ ~ ~ a NaT TO 5CALE (INLAND PAC IFIC ~ r FeGuRE 19 SH~LLLY LAXE 1 ~~I~~ 1995 AM P~K HouR sPa,~E. ►~~HINGTON ~i FUTuR€ TRAFFlC uoLuMEs South 25 Alternon# 5pokane.Wnshin gton ULT]PLE' SIJL.~LNAId RD PRO.1EC~ i (509) 535-141 c~ 992~32 WiTH SHEL'LEY LAKE AGTERNATIV5Z , TF~WFFIC EMPACT ANALYSIS ~ 1:~p IT, 56 ~ 473 2E19 1484 ~ C~ ~Sa 5G9~ :rF1B a -,r 27 + V SPRAGUE AVE SPRAGUE AVE a = ~ p m~~ ~ v ~ ~~a ~ ~ 54 ~ 184 15 .0- 14 2? ~ „r 35 ~~c~ FouarH ~ t 34 9 ~S C~ 6 1m~ ~ 3 ~ wLM~ a m 2 U - ' ~ f7 - 7fiTW ~ c~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ua } ~ NaT TO SCALE ~~~~LEY LAKE ` INLAND PA~IFYC ` A~~~~ ~N~~~ITE~~II~~ 199 sPo~EF w~,sHtNCToN FUTl1RE TRAFFiG V(3LUMES Sourth 25 Altamvrwt 5paknne.Waahtngtorr ML1LTIPLE SULLNRN RD PR0JECTS: ~ (509) 535-1470 99202 f <TH 5liE'Ll.€Y LAKE ALTERNATiVE■ ~ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , I ~ _ ~ ~ .°,.V) ~ N ~ m 210 ~ ~ 167 20 9 ~ 214 ~ 276 525~ ~ 53~ 93 126 3 a IN, I SPfVAUUJL AVE Jrf\l11pUE AYG ! ~ n z I ~ z 420 va ~ 12 C.- 13 ~ d g 37 C.7 ~ N~t+ m ~ u ~ ~ FvuRTH I - ~ I, 16 ~ 67 o- 6 ' ~ 2 ~ ❑ ~ 77 ~1 V~ o ~ N ~ G ~ r v l, 2 ~D . ~ 0 • 7 fiTH • ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ J ~ A. NOT T0 SCALE ~ ~ ~NLA~y 1~,~D PA~tIFIC1 ~ nGURE 21 SHE~EY 'U41tE ~ 2000 AM PFAK HOIJR EN~~~TE~1~I11fiG SRa~E. W~HrN~ON FUTuRE TRAFFIc voLuMEs ~ South 25 Altmrna-st Spakona.Waahin~ton Ml]LTIPLE SLILLNAN RR PRO►IEC {509} 535-1410 99~Q2 00, ; `ITH 5liELLEY IAKE HLTERhfA ~ TRAF°F9C IMPAC7 ANALYSfS ~ ~ /10 F ~ +n a a 513 ~J ~ 66a~7 589 238-=C~ 4 107 ~ I 5PRAGUE AV~ ~PRAGv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9 V) ~ ii~ C~1B ~ }~C.' 39 U ~ G'_ m ~ FOllR7H l &5 J,34 r 8 -7 <3p- fi 10 3 ~ 6p v z ca 0 1 fiTH ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ NOT Ta SCAI.E ~ ~ ~ 4 P~~~~~ Fl~ure 22 SHEu~r ~cE ~1~~rL1~~~~~~'t.3 20'C)0 F'M f ~'C~ 5P4K~WE. WA5HiNGTON F[3TURE TRA'FFIC VDL,UMES *south 25 Ilttorrvon# Spoicone.Waahingt0 n Ml1L~F~l.E SIi~NAPE RD ~'RDJECfiS ~ (~9) :+~-1410 89202~ tITH SHELLL.EY LAKE ALTERfdATli/~ ~ 'TRAFFIG 1MPAGT ANALYSIS ' SHELIEY LAKE FUT[IRE DEVELf]Ph~IENT IMPACTS ALTERNA77YE 1VO. I Phuse I - 1995 Based upon the analysis performed fvr this alternative fvr thhe proposeci 5heUey I.ake development, no direct specific imgact, which wvuld degrade the Phase 1, 1995, backgraund level of semce of the surrounding strwt system can be determined. With the exceptivn of the Sprague Avenue and Gonklin Rvad intersection during the FM peak hvur. Hvwever, in conjunetion with the expected growth levels assaciated with this location within Spokane Cvunty, this intersecti+am does nat drap bekaw the minimum acceptable Ld35 of E, during the PM peak hvur, for an unsignalized intersectivn within 5,polane Gouaty. ALTERNATIVE NO. I Phase 2 - 2000 AM Peak Hour -Based upon the analysis as gerformei for this alternative of the proposed ShelIey Lake development for the future ye,ar buildout of 2000, several ir+fiersections drvp below the background levels of service, while vne of these intersectians drop belvw the minimum threshold as vutlined by 5gnkane Cnunty. I]uring the AM peak hour, the twv intersections which drW below the backgrvund 1evels of servis•.e are the Sullivan and 5prague and the Sprague and Conl€lin intersecfiivns. The Sulivan and Sprague iritersection, hawever, falls belvw the mininnum acceptable leveL of service for this intersecdon. As described earlier, the change in LQS ss froin an LQS of D (36,0 secvnds) to arid LOS of E (41.6 seconds). Although, the change c~arries the intersectivn through the LQ5 of DIE threshnld, sevveral timing revisians could be incorp[xrated tv minimize or negaie the ~ impacts. T'he real measure of this signalized intersections capabilities to handle the added traffic volumes frvm this altemative is that the vIc ratio moves fmm a background vIc rativ of 4.7$ to a v►ith the altemative vlc ratiQn of 0.89. Therefnre, this intersectivn maintains adequate caPacity ta handle the vvlurnes generated by this praposed project as well as the backgraund grvwth, but the signal timing and existing lane configurativns do not allow the intersection tv operat,e at it's maximum pvtential. PM Peak Hour - Based upan the analysis as gerfvrmed for this alt,emati►+e of the pmpvsed Shelley Yaice develvpment, fvr the future year buildout of 2000, vnly vne antersectivn drvps telvw the hackgrvund levels of service. This interssction is the 5prague and Cvnklin intersectivn, and in additian to drvpping below the backgrauncl lerel of service, it also drvps below SpDlcane County's minimum acceptable lewel of service. For an unsignalized interssecbon the misrimum acceptable 1eveI of service is an LOS of E. At this location the resulting le►+el of service fQr ttus altemative is an L[3S of F, with a reserve capacity of -35. As noteci earlier, this is due tv the increase of 54 additional nvrthbound to westhpund left turns from CQnklin vntv Sprague. It should be nvted that aTeductiari in interrsectian reserve capacity is being reluced by four times the number of added left tums. Th15 typC of C.apaCIty redlIGt10A Y5 111d1caLiVe of increased thraugh tr'affic VoTumes vn the intersecting street, in triis case Sprague Arrenue. Inlanrt Pac~'fec Engineering Cmmpun3' 59 SheJ2ey Luke TLi ALTERNATfVE No. Z i Phase I - 1995 - Based upon the analysis perfarmed fvr this altematiVe for the propased 5helley Lake develapment, no direct specific impact, which would degrade the Fhase i, 1995, back,ground level of service of the surrourtding street system can he determined. The anly signiicarrt change is not in leVel of senvi,ae, rather canc.erns the degree of impact. As shvwn in Table Ia, the AM peak hour reserve capaacaity of the Sulliwan and 4th intersectian, decreases frvm-an LO5 of F(-, 21) tv an T.OS of F(-143). Wha4 this signifies is t.hat, due w increases of thraugh t-affrc vvlumes alvng SuWvan Raad any increase in ftaffic to the adjacent side streets will noticeably reduce the availahle gaps to greater degree than the specific number of cars atlded, ,A.n exarnple of ttus was discussei for A1tematiVe No. 1, where 64 Ie€t turras were intrWuced and the reseave capacity was reduced by a 4:1 ratio. During ttte PM peak hvur #his same intersecuon decreases frvm a backgmund LOS of E (-146) tn an LOS of E(-188), the reasQning fnr ttsis is the same as described far the AM pea.k hvur. AU'ERNAME NU. Z Pl:ase Z - 2000 , he impaets for this alternative are similar ta thv~ d~crihei abvve for Phase 1, vnly that the degree of seVerity as complicated by deveTapment firrther south of 4th Avenue, and not roecessarily the develapments alnng 4t'h Avenue. However, the turning vaTumes vnto 4°th f-rvm Sullivan are significant and wauld force this intersection tv not anly meet several warrants for signalization by year 2000, but would also result in sigrsificant intersectivn imprvvements such as left tum laz« and interseetian signalization. ~ ALTEiRIVATTVE IV+D. 3 N[r impacts to the future transportation system ather than from backgrvund growth cauld be attributed tv this praject site. rnWa Paofic E,~pneenng C4nrany 60 sheney Lake M ~I Pdl7'ENTI4L ~'II77GATT4N Patential mitigativn was irrvestigated by alteemative for those identihed ince.rsectivns af'fectei by the prcpcrsed develapment of the Shelley Ialce project. This inr+estigativn evaluated t'he eausting LQS, the future background LC]5 and the future LQS with the groject, by intersectiQn with recammendativns as follvw. ALTERNA77VL NU. I Srtllivan Raad and Sprague Avenue -Baseei ugan the existing, future backgmund and futuTe Phase I as wefl gs fiiture Phase 2 {6uildvut}, this inte.rsectinn, wild cantisyue to aperate beymnd the minimum acceptable levels of service for asignOizel inter=tivn as identified by Spokar►e Cvunty. At this time, there is very little mitigatian that could be recommended exc.ept that t3iis praject could participate in the deVelapment of the future dual left tunns which vvill be required on both of the nvrthtound and sou#hbciund legs of the intersectian. HaweWer, due tv the lvcation of this prvject, participatian wvuld vnly be liriuted to the peXCent traffic participation for the southbound (PM peak hour) dualleft turn lane. Based upcfn exasting and future valumes, and depending upon cunstructian, this develnpment eould participate by cantributing, ($0I504) 15.8- percent of the total cost of vnly the southb-ound dual left, in the year 2400, Please note that this is nnt #he percent par.icipaRivn in the entire intersection improvements, only the percent participatinn in the cost of the dual left turn lane. It shvuld be rreccornmended ttaat the faoe of this pla# be e.onditivned so'that in the even# that Spvlcane Cvunty were tca forrai ara RdD, that garticipation in this improvement wvuld be mandatvr}►. P SuIlivun koad and 4th Avenue -Based upon existing, future background, future Phase l as well as future Phase 2(buildout), this icttersectivn wil1 c..ontinue to operate below the rninimum threshalds of level of service as identified by the Spokane C.ounty, Hvwever, this altennative specifically, re-aligns the propaseci 4th Avenue and Cvnk1in Rvad intersectaon to a11ow dhe through tr°affic, with a hame based-work orientativn to access Spr•a,gue Avenue rather 4han to allow travel down 4th AVenue to 5ullivan Rvad. Thereforey mitigation as grvpased by this altemative is to allvw for the realignment and reconfiguration of the 4th Avenue and Cflnklin Raad intersection, artd not pror*ide for any imprcfVernent whether physical ar via ptat notativra for arry future canstruction of the 4th Avenue and Sufliwan Road intersection. Spmgue Avenue and CankUn Road - Basad upvn existingr future background, future Phase 1 as well as future Phase 2(bwildout), this intersectivn will conti.nue to operate °wvithin the mlinimum threshvTds of level of service as identifieci by the Spokane Caunty. Tt is recv,gniaed that after future buildvut, t.his zntersectian wUl be opeerating with leVels of s€;rvice in the L[?S DIE range. HovveVer, as has been nntak the reductian in 1eve1 of serwice by year 2000 t.o an L[]S of F05) is due mare tv cantinned develapment and trdffic growth along Sprague Avenue tharr with the develvpment of this altemaave. Part of the decreased leVel of serrrice at this intersection has heen in respvnse tv the poor levels of service, and no capacity available at the r„kmd PQa& Engineenng conrany 61 SherrEy Lake Tu 4. i 5u1Evan Rvad and 4th Avenue intersection, I7ue to 'the realignment flf the 4th and Conklin intersectivn aU alternatiVe traffic is encourage ta use this intersectian. At this time and with the - future leVel vf service at an LQS af FJF, the mitigativn at this intersectian shvuld invQlve the reanalysis vf this intersectian privr to full plat buildvu1 t for the potential irrstallation vf a signal. Due to the Wfac volumes present, and the raature vf +CQnklin Rvad bvth nvrth and south of Sprague, the only intersectivn madificatians wauld te thE unstallation vf traffic signal and detectivn equipment. 7his signal, wauld need tn be vpesated in the sPTit phase made for {Canklin, and the permitted pmtected phase for 5prague. in the event that this signal is warrardted, an MID shautd be formed by the vvunty, via an RID statement vn the plat fvr garticipation in these impmvernents, ilue tv the nature of this alternative, the ptat shQUld cantribute 1 D(}-percent of the cast Qf the mffic signal construction. Additivnal, intersectian improVements, wvuld need to be distribured among other RI1] participants. Sullivan Road and 1 dt1: Avenue - Based upon existihg, ftiture back,gmund, future Phase 1 as well as future Phase 2(huildaut), t'his irawrsecaran wilY continue to operate within the minirnum th~shalds of level of serr~i~ as identi~i~ by the S~kane Cvunty. Therefore, no potential mitigation is reeammended at this time. ,4I,TEIxNATIVE N4. 2 SuMvon Rnad wrd Spmgue Avenue -Basei upan the existing, future backgrvund and future Phase fas well as fwture Phase 2(buildvut), this intersection, wi11 continue tv ogerate duuring the AM gmk hour within the minimum acceptable levels af service far a signalitied intersecbon ~ as identified by Spvkane Cvunty. During tlie PM! peak hvuX this intersection for ivtt3re backgmund as vvell as future with the project will aperate beYaw the arueptable leVels vf serTvice for this intersectivn. For ttus alternative, it is expected that a11 vehicles associated with this grvject wiU be thmugh vehicles at this intersmtion. Ih the eVent that Sgokane Co►rndy were tv revise this uitersectivn by groviding additivnal throughi lanes, it would be recommendeti that this prvject participate to the percent level vf responsibility due ta the vvlume af trips. B,ased upon this particigation, this a'itemative should parkicipatsd in the cost vf any additivnal southbaund through lanes beyond thvse existing in year 2040, by!praViding (14911583) 9.4 percent of the cost for these lanes. Flease nate, that this is nvt the participation recommendation fvr the entire intersection impmvement, vnly the sau#3'►bound thraugh lanes. Suffivan Raad ond 4th Avenue - Baseci upon exisang, future backgnaund, future Phase 1 as weU as futurae Phase 2(buildvut), this intersectivn wi11 continue ta vperate belvw the minimum tiresholds af level af service as idendfied by Spokane~Cvunty, Due ta the canfiguration Qf xhis aliternative, Rvtchford I]rive would be extended suaight through tcti 4th AVenue. For this alternative, analysis was pmvided that split the traffic leaving the project site, based upon tavel time and spaed. This analysis, indicated that 4th Avenue tv Sulliwan Road wvuld be the quiclcest way to reach the 5ullivan and 5prague intersextion. This is pramarily due to a right turn at Intand Pacii,~ie Engi+eeering ConrPany 62 ShcLle+y Lalte 71A h - i Sulliwan and 4th yersus a left tum at Cvnklin and Sprague. If this aLternative is chvsen, it wouid he the recommended rritigation that this plat 6e reconfigured to the point of the lvss of additivnal lvts, tv realign the Conklin RvadlRotchford Drive and 4th Avenue interseedan. Additianal mitigatian beyond this wnu1d be that recommended abvve fnr Alternative No. 1, at the Sprague Avenue and Cvnkiin Raad intersecavn. Spragaue Avenue and Cankiin Road - Based upvn existing, future backgroundJuture Phase 1 as well as future Phase 2 (buildout), this intersection will continue tv operate within the minimum thmshvlds of level af servir,e as identified by the Spokane County. Therefvre, no patential mitigativn is recommended at this time. Sallivan Raad and 16th Avertue -Based upcan existing, frsture background, fumre Phase 1 as well as future Phase 2 (buiTdout), this intersection will contanue fio vperate within the mirtimum thresholds vf level af service as identiFied by the Spakane Gaunty. 'I'herefore, na potential zrjitigation is recommended at this tame. ALTERvaTIvE No. 3 Nv mitigation would be required for the I+io Build alternative. Inloi+d Prjafic Engineering Canrany 63 ShtlIry Lakt 1rL! CtlNCiLUSIQNS .dl1Vi) RECOMMElYDA77l3NS CU'NCLUSIOIVS - Altemative No. 1 Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are prvVided in the body of this dacument it is concluded that fvr Alternative Nv. 1, develvpment of Phase 1 of the Shelley Lake projeci can be implemented withvut having a significant ampact to the averall area tcansportativn system. AdditionaUy, su6sequent phases of campletivn may have nv affect t+a the transpvrtativa systems within the immediate area dependi,ng upan any glanned vr graposed transpartadon system improvements. The following are conclusions reached and documented within t.his dvcume,nt: 0 By 1995 with background volumes present alI study area intersecbions will vperate within accegtable levels of service; SulUvan and 5prague (i.DS D), SulliVan and 4th ( IAS E), Sprague and Gvnklin (L.AS C) and Sullivan and 16th (LOS E). Althvugh these irritersectivns are cuffently on the mazgins, there is capacity fvr additivnal westbound and northhcaund mvvements. i Shauld the overall development and growth of the area be maintained at nearly 3.0 percent, twv of these intersection are expected ta fail prior to devetogment of this •groject, they are Saliivan and 4ih (I.QS F) and Sullivan and lbth (L45 F). This is due tkr westbound tv nvrthbound Zefts and higher through valumes. * After the full deveiapment of the 58 single farnily wuts, at t3ie cormpletivn of Ptase 1, aTI study int.ersecdons are expected ta remain at the same background level of service as = pmjecfietl. T'his does nat mean that this develcpment will not add additianal vehicTes to the transpvrtation system, on1y, that the for 1995 have the L4S capacity far the increase in background traf~ic and the development of the Phase 1. • 'I'hat with the campleticrn of full huilde►ut of Phase 2, by 2000, several intersectaons wi~ neei' improVements t4 allaw the vQlume of anticipated traffic tv pass at reasonable levels of sen+ice; Sullivan and Sprague, due w the design of the glat directing trips ta Sprague Via Conklin, during the PM peak haur (by adding 80 - 90 left turns from this prvje~cct, a.dded ta the 1995 expected 420 exisiing PM peak hvur left tvms) wW push this intersectian beyvnd it's capacity ta serve left tums. It shvuld be nvied that the as a nule of thurnb, for ei#her ri$ht tuming vr left turning vehicles, the threshold as idendfaed fvr a segarat.e larte is 400 wehicles ger haur. Additivnally, the Sprague and Corklin intersecfion during the PM peak hour will drop tv an LUS of E1F, with LC]S E, being the minirnurn standant for an unsignalized intersection. 'I'herefare, it has been recaminended tltat in the e►+ent that either the ANi or PNd narthbaund tv westbound lefR tums begin w exgeriericcx excessi►+e delays, atra~'fic signal should be instailed, 'I7[}WeVer, at least four warrants fvr such signaliaation shauld he met. Inland PQ,afic EngiRrasing C~nwany 64 ShSury Lakc T" At this time, and by utilizing the growth rates for thes overaU area, it is nnclear as to whether the development of A1t.ernatiVe No. 1 would require the impmvements recommended duc to it's development alane. As was proven, that whth vther area develvpments these impmvements are recvmmended and required in some anstances to allow through traf'#`ic progressivn. Ple.ase refer w the recardnmendeci mitigation section vf this document fvr more detail. RECQMMENDATIgNS - Alternative No. I Althvugh the addition vf 58 sirigle farnily hvmes in Phase 1, and associate4i traffic will cvntribute w the existing traffic currently using the 5u11ivan Raad and Sprague Avenue rorridvrs, the anly impa+ct vvill be that xawacds the cumulative aWera.ge daily tiaffic Volumes. Based upan the anaiysis presented, as required by 5prakane County, the prnpvsed development under this alternatiVe of the SheUey Lake Plat will nat have any significant impact to levels of service, through the development of Phase 1. It must be understoad, that Spokane County, has identified ievel af service as the ir+dicatar fvr pmblems associated with development and, therefvre, basad solely on L.OS this praject wiU ha►+e nv impact. Hvwever, subsequent development of this plat an canjunctian vvith development in and amund this area will raquire the irrrprovement vf several stwts and rvads witttin this general area vf Spakane ~ounty. ~ At the cvmpletiun of Phase 2, for this alternati►►e, which include5 all 264 sirigle-family and 196 multi-fantily units, a traffic sign,ai may be v►►arranted ai the intersecLion of Sprague AVenue and Cvnklin Road, this signal would 6e necessitated by a cbmbinativn of factars, first the cvntirrued area development and growth exclusive af the She1Tey Take prflject, and the addisian of the Shelley L.ake vvlurnes. HuweVer, this signal shautd ivniy be pravided if at least faur signal warrants as outlined in the MUTCD ar•e being met. If this intersectivn meets vvarrants and the signal has nnc been installed privr to Phase 2 cvmgletivn, then it is recornmended that thas development vnntribute, rria an RID, taward it's devel'opment and constructivn. AdditioriaUy, the backgraund tra€~'ic sonthhound ta eastbound left tums will warra,nt an addiavrial 1e€t tum being required at the SuRivan and Sprague inttersection prior ta the cvmpletivn vf Phase 2. If this dual left tvm situation is nat present by the cdmplete buddvut of Phase 2, then it is recommended that tiiis development aontribut.e, via an RID, towards it's development and cvnstructaon. CUNCLUSIONS - Aiteniative No. Z Based upan the analysis, field abservativns, assumptivns, meihvdvlogies and results whieh are prvvided in the body of this docurnent it is concluded that far Alternative Nv. 2, development of Phase I af the Shelley Lake project can he implementsd without haaing a significant impact to the overall area transpartatian systern. Addidonafly, suasequent phases vf completivn rnay have mv affect to the transpartation systems within th, e immediate area depending upon any pl,anned ar proposed transportation system impmvements. Tize folkvwing are conclusions reached and documented within this document: Irifanral" Facific Enginsening Comwn3' 65 Shelley T.a& 7M I~ • As with A.Iteanative Nv. 1, all study azea intersectivns in 1995 with baclground volumes added will vperate wit,hin acceptable levels af service; SuLLivan and Sprague (LO5 D), SulTivan and 4th ( LOS E)/ SPragu[e aI1d Gvi1kl111 (LQ5 C) and Sullivan and 16th (I.C3S E). Although tahese irrtersectians are cuarently on the margins, 1I1e1'e k5 C1p1Clt}r fOr additianal westtbound and nvrrhbound moaements. + As with Altemative No. 10 if the overa11 develagment and growth vf the area as maintained at nearly 3.4 percent per year then kwv vf these intersection are expected to fai3 praor to develapment vf thas project, they are SulliVan and 4th (LC]S F) and Sullivan and 16th (L+aS F). • After ttae full develagment vf the 56 single family units, at the complecian af Fhase 1, the leriel of service of the Sullivan Rvad and 4th Avenue interswtion vaill be beyond the capacity of this intersection to serve nvt only the existing apartments, currently under construction but also any additional traffic from the proposed SheUey Iake develvpment. T,herefore, wi4hout any plat revisions far Atternative No. 2, this intersectiQn will need to be cvmpletely rebuilt vvith signalization and left turn lanes vn all approaehes. In arder to rtainimize the mitigaeon from this altemative, it would be recommended that this altemaave, be recanfigured to join Rotchfard I)rive and Conklin Road as a thraugh rvad direcuy to Sprague. The recnnfiguration, under the existing zoning ►vould lead to the lvss of between three and five lots as currently shawn. The 4th and Sullivan int. reconstruction is not so1ely the cause aF thas prajeet, rather a cvmbinativn af current development along 4rh Avenue as well as other area wide thrcaugh traffic grawth. • Far Fhase 2, development of this plat (withvut either the reconstruction of the 5u11ivan _ Road and 4th Avenue intersection or the reconfiguratiam vf the plat) will not he able to prooBed as the adjacent street system wi.ll not be ahle to handle the additional #raffic r+vlumes. In the event that the plat is r+econfgured, then the mitigation recommendativns as vut7ined far Phase 2 completian for Alternative Nv. 1, wiU need to he implemented as pmpased. At this time, and by usilizing the growth rates for the vr+eraU area, it is unclear as to whether the develapmenc of AlternatiVe Na. 2 rvnuld require the improvements recomrtiended due to it's de►+elopment alane. As was proven, tltat with other area dsvelopments these improvements ar+e recommended and required in same instances to allvw thraugh traffc progressinn. Please re#'er to the recomrnended mitigativn sectian of this dvcument far mflre detail. Tnland Paexfic Engirreenre8 Cmwny 66 She3ley Lake TTA ~ 1@EC[3MMENPA7IONS - Abernative No. Z It is apparent that, Phase 1 af this altematiWe (56 units) could proceed with very little impravernents to the vverall tiranspartafinn system. Haweaer, further development of this almrnative will requi.re either reconfiguration of the plata SD tlat tIB IeC(fmmCI1datioI15 fQr A1tmative No. I, would be met, vr no further development pasi 56 1ots until the Su1liVan Road and 4th Avenue intersectiQn is campletely rebuilt. - ~ I CQNCLUSTONS - Alternative NQ. 3 For this altemative, no improvements vther than thase nquired far background traffic and area gmwth wvuld be required. These impmvements would irtclude the follvwing; • Reconstruction aF the SuUivan Road and 4th Awenue intersection to iaclude fuU signalizatian and 1eft tum channeli.zativn. • ne additivn o£ dual Teft tum lanes, ba#h nanthbound and sauthbound vn Sul.liuan Road ai the SulUvan and Sprague intersection. RECCIMMENDA71QNS ! Altemative No. 3 The revvmmendation for the N0 Build arcernadve wauld be that the improvements 1.YSted above proceed either by the Cvunty or thrvugh area wide RID's, and that future deuelvprnent, must in some way continue to guarantae through traffic prflgressian and appropriate leVels of senvice. Inland Fator EiWnardn8 Cmym" 67 She1ley Lakc nA ~ ~ Ievel of Servi ce Methads, Criteria ard Tables t,land F~~c Engineering CmWamy sheury r.ake rm LEVEL 'QF SIItVICE . MET,HC)DS AND CRITERIA 5IGNALIZEA EVIERSEGGTIUN: LeWel of Service (ZAS) is a qualifi-able premise der+eloped by the transportativn profession to quantify +driver percepevn fgr such elements as tmaael time, number of stcaps, Wtal amvunt of stopped delay, and impediments causeci by vther vehicles affarded tv drivers whv udlize the transportativn network. As definod by the Trar►sportation Research Soarcl in 5pecia1 Repvrt No. 2[)9, the 1985 Highwav Cag&gIxy Nianu4.3, Tfiis dccument ha5 quantified leWel of service intv ranging from "A" which indacates little, i€ any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle deIay anti tiaffic cangestion and system breakdvwn due ta Yolumes far exc.eeding apkcitY• For signalized intersectivns recent research has deternnined that aVerage stvpped delay per vehicle is the best adailable measure of LOS. This is shown nn page 3. The tables vn page 3 ideratif}► the relatiQnships per 1eVe1 of service and ar+erage stnpged degay per vehicle. Using fihis definition as presentad in the Highway Capacity Manuals an LAS of "D" is generally cansidered ta represent the minimum aeceptable design standard for si,gnalizod intersectivns. [fNSTGfiTALIZID EVTERSECTIaN: The calculation of IAS at an unsignalized oT aneltwv way stog evntralled inursection rNuires a different appraach. The 1985 Highway Cagacity Manual includes a method for calculating the LQS at one'twv way sCvp-contralled intersections. For these unsignalized irrtersectians, LOS is defined differently tt= for signalized 'antersectivns in that it is based upan the concept of RReserve Capacity" (h.e., thatportian of avaiiahle hourly capacity that is nvt used.) I,QS in fihe cvntext for an unsignalized intersectivn is based upan the idea of "Reserve CapacitY," which represents tha# hourly partion of the intersection's available capacity which is unused. For unsigralized intersections, this is based upan gatentiaIly aVailable gags in the conflicting traffic stmarn that are avWlable tv make aspecific turnmg tnvWement. An example is chat an east.bound left tuming vetucle must yield to bath northbound and sauthbaund through and left tuming vehicles. Zf there are not very many narth and southbvund vehacles, then the eaLstbound left turning r+ehicte wW hawe mare vpporturaities (gaps in the traff c stream) with which to make the Luming moVement. Hawever, as traffic Yvlumes norrth and south'baund increase, there are fewer and fewer vgporturudes in which the westbaund left can be made. 'Me Transportativn Research Board has analyzed unsignaUzed interseciions vver the years and las quantidatively and qualitalively determined what levels of service (L9S) unsignalzod intersections shouPd be by designatinng L[]S levels of "A" thraugh "F", with LDS "A" beirag the lnland Pacifrc Engineerin8 Cvqpa►t]' A2 She!ky Lake T7A best conditivn and LQ5 "F" representang a serivus aperaavnal problem. '1'he reserve capacity roncept applies only ta an individual traffic movement or tv shared lane mvvements. Or►oe the capacity of all the individual mvvements has been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an overall evaluation vf the intersectian can be made. Normally, the movement tbavuig the worsf LC3S defmes the vverall eWaluatian, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. A IAS of ' - "I7" is generaUy caonsidered to represent the rninimum acceptable cyperational standazd. All LQS analysis descriYed in this report were perforrned in accordarice with the praceduress described abuve. As a final note, the HCM analysis procedures are based upvn worst ca.se conditivns, therefare, for the remainder vf each weekday and throughvut the weekends, traffic condidvns within the study impact area are lik.ely to be becter than that described in thas repvrt. Inlanrl Padfic Lnginecring Com)rasry A:3 Shetley Lake M I SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIflNS INDiVlDUAL LEVEL ❑F SERVICE DESGRGPTIC]N5 f~~ »,~,~v„yt`~~n , fi ` • . :Le~~E:p~f , Al~- ' }`~f.~,.u ~yN ; ' v ;,S;l, ,}~,r~. ~F v~.;, . }5ervice '~rd~fic'~`olow Chara6teristics L.ittle #o no average stappsd delay, averaqe is 9ess than fi►+e seconds psr vehicle. Most vehicles do not stap at aA. Short cycle lengths may aiso A contribute to Iow delay. Ar+erape stap deley is in thB range of 5.1 to 15.[} seconds per aehicle. This $ generally occurs wFth paad PrQgregsian andlnr short cYcle Isngths. Aversge stoPP~ delaY is in the range of 1'S.1 ta 25.0 secends per veh9cke. T~+esehipher delays may result from fair pragression andlor lor►g$r cycEe C lenpths. The number of vehicles stopping 1s sipnificant at this Ievei. Aversge stapped dslays are [n the rsnge of 25.1 to 4(1.[3 seconds per vehicie. Fhe infiuence of congestion bscomes more nat+caable. Longer delays may result from some combinativn of unfavrsrabie prapressian, long cycls length: or high volumelr,apacity ra4ios. Most, if not all, vehicles stop. D This is considerad to be the limrt of acceptahfs delay. Average stapped,delays are in the range of,4d.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Fhese ht~g h d$ley valrae, penerefly sndicete poor progression. Eang E cycle ienQths, and high valumelcapacity rstiQS. Average stop detay is in excess o# 60 seconds per vehicle. This condition oftsn accurs with or+er saturetian of the intersectiarr. k may aiso occwr with F VUlUm8lC8p8City raLIQ$ Of 1.0 Gf at3DVB. - SIGNALIZEd INTERSECTfQNS LEVEL mF SEFiVICE CRITERiA ` h ~~fr , %~C+A r ~ ~ a# Stdpped"Delay W5ervice ner GFetticle'tjjj;~ , 'A c = 5.0 0 ~ 5.1 to 15n, c 15.1 to 25.0 D ~ 25.1j0 40.0 E ~ 40.0 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Source: T►aneportetian Research Baard: 'Highwey Capacrcy AAnnuad,' Spacia! ~Reoart ~09 t19851. Tnkmd Pa °qfic Engirr~enn8' Comparry A4 SheUty Lakc TTA uwsicNaLrrED inrTERsEcTioNs LE11EL OF SERVICE DESGRIPYIOHS ,r - „ t ~.78p3i~l OBSCfI~~i]ll~x' ~1>•` A~'~• ►4 - Mare thsn adaquate gaPs availehloetv proaesd. - denr eeldom is thera more than on vehicla in the c.9uaue. ~ - Latdc dsley srscountstsd witfi adequete ~apa ~aWe. - i0caasiane!!.r thare ia rnaro than ar~e vnhicla in the nuaue. - Reieys aro sFort hut pareietant es the nunber of pape raduae arxd driver ~ comfort draps. - Usuall►r there is moro than one vehicia in the csueue. - Always at leaet orsa tirohicie in the queue. d - Qrivu►s feel puite restriaLel due to the 1ew qapa a►railabie in wkuch to melce s aa}e turedng rnovetnent. - Qslayre are lanp and et t#rs Ics dri►rers may 6agin ivolcRnp #er alterrrative routen privr ta entennp the queua. E - Reprssertts a conditian in wtuch tFw demnrkd squele or excaeda tim sefe nsovement of vetucles throu h the intarseation. - Alweas more than one Vehic~a in the ausue.. Dalsye ere iang, drivar tTttatre6on Es hlph and it io not urweuef te ese drirars F in the qusas dum araund ta find altsrnativa routos. - Forced tkaw: Gttle ca no a►+ailabla gspa. - Reoresenta en intersecnon et feiiuro condidan. UN51GNALiZED INTERSECTIONS - LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA k ~ _ ~es~e;,rre Eipectsd Delay ta , A~~ ~ „ ,Seniice>~: ir~iir Strse#':Tr~c ~~Cap~city>ipcphl '4 M , 400E ~ A ~ Little of No Delay 300-339 ~ B 5hart Traffic Delays 200-299 C Awerage Traffic Delays 100-199 ~ D ~ LQng Traffic Delays 0-99 ~ E ~ Very Long TratFic Delays p > F Progressivn 8raakdawn 5tflpped Condit'sfln ~ Inland Padfie fiegiTretrin8 Compa+y AS ~ Shellry La]Ee TM h